Talk:Minnesota/Archive 1

First Paragraph

I changed the word "populus" to "populous." I'm not sure if "populus" was a typo or not. The word "populus" is a latin word that can mean "people," and it is also a genus (taxonomy). The word "populous" means "having a large population," which is probably what the writer meant. Hildenja 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

How is it that 42.5 percent of the population is of Hispanic origin, yet it says that German ancestry accounts for 30 some odd percent, accounting for the highest ancestry?

• I think someone made an editing mistake, or a typo or something. I looked up the figures from the 2004 Census and put them into the article, so it should be up to date. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Towns in Minnesota

There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles about towns in Minnesota that haven't been updated since 2003 began. Can anyone suggest putting Media Wiki boxes at the bottom of the town articles?? 66.32.74.97 01:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

What are these "Media Wiki boxes" you speak of?--Daveswagon 01:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Name origin

For a source on the origin of the state's name, see http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/fact_sheets/pn_mr.html

Hrm this English to Lakota dictionary says that Mni Sota means 'Clear water'. I will continue to search for sources. -Ravedave 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The two differing explanations for the name of Minnesota comes from two different Dakota wording: M'ni-sá-te (water of sky-blue) and M'ni-sota (tinted/clouded/translucent water). The folk etmology of "Minnesota" from the Ojibwe is Minisooding (at the [place of] Balm-of-Gilead). CJLippert 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Section about Famous Minnesotans?

What about a section on famous people from the state? I can only think of a few off the top of my head, since I have never been to Minn.

Garrison Keillor, Jessie Ventura, Hubert H. Humphrey, Eugene J. McCarthy and Walter F. Mondale.

There would be many. Here are a few more: Charles Schulz (Peanuts cartoonist), Bob Dylan, Judy Garland, Sinclair Lewis, Warren Burger, Charles Lindbergh, and the Mayo doctors (founders of the Mayo Clinic). Jonathunder 20:24, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

I'd rather do a list of famous Minnesotans (or just list of Minnesotans), and possibly pick a few for the main state article. Look at the article on Minneapolis, for instance—already a pile of people (though some arguably weren't in Minneapolis proper). There should be some criteria for inclusion. Being born in Minnesota works, and having lived in the state for a period of time (somewhere between 5-15 years would be good) would be the main things. To be on the state page, people would probably have to be well-known nationally as Minnesotan, but that kind of takes the "surprise" out of such a listing... —User:Mulad (talk) 00:12, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Upper Midwest

Within Minnesota and surrounding states, the common definition of the "Upper Midwest" is the 5 state area of MN, SD, ND, IA and WI. These states share common immigrant histories, became states in the period of 1849-1889, and refer to themselves as the Upper Midwest. Edwin 01:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) from Minneapolis, MN

Yes, I tried to explain this to people in the Upper Midwest article itself, with limited success. In that article, they still have Ohio and Indiana (!), among other places, as potentially parts of the Upper Midwest, which is just totally and completely incorrect. I invite you to go to the Upper Midwest article and make some changes for the better when you have time. One thing though Edwin, I do think that the Upper Peninsula of Michigan could be considered part of the Upper Midwest. - BSveen 01:20, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Definitions of Upper Midwest, as well as of the Midwest generally, differ widely. There seems to be no disagreement, however, that Minnesota is in the Upper Midwest. Since this is an article about Minnesota only, I propose we simply state "Minnesota is in the Upper Midwest region.", link to that article, and let the discussion of differing definitions be covered there. Does that seem a reasonable solution? Jonathunder 14:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Having heard no objection, I've gone ahead and made this change. Jonathunder 06:13, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Sing-songy Scandinavian accents?

I've lived in Minnesota my whole life, have been to almost every part of the state, have encountered thousands of people, and never, not once, have I encountered anyone with a "sing-songy Scandinavian accent."

Yes, but that's listed as a description of the stereotypical Minnesotan, and that IS a stereotype... kmccoy (talk) 22:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep that part in there--it's quirky. I used to be pissed that people think we sound like Fargo but now I just kind of roll with it.--Daveswagon 01:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is that it's an inaccurate description. Is there a distinctly Minnesota/Midwestern accent? Yes, absolutely. Is it "sing-songy"? Is it "Scandinavian"? No and no. Moncrief 05:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you haven't heard people that sound like "Fargo", then haven't travelled widely enough in Minnesota. Few people in the twin Cities have accents that are as strong as Fargo, but a significant minority in out-state Minnesota. I have talked ot many people in Stearns County and in the Brainerd area who have accents as strong as Marge Gunderson in "Fargo". (Crumley 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

The sing-songy Scandinavian accent appeared along with immigrants from that area. However, that was a long time ago and various contributors would have various experience with it, particularly younger editors. Some written sources on the topic are needed. (SEWilco 02:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

Googles says there is 314 hits for "sing-songy scandinavian accent" [1]

another site [2] and probably the best one - Talk:Melodic_accent Think of the Swedish chefs in the muppets, or Sven from a sven and Ole joke. Yes you have never heard it in use in minnesota, thats why it's a sterotype. I vote to keep it. Ravedave 02:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Haven't found a full description. The intonation pattern is often compared to Swedish, with a flowing glide tone directed at the meaning of the sentence rather than word emphasis. For example, "How are you?" may use a smoothly sliding pitch which falls through the first word and rises through the third word. Constantly shifting the pitch up and down through several words resembles several types of singing. (SEWilco 05:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

Area

It says 225,000 km² in the box and 79,000 m² in the geography section. Widely different figures. The first one looks correct, SqueakBox 20:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I assume the 2nd figure is supposed to be 79,000 mi², which is probably the land area of the state in square miles. Tomer ^TALK 05:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why are the units on this page in metric? Did Minnesota become part of Canada whilst I was visiting my parents in Wisconsin? In this country, we use imperial units. This is not a freaking science page.--Globe199 06:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The related articles American Empire, History of Minnesota, National Football League and Space program of the United States have been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. To support one of these articles you can add your vote there. Also, Rodgers and Hammerstein is nominated at the Biography Collaboration. --Fenice 07:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of drive, anyway to add a noting about how inattentive Minnesotans tend to get at traffic lights? Tboger 02:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Find a reputatble source for it and contact me on my talk page and Ill find a spot for it.False Prophet 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because everyone in Minnesota is already where they want to be.Andercee 07:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not religious/Agnostic – 15%

I don't know how long religon stats have been listed here but perhaps at somepoint we get updated stats we can split out Not religious/Agnostic because not religious is not necessary the same thing as agnostic Smith03 20:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've got a hunch the source of the data lumps them together. And since neither atheists nor agnostics really care about religion that much, how many would care which category someone else lumps them into? As for me, I used to be an atheist, but I gave it up. No holidays! Wahkeenah 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Protestantism by US State

• Special:Whatlinkshere/List_of_Protestantism_by_US_State
  

It is POV to selectively list Protestantism and not also link, for example List of Catholicism by US State or List of Buddhism by US State.
brenneman^(t)(c) 10:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota

Is anyone interested in a Minnesota WikiProject? Please sign up below. If the list gets to 10 and nobody beats me to it, I'll start the Project for you... See, for example, the incredibly awesome WP:WPWI ... Tomer^talk 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Count me in Jonathan Kovaciny 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm in. Grika Ⓣ 14:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• me too. -Ravedave 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Okay I created the project WP:WPMN. Pretty much stole the whole thing from Wisconsin. Have at it. --Jonathan Kovaciny 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Minnesota/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason(s):

There are no references. Tarret 11:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on FA status

(copied from User talk:Ravedave) One thing I've been thinking is that we should make an assessment of the article as it currently is, then propose a list of areas that should be expanded or improved. I'm taking a cursory glance at the article and I can see that the history section needs to be vastly expanded (does the history of Minnesota really stop at 1861?), the transportation section could use some expansion, and the "Notable people and groups" section should mention at least a few of the most important people from the state. (Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone spring to mind, as an example.) I think we should also take a look at other state articles that have reached Featured Article status and see what we can learn from them. Maybe a peer review of the existing article would help to identify what needs to be expanded -- or any areas that are too detailed as is. --Elkman 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently in the queue to be a "good article", so we'll see how that goes. If we add too much info to the minnesota page, we can always create new pages and stub the section out, so no worries there. Unbelivably there is no state featured article, I was amazed when I found that out. Massachusetts seems to be the best one I could find. The Britannica article is really what we should be striving for, its very good [3]-Ravedave 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

State history

The "History" section needs a lot of work. Right now, it appears to end when Minnesota became a state. I think at least a few things have happened since then.

The existing history section should mention a little more about how the Ojibwe and Dakota Indians moved throughout the territory (i.e. Ojibwe coming in from the east, while the Dakota moved westward to the plains). It should also mention the founding of Fort Snelling and its importance to the territory, as well as the various land cessations.

I'm considering the following as an outline for the history section after Minnesota became a state:

• Immigration (from countries like Ireland, Germany, Sweden, and Norway, among others)
• Early development of Minneapolis, St. Anthony, and St. Paul
• Impact of the Civil War (including Dred Scott, et al)
  • This would be good to expand, the 1st Minnesota was one of the first regiments to organize after the Civil War began and was a famous participant in the Battle of Gettsyburg, including Pickett's Charge - Meersan 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dakota uprising and its aftermath
• Settlement and farm development
• Early economic development:
  • Logging (starting in the St. Croix Valley and in the northeastern part of the state)
  • Flour milling
  • Railroads: Northern Pacific Railway, Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railroad which became Great Northern Railway (US), and the Milwaukee Road
  • Hinckley Fire
• Industrial development:
  • Iron mining (Cuyuna, Mesabi, and Vermilion ranges)
  • Shipping on Lake Superior
  • Consolidation of flour milling in Minneapolis
  • New farming techniques - making farming more of a business
  • Impact of the automobile and the foundation of the highway system
• Urbanization (1900-1920)
• Impact of World War I
• Impact of the Great Depression, especially on farming
  • CCC and WPA projects in the state
  • Development of Indian tribal governments in the 1930s
• Post World War II development
  • Modern production techniques in farming - making it more industrial
  • Suburban development around the Twin Cities, formation of the Metropolitan Council
  • Shipping - development along the Mississippi River, construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway
  • Development in computer technology: Control Data, Sperry, and others
  • Minneapolis-St. Paul as a center for the arts and for health care
  • Decline of mining on the Iron Range

I'm making this outline based on the book "The Story of Minnesota's Past" by Rhoda Gilman. I'm not sure I'll write huge sections on each of these events, but I'll certainly look at expansion when it's time to rewrite the History of Minnesota article.

Am I leaving anything out? Or does anyone have comments on the way I'm organizing this? --Elkman 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's a history of Minnesota from Minnesota State University Mankato. --Elkman 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll bite. I like the proposal, but think it should be on the History of Minnesota page. That page needs work anyway. Then distill it down for a short summary here. Kablammo 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I don't want the history section to get too long, but I don't want to miss any salient points either. I'm thinking I'll finish it up as far as a general overview goes, then distill it down to a size that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article. I doubt that any mention of a middlings purifier really belongs in the main Minnesota article, for example, but it should at least say that Minneapolis led in the flour industry. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of other points maybe worth mentioning on the history page: ag research and Norman Borlaug's role in the Green Revolution; and medical/ biomedical research, industry and care, including the pioneering work at U of M in Twin Cities, growth of biomedical companies, and Mayo Clinc. I'll add mention of some of this to the principal article. Kablammo 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

The purpose of this straw poll is to decide wether to include the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers under a college]] section,, or weather to keep all colleges out of the article.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Support

• False Prophet 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Part of the oldest major college conference still active
• Colslax 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC) The University of Minnesota Golden Gophers is major athletic institution in this state and deserves recognition.

Oppose

• Ravedave What does the conference have to do with it? To keep it NPOV if one college is included, all of them should be. This article is about Minnesota not Minneapolis.
• Hraefen ^Talk 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I agree that the situation should be all-inclusive (for reasons of fairness, NPOV etc) or nothing. All-inclusive would be far too much, so that means it must be left out.

Discussion/split

• Is there some kind of all-encompassing page concerning Minnesota college sports? Maybe something like Minnesota college sports or the like? If we could build a page like that with short write-ups for all the qualifying schools (whatever that would be) and give the appropriate links, we could then just have one link on Minnesota to that all-encompassing page that would take up virtually no room at all and would not inherently favor any one school over another. do any other U.S states have anything similar? --Hraefen ^Talk 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like that Idea. I think one of the qualifications would have to be the School being a Division 1 program.False Prophet 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I like that idea of a seperate college sports page as well. I've spent the past 5 years covering small college sports and would be more than willing to do work on the project Colslax 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wisconsin lists the professional sports teams and the Wisconsin Badgers. Iowa lists its minor league teams -- but they don't have any major league teams, so that's not a great comparison. Illinois mentions the Cubs, the White Sox, da Bears, and the Bulls, but puts the rest of them on a subpage. New York lists all of its professional teams, and that section is cluttered. California lists the major league teams in a nice-looking format. Texas mentions how popular high school and college football are, mainly because it's an exceptional case compared to other states, but all of its professional sports teams are on a separate page. As far as their college sports go, the main page doesn't even mention teams like Texas A&M or the University of Texas football teams, even though their rivalry is huge. Based on those other articles, I'd suggest that the Minnesota article should mention the highlights of all the major league teams and list the minor league teams. Maybe a mention of the most notable college sports teams is desirable, but I don't think we need to get overly-detailed about every single college team. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Ravedave does not like the current length of the section, so I suugest this:

2 sections, Pro teams, and College teams, and 2 sub pages, one for each section. The article section would mention the main teams. For the pros, I would suggest one or two sentences for each of the 4 major sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL) that would say when it was moved to minnesota or founded, and then info about how many championship games they've been in and won . For college, I would suggest the U of M, St. Cloud St., MN St. Mankato, where it would list the city its in, NCAA titles won, and then the sports with the most titles, where the number would be determined on a case by case basis. Thoughts? False Prophet 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• If no one objects by July 11, Ill go ahead and do it. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me know if you want help with that project, I've started gathering data for it. --Colslax 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not a Sports in Minnesota article? If it gets too big then it can be split up further. Then High School could be included if people were inclined. Also each of the professional teams already have thier own articles, so why completly rehash them somewhere else? There just shouldn't be more than 2 paragraphs on sports in this (to keep it in line with history economics etc). -Ravedave 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that better. The reason that you summarize them here is so people reading learn a bit here, then can learn more on the teams main article. This is a compromise from keeping most of it in the actual article. I'll split it tomorrow, unless someone objects. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Awsome, sounds great! -Ravedave 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just created the Sports in Minnesota. I took the old list and put it back with the logos of the for major teams in alphabetical order. What do you think? Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Well-balanced article, that is easy to read. It would need a splitting because of it's length and also some details don't really pertain to Minnesota but could be adopted by subarticles (especially the Geography or Sports section). It would need further referencing, especially for more controversial subjects. Lincher 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Good job everyone! FA is the next stop! -Ravedave 03:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro Changes; other changes

I think the intro could benefit by losing some of the historical, demographic and political detail already well-handled in the body of the article, and adding a brief mention of its natural/outdoor features, for which the state is known. I'd be happy to do it, but as I am proposing deletions I wanted to see if there were any objections first. Kablammo 12:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article also needs more information on health, literacy, education, and other "quality of life" matters (where the state consistently ranks highly). Can anyone take this on? Kablammo 13:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added most of the header though User:Meersan wrote most of it. Go ahead and do whatever you want to it, just make sure it stays an overview. We should make sure it hits the most important MN highlights. I agree on the sections to be improved. I looked all over for "state rankings" in google but didnt come up with much so it makes it hard to add any sections on how "good" the state is. I know there are articles out there, I just couldn't find them. I'll see what I can find next week. Also thanks again for the excellent copy editing. -Ravedave 14:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

StateMaster is a good source for a lot of this sort of stuff. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the most important highlights to summarize in the intro would be its natural environment, quality of life, and moderate to progressive social and political nature (already mentioned). For the body of the article, we need to come up with sources on literacy, graduation rates, post-secondary education rates, infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. I'll look too when I have time. Kablammo 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro now revised. Kablammo 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion

We need citation to an outside reference for the religious affiliation statistics. In searching for it I came across a source with somewhat different statistics. http://www.beliefnet.com/politics/religiousaffiliation.html If we can't find the source for the present table I will replace it with info derived from this source. It gives a little more detail non non-Christian denominations, but has no breakdowns within the categories of mainline and evangelical Protestant churches.

The census bureau doesn't collect religious information [4]. Of the sources listed there I got 2 ok results [5] and [6]. I would think that both are of a dubious nature (as well as your link) due to being funded by private parties. I believe that anything more specific than "most minnesotans are christian" should probably be removed from the article. -Ravedave 07:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The existing table conforms to one used in several other state articles (maybe most or all of them-- I've only checked some) but most do not give attribution. It is possible that this CUNY study[[7]], (the American Religious Identification Survey or "ARIS") is the source of some, but the figures do not agree with those now in the Minnesota article. ARIS is based upon a survey of over 50,000 households nationwide. The 1990 version of it, which surveyed over 100,000 responents, is referred to in one of the sources you found. Given its methodology (scientific survey instead of self-reporting by denominations) it seems to be the best of these sources. Therefore I propose to delete the existing table and replace it either with text or a table based on the ARIS. Anyone interested, please discuss, and if there are any statisticians or scholars who help us here, please weigh in. Kablammo 11:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that we should use the CUNY study. The current religious section was added here by User:158.111.137.162, here are their other edits, of which 3 are adding religious info to state articles. I plan on adding a cite needed to the other states sections. -Ravedave 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Change made. Thanks for unscrambling the citation. Kablammo 18:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Does the category "Minnesota Lists" make sense? There are few random lists in category:Minnesota and it would be a nice grouping. -Ravedave 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Durr.. there is one...-Ravedave 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Uniformative culture paragraph

I have a problem with this paragraph from the Culture section:

Modern immigrants have come from all over the world in recent decades, with Hmong, Somali, Vietnamese, Indians, Middle Easterners, and the former Soviet bloc all being well-represented. Some Chinese and Japanese have had long presences in the state as well. Mexican and Hispanic immigrants are a growing segment, the Latino population of Minnesota is expected to triple over the next 30 years [30]. Many modern immigrants are attracted by the state's historically strong commitments toward education and social services and many come sponsored and assisted by congregations committed to service and social justice.

This paragraph contains lots of good demographic information but little to nothing on culture. Saying that there are Hmong or Somali or Chinese people in Minnesota doesn't explain any more about culture than saying that there are "White people" or "Americans" in Minnesota. Pointing to examples of Muslim garb, foreign language, traditional foods, etc that have come with these people would tie into culture, but the paragraph as it is does not accomplish this.--Daveswagon 06:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have deleted this paragraph and integrated most of the information into the Race and Ancestry subsection of Demographics. Kablammo 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks to everyone working towards getting Minnesota to FA status. We have come quite far in the last month but still have a long ways to go. I think it will be pretty badass being the 1st state to FA status. If you see anyone editing MN related articles let them know what we are doing, the more the merrier. -Ravedave 06:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

MN Shoreline; Lakes and Rivers

There's a "citation needed" tag on the statement that MN has more shorline than several coastal states. I found a source, but I don't have time to add the citation. If someone else could put this in, that'd be great. Here it is: [8]--Daveswagon 11:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too, but it would be nice to have the source on which the U.S. Mint relied. I haven't found it yet. Kablammo 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree the mint isn't exactly a reliable source for geographic info. What we need is shoreline figures for all the states. -Ravedave 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the world coming to when we can't trust our own mint for obscure geographical facts? Anyway, searching for the phrase "more shoreline than California, Florida and Hawaii combined" brings up 134,000 hits on Google about Minnesota [9], so this is a well-spread lie if it isn't true. Here's a WCCO article stating the same thing if that's an improvement: [10]--Daveswagon 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, our friends at WCCO, and the other sources, and even the US Mint, could have gotten the information from the same place! One concern: what is really being compared? Is it Minnesota river and lake shoreline vs. coastal states' seacoast only (i.e., without inland waters)? (The Mint press release seems to imply Minn shoreline is lakes only but doesn't mention what coastal states' shoreline means.) The claim seems to be one of those tourist organization factoids that may not stand up under closer examination, as they may not be comparing similar things. Maybe we don't even need the comparision; maybe we just should confirm what it in fact is comparing. Kablammo 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself. Surely California and Florida have a good number of lakes between the two of them.--Daveswagon 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We can trust our Legislature, can’t we? [11] Ok, maybe not. How’s this one?[12] We’re getting closer. I struck out however on a search of the DNR site. Kablammo 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who tagged that section BTW :). DNR is the 1st place I tried, and I found nothing as well. Maybe we should email the DNR asking for the actual length of shoreline, and then try and get the same figure for FL and CA. To qualify to me as a source I would need actual shoreline figures. -Ravedave 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to: info@dnr.state.mn.us

Hello, I am currently working on the wikipedia.org page for Minnesota and came across a sentence that I am unsure is true. The sentence is "With its many lakes and rivers, Minnesota has more shoreline than California , Florida , and Hawaii combined.". The sentence is repeated in many places on the web, but it never has an attribution. Even the US mint thinks its true (http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/50sq_program/states/index.cfm?flash=yes&state=MN). I searched the DNR site and was unable to find any shoreline figures. So my question is, could you perhaps help me in my quest to verify this sentence? Thanks,

I ahve received no response from the DNR. I would rather not have that sentance if we can't get actual coastline numbers, or a 1st tier source. -Ravedave 22:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I deleted it.

This section also says that the Mississippi is the second longest river in the US and the world's third largest. As to the first contention, sources differ on whether the Mississippi or Missouri is longer. I think the claim of world's third largest actually relates to the area of its watershed, not volume. In any event cites are needed. Kablammo 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I used the auto-peer review script that some guy made and reviewed the article the results are here User:Ravedave/auto_review. I am working on getting all the references in the right spots. -Ravedave 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone check my copyediting? Diff here. I removed alot of "also", "meanwhile" etc, and tried to remove run-on sentences.

Anyone? -Ravedave 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

History

I propose to overwrite History of Minnesota with the current history section from Minnesota, and the History section in Minnesota is shortened. The current history article has absolutly no flow whatsoever, and the history section of Minnesota is too long. -Ravedave 22:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and did it. The summary is from the history article and pretty much sucks. -Ravedave 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

By this edit [[13]], a list breaking down population by racial makeup has been replaced by a table. I think the new table is confusing and that the prior format is preferable. Any comments? (I am inviting the contributor of the recent edit to weigh in.) Kablammo 04:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help if yiou understand why the template was created.

• In many states, the racial makeup tables have been the subject of edit wars, as people who fail to read the census bureau caveats misunderstand the data there.
  • In many cases, people were replacing the "white" racial percentage with "white non-hispanic" percentage, yet not replacing the "black" racial percentage with "black non-hispanic", the "AINA" racial percentage with "AINA non-hispanic", etc. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding which the table attempts to correct: hispanic and non-hispanic status is entirely different things.
  • In some cases, people were representing the American Community Survey as if it was a headcount. It's not; it's a subset of the entire community, consisting only of people living in traditional families. Those living in institutions, such as group homes, college dorms, or in the military, aren't counted at all. There's no question it has value, but you have to understand what the numbers are in order to use them correctly.
  • The census bureau now allows people to claim they are members of two or more racial groups, but they offer munged numbers, assigning multi-racial residents to a single racial group. Those numbers are necessary in order to fairly administer programs based on the abandoned system where people were only allowed to claim one racial group. Some people were grabbing the munged numbers and using them for Wikipedia. The {{US Demographics}} template uses the real numbers.
  • Because there were multiple sources, some people were grabbing one set of numbers for 2000 and a different set of numbers for 2005, creating POV results instead of NPOV numbers.
  • States weren't keeping their statistics up to date.

The {{US Demographics}} table was intended to keep your state article up to date, with correct numbers that not only represent changes within your state from year to year, but are comparable when looking at multiple states. Yes, the table has a lot of detail in it - but we looked at the different ways different state articles were presenting the information. We could have included more detail, but we didn't think that gave any more useful information. We could have included less detail, but we felt that would have misrepresented the facts.

Yes, it's more confusing to have to look at the facts, instead of being spoon-fed pre-digested opinions, but the idea behind the Wikipedia NPOV philosophy is that users can be trusted to take a look at all the relevant facts and make up their own minds. ClairSamoht 05:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world

That explanation is helpful. Fortunately we have not had a history of POV edits in this area. A uniform approach, easily updated and corrected by some automated or semi-automated process, has its appeal. What concerns me about is both ease of use (and I don't think that it has to be more confusing to look at the facts), and also the integration of these data into an already "busy" section. Possibly some other feature in that section will have to go; perhaps more explanation is needed for your table; perhaps others will find the former text preferable; perhaps your table or instead some other tables should be moved to a subsidiary page. I expect that discussion of these points here will result in a consensus on the matter. Kablammo 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Meetup

There is talk of a wikiproject minnesota meetup. See details here: Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minneapolis -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Iron Range is not a mountain range

See here

I removed this section:

After its rivers and lakes, Minnesota's most prominent physical feature is the Iron Range, a range of low mountains that crosses the northeastern part of the state. The Iron Range is so named because its iron ore deposits were among the largest in the country when it was discovered in the late 1800s. Although the high-grade iron ore was mostly mined out during World War II, taconite is still mined across the range.

The information needs to be worked back into the article without the mention of being a mountain range. The web does not provide much help as far as mountains go. Supposedly the Laurentian_mountains crosses the state, but there is little information about it on the web. Maybe it should be worded that the Canadian Shield is the most prominent physical feature after lakes and rivers...

-Ravedave 05:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good info source

The USGS probably has some information that can be added to the Geographic secton. - [14] I'll see what I can do tonight. -Ravedave 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)'

Interesting econnomic stuff... [15] [16] -Ravedave 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Article with good info

We may be able to steal some info from Minneapolis-St._Paul for the Minnesota page. It looks like it had a pretty good writer sometime in the past. -Ravedave 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to list out some other articles worth reading for info/ideas: Category:Companies_based_in_Minnesota, Minneapolis, Media_in_the_Twin_Cities [17] - Ravedave 18:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple things I'm noticing

On rereading this article, I'm noticing a few things that ought to be addressed:

• The phrase "While contemporary local artists continue to enjoy critical acclaim such as (list of bands), things have slowed considerably" doesn't immediately make a lot of sense. Does it imply that the flow of new bands out of Minnesota is slowing considerably?
• "Crime and public safety" only mentions the recent murder rate in Minneapolis. I don't think that's a comprehensive treatment of the topic. The "Health" section above it is very skimpy, too. I think both sections should have a basic mention of what the trends are like -- are we more healthy than other states? Why? Is the crime rate higher or lower than in other states, and what types of crimes are more prevalent?
• The Transportation section could use a map (such as interstates in one color, freight rail lines in another color, and cities served by scheduled air carriers in another color yet). I'll look into doing this with the map maker at nationalatlas.gov.

I'll keep looking at it and suggesting anything else that should be revised. Or, better yet, I might actually do it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: Any bare URLs used as references should really be listed with their title, as a minimum. I prefer to use the {{cite web}} template, but that's just for formality. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the cite template is not required. Point 1 - doesnt make any sense and its not sourced nor is much in Music of Minnesota. point 2 - I added those as stubs. I am unsure what else to add but I know they should be there. point 3 - I noticed that too but was unable to find a good map. MNDOT has several but of course they arent public lisceced. Also, WB how was your trip? -Ravedave 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh also, can you please check my diff above. I beleive a bunch of the stuff I changed was stuff you wrote. -Ravedave 04:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The copyedits look fine. I'm usually pretty good with mechanical copyediting, but sometimes I have a few idiosyncrasies in my writing that could use another pair of eyes. I'll keep looking at the article to see if there are any more copyedits or rephrasings that can benefit it.

Style

I am attempting to slightly change the stlye of the article. Currently the article is very heavy on bare facts, which while interesting to analyze are boring to read. I have begun to add summaries for statistics pointing out trends such as majorities. I am also moving facts to the ends of sections where applicable so the flow is more like: Intro - description - facts to back up description. I am also trying to bring down the complexity level of sentances where possible. I don't mean that I am for 'dumbing them down' to 1st grade level. I am just attempting to use clearer language and breaking up run-on sentences, and long sentences that take up too much working memory where possible. -Ravedave 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph:

Native Americans have a moderate presence in Minnesota, and some tribes operate casinos which have been said to be among the most profitable in the country. The earliest European exploration and settlement was by the French, and settlement from Scandinavian countries along with Germany followed. The Métis people, a mixed French and Native American culture, were a presence in the early state and territorial days, but largely moved north into Canada. Minnesota is not strongly associated with any particular food, though in recent years dishes like wild rice sausage have come from the state.

It was randomly placed in Pop culture and I belive it contributed little. If someone would like to fold it into the article or re-place it back in go ahead. -Ravedave 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Language

The statement in the table that English is the state's official language has been deleted. It was contrary to other resources (in Wikipedia and elsewhere, including one advocacy group for official status) which state that Minnesota has no official language. See Languages in the United States; Official English movement; [[18]]. Kablammo 14:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add "De Facto: English" like on the Lousiana article. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference to logging

User:Sampanning removed: "Minnesota's northern forest has been nearly completely logged at one time or another leaving only a few patches of old growth forest, but regrowth keeps large portions of the state forested," in favor of a sentence about species. If the species statement is true, it can stay, but I think the original statement is true and important too. Appraiser 14:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The orig statement is true. I belive I may have added it, or at least verified it. See the lost fourty section in Chippewa_National_Forest. The lost fourty is special becuase it is one of the few unlogged areas in minnesota. I ended up removing, modifying, or {{fact}}ing several of that users additions. That user then went on to vandalize the iowa article. If someone else could also check his additons/changes it would be appreciated. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Climate

Motivated by the needed citations I removed the few sentences on Minnesota being the 2nd coldest state. I did some searching and found the following:

• In Barrow, Alaska on the Arctic Ocean, the annual average temperature is 10.4 degrees. Juneau, Alaska, at the southern end of the state, has an annual average temperature of 41.5 degrees. A couple of places that are just as cold or colder than Juneau on an annual basis in other states include Alamosa, Colo. 40.8 degrees, and Grand Forks, N.D., 40.3 degrees. In other words, parts of Colorado and North Dakota, and also some other states, are as cold as part of Alaska. This is at least part of the reason why no one works out average temperatures for states. If anyone has ever calculated state-wide weather averages, I've never come across it in more than 20 years of writing about weather. (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2003-07-31-answers-coldest-states_x.htm)

If anyone can find something that contradicts this then go with it.

I changed the numbers in the snowfall section. I could find any data to suggest the nubmers in the article were even close to being true, so I'm assuming that they were listed at centimeters instead of inches.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopher backer (talk • contribs)

Some incorrect stuff was added September 30 by a new contributor; the entries probably should have been reverted. That contributor went on to make some unique edits to Iowa; fortunately our neighbors to the south have not retaliated. Given that contributor's history we should not assume that his edits are accurate. Kablammo 20:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lakes and Rivers

I don't trust the refernce used for the Alaska lake count and it doesn't mention size. can anyone find a better one? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We should lose the comparison entirely. The former text made no claim that Minnesota had the most lakes, nor did it draw a comparision with any other states. To add such a comparision here is superfluous, particularly given differences in definition (what size must body of water be before it is a "lake"?). The article is long enough and does not benefit by this detour. If some want to do a separate article ranking states by number of lakes, let them do so, but lets keep this article concise. Kablammo 12:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been a very slow-moving revert war on whether the Mississippi or Missouri is longer. Sources can be found for both contestants; anyone with actual familiarity with the rivers knows that their lengths change every spring and every flood and every time an oxbow is created or cut. In any event there is no point in arguing it here so I simply deleted the phrase. Kablammo 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I looked into it as well and wikipedia contradicts itself also. If anyone can answer: Which tine of a fork is the main tine? Then go ahead and re-add it :) -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)