Talk:Minneapolis

	Minneapolis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 26, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 1, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Minnesota FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Meetups To Do Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]