Talk:Minneapolis

Reference 6 is invalid

Reference 6 is invalid. 24.245.45.78 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, now on 07. 2008 estimates not released yet for cities. davumaya 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Waterfall - factual inconsistency

In the second para of the History section, the article describes Saint Anthony Falls as 'the only waterfall on the Mississippi'. This appears not to be true; the town of Little Falls, MN was built on a falls further upstream. The Saint Anthony Falls page is more equivocal about their status, describing it as 'the only natural major waterfall on the Upper Mississippi River' - that doesn't preclude lesser waterfalls, unnatural (?) waterfalls or major waterfalls on the Lower Mississippi, so that writer certainly hedged their bets!

I don't know what the best correction would be - I'm not from the area, or an expert on the river, I was doing some research on the city and noticed the discrepancy. While the falls at Little Falls may not be as large as Saint Anthony Falls, they were large enough to power saw-mills. Perhaps alter the MPLS article to read 'the only major waterfall on the Upper Mississippi'. Thoughts? Megabuck61 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture?

What about having a section on culture? I wanted to add wikilinks to Minnesota cuisine articles, but I didn't see where the appropriate section would be. I think the food, music, and entertainment should have a section. Perhaps combined with the arts? Or separate would be okay too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The culture section was excised because there wasn't quite enough solid consensus on what is Mpls culture. For example in the past few years, all of our major high cuisine established restaurants closed and we lost a few downtown clubs. The Arts Section pretty much hits all the main points including a touch on Music and Ent as well. You can try creating a Culture of Minneapolis page and inserting various tidbits there to be recombined back a later date. davumaya 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New link for "mni" + "polis"

Resolved

I don't have time to fix it myself right now, but the source given for the etymology of Dakota mni + Greek polis is broken. A new source can be found at [1]. If someone can add this, that would be great, or I'll come back sometime when I can find the time to spare. —Angr 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the time (it didn't take as long as I expected it to) and have replaced the source. —Angr 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

Are there no numbers given for per capita and household income for the city? Or did I just miss them? Those would be useful. They're included for Wiki articles on other municipalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.64.90 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical population

Census	Pop.	Note	%±
1860	5,809		—
1870	13,800
1880	46,887
1890	164,738
1900	202,718
1910	301,408
1920	380,582
1930	464,356
1940	492,370
1950	521,718
1960	482,872
1970	434,400
1980	370,951
1990	368,383
2000	382,618
2009 (est.)	385,542

• or

Population History
Year	Population	Number of Population in Minneapolis
1860	5,809	-
1870	13,800	-
1880	46,887	38th
1890	164,738	18th
1900	202,718	19th
1910	301,408	18th
1920	380,582	18th
1930	464,356	15th
1940	492,370	16th
1950	521,718	17th
1960	482,872	25th
1970	434,400	32th
1980	370,951	34th
1990	368,383	42th
2000	382,618	45th
2009	385,542	48th

Ross Degenstein (talk) 96.3.201.230 (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Minneapolis Pops Orchestra

I've just created a (for now) severely stubby new article titled Minneapolis Pops Orchestra. Tasks:

• Expand the article.
• Decide which additional category tags it should bear (and add them).
• Decide which other articles should link to it (and add the links).

Happy editing. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dakota/Lakota

A few weeks ago, someone switched all mentions of "Dakota" to "Lakota", and I'm not sure if that was correct. Although the Lakota, along with the rest of the Sioux, originated in Minnesota, meaning they could have been the source of the name, they had been out of the area for several decades (see the map to the right, which is a fairly accurate dipiction of the situation by the early 19th century). In other words, it is somewhat counterintuitive that things in eastern Minnesota would be named for a group that was by that time about 400 miles to the west by the early 1800s. AlexiusHoratius 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is a bit humorous to see. Lakota are indeed a different tribe -- the western Sioux. I'll first off state that my friend of Omaha-Ponca descent (another western Siouan people) often cracks jokes on the cultural differences between LaKHota and Dakota people, having moved to Mpls from Nebraska. However in seriousness, I can give the zealous editor some benefit of a doubt as non-natives can easily be confused about the differences and similarities. For example the article Sioux states Lakota and Dakota are essentially the same name. However, the distinction is that they are of different dialects. The tribes that settled near Minneapolis were mostly Mdewakanton and clearly Isanti/Santee Sioux, who would call themselves Dakota. And while Lakota descendants may have traversed the Minnesota River, there is no evidence in the historic and spoken record of settlement. Furthermore as you stated Alexius, both sub-groups have assumed the separate names to denote themselves geographically -- so in modern times it is even more erroneous to consider them one in the same. davumaya 11:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, works for me; I went ahead and switched them all back to "Dakota". (I think I got them all.) Looking back on it, some of the instances were simply wrong, such as "the Mdewakanton band of the Lakota", which I suppose brings the validity of the entire original switch into question. AlexiusHoratius 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Demographics lovefest

I have significantly reduced the demo section (again). Firstly, its grown beyond summary style, and secondly, it appeared oddly peppered by rather racially motivated statements that seem to continually contradict the original intent of the summary. That editor in question has in fact been blocked for similar edits on another page. While seemingly, most people should "get it" that a huge paragraph detailing immigration from across the globe to our fair city represents the fact Mpls is diverse and requires no quantification, I can see where people desire hard cold data on the topic. Also we need a better summary of demographic changes and poverty. With this model we should be able to summarize the demo section into three paragraphs A) Immigration and makeup from 1800s to now B) Demographics as they are today, under rep pops such as GLBT C) Recent significant changes, poverty, challenges for tomorrow As always a note to editors that additional data such as minute breakdowns in Census numbers really belong in the Demographics of Minneapolis page. davumaya 13:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Plus World City

User:209.162.47.29 has added "As of 2008, the GWaC ranks Minneapolis as a "gamma +" world city" to the end of the lead paragraph twice in the last three days ([2], [3]). While true (see Global_city#GaWC_studies), I believe the statement isn't important enough to be included in the lead. Perhaps it could be worked in to the "Economics" section with additional context (why is Minneapolis a gamma-plus city)? MildlyMad^Contribs 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not letting this in until someone clearly explains what a GAWC rating is. davumaya 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you go to global city you can learn more. Right now there is no standard accepted rating. In fact the one cited by the anon IP (who has spelled it wrong it appears) comes from the GaWC out of Loughborough University in England.

One of the first attempts to define, categorize, and rank global cities was made in 1998 by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC) based at the geography department of Loughborough University.

Importantly, the article states that while there is consensus for the *top* global cities, there is really no accepted standard of rankings below that, making a "Gamma" whatever rating rather superfluous and unknown at this time. What does this mean in global context? Not even the Loughborough University GaWC really knows. It's sort of an arbitrary lower category. davumaya 08:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The same IP has added this again (and I reverted it). I left one last request for discussion on the talk page [4]. Mildly Mad^T_C 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Twin Citian" from "Demonym" field in infobox

I undid the edit that added "Twin Citian" (in reference to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area) to the Demonym field in the infobox. Since a Demonym is necessarily derived from the place name, it should not be included in this article, but might be worthy of addition in Twin Cities. Mildly Mad^T_C 21:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the removal - as "Twin Citian" doesn't mean the same thing as "a person from Minneapolis", whereas "Minneapolitan" does. (All Minneapolitans are Twin Citians, but not all Twin Citians are Minneapolitans - It's the same case as "Minnesotan".) I also don't think I've ever actually heard the term "Twin Citian". AlexiusHoratius 22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I support for the reasons above, and have also never heard anyone use that term. Jrt989 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion and Charity bias

The section entitled "Religion and Charity" is in dire need of updating / revision. It, perhaps purposefully, omits any discussion of Muslims and the rich tradition their faith has within the twin cities (especially with the recent immigration from East Africa). In lieu of that, it DOES have a lot of information about Evangelicalism. Which, while noteworthy as there is a high concentration of Evangelicals in the area, might explain why other faiths are left out. I would hate for the page on Mpls to display what might be seen as a subtle act of racism (privileging "white" religions over others). I would suggest either removing this section (my preferred option) if it cannot be inclusive or heavily revising / amending it. Thoughts? matthew (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Matthew c, if you have knowledge of a Muslim tradition, and sources, please add them. I don't know anything about it and apologize for perceived bias. A long history of Evangelicalism dates back to at least Billy Graham and I don't think that should be removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I added one sentence (Google Books let me in for a minute). When and where was the first mosque in Minneapolis? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiawatha Yellow Line?

This article refers to the Hiawatha Line as the "yellow line LRT". I have not heard that term used at all to describe it. I can't find any references to that term in either Hennepin County or Metro Transit documents. Nor is it mentioned in the Wiki article on the line.

Where did this term come from? I think it should be removed.T-bonham (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, as I've never heard it called that either. A google search yields no relevant results. Thanks! Mildly Mad^T_C 19:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Guthrie as "the prototype alternative"

Arts section of the article previously referred to the Guthrie as "the prototype alternative to Broadway". Although I have read that the founders were disatisfied with conditions on Broadway, and that the Guthrie opening is sometimes referred to as an "oak tree" as opposed to an "acorn" (i.e., full-grown, well-funded, using nationally known actors), I have never read or heard of the Guthrie being positioned as "the prototype alternative to Broadway" - and neither of the references cited support this. This claim tends to diminish work of theaters such as Arena Stage and the Alley Theatre, which existed prior to the Guthrie.

Please discuss here if you have support for this claim.

Bfx12a9 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The source given ("Theater History" at the Guthrie's website) says "The Guthrie became a prototype for an important new kind of theater in contrast to the commercial environment of Broadway." I don't care much what changes you make, and the Guthrie could easily be mistaken about itself, but I dislike the complaint. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the article to say "a prototype" in place of "the prototype". There are plenty of other sources, but this one might include the earlier theatres you mention (I don't know why else the author would hedge), "After some discussion with Sir Tyrone Guthrie and visits to seven cities, they set their sights on Minneapolis and all but pioneered the regional theater movement at the Guthrie Theater. " -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you hit on the perfect solution: there's a big difference between "a" and "the". Bfx12a9 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, glad you're happy. Thanks for the correction! -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No Spoon picture?

When I visit the Minneapolis page I am bewildered at the lack of GOOD skyline photos. For a city it's size it has an amazing skyline and I would figure that the article would want to shine light on that fact. Every time a decent photo is posted in the infobox it isn't long before it is re-replaced by the Lake Calhoun photo that to be honest, isn't very good. If you look up articles of cities of similar size (city and metro) almost all have a great skyline photo. And the majority of the other photos peppered in throughout the article have been there since I can remember. Maybe time to change it up and give the photos a much-needed facelift? [post by 24.196.160.175 at 14:09, 2 April 2010, moved from Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 1 - SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)]

I daresay each person has an opinion, and that posting this note opens this discussion again. I've tried about one hundred different skylines (most of them are in commons:Category:Skylines of Minneapolis, Minnesota) and always come back to this one, because it contains a skyline and it shows a lake. We are very lucky to have it, by photographer Alfred Essa--for example art.com sells a similar photo. I am afraid that I don't believe anybody who says the spoon sculpture matters (and besides it is copyrighted, according to for example, "Although the original flickr image is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 style license, the image can only be used under the fair-use provisions on Wikipedia, because it is a photograph of a copyrighted work (and could thus be considered derivative), where the original work is situated in a jurisdiction that does not recognise freedom of panorama." on this sculpture in Chicago). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)