This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Images
Before this goes on the front page, can someone make sure all of the images are legit? I've noticed a lot of problems with recent front page articles where problems are discovered with fair use images after it's up on the front page. Let's not let that happen here. Gopher backer 19:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This (Image:Phelpsmill ottertailcounty.jpg) doesn't have a copyright tag. Otherwise they all look good to me. Most, if not all have been here for several months, so hopefully there won't be any issues with them. We should probably be diligent avoiding changes for now. I suspect that up-coming front page FAs are likely targets of attention-hogs.--Appraiser 21:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone had removed the copyright tag on that one, so I reverted back to the previous version. I'm not sure if that was vandalism or if it was someone trying to correct it. Gopher backer 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What about the image selected to go on the main page, Image:Img_0748.jpg. Should we try and find a good map instead? -Ravedave 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, Raul doesn't put maps on the front page. Flags have been used alot, but the MN map wont work because it's too detailed. Any other ideas? -Ravedave 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the Lake Calhoun picture at Image:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg. The Fort Snelling or Aerial Lift Bridge pictures would also be good pictures, but the Lake Calhoun one ties natural resources (lakes, fishing, etc.) with the big city image of Minneapolis. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 04:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor the Calhoun picture as well. That sums the state up better than any other image I can think of.--Daveswagon 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
(removing indent) - hrm the copyright looks dubious to me. It says copyrighted 2003 so and so on the link provided but the WP page says it's free to use. I have included it here at 100px, the normal front page image size. EDIT: it's at least partially wrong for sure, see here [1] -Ravedave 05:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a lake would be nice (good free photos are hard to find for Minneapolis lakes though, don't know about statewide). Another idea is to add a vertical image to the article (say swap UofM for another summer photo) which about doubles the image size. Doesn't have to be these but here is one from Mulad and another of the farmers market in St. Paul. -Susanlesch 18:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any precedent for protecting an article temporarily when it is featured on the main page? I was just looking at the history for today's featured article and it is getting quite a bit of vandalism.--Daveswagon 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave: The practice seems to be to allow edits, and protect for only short periods if needed. Then when the vandalfest is over we can go back and compare a pre-front page version with the version which exists after things have quieted down. Many times there will be useful changes which can be saved or incorporated; protections from vandals may have the effect of prohibiting those useful changes. Kablammo 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the WP policy is to just let it fly. I would suggest that you look for additions that you like, and make a note of what version they're in. I suspect there will be many reversions, perhaps losing good stuff. If you know where to find the goods, it will be easier to put it all back together this weekend, perhaps by starting with one of today's versions. BTW, May 11 starts at 7:00 pm CDT, I think.--Appraiser 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What's up with the superscripted ordinals? Wouldn't it make mroe sense to keep them on the line 71.102.134.129 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Pronunciation?
Am I the only Minnesotan ([ˌmɪnəˈsoʊʔn̩]) who pronounces Minnesota [ˌmɪnəˈsoʊɾə]? --Ilikeverin 02:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It used to be listed as ˌmɪnəˈsoʊɾə, but currently it is ˌmɪnəˈsoʊtə. I can;t speak IPA-ese so, you may need some pidgin phonetics. -Ravedave 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Roughly, it's Minnesoda. It's the same consonant sound as in latter and ladder. --Ilikeverin 02:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Keep up the good work, so far I'd say it's worth it. Some copy fixes and two good {{fact}} tempaltes added. Keep an eye on collateral articles as well, I am seeing for the most part improvements (yay!) but occasional vandalism on pages as obscure as How to Talk Minnesotan. Also I highly recommend installing "Twinkle" a tool to fight vandalism, it's pretty easy to add. -Ravedave 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Diff so far [2] - Ravedave 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Main Page
I thought there had been a longstanding practice of not showcasing articles on days when the subject is connected with that date. Today is May 11, the anniversary of Minnesota statehood. Of course, I'm not complaining. Congratulations to the to editors who worked to get this article featured. Jonathunder 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! hrm. I suggested the date and mentioned statehood [3], also I don't see anything about it in raul's notes. -Ravedave 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Seal
The state seal has a white background when it would be nicer if it were transparent. There is apparently another version of the seal which is darker and "used on all state sites". Is it proper? Which is 'the real seal'? etc. Thanks. grenグレン 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you know where to obtain the other seal?--Appraiser 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Weasel words?
From the "History" section:
Innovations by Minneapolis millers led to the production of Minnesota "patent" flour, widely regarded as the finest bread flour of its time. (my bolding)
Looks like weasel words to me, especially as there's no reference given for the claim. Loganberry (Talk) 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; you are correct that this should be sourced and could be worded differently. The "Gold Medal" brand of flour is so named for its winning a gold medal in 1880 [4] and perhaps that would be a way to address the point. Kablammo 12:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed that sentence and added an on-line source. Alternatives such as talking about the Gold Medal are possible too - I just didn't find anything on a quick search.--Appraiser 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It could probably use some reinforcing citation. I'll have to check the references I was using (the David Danbom article that I used in History of Minnesota and the Shannon Pennefeather book) to qualify them. The Millers Exposition prize seems to be a solid reference, though. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
DFL
The third paragraph of the Politics section refers to the DFL for the first time in the article without a wiki link, let alone a fuller explanation. It is then fully introduced in the fourth paragraph. As I am neither a contributor to this article nor a Minnesotan, I'll leave it to someone else to make a change, but at the very least the first reference should be the one with the wiki link. Thanks. (And congrats to the authors/editors!) Jlaramee 13:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the DFL is spelled out and linked earlier in the Legislative section under Government, but perhaps the explanation of the merger should precede its first use. We'll look into that.--Appraiser 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I just swapped paragraphs and that seems to have solved it. so now its (activism), (humphrey), (major parties), (3rd parties), and (sentate). -Ravedave 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(insert sheepish face here) I didn't read the Government section. But the changes to the Politics section look great. Jlaramee 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Really one should be able to read each section on it's own. I am guessing it would take a normal person 20+ minutes to read the whole thing throughly so each section should probably stand on its own for those that skip around. -Ravedave 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Greater Minnesota?
I was born and raised in Minneapolis and worked there as a journalist in my 20s. I don't recall ever hearing "the rest of the state" described as "greater Minnesota." Okay, I haven't lived there in 30 years — is this some recent tongue-in-cheek term, a Keillorism perhaps?
Whatever it is, I don't like the imperial sound of it. Reminds one of "the Greater German Reich" ("Großdeutschereich") of 1939-45.
I have lived there the past 15 years and yes, it is a common term. Xinconnu 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The tongue-in-cheek aspect is when the Twin Cities is referred to as "lesser Minnesota"--Appraiser 13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ive lived here 25 years, and I've never heard it reffered to as that. ever. It is always called outstate minnesota. Chaztheweird 08:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Googling "Greater Minnesota" yielded a lot of results (373,000), such as [5].--Appraiser 13:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't know of any other state that calls its non-metro hinterland "greater." How did that get started?
Appraiser: Cool user boxes! Sca 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're still having this debate but I've always known it as Greater Minnesota since 1984 (my birth). Outstate to me implies outside-of-the-state aka Wisconsin/ND. It may reflect a more recent cultural term than perhaps what you grew up with. Wikipedia should reflect the current cultural norm and note the historical term if necessary. 64.122.208.184 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: The photo showing a "summertime view of the U campus" looks more like a view of the Washington Ave. bridge to me. Sca 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And it's actually mostly Fairview Hospital and other buildings on Riverside and Franklin in the background, not the U of M like it suggests. --66.41.102.194 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've recently uploaded this photo of Northrop Mall. It could be an alternative to the current Washington Ave. Bridge picture.--Gopherbone 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice looking picture. Switch it if you want to.--Appraiser 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Louisiana Purchase
How can an article on Minnesota with no mention of the Louisiana Purchase be considered one of the best articles in Wikipedia and worthy of featured article status? Someone (who knows more on the topic than me) really needs to talk about that not-so-minor bit of history.
Fortunately the History of Minnesota article addresses that in the "Land acquisition" section. Many compromises were made in developing the Minnesota article in order to produce a work of reasonable size. These compromises often resulted in moving detail the "child" articles. Thanks for your interest.--Appraiser 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could say "The europeans stole lots of land form the indians and sold it to the US". Kidding...I Don't get the focus on where the land came from thats in most text books. Anyways the LP was only a one of the many the land acquisitions needed for MN. Would this sentence satiate you Xinconnu? "Minnesota Territory was formed on March 3, 1849 after several land acquisitions by the US government in the proceeding years." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravedave (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I added a few sentences saying that the land in Minnesota became a part of the United States in two sections: the eastern part being part of the land acquired after the American Revolutionary War, and the western part being acquired with the Louisiana Purchase. The article previously mentioned that Zebulon Pike acquired the Fort Snelling land in 1805, but he just bargained with the Dakota Indians, not with France. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The Louisiana Purchase is not a simple land acquisition. It is a major event in the formation of the USA (it doubled the size of the US), ended Napoleon's aspirations on North America, fueled the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, created a minor Constitutional crisis for the US, and helped further divide the US on the issue of slavery. Without it, there would be no Minnesota. Xinconnu 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but those details can be handled in other articles. The state was assembled from several components, and parts belonged to or were claimed by other nations, colonies, territories, or states. That level of detail cannot be added to an already-long article, particularly when other articles can cover it. In any event Elkman's addition has addressed the point. Kablammo 00:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
"The German element"
Various anon IP's keep re-pasting unsourced content on the German population in Minnesota under the demographics section. Even though it's unsourced, I opted to paste it onto the Demographics of Minnesota subarticle while removing it from the main article, yet it keeps getting added on to the main article. Would anyone like to justify its inclusion in the main article? Eco84 | Talk 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:84.140.88.146. These changes appear to coming from the BRD, and from similar IP numbers. Some of the information is incorrect, while some is valid. It does not belong on this article but does fit in Demographics. Kablammo 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Should it be necessary to seek a block, here are the edits and the IPs which added this section:
Kablammo 16:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (and later updates)
It continues; the following warning was posted on all above IPs:
Hello. You have added unsourced material to this article, which is a Featured Article. Unsourced material does not belong on featured articles. Moreover your materials are out of place on the Minnesota page, and have instead been moved to Demographics of Minnesota. Please do not add the material again to Minnesota, as there is a clear consensus against doing so. Users Elkman, Kablammo, Appraiser, Eco84, AndonicO, and Ravedave all have removed that material or have expressed an opinion on this issue. If you feel the material belongs on the main article, discuss it first on Talk:Minnesota#.22The_German_element.22. The continued insertion of the material against consensus is becoming vandalism, and your continued reversions violates the three revert rule, which can get you blocked. Please stop now.
Thank you for your patience, content now sourced! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.114.194 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
While the content is now sourced, it is a copyright violation, being taken verbatim from the source. Therefore it will be removed. Also there is a consensus that it is too detailed for inclusion on an 83kb article. The addition of similar information on the Norwegions, Finns, Swedish, Irish, Czechs, Polish, and Hmong (just to name a few) would doubled the length of the article. Therefore it does not belong on this page. (It is interesting that similar information is not on the Minnesota entry on the German Wikipedia.) Kablammo 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have some information from the William Lass book that would be an acceptably citable source for immigration patterns and statistics. That said, it would be unfair to cover only the Germans without also covering the Scandinavian settlers (Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes), the Irish, and a relatively small number of Canadians. Southern and eastern European immigrants came later, settling mostly in the Iron Range. And don't forget that the Dakota and Ojibwe were here first. Basically, we can't cover immigration from just one ethnic group without mentioning the other ethnic groups as well, and that information would be better suited for a subarticle. OK? --Elkman(Elkspeak) 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
doesn't this deserve a picture? Tkjazzer 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
State Quarter image
An image showing Minnesota's design for the 50 State Quarters program was recently added to the "Economy" section. Any thoughts? I think there might be too may images in this section and think it might work better in the "Outdoor Recreation" section because it depicts a typical fishing scene, or in the "State Symbols" section. --Gopherbone 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A while ago the quarter was removed from here and added to the Economy of Minnesota article. I agree; I don't think it adds any quality to this already crowded article.--Appraiser 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent changes to article
During and since the appearance of this article on the main page there have been a number of changes. It perhaps is time to discuss which of those we want to keep, and which we want to trim or remove. Here are some I have noticed; feel free to add any others:
Climate. There is now a table listing average high and low temperatures for three cities in degrees F. Climate of Minnesota has one for six cities, in both F and C. Should the newly-added table remain on the Minnesota page?
I would get rid of the Climate chart. The values listed are only in F, and to add the C values as is appropritate would be too bulky for this article, IMO. If we keep it, then I would suggest replacing Rochester with Duluth since M-SP and Rochester have pretty similar climates. Making the substitution would be a better cross section. Also, the ref would need to be redirected as I wouldn't consider what's there to be completely legit. The NWS should be used for refs like that whenever possible. Gopher backer 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
When this same source was added to Minneapolis recently (same chart almost) I added C and can do that if people want to keep the chart (F alone is not good). It will be large though. -Susanlesch 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the climate chart in farenheit only as there was not enough space to put C. It looked to large. My aim was to illustrate the winter temperatures are more variable than most people outside of Minnesota think. I would vote for keeping the F readings and add a note that the readings are in F. People outside of US may not be as interested in the monthly breakup, so I felt it makes more sense to use F. Also, I picked Rochester over Duluth or St Cloud because more people from outside MN travel to Rochester thanks to the Mayo Clinic. I also felt putting the average temps alone without the highs and lows painted a colder picture than it really is. Night time temps are way lower than daytime in winter and I felt the present chart painted a picture closer to reality. Please feel free to change or add as everyone thinks is appropriate. Thanks for the discussion.- Thampran 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Entertainment. This section has picked up a few additional artists, and is becoming a textual list. With separate articles on Music in Minnesota and Culture of Minnesota should the section be trimmed?
Yes, too many actors and bands. -Susanlesch 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Media. A new external link has now been added to the bottom of the page, which in turn links to all Minnesota newspapers. Is this appropriate for this article? Is it time to add a separate article on Media of (or in) Minnesota?
Media_in_Minneapolis-St._Paul is pretty weak. Unless someone wants to write a good article I would leave what is here here. Re: external links, I am in favor of removing the list of newspapers and in general a shorter list of links. -Susanlesch 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this might be a better link for MN news papers: http://www.mnnews.com/. The other site is pretty tedious to navigate.--Daveswagon 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Government. I'm new and would like to contribute some more on MN government, but a bit wary on how properly to expand what we have. I'm particularly interested in expanding on the Executive branch and cabinet-level agencies, then beyond that to advisory boards. However, it would be hard for me to retain neutrality as I work for both. California has a nice list of executive branch agencies that would be a good way to start. Or do we just list the cabinet-level agencies in this article? --mmdolbow 12:50, 30 July 2007
I think the Politics of Minnesota article could use a lot more about the executive branch and cabinet-level agencies. The Template:Politics of Minnesota also needs a lot of work in the cabinet section. My suggestion would be to work on those two first, and then we can determine if some of the new material should be brought into the Minnesota article. I wouldn't worry as much about neutrality as I'd be concerned about original research. Do you have a reference book that covers the material you'll be adding? We can help with footnotes if you need help.--Appraiser 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I would reference the state web site, using the reference/footnote in the Politics of Minnesota article as a guideline. However, I disagree that we should be putting this information in the Politics article. "Politics" IMO, refers to politicians and elections. The "Law and government" portion of the Politics in Minnesota article pretty much focuses on the elected officials, as it should. "Government" is how the state is governed, and while "politics" is certainly a factor, it's not the first thing I think of. If I want to learn about state agencies like the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or the Minnesota Department of Transportation, I don't think of politics. I think if we have a separate article like the one on the California executive branch, then we can link to that from both the main MN article and the Politics article. What do folks think of that? --mmdolbow 1:00, 31 July 2007
When I was looking over the Politics article, I was thinking that a new Government of Minnesota article would be appropriate, but perhaps Minnesota executive branch would be better, since we already have a Minnesota Legislature and Minnesota Senate. My concern was to avoid adding too much to the Minnesota article. If you'd like, start a sandbox and post the link here; then people can collaborate on it before going mainline, if you want.--Appraiser 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the term Politics has become debased, and has become a pejorative to some. That is not its historic meaning-- check any dictionary. Appraiser's suggestions are appropriate, and either proposed subordinate article would work. Detail belongs in subordinate articles. The main Minnesota page can never be anything more than a top-level overview-- it may be too long already. Kablammo 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Add any other concerns to the above list, and express your thoughts on any or all of them. Kablammo 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of the climate table, but not the implementation. I would agree with trimming Entertainment, lists of people always seem to get out of hand. I don't know about a media in Minnesota page. I wrote the section and thats all the more I want to write, so I am not sure if it would grow once transplanted. If you go to the main page of the newspaper link it looks like spam, but the linked page is pretty good, so I am not sure what to do about it. -Ravedave 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1) I think the table is too bulky for this article.
2) There are too many actors, musicians, and groups. These lists always grow. I like what Susan did in Minneapolis limiting the categories to three, but it takes diligence to keep it that way.
3) Based on guidelines here, I think most of the external links to media outlets should be removed.--Appraiser 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
New laws
Should the new seatbelt law and smoking ban be mentioned in the article? -Ravedave 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it here, but I can foresee a section in Politics of Minnesota talking about an anti-Libertarian trend toward fewer personal freedoms with these laws as examples.--Appraiser 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking more like the health section, but whatever works. -Ravedave 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Laws like those probably do contribute to the state's rank in "heathiness".--Appraiser 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a Pop. Growth Chart?
It would be nice if we could just get a chart for the population growth like most other states have.
There is one at Demographics of Minnesota, along with other detail. Given the length of the article it was decided to relegate some of the more detailed charts to subsidiary articles. Otherwise this page would get too long. Kablammo 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Longfellow
Is it a fact that Henry Longfellow visited Minnesota? I was under the impression that he had not.--Appraiser 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No I don't believe Longfellow ever visited Minnesota. For a source here is the Minnesota Historical Society timeline. -Susanlesch 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I can recheck the books I've been using for History of Minnesota. I seem to remember that he never visited Minnesota, though. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I rechecked the books I've used for History of Minnesota. They don't say anything about whether he was in Minnesota or not, but they say that he drew upon other people's work, such as Henry Rowe Schoolcraft's account of his travels, a book by Mary Eastman about the Dakota, and a picture of Minnehaha Falls. I guess that's about as close as he came to actually being in Minnesota, then. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Religion
About a year ago, there was a discussion on statistics for church affiliation, now archived at Talk:Minnesota/Archive_1#Religion. The ARIS survey was used, and has been cited in the article for about a year, including during the FA review and main page. A new user and contributor to Minnesota pages has provided different statistics. We should discuss the matter here to see if we can come to a consensus.
ARIS can be criticized as it relies on self-reporting by individuals. But that is common in any survey. Self-reporting by denominations is subject to challenge as methodolgy may vary, and people do not always give notice when they leave a church. So last year we decided to use ARIS, which has a consistent and defined methodolgy. (There are no census data on religion-- the census no longer collects such information.) Kablammo 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering about those figures, as I am from Minnesota and thought the stats on the survey were strange. I did leave the 2001 survey, but also added the information from this site http://www.city-data.com/states/Minnesota-Religions.html - which seems to be more accurate with roster numbers as of 2000. It is quite common knowledge too in Minnesota that there is a stronghold of Lutherans in the state. I am a Regional Analysis grad from UW-Green Bay, so I questioned that 2001 survey. I think both data on 2000 and 2001 are interesting and offer good information. However, the 2001 survey makes it sound like Minnesota is mostly Roman Catholic, and it doesn't mention church rosters in every town. As you state below "ARIS can be criticized as it relies on self-reporting by individuals." Would self-reporting be as accurate as church rosters? Probably not. Thanks for the discussion! Let's keep both data infos up there, since one mentions the first denomination in the state- Presbyterian at Fort Snelling, which is interesting. (User: Hiawatha4 from Austin, MN., July 27th, 2007 2:35 p.m MST)
The ARIS survey does not make it sound like Roman Catholics are the the majority, only that they are the largest single denomination (and the one percentage point difference is not likely to be statistically significant either way). The is no reason that self-reporting by denominations is more accurate than an anonymous survey of individuals, but I do not have a problem with citing multiple reliable sources. (The origin of the data in your source is not stated.) But given the very general nature of this page, perhaps the more nuanced discussion belongs on Demographics of Minnesota. Thanks. Kablammo 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a few issues with the latest changes, in no particular order:
The article was already too long. When working toward FA, many people with varying interests jointly agreed to keep their favorite sections brief creating sub-articles for all the details we all wanted to keep. The Religion section is now too long, IMO.
Using two conflicting sources has created conflicting data within the article. One source needs to be used.
There are now two red links - the only two in the whole article. Is someone going to write two articles, or remove the brackets?
The new source is not formatted properly. If you're going to use that, use WP:CITE and footnote it like the other 108 references in the article.
The new source has absolutely no information about how the survey was conducted, whether it was peer-reviewed, or whether the publisher has a financial or spiritual interest in the outcome. I think as a source, it's reliability is on par with a BLOG.--Appraiser 02:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I have problems with the new Religion section in the Minnesota Article. In short I agree with Appraiser. Until a more suitable source is revealed for this data, and some work is made to format (a sandbox is a handy tool for working on articles till you get it right)correctlly I'm reverting the section to the older version.
1 The article now looks messy and inconcise. For example, mention various Lutheran demoniations when you could just use Lutheran. It's not even sourced right
2 I don't know if that is a good enough quality source to use for an encyclopedic article of this quality. They don't mention where they get thier data or anything. (Census, some other government agency?)
Good-faith edits from an unregistered user on 2 August converted the text to a list, and stated that the ARIS survey shows 77% Christian, of whom 52% are Protestant. This last figure apparently was obtained by subtracting the 25% Roman Catholic population from the total of all Christian denominations and affiliations. That 77% total however included a 7% figure for those who just answered "Chrisitan", a category which is not limited to Protestants. It would be incorrect to simply assume, without further proof, that all respondents in this 7% are Protestants. Accordingly I have restored the prior version.
This article is a summary and we cannot fully explore every area topic here. There is a separate article for Demographics of Minnesota which can accommodate more detail on demographic subjects. Kablammo 10:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Disaster in Minneapolis
Watching the news right now. A bridge in Minneapolis just collapsed. This probably requires some current event editing on the relevant articles.--Daveswagon 23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose some Saint Paul-ite would be able to get a better picture of this Cathedral, could they? Looking at it now just about gives me a headache, with its tiltiness. Thanks! --Marumari 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is on a hill, so I don't know a good way to untilt the Cathedral without making it look like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. There might be a better direction to take the photo that doesn't emphasize that it's on a steep hill. I might have a picture or two from my trip to the James J. Hill House, but I'd have to check. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I tilted the photo so the lamp post is straight up and down. Better? -Ravedave 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks much better, and certainly fits better amongst the rest of the high-quality photos of Minnesota. Thanks! --Marumari 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Politics
There have been a number additions of content to this section, detailing with recent national, state, and even local senate district elections.[17] and [18] The additions are in good faith and factual, but are unnecessarily detailed in an article of this breadth. This is not a section I worked on during the FA drive. Can someone look at these additions (and the original content) and determine what should stay, what should go, and what should be moved? Kablammo 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to move most of these additions to Politics of Minnesota. That article could use quite a bit more development, whereas the summary in this article is comprehensive enough, IMO.--Appraiser 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As my comments suggest, I agree with this. I have welcomed the most recent editor and invited him to discuss the matter here. Kablammo 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both of the above editors. While not yet out of control, the section is growing a bit large and unwieldy. Both of the examples given by Kablammo are certainly ones that I believe to be too specific for this article. AlexiusHoratius 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
These contributions have now been removed; the first some time ago, and the second now. The second (involving pioneering female legislators) may belong in Politics of Minnesota, but was uncited. Kablammo (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Minnesota Demograpics
[The following discussion is moved here from my talk page. It relates to the statement in the introduction on the ancestry of Minnesotans.]
______________________________
Hello Kablammo. Regarding the Minnesota article, you have been reverting edits of Minnesota Ancestry from Western to Northern European. Listing German ancestry as being Northern European. Upon going to the Western European article I saw that Germany was listed as being considered a part of Western Europe according to the UN. Admittedly it is unsourced. However, I think it bears examining. I tried going to the UN website and checking it out but I couldn't find anything to confirm that with a cursory examination. As it also conflicts with the Demographics section of the Minnesota article as being of 75% Western European ancestry. Thought you might want to know. Showers (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Showers, thanks for the note. The terms Western Europe and Northern Europe are flexible (compare the two Wikpedia articles, which differ); they can mean different things geographically, politically, and ethnically. In Cold War days there were East and West, and the dividing line between them was considerably west of the halfway point (just as in the US the "West" is majority of the county.) That two-fold geopolitical division continues; UNESCO has two regions, Western Europe[19] and Central Europe/former USSR[20]; there is no north and south.
Ethnically, the population of Minnesota is Nordic, Germanic, and Celtic. Nordic is clear enough; its close relative Germanic includes the English, and the Celts are primarily Irish in Minnesota. If you go by the map in Western Europe our population is about half Northern European (total up the British Isles, Irish, Scandanavians, and Baltic states in the census data[21]); if you consider Germans to be northern (as, from ethnic and linguistic standpoints, they are) the matter is clearer.
To bring it back to the Minnesota intro, the sentence in question focuses on ethnicity and northern therefore was used. But it seems to cause some confusion. We could rephrase it to eliminate the issue entirely, and substitute Nordic and Germanic or something similar. Kablammo (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is how it read in November 2006:
Its image as a primarily white, Scandinavian, and Lutheran state still has some truth, but it is changing, with substantial influxes of African, Asian, and Hispanic immigrants joining the descendants of European immigrants and Native American descendants of the original inhabitants.
It was discussing the image of the state. Maybe we should go back to something like that. Kablammo (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
_____________________________
I took a stab at a revision:
The state's image of being populated by whites of Nordic and Germanic descent has some truth, but diversity is increasing; substantial influxes of African, Asian, and Latin American immigrants have joined the descendants of European immigrants and of the original Native American inhabitants.
Any other suggestions? Kablammo (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks better to me. The reason I had changed it was because Western European is a more inclusive term than Northern European and looking at the map on the Northern Europe page, its area included Scandinavia but not all of Germany and since, according to Wikipedia's own statistics, Germans outnumber Norwegians et al in Minnesota by more than two to one, Western European would be more suitable, plus it also includes Scandinavia. It's much more accurate.Tap1981 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think if you add all Scandavians together it is a larger proportion, but still not as large as the Germans. I went to check on this but unfortunately the Census bureau has now changed its site-- we'll have to find those data again. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Minnesota flag color
Hi. In the absence of any written color standard (could have been Pantone or sRBG—anything would have settled this closer than what follows), yesterday I modified the Image:Flag of Minnesota.svg (Flag of Minnesota) to a less-green blue. Corrections welcome. I find looking quickly, three sources. According to their Web site, the nearest Annin & Company dealer in Minnesota is American Flagpole & Flag in Lake Elmo, if anyone is nearby. Annin who was the technical consultant to the 1955 commission (Session Weekly page 1) has wide distribution (ZIP search). The Rev. William Becker is a co-proponent of the modernized flag proposal (boy I can see a line at Kinko's banners if anyone revives that contest) as well as author of the article the legislature points to in Minnesota History (1992). The final source is the state. The statute says the Secretary of State shall keep a 1) "photograph", and 2) "custodial control over the sample design flag of the commission". So there must be a physical flag model somewhere. Becker talks about "Union blue" in his article and is quoted in places as saying "deep blue" but I think he is in agreement with the statute which says "medium blue" with a "narrow gold border" and "golden fringe". So what "medium blue"? Guess what. Link #1 is to Wikipedia (Wikimedia).
For reference I used an eyedropper in Illustrator from sos.state.mn.us (image which looks like a match for the legislature's image, thank heavens). The source of the old blue-green is a mystery. Disclaimer: I am not a color expert (color takes a lifetime and even then, today computer hardware and software have opinions, in my opinion). Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the image. I wish we could get rid of that ugly one though and adopt this much better one:Image:North Star Flag.PNG.--Appraiser (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I like the old one. And I made it too dark. Why do you like the North Star flag? To reduce "L'Etoile du Nord" to one star might work for a hockey team but IMHO not the whole state. Did you read about textiles powering nanotechnology? I'd vote instead for 1) PMS or RGB numbers for the colors we have, and 2) looking at harnessing wind and solar power. Of course Clear Channel is probably doing sun-powered LED(ww?) flags as we speak. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not married to the proposed one necessarily, but polls show [22] that I am not alone in disliking our flag. I like the new one because it is easy to identify from a distance, even among many other flags, and the waves advertise the lakes. Since you mentioned "L'Etoile du Nord", we'd better think of a new slogan if the legislature passes a law that says that English is the official language of the state.--Appraiser (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
True, poles show. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Made it lighter but it is not so brilliant as the flag. If you read this or the image page and can I hope you'll fix it. Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Minnesota elections
Good source on Minnesota elections and voter participation:[23]Kablammo (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrase “due in part to its liberal voter registration laws,” seems like an opinion, and designed to taint the turnout achievement of Minnesota. I do not see a citation supporting the assertion that Minnesotans would decrease their participation if a different registration process were in place.
I think this is due to the current election maneuvers creeping in to the article. Acceptablefalsehoods (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It is reasonable to state the nature of Minnesota's registration laws, but to state that there is a causal relationship between those laws and turnout needs support.Acceptablefalsehoods (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Characterizing the registration laws as liberal or lax should also be cited with some kind of source that ranks the laws relative to other states. Without that, it should simply describe the registration laws.Acceptablefalsehoods (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are a number of studies which confirm this, such as the one abstracted here. (The source which leads this section is another; it is also cited in the footnote.) A Google search for Minnesota+"election laws"+liberal+registration yields other results. I believe that the present text has been in the article for at least two years (I have not checked this); it was not added during this election season. Finally, "liberal" does not mean "lax", and "liberal" has a meaning older than and independent of the pejorative cast that some partisans seek to place on it. Kablammo (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
204.73.55.10 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)I would add, in addition to the above, that "virtually no evidence of voter fraud" ought to be removed as a conclusory assertion rather than a fact. While it cites an Ohio law review article, the article also discusses much of the discord surrounding the ability of the Minnesota secretary of state to influence election results in a partisan manner. In addition, the recent investigation of ACORN voter fraud conduct in Minnesota (cleared), as well as the conviction of ACORN worker (Joshua Reed) caught with hundreds of forged voter registration cards in his trunk, raises the concerns that the Minnesota process may not be as transparent or immune from fraud as previously asserted.
The source adverts to allegations that a previous SOS behaved in a partisan manner by discouraging voter participation. The source does not say she had the ability to influence election results (although political activities to discourage turnout could have that effect). And conclusions are not necessarily suspect but they do need to be sourced, as this one is (and in turn is based on stated facts within the source). We should not replace sourced statements by a nonpartisan expert which cites facts, with speculation. The investigations and conviction you mention seem to argue in favor of the system, rather than pointing out flaws. In any event this level of detail is too fine for a survey article such as this one. Kablammo (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
150th
It would be nice to get a mention of Minnesota's 150th on May 11th if On this day, if anyone knows how to do that.
It also might be worthwhile to take a look at the article to see whether it has degraded since its main page appearance a year ago. Not all of the matters discussed above have been resolved or implemented. The article has picked up over 8,000 bytes since its appearance on the main page and it is doubtful that it is any better. Perhaps some images could be changed as well.
I have removed some stuff from the Entertainment section. That probably will always attract contributions from people who notice that some actor or artist with Minnesota connections is not mentioned (not to mention edits mentioning local record labels, bands, etc.). A proposal: limit mention of artists to those with top-level awards or nominations (Academy, Grammy, Emmy, Tony — any others?) and relegate the others to subsidiary pages.
Does politics need some work? Put some recent stuff in Politics of Minnesota? Can someone look at that?
Here's the diff from May 18th until today. [24]. I'd like to go through all of the images and see if there are any newer/better ones around. Politics could use a little tweaking, we shuld leave a note for Appraiser. We should also look for 2008 facts and figures where 2007 & older are used. I just read this sentence that needs work: "From fewer than 6,100 people in 1850, Minnesota's population grew to over 1.75 million by 1900.". I'd like to try and improve Ecology of Minnesota personally. I'm oncall until monday morning so I'll see what I can get rolling after that. -Ravedave (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The differences are not that many, and most are good. Here are the results of the link—checking tool; some may have to be replaced. RD, can you see if my edits to the entertainment section are too drastic? Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Update and refresh
As per discussion above, article will be reviewed and updated, web sites checked with link—checking tool, and accessdates renewed to demonstrate completion. Volunteers are needed! Adopt a section below, and add your name or ~~~~ when you complete it. Kablammo (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this sometime.--Appraiser (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what the recently-added presidential election table adds to this section. It is already covered in the text, and the actual vote numbers and percentages are unnecessary detail for a top-level article. Kablammo (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with the table, but that level of detail does not belong here. I agree with Susan's move. It is consistent with the way we have treated other tables on religion, population, and climate. Those belong in the more specific articles. Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
12 Media
13 Sports and recreation
Done, both sections~ Eóin (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
13.1 Organized sports
13.2 Outdoor recreation
14 State symbols - Done —SusanLesch (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement in question says that the state was a "swing state" in 2004. Anyone looking at the "money and time" map can see that the state was one of a small number that was in play in 2004.--Appraiser (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The link you provided confirms that MN ranked 9th in the nation for the candidates' attention in 2004. Thanks for the confirmation.--Appraiser (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Audio in the introduction
Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold_title says "Avoid links in the bold title words", maybe there is a way to keep the audio without linking the article name. This is just a guideline but this is quite exceptional to see a link like this. Cenarium(talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
MN Four Corners
I have not made much of a look on the MN page, but I am wondering if it's a good idea to add the four corners of MN counties, and include the farthest town too. For example, Eitzen, MN in Houston County. Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Heck, I haven't even heard of some of these— is Iowa cuisine leaking over the border? (I have however heard of lime jello marshmallow cottage cheese surprise.) You might want to wander over to Culture of Minnesota and add some (cited) content there. Kablammo (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I added articles on pistachio salad and glorified rice. I didn't think the world could go without any longer! But some of the other dishes will have to wait. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Political correctness
I'm noticing several edits where "American Indian" is being replaced with "Native American". Is this necessary? I am not either, but when speaking to the Mdewakanton Sioux here in Dakota county, I hear them using both phrases. Each time I've pressed for a clarification, I've been told "it's all in how you say it". Evidently either term can be seen as respectful or derogatory, so I wonder at the need to be switching back and forth in the article. Just curious as to how others feel on this issue. Rapier1 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Native American" has been used in this article for at least five years, including its Featured Article candidacy and appearance on the Main Page. The terminology was changed yesterday without explanation; I returned the article to its former usage. Kablammo (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I was just trying to anticipate an edit war by getting the conversation started here. It wasn't my edit, I was just wanted to hear peoples thoughts.Rapier1 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Popular Culture - why those festivals?
In the popular culture section, there is a list of "other large annual festivals", but no indication of how those were chosen to be included. It's certainly not 'largest' in terms of public attendance. (For example, the Twin Cities Pride Celebration has a larger attendance than several of them.) I suppose the Winter Carnival and Aquatennial could be regarded as uniquely Minnesotan, but the Renaissance Festival is just one of many promoted in various states by the same business. And the others are just a few examples of typical small-town summer festivals -- why were these ones chosen out of the many held each summer? Some logic as to what is listed here would be helpful. T-bonham (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Removed misplaced text
I removed the following text from "Geography"; I'm not sure if any of this text would be appropriate under Transportation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Great Lakes Circle Tour
The Great Lakes Circle Tour is a designated scenic road system connecting all of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.[1]
_______
It was out of place in Geography, unnneeded for a high-level, overview article like this, and the target article is completely undeveloped. It was properly removed; thanks. Kablammo (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
2008 Senate Election
The "Politics" section contained a paragraph on the 2008 senate election and current contest. I have deleted it, as it seemed to give too much emphasis to a recent and ongoing event. This article is an overview or survey of all aspects of the state, its landforms, history, economics, demographics, business, goverment, and society, and already may be too long. It certainly takes a very long time to load on a dialup, and even longer when versions are compared. As there is a separate article on United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 there is no need for mention of it here; when the contest is complete (or at least when the senator is seated) this article (Minnesota) can be updated. Kablammo (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Mosquito / State bird
In the Minnesota state emblems I want to mention the mosquito somehow. Although it's not really the official state bird state emblem, it's such a universal joke in Minnesota and does provide such insight into the culture of Minnesota that I believe to merits recognition. I'm surprised I haven't seen any other references to it on this talk page. Thoughts? --Thomasdelbert (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This article was promoted to featured status in 2006, after five or six months of efforts by many editors. Unlike many articles which are principally authored by one person, or where the subjects are split up among several people, the article is the result of a true collaboration, without edit wars, and all disagreements resolved by discussion and agreement. The archives show how the present article was created.
To keep featured status and maintain the integrity of the article, here are a few requests:
As a featured article, the Manual of Style must be followed. That means, among other things, that there needs to be an internally-consistent citation form. At a minimum, all sources must give the proper titles, dates of publication (or access date, if online) given, and publisher listed. A bare url is not an adequate citation. Most of the citations now here are created using citation templates buit the same results can be achieved manually.
When figures are updated the cite must be updated as well. For example, if a new annual population estimate comes out, the figure should not be changed unless the new source is given.
There are a number of subordinate articles linked here. Detail should go in subordinate articles, not the main article.
Like many of the articles on Wikipedia, there is a strong trend to emphasize recent events. That temptation should be resisted. This is an encyclopedia article, not a diary of current events.
This article is not the repository for someone's favorite band, actor, book, website, or festival. If a subject truly has national or international, lasting significance, it should be listed; otherwise it should go in a subordinate article, or left out of Wikipedia entirely.
All articles need fresh looks, and there is always room for improvement. But if an article is not to deteriorate over time, and avoid delisting as a featured article after a featured article review, we need to make sure that new additions or changes are well-written and, where needed, cited to a reliable source by properly-formatted citations.
Hockey is now the state sport and there are new population figures. Don't have time to add them now. -Ravedave (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
RD: After claiming you were no longer active in the section right above, you show up! Welcome back (and please stick around-- this article is devolving a little bit.) I added hockey to the symbols but have not gotten around to the population estimates. The article could also use a mention of the sales tax increase for arts and the environment, voted in last fall by a referendum despite economic troubles! Kablammo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify, thread from user page
""
Thank you for your recent edits over at Minnesota. You mentioned a guideline for liberalism/proggesiveness. I haven't found one, so maybe we could work together on creating one. I would love to hear your ideas. Wm.C (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember where I read what I read, or if what I read was a policy or just sounded right to me. The gist was that American left/liberal and right/conservative are fairly moderate, in a global sense. As Wikipedia is a global site, we need to be cognizant of potential misunderstandings. I tried for about half and hour to find what I had read again, but wasn't able to, unfortunately. If you feel we should take this to Talk:Minnesota, feel free to move this thread. Keep me in the loop. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 04:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I will. Wm.C (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
""
Can someone please justify the progressive word in the title, if indeed it is still there?
Have changed progressive to liberal. Wm.C (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Progressive" has been used in the article for some time, and is often used to describe the state's politics. It avoids the "liberal-conservative" dichotomy which has become so partisan. The term has historically been used (along with "populist") to describe Minnesota's polity and politicians, of any party, from Floyd P. Olson to Arne Carlson. I am returning it to the phrasing it has had for three years. Kablammo (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does it matter if it's partisan? Liberal makes more sense and can be understood by more people. Or, it could just be, "Minnesota is hallmarked by Democratic policies." Progressive sounds like a weaselly, cloudy word which should be changed. Please clarify your remarks, and if no reply is found it shall be changed to the former. Wm.C (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
My reasons are stated above. In recent decades the seats in the US Congress have been split between the parties, and control of the state house has also shifted. Is the "hallmark" solely determined by votes in presidential elections?
The state's political history, from the Granger movement, populism, the progressive movement, the Farmer-Labor pary, a Republican Party that can accomodate Walter Judd, Rod Grams, Harold Levander, and Arne Carlson, and a DFL party that accomodate Tim Penny, Colin Peterson, and Gene McCarthy, and Paul Wellstone, should not be characterized by any narrow or partisan term.
Please leave the statement as it is, and do not edit war. Three years of stability should not be disrupted by an attempt to introduce partisanship. This is an article about a state with 150 years of history, not the results of the last election. Kablammo (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we'll leave it that way. Wm.C (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Land of 10,000 Lakes
IS it OK if point out that "the Land of 10,000 Lakes" is actually incorrect, and that there are more than this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdyaJ (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
While you are most certainly correct, it seems to me that most readers wouldn't assume that Minnesota, nicknamed the "Land of 10,000 Lakes," has exactly 10,000 lakes in it. Personally, I wouldn't comment on it in the article, least of all in the lead.—C45207 | Talk 04:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The section on Geology and terrain already contains this:
The state's nickname, The Land of 10,000 Lakes, is no exaggeration; there are 11,842 lakes over 10 acres (.04 km²) in size.
The introduction is a summary and the detail is for the text. So I will change it back, but thinks for your interest (and welcome to Wikipedia!). Kablammo (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Race and ethnicity: new section
I noticed that the "Race and ethnicity" section I created is always being converted back to the "Ancestry" version. I believe that my edits on the "Race and ethnicity" section I created are more detailed than the edits in the "Ancestry" version. It gives more statistics and the references given prove that the statistics are correct. On the racial composition part of the section, the figures that were given were incorrect due to the fact that the reference provided did not display the percentages given. I fixed the racial composition part by putting in the correct percentages from the reference I provided. But it keeps being converted back to the original section and I don't know why. I got a message on my talk page from Dabomb87 telling me not to undo others' edits without explaining why in the edit summary. As a reaction, I undid the last version and put it back to my version. In addition, I put "The statistics on the racial composition were incorrect because the reference given did not show that those statistics were correct" in the edit summary. I apologize for not putting in an edit summary earlier. I just want my edits to stay on that section because I know they are correct.
Cool Stuff Is Cool (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Cool Stuff Is Cool
The detailed information on demographics should probably be limited to the specific article split off from this one in 2006, Demographics of Minnesota. The main article is an overview or survey, and should not repeat detail readily available one click away. The tendency to include such detail in the main article only makes it even longer, and it already takes several minutes to load on dial-up. While the detail has been present in this article for some time, it is time to trim the demographics section, perhaps by a paragraph, and eliminate the precise percentages of each group. That is more appropriate in the demographics article. (If memory serves, I added those percentages, by calculation based on population figures; such calculation is a matter of simple arithmetic, not original research.) Now, we have a paragraph giving percentages, another textual paragraph, and a table giving the same percentages as in the first paragraph. There is no need for this repetition, and there may be no need for this degree of precision at all in this article.
This article is a featured article, brought to that status over a period of 4 or 5 months in 2006 by the collaboration of a half-dozen or so then-active editors, vetted by the FAC process, and further refined as a consequence of its appearance on the main page on 11 May 2007. While the article will need occasional updating and maintenance, we should make sure that changes are in fact improvements, and not merely a matter of personal preference on phrasing, word choice, and the like. And new citations should comport with the manual of style and the existing citation format. Oftentimes FAs deteriorate over time, particularly as those who created or improved them become less active (and the three persons listed at the top of this page who can answer questions about the article are all inactive now). We have found that featured status is not just a goal to be obtained, but needs to be maintained. Kablammo (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Duplicative information has been removed. We do not need all this detail here; we cannot have detail on each subject area or the article will be way too long. There is more information here on some of these areas than in Demographics of Minnesota; it should be the other way around.
I have also put the citations in proper form. KablammoKablammo (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the prior version, as it was properly cited. Bare urls are not enough for a featured article. And detail should go in the Demographics of Minnesota article. Kablammo (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Dimensions
Just noticed that the dimensions of the state are given as 400 miles long and 250 miles wide. I'm curious as to the source, since at its widest the state is a full 400 miles wide (measured from the tip of the arrowhead westward to the North Dakota border). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.29.234 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for discovering this. The Explore Minnesota website (official tourist agency) gives the width range at 200-350. On Google maps the distance from Pigeon Point due west to the North Dakota border scales at c. 360 miles, but there likely is some projectional error. One can come up with longer measurements on diagonals. I'll change the figures to conform with Explore Minnesota; the rounded numbers there likely are sufficient for most purposes. Kablammo (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Images in Transportation section
I added an image of the state's license plate, but it was removed on aesthetic grounds with the request that it be discussed on the talk page. I think such an image, of the state's current license plate design, is warranted for inclusion in this article. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is unneeded here, as was the picture of the Minnesota quarter removed some time ago. It does not convey any important information. The page really is at its limit for images, and on a wide screen view may already have too many as text is sandwiched between images in some areas. Kablammo (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The quarter is not issued by the state, while the license plate is. This article has images of a groundhog and a bank; I don't understand why an image of a state symbol—and probably the reminder of Minnesota most frequently seen outside the state—would push the article's images over the edge. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
While I don't think the plate adds anything of great value to the article (nor would the other six plates now being issued by the state), the issue here is sandwiching text between images, which does not comport with the manual of style. This is a featured article and the MOS controls. The license plate image has also been added to Transportation in Minnesota, where it is more relevant. We should not crowd sections in this article with excessive detail or images. Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
name?
I've heard "Minnesota" translates to "land of sky-tinted waters", "land of cloudy waters" and "land of muddy waters". Which do reliable sources claim is most accurate? (By the way, a Hamm's beer commercial used "land of sky blue waters." I'd like to think that is the translation, but that certainly isn't a reliable source.) SlowJog (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the demonstration of the word mentioned in the article, it is likely to be "muddy waters" or "cloudy waters" SlowJog (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
SlowJog, check the reference links. Those were the best I could find at the time. It is definitely not a clear cut topic. -Ravedave (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In the Dakota language, mni-ṡota literally means "cloudy water", as when there is a lot of muddy silt suspended in the water, much like Milk River in Montana. Yes, in the Hamm's Beer jingle "From the land of Sky-blue Waters [Waters]..." is what they do say there. The confusion may have come from "cloud-coloured" can alternatively be translated as "sky-coloured" but while the Native idea of skies are analogous with clouds, the European idea of sky is analogous with the absence of clouds, introducing the "sky-blue" notion as reflected in the Hamm's commercials. Another example, but a non-North American one, is "weather". In the Japanese language, when one speaks of "weather" (天気), the idea is clear-weather, but the English idea of "weather" is stormy-weather. So, back to mni-ṡota. Acceptable translations are "cloudy water", "cloud-coloured water" and "sky-coloured water" (or any of these three with "-tinted" instead of "-coloured") but not "sky-blue water"; "muddy water" gets to the point, but it really isn't a literal translation, either. Oh, and "land of..." is not in the name at all. CJLippert (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
CJ do you have a ref for an official Dakota language source on that? (Dictionary, or something) The refs currently in the article are sort of weak. -Ravedave (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Online Daḳota Dictionary, it says Mnisota = "clear water", but it also says Mniṡota = "misty/cloudy water" ... where mni = "water", sota = "clear", and ṡota = "cloudy/misty". CJLippert (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Williamson's An English-Dakota Dictionary (ISBN0873512839), "clear water" is listed as mdeza (and I'm going to assume mde = "lakewater" but ta = "of/at" is not shown), "misty" or "cloudy" or "muddy" that resembles sota is not listed, but "Minnesota River" is listed as Wakpaminisota (wakpa = "river"). CJLippert (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Really not sure how to report this, but it looks like this wiki has been vandalized with some extremely inappropriate comments. The comments are made right at the top of the page, and I could not figure out how to edit it out.
Sorry I could not be of more help, but I only made an account after noticing this issue and am not familiar with how to make changes on this site.
Take a look at the page about reverting edits. SlowJog (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Electoral votes problem
What is this strange problem with 'Electoral votes'? In 'US state' block 'Electoral votes' value is {{{ElectoralVotes}}}. When I try to edit something, I find nothing about 'Electoral votes' in the source. Please sorry for I'm newbie. The same problem is in the 'North Dakota' page but not in the 'California' one.
Someone added an 'electoral votes' field a couple weeks ago to the infobox, but it was added in such a way in that it wasn't optional - so if the infobox didn't have the field filled out correctly it would still show up, only as the malformed 'electoralvotes' or whatever that you had been seeing. This addition was later removed for various reasons, (see Template talk:Infobox U.S. state), but an IP just re-added it a few hours ago, which I've reverted, as consensus was sort of against its inclusion. Should be fixed now, though. AlexiusHoratius 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Inaccurate use of citation, can be misleading especially due to grammatical errors
In reference to the following:
White families earned more income than the national average but among the population under age 18, more than 20% of Asians and Hispanics, more than 40% of African Americans and more than 40% of Native American females in Minnesota lived in poverty.[57]
The citation is for a study done on poverty in adolescent females in Minnesota, completely unrelated to the first part of the sentence which talks about average family income. Thus the percentages are misconstrued to be representative of the poverty rate (inference for family income) for Asians, Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans in general. The choice of the author to not include the rates for European Americans is also suspicious.
The two sources above are for the population in general (though the second link is a study on children).
In conclusion, I believe the sentence is inaccurate, may lead people to think that all minorities have lower income and higher poverty rates than European Americans. If the statement is about family income, then it should consistently be about family income (in which case the implications of the author are erroneous as certain minority groups have a higher average family income). If it's about poverty levels in general, then let it be about poverty levels of the entire Minnesota population and not just adolescent females.
Now that you mention it, I agree with you that the passage in question is misleading as written. However, is there any content that is worth saving here? Qqqqqq (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In general the family income in Minnesota is higher than in most states, I feel that what is already there after the deletion gets at the point sufficiently enough. Poverty in Minnesota is its own separate issue, especially when talking about the issues impacting large refugee communities here (such as the Somali population). I think that information could be added, but I don't really think the sentence in question was worth saving.
Snowy Owls are rare winter visitors to Minnesota. Including them as iconic birds of Minnesota is simply misleading. We're lucky if we get more than a couple dozen a year (2011 being an exception).
I'd like to suggest an alternative of "It is home to many birds of prey including Red-tailed Hawks, Osprey, Peregrine Falcons, and the largest breeding population of Bald Eagles in the lower 48 states as of 2007." to "It is home to birds of prey including the largest number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the lower 48 states as of 2007,[25] red-tailed hawk, and snowy owl."
Osprey and Peregrine Falcons are both iconic raptors that breed here. Our population of Peregrines is recovering quite nicely after the DDT crash and they can be seen around the Twin Cities as well as up on the North Shore.
Someone also reverted a section on songbirds I added. If we've got a sentence on ducks, fish, raptors, and mammals, why not have a sentence on some of the songbirds we have? We've got an amazing amount of variety in our state that we should be proud of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.20.190 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
We can't make claims like "largest population of x" without a citation (it was incorrect anyway, it's largest number of breeding pairs as of 2007, which I fixed). We also can't make claims about "large populations" of songbirds (relative to what?) without a citation (the previous text made no such claims). If you can cite such claims, they could be added, but we also have an subarticle, Ecology of Minnesota, which is really where the detail belongs. The largest number of breeding pairs of bald eagles may belong here, but that is old data and it should be correctly updated and cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for not citing. I haven't done much editing on Wikipedia. If your contention about large populations prevented the songbird sentence, I have no issues with rewording it to provide some examples of species we have resident populations of. I simply felt if we were throwing in examples of all sorts of different birds, fish, and mammals, it was a little weird to skip over a huge subset of birds that live in the state. If "large populations" is unacceptable, wouldn't "teem" be unacceptable in the fish sentence? There's also no citation for how much our White-tailed Deer and Bobcat populations are "thriving" or how "healthy" our populations of moose and black bear are. In fact, our moose population is being absolutely decimated and is about the exact opposite of the definition of "healthy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.20.190 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You have correctly pointed out older parts of the article which also include uncited POV or inaccurate information. :) :) I didn't write it-- I just try to keep new additions up to snuff, but yes, we should fix all of it since this is a featured article and should meet FA standards. The correct way to write this section of a broad overview article is to add the highest level of detail and citations to Ecology of Minnesota, and then summarize the most essential information back to this broad overview article. I've been quite swamped in real life, and that won't change for at least a week, but if you were to do some cited work at Ecology of Minnesota, we could re-summarize the relevant portions back to here. But yes, you are correct that the text as currently written is flawed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.
I have reverted a recent edit to this section.[25] The change added the following links (which I removed by the revert):
Outline of history
Outline of geography
Outline of North America
Outline of the United States
History portal
Geography portal
North America portal
Book: United States
I have kept what was there before:
Outline of Minnesota
Index of Minnesota-related article
United States portal
Minnesota portal
To add the geography outline and portal to this article means they could be added to any article about a place. The history outline and portal could be added to any article which contains historical facts. The North America portal could be added to any article about any place (and perhaps any subject) about or affecting North America. The Outline of the United States could be added to any article about any subject involving the U.S. These are too far afield for this article, and it is very unlikely someone would come here to find those outlines and portals.
The United States book is already linked in the bottom navbox, as is the United States portal, which means they should be eliminated here, under the Manual of Style quote above.
This is a featured quality, comprehensive article, with a variety of links within and at the head of sections, and no less than three navboxes. There is no need for these additional links. Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Separate Finnish ancestry percentage?
I noticed that Finns are grouped into the same category as Norwegians, Swedes, Faroese, etc, in the ancestry portion of the Demographics. Finns are not Scandinavians, nor have they ever been Scandinavians; they are a Finno-Ugric people (in the same lump as Hungarians and Estonians) whose culture, language and physical features are distinct from that of any Scandinavians, who are of Germanic descent. Thanks!Boredwibilly (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC) boredwibilly (User talk:boredwibilly|talk]]) 28 June 2011.
In the "Popular Culture" section, second paragraph, just before the second sentence, I'm getting this sentence fragment in my browser window as I view the article: the muther sucker. It's after the first period, before the beginning of the second sentence. But when I view the actual article, thinking to edit this out, it's not there. A little too deep for me. What's going on here?Craeburn (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I had the same problem. It was added here and subsequently reverted by ClueBotNG. My guess is it was an issue with some sort of lag on the back end of WP, such as updating the database through to the front-end servers. It appears to have been fixed now; if you still see it, try refreshing your browser cache with Ctrl+F5. Thanks for the heads-up! Mildly MadTC 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Minnesota was or still is insolvent?
Hello there,
in the German Wikipedia I just found a sentence in the Minnesota article.
Seit Freitag, 1. Juli 2011 ist Minnesota als erster amerikanischer Staat zahlungsunfähig und nicht in der Lage, seine Rechnungen zu begleichen. Als erste Folge blieben am amerikanischen Unabhängigkeitstag, am 4. Juli, der Zoo und Nationalparks geschlossen. Bauarbeiten an Straßen wurden eingestellt und 22.000 staatliche Bedienstete werden auf nicht absehbare Zeit kein Gehalt bekommen und müssen unbezahlten Urlaub nehmen.
I try to translate as good as I can:
On Friday, 1st July 2011 Minnesota became insolvent as the first U.S. state and is therefore not able to pay its bills. The first consequence was seen on the Independence Day (4. July) when zoos and national parks had to be closed. Roadworks were stopped and 22.000 officials will not get their wage for an indefinitely/unknown time and have to take unpaid holidays.
Oh... this is really exhausting but a good training :D I hope you got all the information from my translation. But my question is: I could not find anything about this in the article?? It is a very important thing.
Greetings from Berlin, Germany, Europe ;) -- Kilon22 (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The state didn't go insolvent or bankrupt. The article 2011 Minnesota state government shutdown explains this pretty well. There was a revenue shortage, or too much government spending, depending on one's point of view. The state legislature and the governor couldn't agree on a budget, so on July 1, 2011, all state services except for essential functions were shut down. Minnesota state parks were closed, but national parks in Minnesota stayed open. They're operated by the United States government and were not affected. Road work was stopped, which affected a major construction project at Interstate 494 and U.S. Route 169.
The budget crisis was resolved on July 20, 2011, and state government functions were restored. But this is a symptom of what American politics look like lately. Politicians would rather argue to the degree of shutting down government, instead of actually doing the work of the state. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elkman,
thank you for your quick answer and the good explanation. I see you got everything under controll ;) I just wanted to help, you know sometimes things are missing in articles, in almost everyone and "we" are trying to improve them and create more and more articles :) I do only few edits in English Wikipedia, in German at least I have around 1,200, but in most cases the English Wikipedia is the best, but the German isn't bad too - compared to others.
I hope Europe and the USA get somehow out of this debt crisis. I know the american media reports much more about the European debt problems, so they don't need to bring so much about the american debt problems and the United States Federal debt is somewhere between 16.266.000.000.000 and 16.363.600.000.000 US-$ right now. This of course is without the debt of the states and countys, all together is more than 19.000.000.000.000 or 19 trillion US-$. Reading "19 trillion" or seeing the many numbers is a big difference (seeing? correct word?!). I hope we handle it, the USA and Europe are different in many way of course, but at least every white guys family once came from Europe and cultural problems like maybe in Africa or Asia are almost not existing in Europe for US people :)
I don't want to become China more powerful than the USA.
Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Intro: were not the indigenous tribes there before the European invasion?
How about from:
Substantial influxes of Asian, African, and Latin American immigrants have joined the descendants of European settlers and the original Native American inhabitants.
to:
Substantial influxes of Asian, African, and Latin American immigrants have joined the indigenous Native American peripatetic tribes and descendants of invasive European settlers.
Greetings to you also! You are of course correct that the First Nations were first, but the present language does not exclude that. Your proposal goes too far, I believe; "peripatetic" oversimplifies, as does "invasive" or "invasion". In many places the first permanent residents other than Indians were Métis, and their presence was not an invasion. The intro is intended to be an overview and of necessity is general. That does not mean that the present language is immutable, just that we should not get into detail better dealt with in the text below. If you want the order of the sentence changed, to mention the First Nations first, that can be done. Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
