Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Missing photo of Dakota tipi village and first house of Minneapolis?

I don't know if there's someone who wants to find a version of this photo that can be successfully uploaded to the Wikicommons, but I think this early photo of Dakota tipi village in front of the John H Stevens House would be a great addition to this article, as seen in this Star Tribune piece. On the west side of the river in Minneapolis, John H. Stevens built the first home there in 1850 and initially platted the city in 1854. Stevens was the first authorized resident in what would become Minneapolis. He was allowed to occupy the site, then part of the Fort Snelling military reservation, in exchange for providing a ferry service to the St. Anthony side of the river. I've seen the photo captioned as "1854 photo Indian camp on site of Bridge Square, lower Nicollet Ave., Minneapolis, Minn. With frame house of "Col." John H. Stevens in left background Vintage 8x10 Photograph" on other sites.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I love that picture. One day I tried very hard to find a free copy, and unfortunately the MN Historical Society's image search has been broken for over a year. I seem to recall it is copyright the Hennepin History Museum but I'll check again. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it's the library's now. The image says "in copyright" and donation was from the Star Tribune in 1970. I recall the trick to finding this is different spellings of teepees and tipis. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The Library of Congress has a version: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/91796059/

I found the version on MHS' website, even though their search is down: https://www.mnhs.org/sites/default/files/media/news/tepeesnearbridgesquarempls1854.jpg

The photographer was Tallmadge Elwell, Daguerreotype view of Native American tipis and the John Harrington Stevens House on ground that would later become the Gateway District of Minneapolis, Minnesota, c. 1852-1855. By Tallmadge Elwell.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes. I asked for a copy from LOC. Can you find a text page for the image at mnhs.org? It used to tell us the copyright status. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edits to Dakota history

Excuse me, Magnolia677. There's no improvement after your changes. Why single out one missionary who may have been one of the first White people to see the falls but is known for staying at Mille Lacs Lake nowhere near Minneapolis, and skip over Britain's arrival? In the same stroke, you chopped out every other person. Your edit summary is peculiar, Minneapolis was not the Dakota "homeland". The paragraph you just removed explains that indeed it was. I suggest you read Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota by Westerman and White if you have a disagreement with that.

You wrote, This is the only source that specifically mentions Minneapolis. This is sourced content, please discuss. You don't own this article. First, this is ludicrous. Your choice of sources is fine but cannot stand up to those that were already used in this article. Why don't you add yours to Further reading? Works cited gives you dozens of sources that mention Minneapolis. The page you cite says up front, It is a time dominated by the economy of fur trading, first by the French, then the British, and finally Americans. But you chose to skip the British (and for some reason, you chose to cherry pick from a web page instead of reading and digesting the sources we already use). Second, you don't own this article any more than anyone else does.

A reminder of some featured article objectives:

• comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

Why are you trying to make big changes today? We haven't heard anything from you for four months since you asked to include The Fall of Minneapolis on November 20, 2023 -SusanLesch (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Regarding this source, you write: "Your choice of sources is fine but cannot stand up to those that were already used in this article. Why don't you add yours to Further reading?" You were the one who added this source to the article in the first place. Moreover, it specifically mentions Hennepin's observations of the Indigenous people he encountered specifically in Minneapolis (the title of this article). Magnolia677 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Hennepin has been called a crank. The source you cite mentions Minneapolis, just as this one mentions Minneapolis. That doesn't mean we must include it here. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You added the source, and now that another editor has also used the same source, you don't like it anymore? It doesn't really matter which source gets cited, but Hennepin was the first European to visit Minneapolis, so his comments about what he saw when he arrived are worth mentioning. Finally, what is the relevance of this source? --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My objection was to your interpretation of the source (you erased indigenous history and the arrival of the British). I wondered if you remembered Wikipedia's featured article criteria. And I asked why you made major changes now after four months of silence. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly been a while, but as we say in the Delta, I've been busier than a church fan in August...spending time with the Mega Society and the Trump campaign...and have missed much of the discourse here, but Ay, caramba!, in my absence, the Indigenous history of the western United States has mistakenly been presented as the history of the Mini Apple, and an editor believes the City of Lakes is in fact the homeland of the Dakota! Maybe we can all find a compromise and avoid dispute resolution. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I see you continue to ignore all the ongoing history of Dakota and European-Americans in the Dakota homelands that Minneapolis is built on, you even think the name means "Mini Apple". How cute.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Search of Hennepin's book does not find "blueberries" so I'd have to challenge that quote. But it's a translation so who knows. The translator did mention whortleberries. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera: "Mini Apple" is sourced content in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Cuisines and Sister Cities

Hey everyone! I am planning to make some changes here and these to Minneapolis's page. Please feel free to let me know if I messed up something because this is my first time editing on wikipedia. My plan is to maybe update the different cuisines that have entered (somali, indian, and so on). The list of “sister cities” needs to be updated based on the new information from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apurnuh (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome, Apurnuh. Have you considered joining WP:WikiProject Minnesota before jumping in here? Thank you, I agree the sister cities day could be added to the section on Annual events, and I made that change. Caribou Coffee headquarters is in Brooklyn Center not in Minneapolis so I removed that addition. The article already mentions Somali cuisine. Have you considered adding your favorites at Cuisine of Minnesota? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Apurnuh, I'm not sure you got this message here. I moved your thread down to chronological order. Here's a long Help:Talk pages help page. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Apurnuh, I'll try to work in the farmers market. As it is your edit cannot remain here because WP:USCITIES guidelines state that rankings like the one you added are not admissable. I will also remove the link you placed behind the word vaudeville per WP:EL. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Apurnuh, this is a featured article. Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced statements, so I removed the Sculpture Garden. I hope you will look elsewhere for opportunities to edit Wikipedia. It's a long learning curve. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch Thank you! I am sorry if I messed up the article by adding the garden and farmer's market. Thank you for working in the farmer's market if you can! Apurnuh (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Yep, both the sculpture garden and farmers markets in general are here now. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Apurnuh, please do not add unsourced material. I removed your explanation for MSP. The city is roughly 5 by 11 miles, so saying the airport is 10 miles from downtown means little. We don't need to spell out the name of the airport (which is quite long) twice in two sentences. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Apurnuh, I hope you will continue editing. It might take a while but you got off to an excellent start. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Expansions Proposal for the Minneapolis Article

Hello fellow editors, we are proposing some expansions and improvements to the Minneapolis article to enhance its comprehensiveness and accuracy:

Geography

We plan to add more details about the city's geography, including its location within Minnesota, topography, and notable natural features like lakes, rivers, and parks.

Demographics

The article could use additional demographic information on population size, ethnic/racial makeup, languages spoken, and religious affiliations in the city.

Culture Section

We want to substantially expand the Culture section by adding specifics on the arts, music, literature, theater, festivals, cuisine, and other significant cultural institutions or traditions in Minneapolis.

Landmarks and Attractions

We will highlight more of the city's notable landmarks, attractions, tourist destinations, historic sites, museums, sports venues, and other points of interest.

We plan to rely primarily on sources from city/state government websites, travel guides, newspaper articles, and scholarly publications when making these additions. Please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions related to expanding the Minneapolis article in these areas. We look forward to improving the article's coverage together.

Suchithra_moolinti, Kambh021 - Tagging co-editors working on this along with me. Sireesha-p23 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Are these AI bot accounts? Sorry, but they all write their user pages in the same way and have made very little edits.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well-spotted, Oncamera! Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This turned out to be real students editing without good guidance. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ikraanh31, are you by any chance a student doing your homework on Wikipedia? Wikipedia will not accept unsourced material. Please read WP:Student assignments. Thank you for your interest in Minneapolis. One item you added has been included. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ikraanh31, sorry I understand you are probably not in that class. To repeat, Wikipedia will not accept unsourced material. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Lizzo is now mentioned briefly. The music section has been trimmed from a list of everybody's favorites down to a minimum. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC on first section of Minneapolis

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We reached consensus on text for the first paragraph of the first section. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the Minneapolis article begin its first section with A) an overview of the Native Americans who lived in the area (as it does now) with the heading "Dakota homeland, city founded", or B) the first European to view the area that became Minneapolis (as it does in this version) under the heading "Dakota people, city founded"? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

A, and, frankly, the heading should probably be different, like simply "Dakota homeland" or "Early history" which I feel is a little less disjointed. However, I am curious, since the body of the section mentions both the Dakota and Ojibwe, what is the reason for excluding the Ojibwe in the header? PersusjCP (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ojibwe migrated to Minnesota in the 1700s or so and never established themselves in the area of Minneapolis. Their reservations are in northern Minnesota and in eastern states. They traveled to the Minneapolis area to do business at Fort Snelling which led to clashes with the Dakota people.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera Ah thank you that makes sense :) PersusjCP (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A. It's not a comprehensive article without inclusion of Native people and honestly couldn't achieve featured article status without it as it's currently written. The section is about Dakota land, not specifically about them as people so it should stay as Dakota homelands or Dakota lands. Minneapolis maintains relationships with Dakota and Ojibwe people and they are still a part of the population, especially in South Minneapolis where the American Indian Movement started.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A. The narrative doesn't make sense without establishing the Dakota homeland first. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - @SusanLesch: This was discussed for one day, by three editors. Why did you feel the need to rush to an RfC? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I found the edit warring to be jarring. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A, but with a caveat: the current wording needs to be slimmed down to what is immediately relevant to Minneapolis rather than the history of Ojibwe migration and Dakota presence in the state. Staying focused and on-topic is a key part of the GA/FA process for good reason. SounderBruce 18:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

SounderBruce, I'll try. -SusanLesch (talk)

B - This article is about Minneapolis; it isn't about the history of the western United States. Extensive text about the migration of people with no relevance to Minneapolis is out-of-scope. Moreover, the "homeland" of the Dakota was 1000 miles wide. Stating that Minneapolis was the "Dakota homeland" is factually incorrect (is Houston "Texans homeland"?) --Magnolia677 (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be careful with B. I would prefer to concentrate on Zebulon Pike as the first individual mentioned. Something like Alexander Ramsey who was also given memorial placenames, Hennepin is part of the troublesome and changing history of American memorialization. Hennepin must have some good qualities but his reputation fell and he's been called a crank. Also, two other men passed by the falls that day with him. This source (p. 20) says his book was a romanticized "captivity narrative". Another reliable source (p. 43) says the list of foodstuffs are what the Dakota fed to Hennepin (meaning they could have been, but were not necessarily their habitual foods). Because Hennepin only saw the falls and went back to Mille Lacs, I think he should be omitted here. -SusanLesch (talk)

Hennepin was the first European to visit the city, and he gave a detailed (and now deleted) description of the Dakota when he arrived. He was so revered that Minneapolis is located in...Hennepin County! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 I agree that "Dakota homeland" is not the greatest title for that section as it is too specific and broad at the same time, but the prehistory of a settlement area is important. you can see this in any other article on large settlements, where context behind the settlement of a city is important to understand. History doesn't suddenly start at the founding of a city. I think that's an extremely narrow view of history that excludes a lot of important history about the area prior to its founding. Just to be clear I don't think it should be about the entire western united states as you say, but then again, the article doesn't do that. I believe everything in the article currently is relevant other than maybe a couple details. PersusjCP (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The history section currently has a whopping five paragraphs about Indigenous people. All I did was try to trim one paragraph which had almost no relevance to Minneapolis (the topic of this article):

About six Native American nations inhabited Minnesota, and in modern times, two nations dominated: the Dakota (one tribe of the Sioux nation) and the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, one tribe of the Anishinaabe nations). Evidence says the Dakota were state residents in or before 1000 AD. Dakota are the only inhabitants who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated and their site of creation is at nearby Bdóte. The Ojibwe migrated west from the Atlantic states to northern Minnesota where they displaced many of the Dakota people by the 17th century.

Moreover, there are FIVE hatnotes at the top of this section providing readers with more detail about the Dakota and the area's history. My effort was reverted.

Yet when I added a short section about the first European---and namesake for the county Minneapolis is located in---who specifically commented about the Dakota he encountered in Minneapolis, it was removed:

In 1680, French explorer Louis Hennepin went through what was to become Minneapolis, and named St. Anthony Falls. Hennepin described the Dakota there as "cooking in earthen vessels, living in bark lodges, eating wild rice cooked with dried blueberries, and hunting bison on the prairies". (removed)

This is why B seemed the obvious choice for improving this bloated, out-of-scope history section. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's problematic you deleted all the information about it being Dakota homelands to replace it with a European who stopped by while "discovering" a waterfall. You can advocate to include a short sentence that Hennepin county is named after Louis Hennepin but he's not so important that all Dakota history needs to be erased.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So your actual problem is not with "irrelevant" history, your problem is with Indigenous history. Please be clear when describing your problems.

The history of an area prior to its foundation is a city is relevant. Idk what to tell you. I think you would be hard pressed to go to the article for Rome and argue for the removal of any prehistoric parts because it's irrelevant. To argue otherwise is simply wrong. It is noteworthy. It is covered by reliable sources. It is strongly related to the topic. It is included in secondary sources about the topic, and as per WP:NPOV, if reliable sources include it relating to the topic, you can't exclude it based on your personal beliefs... All of this points to pre-history being included in the history section of an article, not to mention the precedent for this across the entire site. PersusjCP (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The third and fourth paragraphs also have little relevance to this article about Minneapolis. WP:USCITIES#History suggests a narrative about the city's "original inhabitants/pioneers", but somehow the entire Indigenous history of the US north-west has been shoehorned into this article. This isn't fair to readers, who can easily click on one of the five hatnotes at the top of this section in order to learn these tangential detail. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is quite relevant, and I think it stays on topic. It doesn't feature the "entire Indigenous history of the US north-west" as you put it. It is specifically about the history of the Dakota in this region, which is relevant as this is the center of their homeland, as others have shown. If it did include the "entire Indigenous history of the US north-west," it would include parts from other states such as Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, it doesn't. Cheers PersusjCP (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• A of course. The place did not suddenly appear when the Europeans "discovered" it.[1] Violence and genocide forcing off the indigenous peoples preceded the firm establishment of countless cities throughout the U.S. We are an encyclopedia. We do not erase and whitewash the past.

Caveat. I have no opinion on the section title, only that the Native Americans precede their conquest to establish the city. Geology could, in fact, precede that. The past does not start when humans arrive. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - @SusanLesch: You started this RfC, asking, among other questions, about the heading "Dakota people, city founded". Now you have started two completely new discussions below, about the same questions. Did you read "avoid discussion forks", per WP:RFC? What are you doing? Wait for this RfC to close. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. I hope nobody will mind the smaller headings. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Do you object if I close this RFC? The result is non-controversial and won't require formal closing by an uninvolved editor. We've had no comments for four days. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been little participation, and one of the few who participated said, "the current wording needs to be slimmed down to what is immediately relevant to Minneapolis rather than the history of Ojibwe migration and Dakota presence in the state", so I don't agree the result so far is "non-controversial". I'd prefer to wait and see if there is more participation. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 There have been six users who voted in this RFC. All but one (you) have voted for option A.

The exact wording of @SounderBruce's comment was: "A, but with a caveat: the current wording needs to be slimmed down to what is immediately relevant to Minneapolis rather than the history of Ojibwe migration and Dakota presence in the state."

The intro has been considerably slimmed down. I'd say the first creation story should be taken out so it focuses on the Bdoté one, which is relevant while the other isn't. I also think it is up to SounderBruce to say what his opinion is regarding what the new text is given that he was the only A vote with a caveat. PersusjCP (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@PersusjCP: I'm not sure why you pinged me to tell me this, but thank you for your summary. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 I was disagreeing with your characterization of this RfC being mostly in opposition to option A. PersusjCP (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You misinterpreted what I wrote. Please take a moment to read it again. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I went to considerable trouble to cite Louis Hennepin and include him in the first paragraph. You were already pinged for comment and didn't reply, so I will assume you have no problems with the new version. You really have no comments?

All my responses in this thread are in response to your suggestion that this RfC be closed; doing so would be premature. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not planning a second RFC just for you. This RFC is a good faith effort to resolve our differences so we can improve this encyclopedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@PersusjCP: You just asked for Mille Lacs to be removed, but I don't agree that is wise. We have solid sourcing that says many Dakota creation stories exist; this is not the major one, but maybe second, and is serendipitously the place Hennepin went. Thank you, I agree it would be good to know if SounderBruce thinks his caveat has been satisfied. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What creation story exists at Mille Lacs? The Mdewakanton are named after the lake, but didn't mean it's a creation story.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch Sure it belongs in the Dakota article or the Minnesota article, but not Minneapolis, since it is some 75 miles away from the city. PersusjCP (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Good grief, you people like to argue. PersusjCP, I don't want to drop Father Hennepin again. Oncamera, do you have a copy of Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota? Read the top of page 15. Otherwise, Google Books will show you enough here: page 1633. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A cooperative discussion--rather than a narrow and poorly-worded RfC--would be have been a more fruitful way to improve the bloated first section and its many issues. I understand why you want to close it so quickly. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You've asked repeatedly for people to read your revisions and when we ask for changes, you tell us we "like to argue". That's funny. Anyway, this article is about Minneapolis, I would suggest removing Mille Lacs and sticking with Bdóte since it in relation to the area. All you have to say is "There are a number of creation stories within Dakota oral traditions. One widely noted creation story for Dakota people is at Bdóte, the area where the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers meet."  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

So you would like to remove this whole sentence? One centers on Mille Lacs Lake, the same place in east-central Minnesota where Father Hennepin—the first European to see Owámniyomni and who renamed it Saint Anthony Falls after his patron saint—writes that the Dakota held him captive in 1680. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit it so it's about Louis Hennepin at Owamni and not about a creation story at Mille Lacs, otherwise Magnolia677 will be upset there's no mention of Louis Hennepin. You might have to move it to another location that makes sense.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: May I close the RfC now? It's been 10 days without a !vote. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Dakota homeland

Hi, PersusjCP. Great to meet you. I think you might enjoy the second paragraph of this article by Bruce White. It's the clearest and shortest explanation that Minneapolis is the Dakota homeland that I've seen so far. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but that's WP:SELFPUBLISHED and isn't a reliable source. Unless you can prove that Bruce White is a reliable author, which you are welcome to do, I don't think it can be used. PersusjCP (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's just for your information, because I noticed you had a problem with the heading (I agree that "Dakota homeland" is not the greatest title for that section as it is too specific and broad at the same time). No worries on WP:RS. Tom Weber says the same thing in Minneapolis: An Urban Biography (Chapter 1). Dr. White is a subject matter expert, who won a Minnesota Book Award and another prize with Gwen Westerman for Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota which I recommend. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The Dakota "homeland" covered five states and four provinces. Look at the map. Stating that little Minneapolis is the Dakota "homeland" is factually incorrect. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The City of Saint Paul has a map showing all the Dakota villages and sacred sites created by cultural department of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, it also says the Twin Cities area is "Homeland to the Dakota people". This same map is installed as an art installation in a city park overlooking Fort Snelling. The map you're using shows territory that includes the many bands of the Lakota, Western Dakota and Eastern Dakota, which are all of the Oceti Sakowin. You complained earlier that the history section was telling the history of the whole western United States instead of what's in Minneapolis (or even Minnesota) yet you're doing the same thing with that source covering all of the Sioux as your argument of removing Dakota homelands in Minneapolis. Saint Paul land acknowledgement also says Dakota homelands to go with the sources I linked in the first Dakota homeland section.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This map shows much larger area, and the Minnesota Historical Society used the same heading we have now. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You might be misinterpreting what they are saying. Minneapolis is PART of the Dakota homeland. The Dakota did not spring up directly from some Minneapolis suburb, no one is saying that. But to deny that the Minneapolis region is not Dakota homeland is simply not factual, as Oncamera and SusanLesch have quite thoroughly proved. PersusjCP (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There are Dakota beliefs that they did in fact originate from where the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers meet in the area that includes Minneapolis and Saint Paul known as Bdóte.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that. That makes it even more the case that this is relevant, then :) PersusjCP (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, then. I will be sure to look into it :) I could go either way on that title. My main problem about it being "too specific" is that Dakota history in the region is more than just about their homeland. It being "too broad" is that the Dakota homeland is more than just Minneapolis, and while it is true that Minneapolis is Dakota homeland, I fear it may be just a bit too vague to be the title of the section. PersusjCP (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm out of sync with you guys, but to finish my thought: The historical society says, as does this article, the Dakota have multiple origin stories. The society says one is widely held in this region. This article says Dakota are the only inhabitants who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated and their site of creation is at nearby Bdóte. I'd make only one correction to what we have there: omit the word "nearby". -SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed first para

I need some help sourcing the Ojibwe's arrival. Treuer is a good source but he seems partisan to me. I'm willing to go with either "Dakota homeland" (which Oncamera documented as used by the majority in the region) or "Dakota birthplace" (a new heading proposed to avoid all the disagreement). I hope this satisfies SounderBruce and Magnolia677. Comments welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I chose linguists to cite for the Ojibwe's arrival because they cite William Whipple Warren and have no problem saying that the Ojibwe traveled into Dakota territory (Treuer does have trouble saying that, to the extreme of implying Pike's treaty was with the Ojibwe). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC) I looked again and found that Pike met with Aysh-ke-bah-ke-ko-zhay and wanted the Ojibwe and Dakota to make peace or somesuch; it's possible I read Treuer wrong. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Dakota birthplace, city founded

Old versions

Two indigenous nations inhabited the area now called Minneapolis. Archaeologists have evidence to say at least since 1000 A.D., they were the Dakota (one tribe of the Sioux nation), and, after the 1700s, the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, one tribe of the Anishinaabe nations). Dakota people have different stories to explain their creation. One centers on Mille Lacs Lake, the same place in east-central Minnesota where Father Hennepin—the first European to see Owámniyomni and who renamed it Saint Anthony Falls after his patron saint—writes that the Dakota held him captive in 1680. More widely accepted, another story says the Dakota emerged from Bdóte—the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers just south of Minneapolis. Dakota are the only inhabitants of the Minneapolis area who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated. In the Dakota language, the city's name is Bde Óta Othúŋwe ('Many Lakes Town'). Two indigenous nations were the primary inhabitants of the area now called Minneapolis. Archaeologists have evidence to say at least since 1000 A.D., they were the Dakota (one tribe of the Sioux nation), and, after the 1700s, the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, one tribe of the Anishinaabe nations). In 1680, cleric Louis Hennepin, who was probably the first European to see the Minneapolis waterfall the Dakota people call Owámniyomni, renamed it the Falls of St. Anthony of Padua for his patron saint. Among a number of creation stories in their oral tradition, a widely accepted story is that the Dakota people emerged from Bdóte,the area where the the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers meet. Dakota are the only inhabitants of the Minneapolis area who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated. In the Dakota language, the city's name is Bde Óta Othúŋwe ('Many Lakes Town'). References SusanLesch (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be shortened and edited to this:

Two Indigenous nations inhabited the area now called Minneapolis. Archaeologists have evidence to say at least since 1000 A.D., they are the Dakota (one half of the Sioux nation), and, after the 1700s, the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, members of the Anishinaabe nations). Dakota people have different stories to explain their creation. One widely accepted story says the Dakota emerged from Bdóte, the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers. Dakota are the only inhabitants of the Minneapolis area who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated. In 1680, Father Hennepin, the first European to see Owámniyomni and who renamed it Saint Anthony Falls after his patron saint, described the Dakota there as "cooking in earthen vessels, living in bark lodges, eating wild rice cooked with dried blueberries, and hunting bison on the prairies". In the Dakota language, the city's name is Bde Óta Othúŋwe ('Many Lakes Town').

I made edits that removed past tense when talking about the tribes, capitalized Indigenous per WP:Indigenous, removed the Mille Lacs reference and included Hennepin describing the Dakota at Owamni, removed the various historians writing about Bdote since it's unnecessary detail.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera Looks good to me, I support this version. PersusjCP (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, we're making good progress. I agree with Oncamera's edits in general, especially the present tense, and removing the historians on Bdote. The only problem is the quote that implies it's "Hennepin describing the Dakota at Owamni". We're quoting the Office of the State Archaeologist, who doesn't say this was at Owamni. I suspect Hennepin had more to say about Dakota at Mille Lacs. Westerman & White discuss this on page 43. I'll keep working on it. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

One question for Oncamera. Technically speaking, is our choice of terms correct now (thank you for the change to a "half") per WP:Indigenous terms to watch? (Tribes, groups, bands, nation, and nations) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems fine to me now. "Tribe" is sometimes a word to avoid when we can use nation, bands etc instead.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also it is possible to quote Hennepin who named the falls "Falls of St. Anthony of Padua". (DeCarlo quotes him accurately.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to make changes to the Hennepin section. I read he was "captured" near Dayton's Bluff in St Paul, (which was likely the village of Kaposia) before traveling to Mille Lacs. It might make sense to move what's written about Hennepin to the next paragraph about the fur traders. It's also fine to remove or rewrite the section about describing Dakota life so that it's not inadvertently making the claim of their life directly at the falls.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I liked Oncamera's placement of Hennepin, only shortened it a bit. PersusjCP, does this work for you? Magnolia677?

Two Indigenous nations inhabited the area now called Minneapolis. Archaeologists have evidence to say at least since 1000 A.D., they are the Dakota (one half of the Sioux nation), and, after the 1700s, the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, members of the Anishinaabe nations). Dakota people have different stories to explain their creation. One widely accepted story says the Dakota emerged from Bdóte, the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers. Dakota are the only inhabitants of the Minneapolis area who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated. In 1680, cleric Louis Hennepin, who was probably the first European to see the Minneapolis waterfall the Dakota people call Owámniyomni, renamed it the Falls of St. Anthony of Padua for his patron saint. In the Dakota language, the city's name is Bde Óta Othúŋwe ('Many Lakes Town').

---

There's sources that use "Dakota homelands" but I never seen any call it "Dakota birthplace" so I would be against that change.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Then I hope editors will agree on homeland. This fighting has to stop. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Dakota land" would be better than birthplace if "homeland" is too specific.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I can support "Dakota land". -SusanLesch (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

PersusjCP — Magnolia677:, you seem to be the only interested parties who haven't weighed in. Can you support "Dakota land"? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I would also support homeland FWIW PersusjCP (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I would support "Dakota people". Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Was it not Dakota land at that time? PersusjCP (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@PersusjCP: No, it was a tiny part of the thousand miles occupied by the Dakota People. These are people. They have a culture and a history and traditions. They are more than just occupiers of land. Look at the title of their article..."Dakota people". Imagine if we titled a section "European-settler land"? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 I mean, yeah, it was part of what the Dakota owned, that's what "Dakota land" implies in my opinion. my issue with "Dakota people" is that it implies that their existence is only in that section of history.The Dakota people have always been part of the history of Minneapolis. PersusjCP (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what the text is for; to elucidate on the title. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, the new paragraph (just above the hairline rule here) has been edited because per Westerman & White the list of foodstuffs relate to Mille Lacs, not necessarily to Minneapolis. Hennepin is included per your request. Are you all right with the paragraph now? Also there's one unanswered question for you directly above this note. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the changes are fine, but we still need to trim the third, forth, and fifth paragraph, which have almost nothing to do with Minneapolis, per WP:UNDUE, and are a general history of the western United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Stalled FAR

@Magnolia677: Wikipedia needs help on dozens of articles and we seem to be hung up on this one. This article is on a list of stalled FARs. Would you please provide your improvements here to "the third, forth, and fifth paragraph"? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have never purposely edited an article in order to improve its "featured article" status. Not my interest. This article became an interest to me a few years ago when I tried to remove the tremendous amount of puffery and promotional content within it. This was followed by much pushback, although that cruft was eventually removed by consensus. My concern now is multiple paragraphs of history that are completely out-of-scope. In time, I will edit each--and if the past is any predictor--will have have my edits immediately reverted, which will be followed by more protracted dispute resolution. However, because my concerns are valid and based in policy (not ideology), they are taken seriously. This may be another reason FA has been stalled. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: would you please provide your changes? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Magnolia677, the effort to finish this FAR has occupied my time along with SandyGeorgia's and Hog Farm's for years. Their time is too valuable to spend on arguments. As other editors have in the preceding RfC, I am trying to accommodate you, and made a working copy for you to edit whenever you decide "the time" comes. It skips all context outside Fort Snelling and Minneapolis, and I'm afraid becomes an incomprehensible mass. Maybe you can fix it. If you can do that, I'd be happy to place it in the article without any "pushback", "immediate" reversion, and "protracted dispute resolution". There is no WP:DEADLINE. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Magnolia677,  Done (see next section). Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed first section

Oncamera and PersusjCP, do you have any comments on this version of the first section? I trimmed out a lot. The exception is I kept in the war in 1862, even though it was in the Minnesota River valley and not in Minneapolis, because otherwise it makes no sense to march a population to Fort Snelling and then banish them. I don't anticipate we'll get anything from Magnolia677 soon (in the above section). Thank you for your time and expertise. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Dakota homeland, city founded

Main articles: Dakota people, Ojibwe, Bdóte, and US–Dakota War of 1862

Area that became Minneapolis pictured c. 1820–1860

Two Indigenous nations inhabited the area now called Minneapolis. Archaeologists have evidence to say at least since 1000 A.D., they are the Dakota (one half of the Sioux nation), and, after the 1700s, the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, members of the Anishinaabe nations). Dakota people have different stories to explain their creation. One widely accepted story says the Dakota emerged from Bdóte, the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers. Dakota are the only inhabitants of the Minneapolis area who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated. In 1680, cleric Louis Hennepin, who was probably the first European to see the Minneapolis waterfall the Dakota people call Owámniyomni, renamed it the Falls of St. Anthony of Padua for his patron saint. In the Dakota language, the city's name is Bde Óta Othúŋwe ('Many Lakes Town').

Purchasing most of modern-day Minneapolis, Zebulon Pike made the 1805 Treaty of St. Peter with the Dakota. Pike bought a 9-square-mile (23 km²) strip of land—coinciding with the sacred place of Dakota origin—on the Mississippi south of Saint Anthony Falls, with the agreement the US would build a military fort and trading post there and the Dakota would retain their land use rights. In 1819, the US Army built Fort Snelling to direct Native American trade away from British-Canadian traders, and to deter warring between the Dakota and Ojibwe in northern Minnesota. The fort attracted traders, settlers, and merchants, spurring growth in the surrounding region. Agents of the St. Peters Indian Agency at the fort enforced the US policy of assimilating Native Americans into mainstream American society, asking them to give up subsistence hunting and cultivate the land. Missionaries encouraged Native Americans to convert from their religion to Christianity.

Under pressure from US officials in a series of treaties, the Dakota ceded their land—which they consider to be living (a relative, and not property)—first to the east and then to the west of the Mississippi, the river that runs through Minneapolis. Dakota leaders twice refused to sign the next treaty until they were paid for the previous one.In the space of sixty years, the US had seized all of Dakota land. In the decades following these treaty signings, the federal US government rarely honored their terms. After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862.

Dakota non-combatants living in a concentration camp at Fort Snelling during the winter of 1862

At the beginning of the American Civil War, annuity payments owed in June 1862 to the Dakota by treaty were late, causing acute hunger among the Dakota. Facing starvation a faction of the Dakota declared war in August and killed settlers. Serving without any prior military experience, US commander Henry Sibley had raw recruits, among them the only mounted troops were volunteers from Minneapolis and Saint Paul with no military experience. The war went on for six weeks in the Minnesota River valley. Some terrified American settlers traveled 80 miles (130 km) away from the massacre to Minneapolis for safety. After a US kangaroo court, 38 Dakota men died by hanging as ordered by Abraham Lincoln. The army marched 1,700 non-hostile Dakota men, women, children, and elders 150 miles (240 km) to a concentration camp at Fort Snelling. Minneapolitans reportedly threatened more than once to attack the camp. In 1863, the US "abrogated and annulled" all treaties with the Dakota. With Governor Alexander Ramsey calling for their extermination, most Dakota were exiled from Minnesota.

While the Dakota were being expelled, Franklin Steele laid claim to the east bank of Saint Anthony Falls, and John H. Stevens built a home on the west bank. Residents had divergent ideas on names for their community. In 1852, Charles Hoag proposed combining the Dakota word for 'water' (mni) with the Greek word for 'city' (polis), yielding Minneapolis. In 1851 after a meeting of the Minnesota Territorial Legislature, leaders of east bank St. Anthony lost their bid to move the capital from Saint Paul. In a close vote, Saint Paul and Stillwater agreed to divide federal funding: Saint Paul would be the capital, while Stillwater would build the prison. The St. Anthony contingent eventually won the state university. In 1855 with a charter from the legislature, Steele and associates opened the first bridge across the Mississippi; the toll bridge cost pedestrians three cents ($0.98 in 2023). In 1856, the territorial legislature authorized Minneapolis as a town on the Mississippi's west bank. Minneapolis was incorporated as a city in 1867, and in 1872, it merged with St. Anthony.

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the edits. I think you can add a sentence about Gideon Pond, or the missionary Pond Brothers, helping Dakota leader Cloud Man to establish his Euro-style agricultural village Heyatae Othunwe info here next to Bde Maka Ska as a specific example after these paragraphs: "Agents of the St. Peters Indian Agency at the fort enforced the US policy of assimilating Native Americans into mainstream American society, asking them to give up subsistence hunting and cultivate the land.[19] Missionaries encouraged Native Americans to convert from their religion to Christianity.[19]"  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

What a relief, thank you! Do you prefer the Pond brothers be mentioned in the first section, or are they all right where they are now, in Education? I was reading about the school at Lake Harriet yesterday. After the 1837 treaty, the school only got five to eight students because so many Mdewakanton were upset that the US sent their money to the missionaries. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How about I expand the education section with this? After the Treaty of 1837, the US gave Mdewakanton monies to missionaries earmarked for education, and, in protest, fewer than ten Dakota students attended. Only problem there is that Wikipedia seems to almost ignore the Dakota, don't you think? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the treaty. I believe Wikipedia skipped it. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Swapped the proposed cuts in to History, and cited a new sentence in Education (where there was more room). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a few points after a cursory glance:

• Fort Snelling isn't technically in Minneapolis, just as the Statue of Liberty isn't technically in Brooklyn.
• In an already bloated section, why is it necessary to include that the Dakota consider the land to be "living"? I mean, really, isn't that one of those "factoids" that would best be included on the Dakota article, rather than in an article about a US city?

• Removed though it is pertinent. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• At two places in the article it describes Fort Snelling as a "concentration camp". The source cited is page 319 of North Country, The Making of Minnesota, by Mary Lethert Wingerd. However, the only place "concentration camp" is used in that source is on page 337, when describing Crow Creek Indian Reservation, over 300 miles away. This will need to be fixed. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The site of Minneapolis was originally part of the Fort Snelling military reservation. John H. Stevens was the first civilian given permission by the Fort to build a house on the site that would become Minneapolis. It's not comparable to the Statue of Liberty.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

So all this Indian history occurred at Fort Snelling, prior to the establishment of Minneapolis in 1867. Then why is it necessary to include five whopping paragraphs about something that happened prior to the establishment of the city, and which is covered by another article about the place that existed here before? In other words, if A lasted from 1700 to 1900, and B lasted from 1901 to 2024, you wouldn't add five paragraphs about A, to B's article. All these details about stuff that happened at Fort Snelling--prior to the establishment of Minneapolis--should be cut, and readers directed to the appropriate article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't exaggerate. I cut more than a kilobyte out of the first section. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the Minnesota historical society calls it a concentration camp in their website about the Dakota war of 1862: "The concentration camp at Fort Snelling was not a death camp, and Dakota people were not systematically exterminated there. The camp was, however, a part of the genocidal policies pursued against Indigenous people throughout the US. Colonists and soldiers hunted down and killed Dakota people, abused them physically and mentally, imprisoned them, and subjected them to a campaign calculated to make them stop being Dakota." The image used on Wikipedia of the concentration camp is captioned as such on that article as well.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

So add this WP:CFORK to the Fort Snelling article, not here. Minneapolis wasn't established until five years after this all happened. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Even WP:USCITIES advises common sense when it comes to sports: It is common practice for sports sections to include discussions of teams that are within the metro area, even if the team's home venue is outside the city limits. The city was built where it is because of the falls and the fort. To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran, "If you omit the fort, you must omit the city." -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

What happened to Canopy

Malvoliox, thank you for introducing and sourcing BCR. Why did you choose to erase Wikipedia's article about Canopy, a highly successful Black-owned business, and put BCR, the generic name of a bureaucratic program (that Canopy operates!), in its place? Do you have an affiliation to one of these organizations or some other in Minneapolis? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There had been a tag on the Canopy page about notability criteria, and I looked into that a little bit more. All of the articles that had been sourced to write the original page were in reference to the program in collaboration with the City of Minneapolis' behavioral crisis program. When I did a compulsory search for neutral, secondary sources on Canopy, I saw a few pieces about their running this program with Minneapolis, but beyond business directories and their own website, nothing about the organization at large. (their website, one profile, directory listing). I understand from their website that they have an intention to form additional partnerships in providing services like this, but until there is more secondary reporting on the organization outside of this program, it seems that the notability criteria better apply to the program than the organization.

BCR, on the other hand, has been the primary subject of regular reporting, highlighted by national organizations, and significantly mentioned as an asset in the investigation of MPD.

Where similar programs exist outside of Minneapolis, there can be pages for the program but not often the organization. CAHOOTS (crisis response) in Oregon has a wiki, but the organization providing it through a contract with White Bird Clinic, which is a community-based mental health organization founded in 1969 that provides similar services across several different city and county contracts, does not. There are 5 organizations and 3 hospitals in Category:Mental health organizations in Minnesota, and the others have a very large scope, providing services across the nation/internationally (see Assistance in Recovery, Hazelden Foundation) or at least having a large number of facilities (see Meridian Behavioral Health).

I could envision both pages existing, at least if Canopy starts partnering with more other folks. At the moment, it seems more in line with the established standards to me that their story can be further expanded as a subsection. If we're sure it meets notability, a revert may make sense. I was looking at the criteria for moving pages and felt that it fell under a small enough category to go ahead with the move, but I am learning and realize I probably should've waited to have more of a conversation first. Malvoliox (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Our reading differs. Two of three sources you cited for BCR also discuss Canopy.[2], [3]. While I'd be happier if Canopy retained their page and BCR was added, what you've done is fine with me. So I agree that both pages can exist. We could say, for example that Canopy responders are unarmed, majority Black-owned, and offer culturally-responsive free service. I made a couple edits here. Can you approve of what this article says now? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I like that -- the emphasis on the services being free of charge & there being 4 responses are nice. Malvoliox (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Good. Thank you again for bringing in BCR. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes on changes

Per Z1720, a list of changes for our records. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Restored William Hood Dunwoody, Washburn-Crosby silent partner, who cultivated foreign markets for flour Later, cut again.
• Removed citation to company website after Perry Ellis was edited out of Munsingwear discussion
• Removed citation to Cummins company website after Cummins was edited out of Onan discussion. Then deleted Onan, the weakest in group of businesses.
• Removed extra dates throughout History. (But I added two by request from Z1720 to Water power, lumber, and flour milling, for founding years of Washburn-Crosby and General Mills. They don't fit the new pattern.) Solved by moving a year to a footnote.
• Structural racism section moved away from History to new section in Demographics. Racial covenants then moved from Social tensions to the Structural racism section.
• Restored two topic sentences.
• Restored a sentence to History, "Minneapolitans reportedly threatened more than once to attack the camp." Highest quality source. Reinforces the proximity of the fort and the city.

SusanLesch (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

Oncamera, would you mind checking for instances of "tribe" in the article? There are two, both written before you told us about WP:Indigenous. The second one about the pharmacy and "federally recognized tribes" might be OK, but I'm not sure about the US government term. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The one with "Dakota tribes" can be changed to "Dakota bands" if you want to update it. The other is fine as it's the government term.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Oncamera, regarding the Social tensions section. Is "native" in the phrase "taught native traditions to children" correct terminology? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to "taught Native American traditions to children" so that it's clearer on the meaning.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The Dakota people are now in two paragraphs of History. I only trimmed about two sentences. I looked around and can't find another city in Wikipedia that acknowledges its Indigenous past for more than about three sentences. A sorry state of affairs. If you can figure out a better plan for Minneapolis would you implement it? For an easy example, if a paragraph break makes a difference, it should go in. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've done to the page, it looks good to me.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Oncamera. Our FAR reviewer has other ideas about writing (I for one think that topic sentences and transitions can be very important, especially to unify facts like the History section). I think the topic of the second paragraph, In the space of sixty years, the US seized all of Dakota land. should be more prominent. Do you think that sentence could move, either to the end of the first para, or to the beginning of the second? I'll look for a good citation. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced now. I'll ask where the reviewer would like it. Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to neighborhood association mergers

@Malvoliox: Without tax increment financing, neighborhood orgs are in trouble. This not a "super specific" handful of problem northeast neighborhoods as you wrote in your edit summary. Southwest Voices quotes the former leader of Kingfield (a southwest neighborhood): half the city’s neighborhood organizations shuttering or consolidating within three years. I'd like to see you use that article from SWVoices and develop a sentence as good as the one you removed. Can you please work on that? I agree that Susan Du's article was only reporting narrow events and agree it should be dropped. SWVoices was cleared at WP:RSN only for subject matter expertise. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point -- I'll look at sentence with a larger scope and put a draft in. Is [4] the article you're talking about? Malvoliox (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful! Yes, sorry, this article at SWVoices. (Notice that we don't need a delimiter inside an HTML link between URL and title.) Thanks a bunch. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Malvoliox: The phrase "an equity-focused lens" sounds like Minneapolis talking, good job. I think you can add in the possibility of mergers somewhere around "struggled with operations". (I guess Wikipedia calls HTML links "external links", my bad.) -SusanLesch (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Malvoliox? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Added a phrase about "struggled with operations or merged with other organizations - Malvoliox (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, makes sense now. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2024

In the first section when mentioning 'Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, members of the Anishinaabe nations)' can we add a link to the Anishinaabe main article? 67.220.22.43 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Wracking ^talk! 16:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Number of golf courses is wrong.

The article states:

"Six golf courses are located within the Minneapolis city limits."

If you look at any map showing city limits, that is clearly wrong. There are three golf courses within Minneapolis city limits:

• Minikahda (private)
• Columbia (municipal)
• Hiawatha (municipal)

There are three other municipal courses owned and operated by Minneapolis Park & Rec, but they are all located entirely outside the Minneapolis city limits:

• Meadowbrook (located in Hopkins and St. Louis Park)
• Francis A. Gross (located in the Village of Saint Anthony)
• Theodore Wirth (located in Golden Valley)

Minneapolis Park & Rec also operates the Fort Snelling Golf course located in the unorganized territory of Fort Snelling. Gredw (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, Gredw. If you happen to have a better reliable source, we should swap it in. What we have now is an archive from Golf Link. I will go through their list and pull out the ones that are inside city limits. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Google says Francis A. Gross Golf Club is in the city. The park board says so, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

More wrinkles. Golf Link doesn't recognize Hiawatha. And the park board doesn't recognize Minikahda. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not ideal, but I went with four and used a footnote to cite them. More corrections are welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed the footnote and tried to blend this sentence into the paragraph. I can understand someone wondering why we say four instead of three, but Wikipedia has to go by sources. If you have a source saying Francis Gross is in a suburb, please provide it. Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

> Golf Link doesn't recognize Hiawatha.

Golf Link is not a reliable source. I would recommend ignoring it completely.

> And the park board doesn't recognize Minikahda.

Minikahda is a private course. It is not associated with the Minneapolis park board, and it's not up to the park board to "recognize" Minikahda.

> If you have a source saying Francis Gross is in a suburb, please provide it.

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/golf/courses/francis-a-gross_golf_club/

Click on the "Course Profile" tab:

Size: 149.82 acres

Neighborhood: Outside Minneapolis City Limits

Gredw (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where the park board says Gross is in the city limits. Yes, Gross is owned and operated by Minneapolis Park and Rec, but it is not located within the city of Minneapolis.

Google maps clearly shows that Gross is outside the city limits:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Minneapolis,+MN/@45.0058341,-93.2192504,14.42z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x52b333909377bbbd:0x939fc9842f7aee07!8m2!3d44.977753!4d-93.2650108!16zL20vMGZwendm?entry=ttu

The city limits run through the cemeteries west of the course. Gross is East of Minneapolis.

Gross is in the Village of Saint anthony:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/St+Anthony,+MN/@45.0279294,-93.2379379,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x52b32c27cc7d1821:0x789e0c13db32b9b2!8m2!3d45.0205565!4d-93.2179335!16zL20vMDEzdG5w?entry=ttu

Gredw (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Solved, you are right. The park board gives the address for Francis Gross as in "Minneapolis" but then says "Neighborhood: Outside Minneapolis City Limits". What source is acceptable for Minikahda? (So far I changed the municipal courses to two.) Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Google Maps acceptable?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Minneapolis,+MN/@44.9400548,-93.325111,15.03z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x52b333909377bbbd:0x939fc9842f7aee07!8m2!3d44.977753!4d-93.2650108!16zL20vMGZwendm?entry=ttu

Gredw (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly but we can use it for this purpose. WP:RSP says Google Maps "is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context." I left Golf Link in for now. Thank you again for the correction from "six" which was clearly wrong. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Found a better ref, the PGA of America. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)