Talk:Minneapolis

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

This talk page for Minneapolis is only for discussing any article improvements and is not a general forum about the topic. [ Meetups | To Do ]

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 120 days

	Minneapolis 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 so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 26, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 1, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Minnesota Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Article facts
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: May 24 to 30, 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request that the first two lead sentences for Minneapolis be changed as follows in accordance to consistency and the standard formatting of the most populous cities in their respective states (E.g. Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, etc):

Minneapolis (/ˌmɪniˈæpəlɪs/ ^ⓘ MIN-ee-AP-ə-lis), officially the City of Minneapolis, is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Minnesota and the county seat of Hennepin County. As of the 2020 census, the population was 429,954. Cleter (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - The current formatting seems to be clearer and more concise. glman (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh it SEEMS to be clearer and more concise, okay. Yeah well I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles. After all, you have more experience with this sort of stuff. Cleter (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my sarcasm Cleter (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not neccesary in my opinion. Its better off if the articles arent strictly uniform for this kind of stuff, I don't believe most readers/editors care enough to do so.

File:WaRei.png WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me File:WaRei.png 20:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Might I suggest a compromise? We could potentially combine elements from both formats while also retaining the clarity that the current format offers. For example, we could start with Cleter's proposed format but slightly modify it. Here's a potential revision:

'Minneapolis (/ˌmɪniˈæpəlɪs/), officially the City of Minneapolis, is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Minnesota and the county seat of Hennepin County. As of the 2020 census, its population is 429,954. --Svenskbygderna (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request please that editors not use "big cities" as a model. Only Featured Articles, of which there are only a few cities (Cleveland, Washington, DC, Boston, Ann Arbor, Michigan). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, thank you for letting me know. Cleter (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

. Support - Hey yeah that works, thanks Svenskbygderna! Yeah I can roll with that; in fact if that goes through, I might change cities with past tense population statistics to reflect this change. Cleter (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to include this in the first sentence. It flows better in the second with the population, and other featured city articles do it that way as well. glman (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide examples of such featured city articles? I am suggesting that the most populous city in a state deserves its respective formatting, I understand if other articles aren’t on the top of a state’s population. Cleter (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch lists them one comment above your support. Why is it better to place this in the first sentence rather than the second? Why does it take precedence over the location? glman (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland and Ann Arbor are not the most populous cities in their respective states (with D.C. not even being in a state). Boston’s example only strengthens my point. Cleter (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. Cleveland is perhaps the best maintained American city article on Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is: "Cleaveland, Ann Arbon, and Washington D.C. cannot be used as examples in this case. We can use Boston's example to change Minneapolis's lead sentence to what I proposed." Cleter (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic: does including "officially the City of Minneapolis" bring value here? It's substantially similar to the article name, and forces the words "city" and "Minneapolis" to be repeated. It feels like something that should be reserved for the history section or a new "name" section. We removed it from Milwaukee for similar reasons. See MOS:LEADALT. (Regardless, it also needs a citation to support that it's the official name. The current citation only supports the census' usage of the phrase.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I don't understand your comment. Milwaukee is not a featured article. I added a source for you anyway, even though it borders on WP:OVERCITE. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed's comment is about the inclusion of the phrase "officially the City of Minneapolis" in the lead section of an article. Ed feels that this phrase may not add value to the lead section because it is similar to the article's name and may lead to unnecessary repetition of words. He suggests that such information could be better placed in the history section or a new section specifically dedicated to the name. Ed also points out that the phrase needs a citation to support its inclusion as the official name. He refers to the Manual of Style MOS:LEADALT to support his argument. Cleter (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch He's discussing removing "City of Minneapolis" entirely. The lead already says "Minneapolis is a city" which is simply restated in sharing the official name. It doesn't make sense to restate unless the official name differs. Several city pages omit the restating, including Ann Arbor. glman (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, entirely? Gee what if we put it on the history section? Cleter (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pro-removing it. It repeats what can easily be gleaned from the text. It only makes sense when the official name deviates from what can be assumed normally. glman (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s off topic, why not create a talk page regarding the matter? I support the move of the official name to another section to avoid repetition and clutter in the lead sentence. Cleter (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is discussing the lead sentence, so I figured it fit best here even though it differed from the OP's focus. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand now. Thanks, but could we continue the discussion I requested in the first place? Cleter (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is clutter, we could also consider moving pronunciation to a footnote, per MOS:PRONPLACEMENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this. Anything that makes it easier to get a reader past the first sentence is a positive, in my book. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would that by any chance include my proposed change to make it “the most populous city in the U.S. state of Minnesota? :D Cleter (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleter, I have no opinion at this time on your proposal. Someone else is working on the lead and I differ to him.

Thank you for pulling MOS:PRONPLACEMENT out of a hat. I sign on with with Ed and Nikkimaria. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (once again) request that the first two lead sentences for Minneapolis be changed as follows in accordance to consistency and the standard formatting of the most populous cities in their respective states (E.g. Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Boston ((featured)), etc):

Minneapolis, officially the City of Minneapolis, is a city in the state of Minnesota and the county seat of Hennepin County. As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the state's most populous city. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 21:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the current lead you have pasted there? And there are no "standards" that must be followed based off how other articles are written.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops wrong one 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 23:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try that again 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 23:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (once again) request that the first two lead sentences for Minneapolis be changed as follows in accordance to consistency and the standard formatting of the most populous cities in their respective states (E.g. Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Boston ((featured)), etc):

Minneapolis (/ˌmɪniˈæpəlɪs/ ^ⓘ MIN-ee-AP-ə-lis), officially the City of Minneapolis, is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Minnesota and the county seat of Hennepin County. As of the 2020 census, the population was 429,954. Cleter (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't delete my comments when making edits to your comments, especially when I pointed out there's no "standard" that must be followed when writing the lead sentence. Secondly, I disagree with your version, it's not an improvement: the current version that puts "most populous city" after the population number is clearer and better organized when reading.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I apologize for deleting your comment (which you can revert anyways). there's no "standard" that must be followed when writing the lead sentence yeah I don't believe in a standard either, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't seek improvements to an existing version (after all, that's the point of Wikipedia). Secondly, just how is it better organized? 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to revert to keep my comments on a talkpage discussion. And the current version avoids the long run-on opening sentence in your version. You don't need to fit everything into one sentence, especially when the following sentence is about the population; that's logically where the "most populous city" fact should be included.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncamera I agree. glman (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey @glman! Long time no see, huh? (Last time I saw you you ghosted 15 days ago in a topic that needed consensus.) 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleter, you've been reverted a number of times as well and there was no one who agreed with your version in the previous discussion: you'll have to accept you may not actually change consensus and refrain from making personal attacks against editors who do not agree with you.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncamera - Agreed. I did not "ghost", but provided my perspective and was done. I still feel that the current format is best, despite the work the user has done to many other articles to "make them better" glman (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncamera I disagree with your assessment of the lead sentence structure. Combining the information into one sentence is a common and efficient approach in Wikipedia articles for major cities. It provides a clear and concise introduction, which is consistent with the style used in similar entries. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 00:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Timothy2b. The old climate data is outdated, and based on averages ending in 1990. I restored current NOWData (1873 to 2023). -SusanLesch (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I made sure to use the climate average based on 1873 to present. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy2b, instead of edit warring would you mind talking this though on this talk page/ "Standard" 2020 averages are outdated. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Timothy says there is a "standard for all locations". Hurricane tells me Wikipedia climate is not codified.
• Which is it? Minneapolis is a prototype featured article referred to as a model at WP:USCITIES. We need to get this right. Then editors from other cities won't be swinging in the wind. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so there were a couple of problems with the data you put in. The climate normals, which is the period from which the values (be it temperatures, precipitation, etc) are averaged is currently 1991-2020. When it comes to climate, 30-year periods are the ones used, not a whole 150-year period as would be the case if using data from 1873-today. Normally what is done is that the average values, such as the average temperatures are taken from the most recent full 30-year period, which in this case is 1991-2020, while record values, such as each month's record high or low, are taken for that whole period (such as 1873-2023/24 in this case). I noticed also that you put the wrong averages in the wrong places. The NOAA data site can be quite tricky to navigate, and it is difficult to differentiate which is what, so I don't at all blame you for mixing this up. Just for reference, the average high is found by first clicking on "Monthly summarized data" for the station, then writing the time period (in this case 1991-2020), then under "Variable" select "Max temp", and under "Summary" select "Mean". After that hit "Go", and a window will pop up. Scroll down to the bottom of it and next to "Mean" you will find the average high temperature for each month. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! :)

Still, the data that is in the current climate table is the most up-to-date data there is for a whole 30-year period, and the values have been updated based on the sources listed. Only relative humidity, dew points, and sunshine is based on 1961-1990, since no more recent data is available. The rest of it, including temperatures and precipitation, is all from 1991-2020. Therefore, it does not need editing, and is in the most revised state it can be until the 2001-2030 data comes (which will obviously be quite a while). Timothy2b (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When you say "When it comes to climate, 30-year periods are the ones used", who says that? We are waiting for 2030 according to who? Sorry I have limited availability this week but will try to stay current on this discussion. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is NOAA's own description of it: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/us-climate-normals. Wikipedia also apparently has its own brief article on it called Climatological normal.

It isn't necessarily wrong to have older data, so some places use 1981-2010 as theirs when there is so more recent data, but in the spirit of keeping things as up to date as possible 1991-2020 is the norm if available. What I meant with 2030 was only that since these normals are updated every 10 years, the next set of climate normals will be 2001-2030. Obviously we are still many years from this though.

Something I forgot to mention was that one thing that could at times need updating is the record high or low for specific months, as these do not reflect any sort of average value and can be broken at any point.

If you are interested in climate normals and how to read the data NOAA has on their website, I could write up a guide of sorts on where to find each set of values. I know I struggled quite a bit in figuring everything out to begin with.

I am also not the quickest at replying so don't stress about it. Timothy2b (talk) 10:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I need to hear from Hurricane and the WikiProject before deciding. Today I wrote to the NWS Twin Cities office. They passed on my question this morning and I'm waiting for an answer. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before deciding what? And what question did you ask them? Just wondering. Timothy2b (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink can you weigh in?

"Deciding what": I have to take a side. We are in the middle of FAR. Climatological normal mentions that normals are not without criticism. Timothy, you are asking me to disregard a specific request from a featured article coordinator to bring climate data up to the present. I asked NWS if NOWData averages are a legitimate solution. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, we have to decide whether we want current data. If we want current data we must agree to update it annually, something SandyGeorgia would oppose. I need to know if this decision applies to all FAs or not. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMO climate normals has the governing data set I seek. Timothy, you may be relieved to hear that a Minnesota climatologist kindly explained this to me. I'll take care of informing the FA coordinator. Thank you for your patience. You had this right. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, sorry I didn't get back sooner, and sorry I messed things up by including the whole dataset with the averages! I also got a bit of a crash course in climate averages, that we should be using the 1991-2020 period, which incidentally means we only have to update every ten years (unless there are monthly record highs/lows). Thanks Timothy2b and SusanLesch for figuring this out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That's what talk pages are for. I'm relieved that we won't have to update this annually. Thanks again for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply! And you're welcome, and again, if you ever want help with how to find some of the climate values on NOAA's website I'm happy to help. Timothy2b (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've made great strides here. If a robot can't do the 2030 update I will be sure to ask you. 😀 Timothy2b, I do hope you'll sign up as a participant in WP:WikiProject Weather. Hurricanehink, I'm afraid I misled you—you did a perfect job but we asked for the wrong thing. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I saw some edits over this weather box, but I do see some changes being needed. Last Monday, Minneapolis recorded a new record high for the month of February (65 F)

This talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this talk page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This article was last edited by SusanLesch (talk | contribs) 28 minutes ago. (Update timer)

Solids02 (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I think this is only the second time someone has informed us of a broken weather record in the last 15 years. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Record values can obviously be broken at any time so the table should be updated if that happens. Sadly climate change is only going to make that more frequent.

The reason for the editing changes is discussed in the section above, but should be more or less resolved now. Timothy2b (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. As the last step of FAR, the lead needs to be inclusive of all sections in the article. I propose the following. Your comments? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New lead 2

Oncamera, please see what you think of the above. Do you think it's better? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's improved. One thing: I've never heard/read anyone be called a "Minneapolitan" and it shows up as a typo on my browser. Can that be simplified to just citizens in the sentence: "and many Minneapolitans choose to volunteer?"  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded that. (I've heard the Minneapolitan demonym since at least fourth grade.) Anything else? Do you think I can put this in the article now? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oncamera, I tweaked the list of companies. Is this one OK to put in the article? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! I am planning to make some changes here and these to Minneapolis's page. Please feel free to let me know if I messed up something because this is my first time editing on wikipedia. My plan is to maybe update the different cuisines that have entered (somali, indian, and so on). The list of “sister cities” needs to be updated based on the new information from ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apurnuh (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Thank you for your edit. I will reword the entry accordingly; please note though, the US Patent Office says the company was incorporated in Minneapolis. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, at least one of the brothers still lives in Waconia. I'm tempted to leave this out. How would you account for the patent office statement? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They probably went to the nearest pattent office. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them. (One of the brothers talks pretty loosely about location, saying that Minneapolis is the hockey capital of the US. He seems to forget about Waconia as I did.) Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Oncamera: With this edit you changed a section heading from "Dakota people" to "Dakota homeland". This source includes a map of the Dakota traditional territory, and also states--with regard to the "Dakota homeland"--that the Dakota controlled a territory "that stretched from the Upper Mississippi River to the Middle Missouri River". How is it that you view Minneapolis as the Dakota "homeland"? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis is on Dakota homelands: homeland is a place where a cultural, national, or ethnic identity has formed. See Bdóte - Dakota name for Minneapolis and Saint Paul area, includes origin story of Dakota people and maintains a significant role in Dakota cultural identity.

Numerous maps show an extended territory for the Sioux nation but most early interaction between Europeans and Dakota people took place in the Minneapolis area, which opened the area up for Euro migrations. In formal agreements with the government, the 1805 Treaty of St. Peters, Treaty of Mendota, Treaty of Traverse des Sioux are treaties between Dakota people and the United States, where Minneapolis is located, that include Dakota homelands and historically where Dakota villages were located. The treaties, and later forced exile after the Dakota War of 1862 pushed the majority of Dakota people out of what became Minneapolis.

There's a long history of Europeans engaging with Dakota people in Minneapolis, as you know with your Louis Hennepin edit. Joseph Nicollet also befriended Dakota people there as he created his map with many Dakota placenames. Gideon Hollister Pond and his brother created one of the first Dakota orthographies and dictionaries at Bde Maka Ska which are still in use today. Dakota people don't have origin stories anywhere else but in Minnesota, especially at Bdóte. Dakota villages were seasonal and moved depending on the time of the year but culturally they center on the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers and surrounding areas.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 14:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncamera: Do you have a source that specifically says Minneapolis is the Dakota "homeland"? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minnesota historical society: https://www.mnhs.org/millcity/learn/history/minneapolis-riverfront
• City of Minneapolis land acknowledgement: https://www.minneapolis.org/land-acknowledgment/
• University of Minnesota Twin Cities land acknowledgement: https://admissions.tc.umn.edu/land-acknowledgement
• Secondary source, CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/hennepin-county-adopts-land-and-water-acknowledgment-statement/

 oncamera  _{(talk page)} 14:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oncamera: The sources you have cited state that various places in the region are located on Dakota "homeland", but Minneapolis is not the homeland of the Dakota. Please keep in mind: this article is not about the Dakota, or about the history of Minnesota...it is about Minneapolis. So changing a section heading to suggest that the city is the homeland of the Dakota--when sources cited do not support this or suggest the opposite--is both misleading and factually incorrect. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes the history about how the Dakota were originally on the land that became Minneapolis. You can't write about Dakota people without writing about their land in this article, therefore you can't change it from Dakota homelands to Dakota people as you did. Interactions with the Dakota leaders, US government and various notable Europeans reiterate it's Dakota homelands and numerous organizations call it Dakota homelands today. You're incorrect to ask that it be reverted to Dakota people as the section is about them originally inhabiting this land, it's not about their society as peoples.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Dakota homeland, city founded

Two Indigenous nations inhabited the area now called Minneapolis.^[1] Archaeologists have evidence to say at least since 1000 A.D.,^[2] they are the Dakota (one half of the Sioux nation),^[3] and, after the 1700s,^[4] the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, members of the Anishinaabe nations).^[5] Dakota people have different stories to explain their creation.^[6] One widely accepted story says the Dakota emerged from Bdóte,^[6] the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers. Dakota are the only inhabitants of the Minneapolis area who claimed no other land;^[7] they have no traditions of having immigrated.^[8] 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.^[9] In the Dakota language, the city's name is Bde Óta Othúŋwe ('Many Lakes Town').^[a]

Purchasing most of modern-day Minneapolis, Zebulon Pike made the 1805 Treaty of St. Peter with the Dakota.^[b] Pike bought a 9-square-mile (23 km²) strip of land—coinciding with the sacred place of Dakota origin^[6]—on the Mississippi south of Saint Anthony Falls,^[15] with the agreement the US would build a military fort and trading post there and the Dakota would retain their land use rights.^[16] In 1819, the US Army built Fort Snelling^[17] to direct Native American trade away from British-Canadian traders, and to deter warring between the Dakota and Ojibwe in northern Minnesota.^[18] 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.^[19] Missionaries encouraged Native Americans to convert from their religion to Christianity.^[19]

Under pressure from US officials^[20] in a series of treaties, the Dakota ceded their land—which they consider to be living (a relative, and not property)^[21]—first to the east and then to the west of the Mississippi, the river that runs through Minneapolis.^[22][c] Dakota leaders twice refused to sign the next treaty until they were paid for the previous one.^[34]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.^[35] 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.^[36][d]

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.^[39][e] Facing starvation^[41] a faction of the Dakota declared war in August and killed settlers.^[42] Serving without any prior military experience, US commander Henry Sibley had raw recruits,^[43] among them the only mounted troops were volunteers from Minneapolis and Saint Paul with no military experience.^[44] The war went on for six weeks in the Minnesota River valley.^[45] Some terrified American settlers traveled 80 miles (130 km) away from the massacre to Minneapolis for safety.^[46] After a US kangaroo court,^[47] 38 Dakota men died by hanging as ordered by Abraham Lincoln.^[45] The army marched 1,700 non-hostile Dakota men, women, children, and elders 150 miles (240 km) to a concentration camp at Fort Snelling.^[48] Minneapolitans reportedly threatened more than once to attack the camp.^[49] In 1863, the US "abrogated and annulled" all treaties with the Dakota.^[50] With Governor Alexander Ramsey calling for their extermination,^[51] most Dakota were exiled from Minnesota.^[52]

While the Dakota were being expelled, Franklin Steele laid claim to the east bank of Saint Anthony Falls,^[53] and John H. Stevens built a home on the west bank.^[54] Residents had divergent ideas on names for their community. In 1852, Charles Hoag proposed combining the Dakota word for 'water' (mni^[f]) 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.^[59] In a close vote, Saint Paul and Stillwater agreed to divide federal funding:^[59] Saint Paul would be the capital, while Stillwater would build the prison. The St. Anthony contingent eventually won the state university.^[59] 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).^[60] In 1856, the territorial legislature authorized Minneapolis as a town on the Mississippi's west bank.^[55] Minneapolis was incorporated as a city in 1867, and in 1872, it merged with St. Anthony.^[61]

1. ^ The University of Minnesota Dakota Dictionary Online requires a Dakota font to read special characters.^[10] Here, Dakota to Latin alphabet transliteration is borrowed from Lerner Publishing in Minneapolis.^[11]
2. ^ Because President Thomas Jefferson had not authorized Pike's trip, which was made at the behest of James Wilkinson, the new governor of the Louisiana territory, Pike did not have the authority to make a treaty.^[12] Pike valued the land at $200,000 in his journal but omitted the value in Article 2 of the treaty. Pike gave the chiefs 60 US gallons (230 L) of liquor and $200 in gifts at the signing.^[13] In 1808, the US Senate authorized one hundredth of Pike's estimate and added acreage,^[13] paying $2,000 for the land in 1819.^[14]
3. ^ In the 1851 Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and Treaty of Mendota, the US took all Dakota land west of the Mississippi,^[23] about 24 million acres (97,000 km²),^[24] in exchange for a 10-mile (16 km) wide reservation on the Minnesota River^[25] and about $3 million ($110 million in 2023). Ater expenses, the Dakota were promised fifty years of annuities in goods^[26] and interest on $1,360,000 and $1,410,000; the US kept the principal.^[27] The Dakota could not read English, and their interpreters worked for the US.^[22] In Mendota, negotiator Wakute said he feared signing a treaty because the prior treaty was changed from the one he had signed.^[28] Indeed, the US Congress ratified amendments after the fact, and refused to consider payment unless the Dakota agreed to their new terms—in 1852 Congress struck the reservation from the final treaty.^[29] Negotiators Luke Lea and Alexander Ramsey had promised the Dakota they would prosper, and rushed the transaction.^[30] The chiefs were asked to sign a third paper in 1851—onlookers assumed it was a third copy of the treaty^[31]—that Ramsey later declared was a "solemn acknowledgment" of the Dakota's debt to traders.^[32] Ramsey, as territorial governor, enforced the trader's paper, distributing the monies to himself, Henry Sibley, and their friends.^[33]
4. ^ The Treaty of 1837 forced Dakota to make the largest land cession—all of their land east of the Mississippi.^[37] Then the Dakota ceded more of their land in the Treaty of 1851.^[38]
5. ^ Part of the delay was a month's indecision in the US Treasury about appropriating gold or greenbacks and in Congress, which was preoccupied with Civil War finance. Gold arrived in the region just a few hours after settlers had been killed and war had begun.^[40]
6. ^ In Atwater's history, Baldwin gives the Sioux word as Minne.^[55] Riggs gives mini.^[56] Williamson who was most familiar with Santee has Mini, and in the Yankton dialect, mni.^[57] Here, mni is from the University of Minnesota Dakota Dictionary Online.^[58]

References

1. ^ Lass 2000, p. 40. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLass2000 (help)
2. ^ Furst, Randy (October 8, 2021). "Which Indigenous tribes first called Minnesota home?". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved November 3, 2023.
3. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 365n. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
4. ^ McConvell & RhodesaGüldemann 2020, pp. 560, 564, "Finally in this time frame other groups of Ojibwes began pushing to the west and southwest, at the expense of the Dakota groups". sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcConvellRhodesaGüldemann2020 (help)
5. ^ Treuer 2010, p. 3. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTreuer2010 (help)
6. ^ a b c Westerman & White 2012, p. 15. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
7. ^ Weber 2022, p. 6. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeber2022 (help)
8. ^ Westerman & White 2012, pp. 3–4, "William H. Keating, a geologist who came to the Minnesota area on an exploratory expedition in 1823, observed, 'The Dacotas have no tradition of having ever emigrated, from any other place, to the spot on which they now reside...'. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
9. ^ DeCarlo 2020, p. 15. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDeCarlo2020 (help)
10. ^ "Bdeota O™uåwe". University of Minnesota Dakota Dictionary Online. University of Minnesota. Archived from the original on October 13, 2022. Retrieved October 13, 2022.
11. ^ Kimmerer & Smith 2022, p. 302. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKimmererSmith2022 (help)
12. ^ Weber 2022, p. 14. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeber2022 (help)
13. ^ a b Westerman & White 2012, p. 141. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
14. ^ Weber 2022, p. 13. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeber2022 (help)
15. ^ Stipanovich 1982, p. 4. sfn error: no target: CITEREFStipanovich1982 (help)
16. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 77. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
17. ^ Watson, Catherine (September 16, 2012). "Ft. Snelling: Citadel on a Minnesota bluff". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved December 27, 2019.
18. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 82. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
19. ^ a b "Historic Fort Snelling: The US Indian Agency (1820–1853)". Minnesota Historical Society. Archived from the original on August 14, 2021. Retrieved December 27, 2019.
20. ^ Westerman & White 2012, p. 4, "government officials put great pressure on Dakota leaders to be quick about signing a treaty...". sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
21. ^ Westerman & White 2012, p. 133. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
22. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference MNtreaties was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
23. ^ Lass 2000, p. 108. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLass2000 (help)
24. ^ Westerman & White 2012, p. 182. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
25. ^ Folwell 1921, p. 216. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFolwell1921 (help)
26. ^ Westerman & White 2012, p. 171. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
27. ^ Anderson 2019, p. 30. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson2019 (help)
28. ^ Westerman & White 2012, pp. 5, 188. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
29. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 197. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
30. ^ Wingerd 2010, pp. 189–192. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
31. ^ Westerman & White 2012, p. 180–181. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
32. ^ Westerman & White 2012, p. 191. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (help)
33. ^ Anderson 2019, pp. 32–33. Anderson examined the Dousman Papers to formulate estimates of the funds that were diverted to White officials. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson2019 (help)
34. ^ Wingerd 2010, pp. 187, 193. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
35. ^ "Treaties". Minnesota Historical Society. July 31, 2012. Archived from the original on August 15, 2021. Retrieved June 1, 2021. These treaties, which were almost wholly dishonored by the U.S. government...
36. ^ Vue, Katelyn (July 7, 2020). "Over 150 years ago, tribal land revived the University. Now, American Indian leaders, students and faculty want this history addressed". Minnesota Daily. Archived from the original on November 25, 2023. Retrieved November 25, 2023.
37. ^ Almeroth-Williams, Tom. "The great university land-grab". University of Cambridge. Retrieved April 11, 2024. The Treaty of 1837 gave 1,062,334 acres, more than any other land cession, to 33 LGUs
38. ^ Bhattacharya, Ananya (July 10, 2023). "Native Americans are struggling to put a dollar value on how much "land-grab" universities owe them". Quartz. Archived from the original on November 25, 2023. Retrieved November 25, 2023.
39. ^ Blegen 1975, p. 265–267. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBlegen1975 (help)
40. ^ Folwell 1921, pp. 237–238. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFolwell1921 (help)
41. ^ Anderson 2019, p. 55: "...they had to beg for food from the settlers or starve". sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson2019 (help)
42. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 307, The uprising involved at most 1,000 of the Dakota population of more than 7,000. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
43. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 309. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
44. ^ Wingerd 2010, pp. 309, 314. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
45. ^ a b "US-Dakota War of 1862". Minnesota Historical Society. Archived from the original on September 30, 2023. Retrieved November 6, 2023.
46. ^ Leonard 1915, search for "refugees". sfn error: no target: CITEREFLeonard1915 (help)
47. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 313, "what could only be termed a kangaroo court...". sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
48. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 319. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
49. ^ Wingerd 2010, p. 320. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (help)
50. ^ Vogel 2013, p. 540. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVogel2013 (help)
51. ^ Anderson 2019, p. 188. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson2019 (help)
52. ^ "Forced Marches & Imprisonment". Minnesota Historical Society. August 23, 2012. Archived from the original on May 8, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
53. ^ "Wheat Farms, Flour Mills, and Railroads: A Web of Interdependence". US National Park Service. Archived from the original on March 2, 2023. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
54. ^ "John H. Stevens House Museum". US National Park Service. Archived from the original on August 15, 2021. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
55. ^ a b Baldwin 1893a, p. 39. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBaldwin1893a (help)
56. ^ Riggs 1992, p. 314. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRiggs1992 (help)
57. ^ Williamson 1992, p. 257. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWilliamson1992 (help)
58. ^ "mni". University of Minnesota Dakota Dictionary Online. University of Minnesota. Archived from the original on October 13, 2022. Retrieved October 13, 2022.
59. ^ a b c Christianson, Theodore (1935). Minnesota: The Land of Sky-tinted Waters: A History of the State And Its People. Chicago: American Historical Society. Courtesy Star Tribune and the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, in McKinney, Matt (August 19, 2022). "How did Stillwater become home to Minnesota's first prison?". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on August 19, 2022. Retrieved August 19, 2022.
60. ^ Reicher, Matt (May 6, 2014). "Father Louis Hennepin Bridge was first to span Mississippi". MinnPost. Archived from the original on May 11, 2023. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
61. ^ "A History of Minneapolis: Governance and Infrastructure". Hennepin County Library. Archived from the original on April 22, 2012. Retrieved March 12, 2023.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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