Talk:Minnesota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Minnesota is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 11, 2007.
WikiProject Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Minnesota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Ravedave, Appraiser, Atomaton
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


Here is the sandbox!

Contents

[edit] Images

Before this goes on the front page, can someone make sure all of the images are legit? I've noticed a lot of problems with recent front page articles where problems are discovered with fair use images after it's up on the front page. Let's not let that happen here. Gopher backer 19:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This (Image:Phelpsmill ottertailcounty.jpg) doesn't have a copyright tag. Otherwise they all look good to me. Most, if not all have been here for several months, so hopefully there won't be any issues with them. We should probably be diligent avoiding changes for now. I suspect that up-coming front page FAs are likely targets of attention-hogs.--Appraiser 21:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone had removed the copyright tag on that one, so I reverted back to the previous version. I'm not sure if that was vandalism or if it was someone trying to correct it. Gopher backer 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What about the image selected to go on the main page, Image:Img_0748.jpg. Should we try and find a good map instead? -Ravedave 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hrm this one would have been nice Image:Minnesotaterritory.PNG if it was of the state. -Ravedave 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, Raul doesn't put maps on the front page. Flags have been used alot, but the MN map wont work because it's too detailed. Any other ideas? -Ravedave 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the Lake Calhoun picture at Image:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg. The Fort Snelling or Aerial Lift Bridge pictures would also be good pictures, but the Lake Calhoun one ties natural resources (lakes, fishing, etc.) with the big city image of Minneapolis. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor the Calhoun picture as well. That sums the state up better than any other image I can think of.--Daveswagon 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) - hrm the copyright looks dubious to me. It says copyrighted 2003 so and so on the link provided but the WP page says it's free to use. I have included it here at 100px, the normal front page image size. EDIT: it's at least partially wrong for sure, see here [1] -Ravedave 05:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the uploader for more info. -Ravedave 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a lake would be nice (good free photos are hard to find for Minneapolis lakes though, don't know about statewide). Another idea is to add a vertical image to the article (say swap UofM for another summer photo) which about doubles the image size. Doesn't have to be these but here is one from Mulad and another of the farmers market in St. Paul. -Susanlesch 18:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Raul choose the state flag... Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/May_11,_2007 -Ravedave 22:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protect article for tomorrow?

Is there any precedent for protecting an article temporarily when it is featured on the main page? I was just looking at the history for today's featured article and it is getting quite a bit of vandalism.--Daveswagon 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dave: The practice seems to be to allow edits, and protect for only short periods if needed. Then when the vandalfest is over we can go back and compare a pre-front page version with the version which exists after things have quieted down. Many times there will be useful changes which can be saved or incorporated; protections from vandals may have the effect of prohibiting those useful changes. Kablammo 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the WP policy is to just let it fly. I would suggest that you look for additions that you like, and make a note of what version they're in. I suspect there will be many reversions, perhaps losing good stuff. If you know where to find the goods, it will be easier to put it all back together this weekend, perhaps by starting with one of today's versions. BTW, May 11 starts at 7:00 pm CDT, I think.--Appraiser 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection should be redrafted or not? Please help form consensus at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Consensus. DrKiernan 09:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal check

Can someone check this — it used to say one, now it says seven.

  • In more recent times, massive ice sheets at least seven kilometer thick ravaged the landscape of the state and sculpted its current terrain.[7]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superscripts

What's up with the superscripted ordinals? Wouldn't it make mroe sense to keep them on the line 71.102.134.129 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

Am I the only Minnesotan ([ˌmɪnəˈsoʊʔn̩]) who pronounces Minnesota [ˌmɪnəˈsoʊɾə]? --Ilikeverin 02:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It used to be listed as ˌmɪnəˈsoʊɾə, but currently it is ˌmɪnəˈsoʊtə. I can;t speak IPA-ese so, you may need some pidgin phonetics. -Ravedave 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Roughly, it's Minnesoda. It's the same consonant sound as in latter and ladder. --Ilikeverin 02:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Keep up the good work, so far I'd say it's worth it. Some copy fixes and two good {{fact}} tempaltes added. Keep an eye on collateral articles as well, I am seeing for the most part improvements (yay!) but occasional vandalism on pages as obscure as How to Talk Minnesotan. Also I highly recommend installing "Twinkle" a tool to fight vandalism, it's pretty easy to add. -Ravedave 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Diff so far [2] - Ravedave 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

I thought there had been a longstanding practice of not showcasing articles on days when the subject is connected with that date. Today is May 11, the anniversary of Minnesota statehood. Of course, I'm not complaining. Congratulations to the to editors who worked to get this article featured. Jonathunder 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! hrm. I suggested the date and mentioned statehood [3], also I don't see anything about it in raul's notes. -Ravedave 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seal

The state seal has a white background when it would be nicer if it were transparent. There is apparently another version of the seal which is darker and "used on all state sites". Is it proper? Which is 'the real seal'? etc. Thanks. gren グレン 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where to obtain the other seal?--Appraiser 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words?

From the "History" section:

Innovations by Minneapolis millers led to the production of Minnesota "patent" flour, widely regarded as the finest bread flour of its time. (my bolding)

Looks like weasel words to me, especially as there's no reference given for the claim. Loganberry (Talk) 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; you are correct that this should be sourced and could be worded differently. The "Gold Medal" brand of flour is so named for its winning a gold medal in 1880 [4] and perhaps that would be a way to address the point. Kablammo 12:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed that sentence and added an on-line source. Alternatives such as talking about the Gold Medal are possible too - I just didn't find anything on a quick search.--Appraiser 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It could probably use some reinforcing citation. I'll have to check the references I was using (the David Danbom article that I used in History of Minnesota and the Shannon Pennefeather book) to qualify them. The Millers Exposition prize seems to be a solid reference, though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DFL

The third paragraph of the Politics section refers to the DFL for the first time in the article without a wiki link, let alone a fuller explanation. It is then fully introduced in the fourth paragraph. As I am neither a contributor to this article nor a Minnesotan, I'll leave it to someone else to make a change, but at the very least the first reference should be the one with the wiki link. Thanks. (And congrats to the authors/editors!) Jlaramee 13:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the DFL is spelled out and linked earlier in the Legislative section under Government, but perhaps the explanation of the merger should precede its first use. We'll look into that.--Appraiser 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I just swapped paragraphs and that seems to have solved it. so now its (activism), (humphrey), (major parties), (3rd parties), and (sentate). -Ravedave 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(insert sheepish face here) I didn't read the Government section. But the changes to the Politics section look great. Jlaramee 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Really one should be able to read each section on it's own. I am guessing it would take a normal person 20+ minutes to read the whole thing throughly so each section should probably stand on its own for those that skip around. -Ravedave 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Minnesota?

I was born and raised in Minneapolis and worked there as a journalist in my 20s. I don't recall ever hearing "the rest of the state" described as "greater Minnesota." Okay, I haven't lived there in 30 years — is this some recent tongue-in-cheek term, a Keillorism perhaps?

Whatever it is, I don't like the imperial sound of it. Reminds one of "the Greater German Reich" ("Großdeutschereich") of 1939-45.

Sca 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have lived there the past 15 years and yes, it is a common term. Xinconnu 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The tongue-in-cheek aspect is when the Twin Cities is referred to as "lesser Minnesota"--Appraiser 13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ive lived here 25 years, and I've never heard it reffered to as that. ever. It is always called outstate minnesota. Chaztheweird 08:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Googling "Greater Minnesota" yielded a lot of results (373,000), such as [5].--Appraiser 13:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't know of any other state that calls its non-metro hinterland "greater." How did that get started?
Appraiser: Cool user boxes! Sca 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're still having this debate but I've always known it as Greater Minnesota since 1984 (my birth). Outstate to me implies outside-of-the-state aka Wisconsin/ND. It may reflect a more recent cultural term than perhaps what you grew up with. Wikipedia should reflect the current cultural norm and note the historical term if necessary. 64.122.208.184 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: The photo showing a "summertime view of the U campus" looks more like a view of the Washington Ave. bridge to me. Sca 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And it's actually mostly Fairview Hospital and other buildings on Riverside and Franklin in the background, not the U of M like it suggests. --66.41.102.194 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Both University of Minnesota Medical Center and the Weisman Art Museum are on the campus, along with most of the other buildings seen.--Appraiser 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've recently uploaded this photo of Northrop Mall. It could be an alternative to the current Washington Ave. Bridge picture.--Gopherbone 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice looking picture. Switch it if you want to.--Appraiser 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana Purchase

How can an article on Minnesota with no mention of the Louisiana Purchase be considered one of the best articles in Wikipedia and worthy of featured article status? Someone (who knows more on the topic than me) really needs to talk about that not-so-minor bit of history.

Xinconnu 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed in History of Minnesota, but I agree, it does at least merit a mention in the Minnesota article. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately the History of Minnesota article addresses that in the "Land acquisition" section. Many compromises were made in developing the Minnesota article in order to produce a work of reasonable size. These compromises often resulted in moving detail the "child" articles. Thanks for your interest.--Appraiser 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could say "The europeans stole lots of land form the indians and sold it to the US". Kidding...I Don't get the focus on where the land came from thats in most text books. Anyways the LP was only a one of the many the land acquisitions needed for MN. Would this sentence satiate you Xinconnu? "Minnesota Territory was formed on March 3, 1849 after several land acquisitions by the US government in the proceeding years." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravedave (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I added a few sentences saying that the land in Minnesota became a part of the United States in two sections: the eastern part being part of the land acquired after the American Revolutionary War, and the western part being acquired with the Louisiana Purchase. The article previously mentioned that Zebulon Pike acquired the Fort Snelling land in 1805, but he just bargained with the Dakota Indians, not with France. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The Louisiana Purchase is not a simple land acquisition. It is a major event in the formation of the USA (it doubled the size of the US), ended Napoleon's aspirations on North America, fueled the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, created a minor Constitutional crisis for the US, and helped further divide the US on the issue of slavery. Without it, there would be no Minnesota. Xinconnu 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but those details can be handled in other articles. The state was assembled from several components, and parts belonged to or were claimed by other nations, colonies, territories, or states. That level of detail cannot be added to an already-long article, particularly when other articles can cover it. In any event Elkman's addition has addressed the point. Kablammo 00:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The German element"

Various anon IP's keep re-pasting unsourced content on the German population in Minnesota under the demographics section. Even though it's unsourced, I opted to paste it onto the Demographics of Minnesota subarticle while removing it from the main article, yet it keeps getting added on to the main article. Would anyone like to justify its inclusion in the main article? Eco84 | Talk 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:84.140.88.146. These changes appear to coming from the BRD, and from similar IP numbers. Some of the information is incorrect, while some is valid. It does not belong on this article but does fit in Demographics. Kablammo 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Should it be necessary to seek a block, here are the edits and the IPs which added this section:
Kablammo 16:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (and later updates)
It continues; the following warning was posted on all above IPs:

Hello. You have added unsourced material to this article, which is a Featured Article. Unsourced material does not belong on featured articles. Moreover your materials are out of place on the Minnesota page, and have instead been moved to Demographics of Minnesota. Please do not add the material again to Minnesota, as there is a clear consensus against doing so. Users Elkman, Kablammo, Appraiser, Eco84, AndonicO, and Ravedave all have removed that material or have expressed an opinion on this issue. If you feel the material belongs on the main article, discuss it first on Talk:Minnesota#.22The_German_element.22. The continued insertion of the material against consensus is becoming vandalism, and your continued reversions violates the three revert rule, which can get you blocked. Please stop now.

Kablammo 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience, content now sourced! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.114.194 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
While the content is now sourced, it is a copyright violation, being taken verbatim from the source. Therefore it will be removed. Also there is a consensus that it is too detailed for inclusion on an 83kb article. The addition of similar information on the Norwegions, Finns, Swedish, Irish, Czechs, Polish, and Hmong (just to name a few) would doubled the length of the article. Therefore it does not belong on this page. (It is interesting that similar information is not on the Minnesota entry on the German Wikipedia.) Kablammo 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have some information from the William Lass book that would be an acceptably citable source for immigration patterns and statistics. That said, it would be unfair to cover only the Germans without also covering the Scandinavian settlers (Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes), the Irish, and a relatively small number of Canadians. Southern and eastern European immigrants came later, settling mostly in the Iron Range. And don't forget that the Dakota and Ojibwe were here first. Basically, we can't cover immigration from just one ethnic group without mentioning the other ethnic groups as well, and that information would be better suited for a subarticle. OK? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to Demographics of Minnesota#History_of_immigration, so we can all sleep better tonight knowing that the various immigrant groups have been covered. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] head of mississippi river?

doesn't this deserve a picture? Tkjazzer 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State Quarter image

An image showing Minnesota's design for the 50 State Quarters program was recently added to the "Economy" section. Any thoughts? I think there might be too may images in this section and think it might work better in the "Outdoor Recreation" section because it depicts a typical fishing scene, or in the "State Symbols" section. --Gopherbone 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • A while ago the quarter was removed from here and added to the Economy of Minnesota article. I agree; I don't think it adds any quality to this already crowded article.--Appraiser 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to article

During and since the appearance of this article on the main page there have been a number of changes. It perhaps is time to discuss which of those we want to keep, and which we want to trim or remove. Here are some I have noticed; feel free to add any others:

  • Climate. There is now a table listing average high and low temperatures for three cities in degrees F. Climate of Minnesota has one for six cities, in both F and C. Should the newly-added table remain on the Minnesota page?
I would get rid of the Climate chart. The values listed are only in F, and to add the C values as is appropritate would be too bulky for this article, IMO. If we keep it, then I would suggest replacing Rochester with Duluth since M-SP and Rochester have pretty similar climates. Making the substitution would be a better cross section. Also, the ref would need to be redirected as I wouldn't consider what's there to be completely legit. The NWS should be used for refs like that whenever possible. Gopher backer 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
When this same source was added to Minneapolis recently (same chart almost) I added C and can do that if people want to keep the chart (F alone is not good). It will be large though. -Susanlesch 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the climate chart in farenheit only as there was not enough space to put C. It looked to large. My aim was to illustrate the winter temperatures are more variable than most people outside of Minnesota think. I would vote for keeping the F readings and add a note that the readings are in F. People outside of US may not be as interested in the monthly breakup, so I felt it makes more sense to use F. Also, I picked Rochester over Duluth or St Cloud because more people from outside MN travel to Rochester thanks to the Mayo Clinic. I also felt putting the average temps alone without the highs and lows painted a colder picture than it really is. Night time temps are way lower than daytime in winter and I felt the present chart painted a picture closer to reality. Please feel free to change or add as everyone thinks is appropriate. Thanks for the discussion.- Thampran 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Entertainment. This section has picked up a few additional artists, and is becoming a textual list. With separate articles on Music in Minnesota and Culture of Minnesota should the section be trimmed?
Yes, too many actors and bands. -Susanlesch 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Media. A new external link has now been added to the bottom of the page, which in turn links to all Minnesota newspapers. Is this appropriate for this article? Is it time to add a separate article on Media of (or in) Minnesota?
Media_in_Minneapolis-St._Paul is pretty weak. Unless someone wants to write a good article I would leave what is here here. Re: external links, I am in favor of removing the list of newspapers and in general a shorter list of links. -Susanlesch 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this might be a better link for MN news papers: http://www.mnnews.com/. The other site is pretty tedious to navigate.--Daveswagon 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Government. I'm new and would like to contribute some more on MN government, but a bit wary on how properly to expand what we have. I'm particularly interested in expanding on the Executive branch and cabinet-level agencies, then beyond that to advisory boards. However, it would be hard for me to retain neutrality as I work for both. California has a nice list of executive branch agencies that would be a good way to start. Or do we just list the cabinet-level agencies in this article? --mmdolbow 12:50, 30 July 2007
  • I think the Politics of Minnesota article could use a lot more about the executive branch and cabinet-level agencies. The Template:Politics of Minnesota also needs a lot of work in the cabinet section. My suggestion would be to work on those two first, and then we can determine if some of the new material should be brought into the Minnesota article. I wouldn't worry as much about neutrality as I'd be concerned about original research. Do you have a reference book that covers the material you'll be adding? We can help with footnotes if you need help.--Appraiser 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. I would reference the state web site, using the reference/footnote in the Politics of Minnesota article as a guideline. However, I disagree that we should be putting this information in the Politics article. "Politics" IMO, refers to politicians and elections. The "Law and government" portion of the Politics in Minnesota article pretty much focuses on the elected officials, as it should. "Government" is how the state is governed, and while "politics" is certainly a factor, it's not the first thing I think of. If I want to learn about state agencies like the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or the Minnesota Department of Transportation, I don't think of politics. I think if we have a separate article like the one on the California executive branch, then we can link to that from both the main MN article and the Politics article. What do folks think of that? --mmdolbow 1:00, 31 July 2007
  • When I was looking over the Politics article, I was thinking that a new Government of Minnesota article would be appropriate, but perhaps Minnesota executive branch would be better, since we already have a Minnesota Legislature and Minnesota Senate. My concern was to avoid adding too much to the Minnesota article. If you'd like, start a sandbox and post the link here; then people can collaborate on it before going mainline, if you want.--Appraiser 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the term Politics has become debased, and has become a pejorative to some. That is not its historic meaning-- check any dictionary. Appraiser's suggestions are appropriate, and either proposed subordinate article would work. Detail belongs in subordinate articles. The main Minnesota page can never be anything more than a top-level overview-- it may be too long already. Kablammo 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Add any other concerns to the above list, and express your thoughts on any or all of them. Kablammo 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the climate table, but not the implementation. I would agree with trimming Entertainment, lists of people always seem to get out of hand. I don't know about a media in Minnesota page. I wrote the section and thats all the more I want to write, so I am not sure if it would grow once transplanted. If you go to the main page of the newspaper link it looks like spam, but the linked page is pretty good, so I am not sure what to do about it. -Ravedave 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1) I think the table is too bulky for this article.
2) There are too many actors, musicians, and groups. These lists always grow. I like what Susan did in Minneapolis limiting the categories to three, but it takes diligence to keep it that way.
3) Based on guidelines here, I think most of the external links to media outlets should be removed.--Appraiser 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New laws

Should the new seatbelt law and smoking ban be mentioned in the article? -Ravedave 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't put it here, but I can foresee a section in Politics of Minnesota talking about an anti-Libertarian trend toward fewer personal freedoms with these laws as examples.--Appraiser 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking more like the health section, but whatever works. -Ravedave 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Laws like those probably do contribute to the state's rank in "heathiness".--Appraiser 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get a Pop. Growth Chart?

It would be nice if we could just get a chart for the population growth like most other states have.

68.49.1.207 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one at Demographics of Minnesota, along with other detail. Given the length of the article it was decided to relegate some of the more detailed charts to subsidiary articles. Otherwise this page would get too long. Kablammo 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longfellow

Is it a fact that Henry Longfellow visited Minnesota? I was under the impression that he had not.--Appraiser 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No I don't believe Longfellow ever visited Minnesota. For a source here is the Minnesota Historical Society timeline. -Susanlesch 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I can recheck the books I've been using for History of Minnesota. I seem to remember that he never visited Minnesota, though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I rechecked the books I've used for History of Minnesota. They don't say anything about whether he was in Minnesota or not, but they say that he drew upon other people's work, such as Henry Rowe Schoolcraft's account of his travels, a book by Mary Eastman about the Dakota, and a picture of Minnehaha Falls. I guess that's about as close as he came to actually being in Minnesota, then. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

About a year ago, there was a discussion on statistics for church affiliation, now archived at Talk:Minnesota/Archive_1#Religion. The ARIS survey was used, and has been cited in the article for about a year, including during the FA review and main page. A new user and contributor to Minnesota pages has provided different statistics. We should discuss the matter here to see if we can come to a consensus.

ARIS can be criticized as it relies on self-reporting by individuals. But that is common in any survey. Self-reporting by denominations is subject to challenge as methodolgy may vary, and people do not always give notice when they leave a church. So last year we decided to use ARIS, which has a consistent and defined methodolgy. (There are no census data on religion-- the census no longer collects such information.) Kablammo 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about those figures, as I am from Minnesota and thought the stats on the survey were strange. I did leave the 2001 survey, but also added the information from this site http://www.city-data.com/states/Minnesota-Religions.html - which seems to be more accurate with roster numbers as of 2000. It is quite common knowledge too in Minnesota that there is a stronghold of Lutherans in the state. I am a Regional Analysis grad from UW-Green Bay, so I questioned that 2001 survey. I think both data on 2000 and 2001 are interesting and offer good information. However, the 2001 survey makes it sound like Minnesota is mostly Roman Catholic, and it doesn't mention church rosters in every town. As you state below "ARIS can be criticized as it relies on self-reporting by individuals." Would self-reporting be as accurate as church rosters? Probably not. Thanks for the discussion! Let's keep both data infos up there, since one mentions the first denomination in the state- Presbyterian at Fort Snelling, which is interesting. (User: Hiawatha4 from Austin, MN., July 27th, 2007 2:35 p.m MST)
The ARIS survey does not make it sound like Roman Catholics are the the majority, only that they are the largest single denomination (and the one percentage point difference is not likely to be statistically significant either way). The is no reason that self-reporting by denominations is more accurate than an anonymous survey of individuals, but I do not have a problem with citing multiple reliable sources. (The origin of the data in your source is not stated.) But given the very general nature of this page, perhaps the more nuanced discussion belongs on Demographics of Minnesota. Thanks. Kablammo 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a few issues with the latest changes, in no particular order:
  • The article was already too long. When working toward FA, many people with varying interests jointly agreed to keep their favorite sections brief creating sub-articles for all the details we all wanted to keep. The Religion section is now too long, IMO.
  • Using two conflicting sources has created conflicting data within the article. One source needs to be used.
  • There are now two red links - the only two in the whole article. Is someone going to write two articles, or remove the brackets?
  • The new source is not formatted properly. If you're going to use that, use WP:CITE and footnote it like the other 108 references in the article.
  • The new source has absolutely no information about how the survey was conducted, whether it was peer-reviewed, or whether the publisher has a financial or spiritual interest in the outcome. I think as a source, it's reliability is on par with a BLOG.--Appraiser 02:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have problems with the new Religion section in the Minnesota Article. In short I agree with Appraiser. Until a more suitable source is revealed for this data, and some work is made to format (a sandbox is a handy tool for working on articles till you get it right)correctlly I'm reverting the section to the older version.

  • 1 The article now looks messy and inconcise. For example, mention various Lutheran demoniations when you could just use Lutheran. It's not even sourced right
  • 2 I don't know if that is a good enough quality source to use for an encyclopedic article of this quality. They don't mention where they get thier data or anything. (Census, some other government agency?)
Good-faith edits from an unregistered user on 2 August converted the text to a list, and stated that the ARIS survey shows 77% Christian, of whom 52% are Protestant. This last figure apparently was obtained by subtracting the 25% Roman Catholic population from the total of all Christian denominations and affiliations. That 77% total however included a 7% figure for those who just answered "Chrisitan", a category which is not limited to Protestants. It would be incorrect to simply assume, without further proof, that all respondents in this 7% are Protestants. Accordingly I have restored the prior version.
This article is a summary and we cannot fully explore every area topic here. There is a separate article for Demographics of Minnesota which can accommodate more detail on demographic subjects. Kablammo 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster in Minneapolis

Watching the news right now. A bridge in Minneapolis just collapsed. This probably requires some current event editing on the relevant articles.--Daveswagon 23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the story: Major Bridge Collapse In Downtown Minneapolis . I believe this is the bridge: I-35W Bridge.

[edit] Cathedral of Saint Paul in Saint Paul (picture)

I don't suppose some Saint Paul-ite would be able to get a better picture of this Cathedral, could they? Looking at it now just about gives me a headache, with its tiltiness. Thanks! --Marumari 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is on a hill, so I don't know a good way to untilt the Cathedral without making it look like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. There might be a better direction to take the photo that doesn't emphasize that it's on a steep hill. I might have a picture or two from my trip to the James J. Hill House, but I'd have to check. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I tilted the photo so the lamp post is straight up and down. Better? -Ravedave 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks much better, and certainly fits better amongst the rest of the high-quality photos of Minnesota. Thanks! --Marumari 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

There have been a number additions of content to this section, detailing with recent national, state, and even local senate district elections.[17] and [18] The additions are in good faith and factual, but are unnecessarily detailed in an article of this breadth. This is not a section I worked on during the FA drive. Can someone look at these additions (and the original content) and determine what should stay, what should go, and what should be moved? Kablammo 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to move most of these additions to Politics of Minnesota. That article could use quite a bit more development, whereas the summary in this article is comprehensive enough, IMO.--Appraiser 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As my comments suggest, I agree with this. I have welcomed the most recent editor and invited him to discuss the matter here. Kablammo 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both of the above editors. While not yet out of control, the section is growing a bit large and unwieldy. Both of the examples given by Kablammo are certainly ones that I believe to be too specific for this article. AlexiusHoratius 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

These contributions have now been removed; the first some time ago, and the second now. The second (involving pioneering female legislators) may belong in Politics of Minnesota, but was uncited. Kablammo (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota Demograpics

[The following discussion is moved here from my talk page. It relates to the statement in the introduction on the ancestry of Minnesotans.] ______________________________

Hello Kablammo. Regarding the Minnesota article, you have been reverting edits of Minnesota Ancestry from Western to Northern European. Listing German ancestry as being Northern European. Upon going to the Western European article I saw that Germany was listed as being considered a part of Western Europe according to the UN. Admittedly it is unsourced. However, I think it bears examining. I tried going to the UN website and checking it out but I couldn't find anything to confirm that with a cursory examination. As it also conflicts with the Demographics section of the Minnesota article as being of 75% Western European ancestry. Thought you might want to know. Showers (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Showers, thanks for the note. The terms Western Europe and Northern Europe are flexible (compare the two Wikpedia articles, which differ); they can mean different things geographically, politically, and ethnically. In Cold War days there were East and West, and the dividing line between them was considerably west of the halfway point (just as in the US the "West" is majority of the county.) That two-fold geopolitical division continues; UNESCO has two regions, Western Europe[19] and Central Europe/former USSR[20]; there is no north and south.
Ethnically, the population of Minnesota is Nordic, Germanic, and Celtic. Nordic is clear enough; its close relative Germanic includes the English, and the Celts are primarily Irish in Minnesota. If you go by the map in Western Europe our population is about half Northern European (total up the British Isles, Irish, Scandanavians, and Baltic states in the census data[21]); if you consider Germans to be northern (as, from ethnic and linguistic standpoints, they are) the matter is clearer.
To bring it back to the Minnesota intro, the sentence in question focuses on ethnicity and northern therefore was used. But it seems to cause some confusion. We could rephrase it to eliminate the issue entirely, and substitute Nordic and Germanic or something similar. Kablammo (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is how it read in November 2006:

Its image as a primarily white, Scandinavian, and Lutheran state still has some truth, but it is changing, with substantial influxes of African, Asian, and Hispanic immigrants joining the descendants of European immigrants and Native American descendants of the original inhabitants.

It was discussing the image of the state. Maybe we should go back to something like that. Kablammo (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________

I took a stab at a revision:

The state's image of being populated by whites of Nordic and Germanic descent has some truth, but diversity is increasing; substantial influxes of African, Asian, and Latin American immigrants have joined the descendants of European immigrants and of the original Native American inhabitants.

Any other suggestions? Kablammo (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks better to me. The reason I had changed it was because Western European is a more inclusive term than Northern European and looking at the map on the Northern Europe page, its area included Scandinavia but not all of Germany and since, according to Wikipedia's own statistics, Germans outnumber Norwegians et al in Minnesota by more than two to one, Western European would be more suitable, plus it also includes Scandinavia. It's much more accurate.Tap1981 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think if you add all Scandavians together it is a larger proportion, but still not as large as the Germans. I went to check on this but unfortunately the Census bureau has now changed its site-- we'll have to find those data again. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota flag color

Hi. In the absence of any written color standard (could have been Pantone or sRBG—anything would have settled this closer than what follows), yesterday I modified the Image:Flag of Minnesota.svg (Flag of Minnesota) to a less-green blue. Corrections welcome. I find looking quickly, three sources. According to their Web site, the nearest Annin & Company dealer in Minnesota is American Flagpole & Flag in Lake Elmo, if anyone is nearby. Annin who was the technical consultant to the 1955 commission (Session Weekly page 1) has wide distribution (ZIP search). The Rev. William Becker is a co-proponent of the modernized flag proposal (boy I can see a line at Kinko's banners if anyone revives that contest) as well as author of the article the legislature points to in Minnesota History (1992). The final source is the state. The statute says the Secretary of State shall keep a 1) "photograph", and 2) "custodial control over the sample design flag of the commission". So there must be a physical flag model somewhere. Becker talks about "Union blue" in his article and is quoted in places as saying "deep blue" but I think he is in agreement with the statute which says "medium blue" with a "narrow gold border" and "golden fringe". So what "medium blue"? Guess what. Link #1 is to Wikipedia (Wikimedia).

For reference I used an eyedropper in Illustrator from sos.state.mn.us (image which looks like a match for the legislature's image, thank heavens). The source of the old blue-green is a mystery. Disclaimer: I am not a color expert (color takes a lifetime and even then, today computer hardware and software have opinions, in my opinion). Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the image. I wish we could get rid of that ugly one though and adopt this much better one:Image:North Star Flag.PNG.--Appraiser (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh I like the old one. And I made it too dark. Why do you like the North Star flag? To reduce "L'Etoile du Nord" to one star might work for a hockey team but IMHO not the whole state. Did you read about textiles powering nanotechnology? I'd vote instead for 1) PMS or RGB numbers for the colors we have, and 2) looking at harnessing wind and solar power. Of course Clear Channel is probably doing sun-powered LED(ww?) flags as we speak. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not married to the proposed one necessarily, but polls show [22] that I am not alone in disliking our flag. I like the new one because it is easy to identify from a distance, even among many other flags, and the waves advertise the lakes. Since you mentioned "L'Etoile du Nord", we'd better think of a new slogan if the legislature passes a law that says that English is the official language of the state.--Appraiser (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Made it lighter but it is not so brilliant as the flag. If you read this or the image page and can I hope you'll fix it. Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota elections

Good source on Minnesota elections and voter participation:[23] Kablammo (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 150th

  1. It would be nice to get a mention of Minnesota's 150th on May 11th if On this day, if anyone knows how to do that.
  2. It also might be worthwhile to take a look at the article to see whether it has degraded since its main page appearance a year ago. Not all of the matters discussed above have been resolved or implemented. The article has picked up over 8,000 bytes since its appearance on the main page and it is doubtful that it is any better. Perhaps some images could be changed as well.
  3. I have removed some stuff from the Entertainment section. That probably will always attract contributions from people who notice that some actor or artist with Minnesota connections is not mentioned (not to mention edits mentioning local record labels, bands, etc.). A proposal: limit mention of artists to those with top-level awards or nominations (Academy, Grammy, Emmy, Tony — any others?) and relegate the others to subsidiary pages.
  4. Does politics need some work? Put some recent stuff in Politics of Minnesota? Can someone look at that?
  5. Are there any volunteers for other sections?

Kablammo (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff from May 18th until today. [24]. I'd like to go through all of the images and see if there are any newer/better ones around. Politics could use a little tweaking, we shuld leave a note for Appraiser. We should also look for 2008 facts and figures where 2007 & older are used. I just read this sentence that needs work: "From fewer than 6,100 people in 1850, Minnesota's population grew to over 1.75 million by 1900.". I'd like to try and improve Ecology of Minnesota personally. I'm oncall until monday morning so I'll see what I can get rolling after that. -Ravedave (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The differences are not that many, and most are good. Here are the results of the link—checking tool; some may have to be replaced. RD, can you see if my edits to the entertainment section are too drastic? Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update and refresh

As per discussion above, article will be reviewed and updated, web sites checked with link—checking tool, and accessdates renewed to demonstrate completion. Volunteers are needed! Adopt a section below, and add your name or ~~~~ when you complete it. Kablammo (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
1 Etymology
2 Geography All done.
  • Section intro done. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
2.1 Geology and terrain
2.2 Flora and fauna
2.3 Climate
2.4 Protected lands
3 History
4 Cities and towns
5 Demographics - Done —SusanLesch (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
5.1 Population
5.2 Race and ancestry
5.3 Religion
6 Economy
6.1 Industry and commerce
6.2 Energy use and production
6.3 State taxes
7 Culture
7.1 Fine and performing arts
7.2 Literature
7.3 Entertainment
7.4 Popular culture
8 Health and education
8.1 Health
8.2 Education
9 Transportation
10 Law and government
10.1 Executive
10.2 Legislative
10.3 Judicial
10.4 Regional
10.5 Federal
11 Politics
I'll take a look at this sometime.--Appraiser (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what the recently-added presidential election table adds to this section. It is already covered in the text, and the actual vote numbers and percentages are unnecessary detail for a top-level article. Kablammo (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved to main article Politics of Minnesota —SusanLesch (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure User:Dwilso added it to prove that MN is not a Swing state. He has been consistently removing MN in the Swing state article.--Appraiser (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with the table, but that level of detail does not belong here. I agree with Susan's move. It is consistent with the way we have treated other tables on religion, population, and climate. Those belong in the more specific articles. Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
12 Media
13 Sports and recreation
  • Done, both sections ~ Eóin (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
13.1 Organized sports
13.2 Outdoor recreation
14 State symbols - Done —SusanLesch (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Min

I am wondering why this article claims that minnesota is a swing state. you might want to visit http://www.presidentelect.org/index.html, thanks. Dwilso 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement in question says that the state was a "swing state" in 2004. Anyone looking at the "money and time" map
can see that the state was one of a small number that was in play in 2004.--Appraiser (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This map is highly false and inaccurate, please visit http://www.fairvote.org/presidential/?page=1685, thanks. Dwilso 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The link you provided confirms that MN ranked 9th in the nation for the candidates' attention in 2004. Thanks for the confirmation.--Appraiser (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audio in the introduction

Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold_title says "Avoid links in the bold title words", maybe there is a way to keep the audio without linking the article name. This is just a guideline but this is quite exceptional to see a link like this. Cenarium (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)