This is an archive of past discussions about Minneapolis. 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.
Seriously, the History section is 50% an article explaining racism in the city and nothing else important. Some people are actually interested in the history of Minneapolis. I recognize some of that is important but it’s not the history of Minneapolis it’s the history of discrimination in Minneapolis which maybe could be another section? Or shortened? This section also seems quite opinionated in some parts of it, so I’m not surprised it’s locked to prevent changing it…. 69.126.152.193 (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, 69.126.152.193. Do you have a specific suggestion? What areas interest you, like parks, architecture, or the economy? If you make an edit request, I bet somebody would be happy to help. Your edit history suggests that you have an interest in racism in the US. Minneapolis has a high degree of racial disparities, and a history of causing problems for many groups: Native Americans, Jews, Germans, persons with developmental disabilities, Blacks. That history can't be extracted from the article. Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The IP editor makes a valid point. The history and demographic sections give undue weight to social tensions and racism. I typed "history of Minneapolis" into Google. These were the top returns:
You omitted one hit from my first page of Google results: "New book explores cycles and whiplash of Minneapolis history," which is a review of the book by Tom Weber, published by the Minnesota Historical Society Press, just after COVID-19 started and just before George Floyd's murder. Chapter 7 is "Discrimination, Redlining, and the KKK." Mr. Weber's book is a source for this article.
We can't use Britannica as a source. Your other hits are tourism hubs:
USHistory.com is created by Online Highways, "a leader in Internet travel information and reservations."
Life in Minnesota strives "to deliver stories that brighten your day, build your pride in Minnesota"
Meet Minneapolis says: "our mission is to positively impact the economic and social prosperity of our Minneapolis community by attracting visitors, meetings and events that directly support jobs and local businesses, and generate critical revenues."
The Minnesota Historical Society page you cite is a history of the Mill City Museum (for tourists, suggested further reading includes Betty Crocker, and the Pillsbury Bake-Off).
@SusanLesch: No need to discredit the sources, you obviously know I was just using them as an example of how the "high degree of racial disparities" is not top-of-mind to those writing about Minneapolis (and yes, encyclopedias can be used as sources). But you offered great support to our point here. In Weber's book, just one out of 12 chapters is devoted to racism, yet in this Wikipedia article nearly a half of the history and demographic sections are devoted to the topic. It is undue, unbalances the article, and needs to be trimmed. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
What? I don't understand why discredited sources would be used to say what is top-of-mind.
Have you read Tom Weber's book? The topic is covered explicitly in chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10. You've entirely missed his point. His prologue concludes:
The overarching goal is to take what may be the most significant issue facing contemporary Minneapolis—the crippling disparities among its people—and present a history that examines why those disparities exist, even as the city makes a legitimate argument for itself as a must-visit or must-live kind of place.[1]
For Minneapolitans seeking solutions to these inequities and disparities, to ignore the city's history of discrimination, racism, and inequality is to condemn such an effort to failure.[1]
It's easy to cherrypick sources to make a point. These sections are fundamentally imbalanced. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
"Britannica] - no mention of racism." I have been claiming that Britannica is a crappy source for years, a poor excuse of an encyclopedia. Thank you for pointing out that they are whitewashing the history of Minneapolis. Most of the other sources you cited are not remotely reliable. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I would have to agree that the Minneapolis article appears to give an overwhelming amount of attention to racial issues and racism. There are full sections on racism in the History section, the Geography section, and the Demographics section. I understand that racial inequality is an important part of United States history, but this article is over the top. Additionally, the amount of this article devoted to racial issues is disproportionately large compared to other major city pages, including cities in the south where slavery and Jim Crow were, at one time, legal. While Minneapolis certainly has its flaws with respect to racial equality, many of the issues outlined in this article are issues in the United States in general, not something specifically insidious about Minneapolis. Some of the sections are clearly biased generalization. Here’s one example:
“Some historians [who?] have said at various times [when?], some White Minneapolitans [who?] have used discrimination based on race against the city's non-White residents. As White settlers displaced the indigenous population during the 19th century, they claimed the city's land.”
This is an extremely narrow view of history. While it is true that Europeans took Native American lands, that is true of the United States in general. It is not specific to Minneapolis. Additionally, the majority of Europeans who settled in Minneapolis were not landowners; they were poor, working class laborers drawn to the city’s nascent milling industry and often worked in terrible conditions.
That’s just one example, but by means the only example, of how the subject of race and racism has come to dominate an article about a city. Much of this content was added in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, and while it’s important to touch on this history, it has taken over what should be a multifaceted article about a major city. Much of racial-focused content in the History, Geography, and Demographics sections need to be slimmed down considerably re-written in a more objective manner to refocus the purpose of this article. Urbanplanning2000 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The example sentence you quote is cited. Did you read the source?
I don't know where you're from, but probably unlike your hometown, Minneapolis has among the poorest record in the country of racial disparities in many different categories (graduation rates, unemployment, homeownership) thus the topic appears in multiple sections. Sorry but to remove them would be to say, "Oh, that's just America for you." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I never said that the content should be removed; I said it should be slimmed down and rewritten from a more objective point of view. Where I’m from has no relevance to this article, which is for all users of Wikipedia who are interested in learning about Minneapolis. The fact that you are so defensive at the mere questioning of this content suggests that it has been written from a subjective rather than objective lens. For what it’s worth, Minneapolis was also a city that played a key role in the civil rights movement, with Hubert Humphrey campaigning with civil rights as a key part of his platform and later becoming a lead author of the civil rights act of 1964. Of course this article makes no mention of this, nor does it spend much time mentioning the other progressive legacies of Minneapolis, in its attempt to paint the city in such a negative light. Urbanplanning2000 (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Simply not true. I don't wish to discuss this with you further. The History section says, "Mayor Hubert Humphrey helped the city establish fair employment practices and by 1946, a human-relations council that interceded on behalf of minorities was established." -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
3 The Dakota, formerly the Dakota Jazz Club and Restaurant, expanded its offerings in 2018 from only jazz to include more genres of music.[4] Executive chef Remy Pettus delivers the club's menu, created by a James Beard Award-winning chef.[5]
@SusanLesch: Could you please fix the links above so they all point to a diff. Without pointing to a diff, there is no easy way to view the very detailed edit summaries I left for each edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Your precious edit summaries are already provided in every link per WP:CDLG. For example, B links to "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magnolia677 (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 8 September 2022 (unencycopedic puffery, per MOS:WTW)." I'll see what I can do. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! I put a lot of thought into those edit summaries. Let me try to summarize them again:
A consensus of editors has thoroughly rejected the addition of unencyclopedic "best in the city" magazine rankings.
Wording such as "exceptional food along with jazz greats, attracting national audiences" is what Wikipedians call puffery, and it is both unencyclopedic and unwelcome.
Including text like "Executive chef Remy Pettus delivers the club's menu, created by a James Beard Award-winning chef", is unencyclopedic and promotional ("award-winning" is specifically mentioned at MOS:PUFFERY). Moreover, Remy Pettus is not notable, and that the menu at this restaurant was created by an award-winning chef is irrelevant and promotional. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, that's your spin on your edit summaries. You haven't answered my question or moved the discussion forward. I enlarged your results above. How are they an improvement?
Initially, I went along with the Chanhassen RFC. I applied it in this article. [1][2] However it raised questions, and your application includes your bias. I asked for your input at US:CITIES.
Of course I've made mistakes here but generally I subscribe to William Zinsser's On Writing Well. Normally the fewer adjectives and adverbs the better. But you left us with bland, bald statements devoid of life. Where is the featured article you wrote in this style, please? We have guidelines at WP:FAA, WP:WIAFA.-SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
These improvements have brought the article more in compliance with established policies and guidelines. Regarding "featured articles", the second sentence at WP:FACRITERIA states "In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles", and one of those policies is What Wikipedia is not. More importantly, Wikipedia's readers expect honest encyclopedic content when they visit an article about a great city like Minneapolis, not trivial details and hyped-up ballyhooing about how sophisticated and "award winning" the local restaurants are. We are not the Minneapolis Tourist Board. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how it is that you think you are capable of reading the minds of our readers to somehow know that they are not interested in information that says that a Minneapolis restaurant won awards for its food. I'm interested and I believe that a lot of readers are as well. Please quit scouring articles of everything you deem to be trivial details and hyped-up ballyhooing as though you are an authority in such matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectionworker (talk • contribs) 16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Sectionworker (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I have not dived deep into this issue and don't intend to get too involved, but again I think the issue at heart is about the appropriateness of WP:WIKIVOICE for statements that suggest quality, like "great" or "best". We can make such statements, in certain circumstances, but there is a risk to run afoul of WP:PUFFERY easily. On the other hand, having purely descriptive statements that don't signal to the reader why these locations are discussed are also not ideal. I am not implying that any versions actually contained puffery, or that any one of you is in the wrong; instead I suggest again to consider using quotation marks and quote such statements directly from the sources. This might not be the perfect solution, but a possibility. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Deletions by Magnolia677
User:Magnolia677, this is an objection to your recent edits. Once in a while you make an improvement that is accepted with gratitude (for example, wording colonization -> settlement [3]). However as stated, I don't believe you are knowledgeable enough to say unilaterally who and what is notable. You should use the talk page before making your proclamations. Based on past observation, you don't read carefully enough. (In some cases, you didn't read Wikipedia rules thoroughly. For example, [4], [5]. And of course you famously misread a menu (oyster mushroom != smoked oyster) and compared Owamni to the Ponderosa Steak House and did not apologize.)
Your distinctions are based only on your opinions, as in this edit summary: ""What Is Northern Food?" isn't about Minneapolis, see https://artfulliving.com/what-is-northern-food/; just because a non-notable local author won an award for a story that mentions Minneapolis, doesn't mean it should be included in the cuisine section of this article ...more puffery."
The author is not non-notable. Hoffman is "anthologized in the last four editions of Best American Food Writing (2014–2017). He won the 2014 IACP Bert Greene Award for Narrative Culinary Writing, and was a 2015 Finalist. He is a five-time AFJ Food Journalism Award winner, (2013–2017)." Now he won this major journalism award from James Beard in 2019.
What a shame. If you'd really read Hoffman you'd learn something. "There are only four regions in the world this rich in soil: Eastern Europe, northern China, the Argentine Pampas and here...." Glaciers weren't precisely controlling their flow over only the city boundaries of a future Minneapolis. This article is written from Michigan, North Dakota, and from Upton 43, and Polk Street NE, both squarely inside Minneapolis. It's about food from Minneapolis as much as anywhere. Alex Roberts, Gavin Kaysen, Yia Vang, Ann Kim, and Christina Nguyen, to name a few, all work there. I'm restoring this sentence not to edit war but to restore order here. Please refrain from making blanket, hurtful, drive-by claims. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
What is Northern Food? is not specifically about Minneapolis, and in the 14 sections of this magazine article, only two sections are specifically about Minneapolis.
Neither Steve Hoffman, nor the magazine article he wrote, are notable on English Wikipedia.
The consensus of editors who wrote WP:USCITIES#Arts and culture nowhere suggest the inclusion of authors from nearby cities who won awards for magazine articles.
The sentence is unencyclopedic and is only being used to puff up the article: "Hey look world! A guy who lives in a city very close to Minneapolis was one of 42 people who won a notable award for a magazine article he wrote!"
It would be great if some of the content from Hoffman's excellent magazine article could be used to improve this Wikipedia article, for example, to provide readers with insight into some unique feature about food in Minneapolis, or if his magazine article were added to the "further reading" section, but the revision proposed by User:SusanLesch is an unencyclopedic promo that adds nothing of benefit. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Absurd. Mr. Hoffman isn't required to maintain residence where you want him to live. For example among the authors in Works Cited, Elizabeth Hinton is a professor at Yale University, which is in New Haven, Connecticut. Gary Clayton Anderson works for the University of Oklahoma. Second, Hoffman's article opens with estimations of Minneapolis food. He closes with an honor roll of Minneapolis chefs. In keeping with his essay, he took a look around a greater geographic area. Finally, Wikipedia doesn't say that Katharine Hepburn won 4 of the 100 to 120 Oscars awarded to somebody during her career. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Extreme straw-grasping to start saying that Hoffman lives in a "nearby city". He lives in a Mpls/St. Paul suburb, not a nearby city. Nobody says "the city of Mounds View", for example, and etc. The area between all of these suburbs is built up and not empty land. Sectionworker (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
It is a slippery slope to start saying that a source is not reliable just because the author isn't from the same town as the work they are reviewing. Nip this one in the bud... >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 23:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lil-unique1: The source is highly reliable, and where he lives is not my point. My concern is the unencyclopedic way this great local author is being used. Ideally, some text from his award-winning essay about northern food should be incorporated into the "cuisine" section of this article. That would be encyclopedic and would certainly improve the article. Instead, there is no mention of the content of his essay, just a big brag in the cuisine section that this author from a nearby city won some high-falutin award for an essay about food. I have attempted again and again to remove this sort of needless puffery and enencyclopedic bragging, but the pushback has been intense. Any help you can offer would vastly improve this article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for using the talk page. The National Park Service FAQ says, "All National Historic Landmarks are included in the National Register of Historic Places." Prose already says the church is a national landmark so it is less repetitive to allow a more evocative description in the caption. Two unimpeachably reliable sources for the word "masterpiece" are given. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
as a compromise? I can see why using WP:WIKIVOICE might make it sound like puffery to some, but we have at least a few reliable sources that call it thus. By using quotation marks, I believe, we might signify that this opinion is not universal, but attested. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I think if there's at least one source referring to it as such then quotation like that suggested is fine, but unless there are multiple mentions, it would be better to leave out the latter. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 23:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Nothing should be described as "masterpiece" in wikivoice, as it's an inherently subjective and opinion-based statement. (t · c) buidhe06:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Is it an "architectural masterpiece"? The source cited doesn't exactly say this: "The early modernist church has been acknowledged as a masterpiece from the day it was built. It is, however, a very subtle masterpiece that takes some effort to appreciate fully". So, is it a "masterpiece", or a "subtle masterpiece"? Instead of seeking out highly subjective words which offer no encyclopedic content and just contribute to the truckload of puffery and bragging in this article, let's find a neutral and informative way to describe this "subtle masterpiece" of a church? Perhaps we could use WP:CAP#Some criteria for a good caption for assistance. How about:
"The church's unique architecture inspired many similarly designed churches throughout the 1950s and 1960s." (see source above)
Not fair to create questions out of selective quoting. Mr. Millett called the church an unqualified "masterpiece" in the first sentence. He then explains why that is, but you cut him off.
NRHP is redundant. Distracting the reader to the 50s and 60s skirts the purpose of captions to draw the reader in as outlined at WP:CAP.
National Historic Landmark. Let that be the focus of the caption. An NHL is a big deal, and shows the site has extreme historical or architectural importance. I could also support that it inspired similar churches, or that it was designed by renowned architects Eliel and Eero Saarinen. ɱ(talk)17:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
A week went by without comment so moving ahead with this.
Greetings, Svenskbygderna. Thank you for your recent additions to demographics! Have you considered joining WikiProject Minnesota? You have extraordinary editing abilities. I have only these few questions. Please pardon my errors; this kind of statistics is not my forte. Would you mind if we roll this new information into the section in chronological order?
62.7% White alone or in combination I got 62.3%
0.6% some other race alone I got 0.5%
78.4% of the population spoke only English at home 326193/402795=0.8116 or 81.2%
7.4% spoke Spanish I got 7.1%
arrived from Africa (37.5%) I got 41%
from Asia (26.5%) I got 24.6%
Latin America (26.3%) I got 25.2%
32.0% of foreign born residents arrived 2010 or earlier. Where did you get this? Table says 65.4%
5.0% of the population had less than a 9th grade education, almost all of whom where immigrants or refugees." Where did you get this? Table says 4.7% but has no origins
The most common means of transportation to work was ...bicycling (~5%) Where did you get this? Table doesn't mention bicycles. Star Tribune article is 6 years old.
92.7% of housing units in Minneapolis were occupied. I got 94.2%
43.7% of housing units in the city were built 1939 or earlier I got 43.3%, same as Table
Should some citations to the 2020 census be to 2021 ACS estimates?
Should 15% living in poverty say that 23.8% are under 18 years?
Hi @SusanLesch: thanks for your message! First, I would be very interested in joining WikiProject Minnesota. I have yet to delve very deep into the community-side of Wikipedia but I will take your comment as an opportunity to do so. To address some of the questions posed regarding Minneapolis statistics, I derived all of the new data from the Census Bureau's new "profile" feature, which includes data from the 2020 census, plus, as you pointed out, the 2021 ACS estimates and the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. I agree, we should cite each piece of data from its original source (I admit that I was a bit lazy and just cited the Minneapolis profile page).
I also must thank you for your corrections. I am realizing that for some of these data (e.g., Spanish-speaking at home), I was using the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles and not the more recent 2021 ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles. I imagine the discrepancy we're seeing is due to this fact. That said, it appears I did incorrectly copy some numbers over from the table (e.g., 32.0% was erroneously applied to pre-2010 foreign arrivals, when it should be post-2010 arrivals). The note about biking was taken from a StarTribune article as you mentioned. While outdated, I think it might be worth keeping in, or even better if we can find another datapoint showing Minneapolis' relatively high bike commuter rate per capita. I forgot to source the note re: education level, which you are correct in pointing out is not from the census. I pulled that from a Minnesota report. I will add that in soon.
I apologize for these errors! I put this edit together in only about 30 minutes and didn't do a thorough review prior to submission. Please let me know if I can help out in any other way(s). But if you have time before I do, it would be great if you could update the numbers you have corrected above into the main article. Thanks again! Svenskbygderna (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Reverted recent additions per WP:EDIT. "Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed." Tough call; attempt was made to improve this, to no avail. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Magnolia677, why do you insist on removing the Dakota language translation? "(Dakota: Owámniyomni)." It is a self-evident demonstration of the origin of the restaurant's name, as well as the name of the location which is a historically Dakota landmark that later became integral to the growth of Minneapolis. Quoting from the cited source, La Liste, "Owamni’s location, by the Owámniyomni falls on the Upper Mississippi, is sacred to the Dakota people." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Magnolia677, I do not have a COI. You on the other hand might? We've wasted months on this talk page to establish that Owamni is notable. You argued against that for weeks. To repeat, why do you insist on removing the Dakota language translation? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Saint Anthony Falls is a waterfall in Minneapolis. It was named by a French missionary because of "the many favors received through the intercession of that saint." You can find its official entry here. This is English Wikipedia, so there is no need to translate the name of a waterfall named for a saint--located in a US city--into a foreign language. Please see MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, "Use foreign words sparingly", and MOS:FOREIGN, "Foreign terms should be used sparingly." Why do you want to translate this waterfall into a foreign language? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This article uses a few Dakota words, not an excessive amount. You "officially" skipped over the National Park Service who chooses to begin history before the 1680s where the USGS does in your link. Dakota is not "foreign," it is the language used by Minneapolis residents before they were invaded by Europeans. For example, the contemporary community's chosen name of Bde Maka Ska is Dakota language. I don't understand why you are so antagonistic towards the Dakota people. By the way, your erasure of the Dakota language translation of St. Anthony Falls lasted 7 minutes. I'm going to restore the translation now. Please discuss here. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I follow along with the discussions here and now I think I've heard it all when I read that the Dakota language is a foreign language. Sectionworker (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: Let me see if I have this correctly. You added a translation of the name of a waterfall into the Dakota language, in a sentence about a local restaurant, because "it is the language used by Minneapolis residents before they were invaded by Europeans". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It's there for the reasons I gave you above, the first time around: It is a self-evident demonstration of the origin of the restaurant's name, as well as the name of the location which is a historically Dakota landmark that later became integral to the growth of Minneapolis. Quoting from the cited source, La Liste, "Owamni’s location, by the Owámniyomni falls on the Upper Mississippi, is sacred to the Dakota people." The name Owamni is derived from the word Owámniyomni. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
How about actually including an explanation--encyclopediac content about the origin of the name and importance of the place--rather than just a side-note that there is a Dakota name for it? That way there is context and actual value for readers who don't already know this. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is not the restaurant's website. Edit warring to add promos and photos of a restaurant should not take precedence over encyclopedic content. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, good point about the focus of the article. SusanLesch says the location (and Dakota connection) are important in the history of Minneapolis, so maybe it should be included in that context here in the place-article. I note that the restaurant's article does not mention it. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This whole paragraph is a big bragfest of awards won, with not a scratch of encyclopedic content. It's like a tourism website. The translation of the waterfall looks like a puff for this restaurant, to make it more "authentic" (at $80 a plate). Magnolia677 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have no objection to removing puff and fluff and off-topic stuff. If there are award-winning restaurants or native restauranteurs, I think that fact does merit inclusion. If they led to a revival of an area or led to the location being generally known as a hot-bed of such things (based on RS about them as a group, not merely citing each alone), that's again about the place. More about the entities, other than simply identifying them and linking to each's article, I don't think so either. In the absence of sources about this as a whole topic, I would treat it as a prose-ified version of a list, such as a school-alumni, disambiguation page, or seealso: notable item, one key detail about it. I'm willing to workshop it (bearing in mind I have no idea about any of these topics myself). As a start:
−
Several Minneapolis-based chefs have won regional [[James Beard Foundation Awards]][200]Amongherfivewinsandelevennominations, writer Dara Moskowitz GrumdahlwontheJonathanGoldLocalVoiceAward in [[JamesBeardFoundationAward#2020awards|2020]].[201]SeanShermanwonthe2019JamesBeardleadershipaward.[202]
+
Several Minneapolis-based individuals have won regional [[James Beard Foundation Awards]],[200] including writer [[Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl]] in 2020[201] and chef [[Sean Sherman]] in 2019.[202]
Sorry to have confused you. I agree with the suggested article text (above), but don't agree to the photo caption, because the photo is unnecessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677:You wrote in February "This article is about a city in the mid-western United States, so I'm not sure how a photo of a restaurant kitchen is "significant and relevant". Consensus was reached in February to remove my photo that illustrated 1) Owamni personnel, and 2) the Dakota language on their shirts. Faced with your objection, I found an exterior photograph of the building showing Owamni in the context in the city. Now your objection changed to "some promo pic of the outside of a restaurant".
What would satisfy you? I've looked through maybe two thousand photos of the restaurant. Most of them are plates of food, which I don't believe you would entertain. One that I think is the best quality image so far is copyrighted by a Google guide who is unlikely to offer a free license for the country's best new restaurant. We were lucky that a Wikipedian specifically changed his license for us. If you don't like my caption then why don't you rewrite it? -SusanLesch (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: I have added to the article a photo of the 5-8 Club, which was established in 1928, and has deep roots in the city. It is also notable for inventing the mouthwatering Jucy Lucy cheeseburger. Moreover, the 5-8 Club was ranked #1 on Chowdown Countdown, and has been featured on Man v. Food and Food Wars. Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl, who is mentioned in the same section of the article, described this restaurant's Jucy Lucy as a "big, sizzling, dense, and tender burger filled with good cheese". The photo also clearly shows the distinctive exterior of the restaurant. I'm sure you'll agree this photo is a much more significant and relevant illustrative aid of a notable Minneapolis restaurant, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
It is not fair play for you to walk in here, remove a rivalry, and make Wikipedia come down on one side. (Google, who isn't always right of course, says "who invented the Jucy Lucy" was Matt Bristol who owned Matt's Bar.)
@SusanLesch: Owamni is only the best new restaurant in America according to James Beard. The following "best of" lists didn't even mention Owamni. Not even once...
Are you really arguing this again for the eighth month? La Liste (not Yelp!) is the given citation.
More to the point now, your cheeseburger rundown is not fair and must go. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Removed photo and restored prose per WP:NPOV. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
If there is going to be an image of a restaurant in the Cuisine section, the one of the 5-8 is by far the preferable one, as it is immediately clear what the photo is of. I'm neutral-ish on whether or not an image is helpful at all. --Sable232 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
P.S. I asked both photographers if they could make a photo of Owamni. Wish we'd thought of that before. -22:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Are you aware of the rivalry between 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar? Why do you think it's fair to have a photo of one and not the other? You're getting pushback because this cheeseburger project execution has a point of view against Wikipedia policy. I've read your accolades above and they aren't the whole story. You copied Wikipedia's quote from Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl, who, if you'd read her work, prefers Matt's. The Star Tribune's brand new restaurant critic liked a different place and soon heard from his readers, 45% of whom like Matt's. So did Barack Obama. So did my boss. And Andrew Zimmern. I know some reality TV Travel Channel show liked the 5-8 Club, but didn't you decide to leave rankings behind in that RfC? If we're using rankings, both bars were featured on Man v. Food and Food Wars and Matt's won the taste test. Wikipedia's Jucy Lucy article stays neutral and so should this article. Would you please stop calling my editing disruptive when I am following Wikipedia policy? You can read it at WP:NPOV. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: So you were unaware of the feud over who invented the Jucy Lucy? I've explained it to you but you skip over the facts. You need to stop calling my edits disruptive, or COI, or promotion. Owamni has nothing to do with this. Ask Google "who invented the jucy lucy". WP:NPOVis one of Wikipedia's three core content policies and...is non-negotiable. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The fact that there is some kind of feud between two local restaurants should not concern us here at all. But if there are concerns about inappropriately promoting one local business over another, the solution is simple: The section is about food, the photo should be of food. I propose that the image currently used in the infobox at Jucy Lucy, Image:Jucy Lucy Cheeseburger.JPG be used, or we simply agree that no image will accompany the section. Jucy Lucy Cheeseburger.JPGMrOllie (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie: Thank you. I would prefer no image at this time. I maintain that promoting one business over another gets us in trouble with WP:NPOV. Beyond the question of fairness, rivalry is not our concern or the subject of this article. (If photographers suddenly gift us better pictures of Owamni, that's time to revisit.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose this image to replace the photo of the 5-8 Club at Minneapolis#Cuisine. I believe we've established that image is POV (some will argue) and I suspect has the whiff of a tourist trap. I've asked three photographers (Jonathunder, McGhiever and Bobak) if they have time to try to improve on this image--it wasn't purpose-made but it is the best we have for now (there is opposition). This caption could go in many different directions (for example decolonization, indigenous cuisine, nutrition, the chef Sean Sherman). A caption is an opportunity to say a little more about something per WP:CAPTION, and I believe this restaurant deserves more. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It should be obvious at this point that you are not going to get consensus to add a photo of Owamni, let alone the same one that just got rejected in the section above. You should consider that after certain point, continuing to push makes it less likely that anyone will ever agree with you. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, MrOllie. I have faith Wikipedians could choose Owamni if all the facts were presented to them in an RfC. Likely a different photo as you say. I read your link and found myself in WP:REHASH. Thank you for pointing to that lesson. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
(Fig. 2) A Jucy Lucy hamburger, invented in Minneapolis
Hi all, a few assorted thoughts here:
If there's concern that showing only Matt's or the 5-8 Club is NPOV, we can do both (Fig. 1). However, this option is pretty boring and you can't eat the buildings.
I'm personally more in favor of a good image of a Jucy Lucy as there are already plenty of buildings on this page and Minneapolis (or any city) is more than its buildings; this one (Fig. 2) looks pretty good and perhaps more like the "authentic" Lucy, but there are other options available.
That said, I think there's an underdiscussed element to including the (or an) Owamni photo: Owmani stands on the site of Fuji-Ya, a Japanese restaurant that opened in this location in 1968 and brought significant attention to the Minneapolis waterfront that persists to this day. Tanaka and Moore's 2018 article in Minnesota History documents this well. A caption linking Owamni to Fuji-Ya could serve the city's cultural/gastronomic history better than the pure inclusion of Owamni in and of itself. —Collintc19:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Collin, very funny to say Owamni is "underdiscussed". Go for what you think is best; you know the city.
I visited Fuji-ya only once as a child and vaguely remember a long narrow room similar to Owamni. I would love to see Reiko Weston and her restaurant remembered. Bobak has been to Owamni and might already have photos you could use. I've been advised to remove myself from this image discussion and am on wikibreak until after the election. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi SusanLesch, apologies, I didn't mean to imply that Owamni was underdiscussed in general, only that the connection with Fuji-Ya, which I think bolsters the argument for the inclusion of the Owamni photo, was underdiscussed. Kindly —Collintc16:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Ayy yo! 😎 I was just mentioned in all of this. Side note: I love the idea of writing up historical Fuji-ya, that architect was a modernist grad student at the U who went on to design the Supreme Court building of Japan. Too bad they scraped it off the top. I lecture on modernism now so I occasionally step in to add more accurate bits than people who write everything is either "Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired" or "Art Deco" 😂 — but on Owamni, I'm also a massive local foodie so I forgot that some of the restaurants I go to are on here. I have some passable food shots from several visits: I've put them here, let me know what you think (I'm not suggesting using all of them) and I've got captions somewhere so don't worry about identifying the dishes. I'm by there all the time and can take some exterior photos later this week. My interior photos are friends and stuff so obvi not gonna be on here. 😅 -- Bobak (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh snap, Gavin Kaysen is on Wikipedia. I've got lots of photos from his places. Better than what's there already. He's a good guy, I know him and patronize his restaurants way more than I would like to admit (but my waistline shows, LOL 🐷) -- Bobak (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Police
User:Magnolia677, thank you for trimming the police section. I appreciate it while I tick off To Do items before I call for a featured article review. Unfortunately the work you just added is so poor it can't remain in this article unless you fix it. Per WP:EDIT, "Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed."
You say the force currently has a crime investigations division, and that is true. But you skipped over the entire patrol division and the professional standards division. The department is divided into precincts and three bureaus (not precincts and three divisions for crime investigation which is what you wrote).
You wrote, "In 1889, the force employed 200 officer who patrolled the city on horses and by foot." That's misleading. The source says "By 1889, 200 officers patrolled the city of 200,000 residents. The city was patrolled mostly by foot beats. Officers patrolled outlying areas on horses."
You've lumped your next citations together. (For example, precincts and police reserves have their own pages which would be much more accurate citations.)
Thank you for your input. My edit is now more accurate, and entirely supported by the sources cited. Because Wikipedia is a work in progress, editors will often "skip over" certain details; no editor is expected to include all details about a topic. If something is missing, other editors are free to expand the section. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@SusanLesch:Policy does not list "edits below featured article standards" as a reason to revert, so I would advise against this. The edit is relevant, reliably sourced, and factually correct. You are welcome to correct errors or expand the section. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Your work is poorly sourced and incomplete. And you're dumping your half-baked work on me? We'd be better off rolling this section back into Government where it started. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I can't tell which version is baked to perfection, but the ten paragraph long version was too much for one sitting. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Right, Drmies. But judicious editing of 10 paragraphs could have improved this article. Few cities have survived police department murder of a man in broad daylight, attempted defunding, and DOJ scrutiny. The section now looks ripe for drive-by edits. In my mind it's heading to the Government section where it started, under its new boss Dr. Alexander, if a new chief is confirmed in early November. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Magnolia677, today I plan to replace the Government section, restore a Police subsection, and remove police from Infrastructure. In Minneapolis, the police department is integral to the local government and is not considered a physical structure. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Right, of course 10 paragraphs were too long. As I recall, that was a unanimous opinion. As of this week, the city has a new chief of police. Let's hope for the best. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
See WP:5P3. My edit summaries were clear as a mud-free river, and it certainly unbalances the article to have excessive details which specifically focus on the police department post GF, particularly when there are multiple other articles were details can be added. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Afraid I don't follow. Why do you want to "unbalance[s] the article to have excessive details which specifically focus on the police department post GF"? Do you mean to say per WP:5P3 that copy was "mercilessly edited and redistributed" to enhance its meaning somehow? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Why don't you start a normal discussion and get input from others? Line the two edit up side-by-side and see if others have comments about content and ways to improve the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Magnolia677, I would prefer to not have the Table of Contents feature the murder of George Floyd in text, but then not offer readers any insight into what happened (that prose was removed). Diffs are below in a new topic. While we're waiting, a couple of corrections for you.
Your edit summary says "The chief of police is not notable, and the source cited does not support that his appointment was related to the federal consent decree." This is a misreading of the source which clearly does support that his appointment was related to the federal consent decree. Quoted here in case you're over the limit of free articles at the Star Tribune: O'Hara steadily climbed the ranks of the Newark, N.J., Police Department before becoming public safety director and, most recently, deputy mayor. During his time there, supporters credited him for collaborating with longtime department critics and working to implement the terms of a federal consent decree mandating sweeping changes to the agency. Many city officials expect Minneapolis will soon face similar court orders as a result of concurrent investigations by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and U.S. Justice Department.
Chiefs of police, and chiefs of the fire department, and city attorneys...are hardly notable on big city articles. Again, the Minneapolis Police Department has its own article for specific details about employees, and the details of Floyd's death are detailed at Murder of George Floyd. A consensus of editors who wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline have suggested that "more than 10 paragraphs or the use of subsection headings" might indicate the history section needs its own article (which it has...History of Minneapolis). This article is bloated enough with 13 paragraphs of history. Please stop adding trivial details which should instead be added to more specific articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: What you removed was a straightforward reporting of a fact: only 2 percent of the city was non-White by the 1950s, reflecting a forty year span of 98 percent White or more. No "conclusion" or case for "historic racism" was involved. But thank you, I don't mind it leaving the article because it was a dead link. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Idea for moving forward [corrected]
Magnolia677, you've made improvements over the past year for which we can all be grateful, and that made you a top editor of this article. I'm thinking two parts:
Make a critical edit pass or passes.
Write a list of issues on Talk that you think should be fixed.
This source is used to support the statement: "Minneapolis has a long history of structural racism". The source cited is an interview with various experts about racism in Minneapolis. In one interview, Kirsten Delegard states that before 1910, "Minneapolis was not a particularly segregated place." In the very next paragraph, Daniel Bergin discusses housing disparities and says: "What we learned recently is that it wasn’t just informal patterns of occupancy — it’s all based on the systemic racism of the 19th century." But this statement isn't specific to Minneapolis, and may refer to redlining by the Federal Housing Authority. What make this a dubious source is that if "structural racism" goes back to the 1800s, how can Minneapolis be not "a particularly segregated place" in 1910? Either way, saying in the article that "Minneapolis has a long history of structural racism", is not specifically supported by the source cited. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Maybe if you slow down a little bit, the material will read better.
You say:
Delegard states that before 1910, "Minneapolis was not a particularly segregated place."
then you skip to "the very next paragraph" which omits Delegard's very next sentence. More completely, what she says is:
Delegard: In 1910 "Minneapolis was not a particularly segregated place. But after, racial covenants were in use for 40 years."
In 1910, along came a real estate developer who made racial covenants forbidding non-Whites from living in his developments. (Our article explains this.)
You say:
"...this statement isn't specific to Minneapolis, and may refer to..."
Bergin's statement is indeed specific to Minneapolis. Delegard answers him immediately, saying "redlining’s not unique" to Minneapolis.
You say:
"What make this a dubious source is that if "structural racism" goes back to the 1800s, how can Minneapolis be not "a particularly segregated place" in 1910?"
Bergin had already said structural racism goes back to the 1800s, when it refers to the indigenous "Dakota and Ojibwe" peoples. In 1910 there were only 1% Black people in Minneapolis who lived with racism "just beneath the surface". Delegard also reminds us that in 1946, the city was named the “anti-Semitism capital of the United States."
@SusanLesch: "Maybe if you slow down a little bit". There is no need to insult other editors just because you disagree with them. Please try to assume good faith. The source cited is sloppy and contradictory, and your interpretation is based on assumptions not specifically mentioned in the source cited. If there are 6,087 other source out there to support this, it would be beneficial to find one of them. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact, not in any way an insult, that speeding through the source omitted a crucial sentence. I believe you have improved the article, as it stands, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Bde Maka Ska
Greetings, User:Indianb55. If you want to have Bde Maka Ska in the infobox collage, maybe you would help select a different photo for the article under Geography. The Commons has several dozen so there's no requirement to repeat an image. I picked three here, or maybe you can find another:
Quite unexpectedly, both Google Guides agree to release their photos of Owamni under free licenses. Before I bother them with OTRS and permissions, I'd like to know Collin and Bobak if one of these will work with a combined Owamni/Fuji Ya caption. Which one do you prefer? These were the best I found out of about 2,000 images. Wikipedia already has an article Fujiya about a Japanese retail chain but nothing under Fuji Ya.
Ooh, thanks for doing this, SusanLesch; I think these are both lovely but the second one provides a clearer picture of the building itself so I might be inclined to go with that one. —Collintc17:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The photo of the 5-8 Club has been stable in the article for a month now, and no consensus was reached in previous discussions to replace it with a photo of Owamni, and especially with a night shot photo of people sitting upstairs in a place called "Waterworks". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The fact remains that neither building is immediately recognizable as a restaurant (or as anything else, for that matter). The 5-8 Club is immediately recognizable as a restaurant and of a style typical of an establishment of its era. I think a good photo of the Juicy Lucy itself would be preferable, but without a better option than the one appearing in its article, I'd rather keep the photo of the 5-8 in place. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Sable232, 5-8 it is for now, even if perhaps not long-term. I'll hold off asking for permissions until we find out if Bobak has another viewpoint. Thank you for your reply. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
This question was settled for me last evening when NBC evening news featured a long segment of it's broadcast on this restaurant. It is really a big deal to get that sort of national recognition. I like photo #2 the best. Here is the film:[10]. Sectionworker (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Where in Wikipedia guidelines does it say that sarcastic, smart alec comments are the way to conduct a talk page discussion? One grows very weary of your behavior here. Photo #2 is just fine. Sectionworker (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
What do news segments have to do with this? #2 above is a mediocre picture of a relatively nondescript building, the implication being that the silhouettes on the second floor are diners at a restaurant. No amount of news coverage changes the unsuitability of the image. --Sable232 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
That's what captions are for. Maybe you're missing a subtlety inherent in this restaurant, and penalizing it for not meeting your threshold of American marketing or European ornament. That's sadder than I can say. A Wikipedia featured article shows a more nondescript building of less consequence. Everybody doesn't think they must have fins and neon and compete on the Las Vegas Strip. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe that Susan makes a good point. And re the photos at the FA, I'll bet that several of them would be rejected here for one reason or another. Again, I feel that photo #2 is excellent and I feel that the national recognition warrants a photo of the restaurant. Sectionworker (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry, I can't find that is true that alt text is a requirement. Just from experience, I believe that GA's don't require it. Strange! PPS. Wikipedia had an RfC on this and this requirement failed. Stunning. Still, alt is encouraged. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I have included the photo and caption, which SusanLesch uploaded from Flickr 15 years ago. WP:IMGCONTENT says: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article."
"Spring art party" is not mentioned in the article.
"North Commons Park" is not mentioned in the article.
"Willard-Hay" is not mentioned in the article.
There is also no formal event called a "spring art party" in this park or in this neighborhood. All that is depicted is two women doing something with fire, and absolutely nothing depicting anything described in the article. SusanLesch's upload is decorative and adds no value to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
2020 mural organized by the Minnesota African American Heritage Museum and Gallery
That's not quite accurate. "Not mentioned in the article" is the point. No matter how many times you repeat, repeat, repeat, Wikipedia guidelines do not require it. This caption leads directly to Wikipedia's strong list of 83 neighborhoods.
Perhaps you would find and upload an alternative from the near-north Minneapolis community. We don't, for example, have a photo of the new Minnesota African American Heritage Museum and Gallery, or the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center. You might have to write an underlying article. If you will provide one, then I can support swapping this photo out. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think wikilawyering should displace a charming photo made by a UK visitor, illustrating a day at the neighborhood park. Removing it would weaken the Neighborhood section and not improve the article, so I asked an expert on Minneapolis neighborhoods. Will wait to hear back. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
It's curious that what you say fails actually fulfillsWP:IMGCONTENT: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. This image depicts people, activities and concepts occurring in a Minneapolis neighborhood, and elegantly at that.
What's to hate about Willard-Hay? The Capri Theater is there, and the splashpad and playground at Willard Park. Kids play there you know. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The image is 7,372 × 3,686 pixels, which makes it a remarkably high-quality image by Wikipedia standards, and there likely is no corner of North Penn and Golden Valley in any other US city. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
So what? Professional Photographers of America agrees that technique and technical excellence are important! But they are only 2 of 12 judging criteria. Apartment buildings tell us zip and could be mistaken for any city in the world. I tend to agree with Sectionworker that Powderhorn is the best, and it's by the same photographer. It is only 5,467 × 4,100 but it has heart and soul and the sign is legible. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
So what is exactly right. Photographs are judged by a lot more than who has the best camera. A bunch of streets with buildings do not represent "neighborhoods". People being neighborly, as in the Powderhorn photo, are a much better choice. Sectionworker (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll play for one morning while waiting for a reply from our neighborhood expert. Kindly keep in mind the focus of "directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not accept original research, so unless your "expert" is a reliable source like a book or a journal, their opinion means little. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is that, Sectionworker? I wonder if you saw the file description for #14. Holland. "Only in America: our local Islamic Cultural Center shares a parking lot with a liquor store." I would love to see your choices from Wikimedia Commons. Anyway my vote so far is for the first Powderhorn, the Sidewalk Talk. P.S. The only reason I added the first Phillips West is that I'm 99% sure that in the mid-distance is former interim police chief Amelia Huffman (non-notable as Magnolia would have it). -SusanLesch (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely! We had that one during FA review. I was worried because their Wikipedia page says in 2019 they ran out of money, but I guess their website indicates they made it. Anyway yes, it shows some of the physical neighborhood along with the performance. All things considered I think the photo we have now ticks most of the boxes but I can support an improvement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The only possibly valuable photo in our article was made by John Vachon before Obama's mother was born. Recent doesn't correspond to good. Here are our five candidates. I'm still hoping to hear from WikiProject Minnesota. Feel free to edit. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This image of Columbia Park shows the industrial side of Minneapolis. Some readers may find it refreshing. Otherwise, the cyclists on Midtown Greenway has my vote; it shows the recreational side of the city, and isn't a creepy closeup of someone. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Thirded the Greenway photo; it captures people (both bikers and walkers) in a park built onto historic infrastructure! Great work all! —Collintc23:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: It gave me a reason to grab lunch at Maria's Restaurante on Lake Street while I figured it out. I'd be happy to add the photo. Were we going to swap it for the women-with-fire picture? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Can you make a good caption and change our photo to this one? I think you liked it before, and one half of our RfC respondents were in favor of "no or neither" dive bar or an "alternative". Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If you want to replace it by a Jucy Lucy, I suggest to replace it by one of these pictures. It gives a far better view of the JL. The Bannertalk11:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Jucy Lucy burger
I wanted to add support for an image of the Ju[i]cy Lucy; there are plenty of building images already in the article and I'd argue that the JL image is both nice variation and illustrative of a food item that some readers may be unfamiliar with. —Collintc16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
And actual food in an section about food is not a bad idea. But with SusanLesch throwing in a RFC for a photo change, we have no other option than tiptoeing around this theme again. Maybe there is more typical Minneapolis food out there. The Bannertalk19:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
What is the problem, User:The Banner? In the RfC, 1) you suggested an alternate, 2) I explained this photo violates WP:NPOV, and 3) User:Sbmeirow suggested we "include both" or "remove both". That adds up to 3 of 5 respondents. Then Collin added his opinion in favor of the cheeseburger. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Unless you come with another RFC of course but now there are 3 options: 1) do nothing (per your RFC); 2) place the photos of both "inventing" restaurants and 3) replace the photo by one of the burger. And if option 3: another RFC to choose between the three suggested burgers. By and large: you made it difficult, now deal with that. The Bannertalk20:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
User:Magnolia677, why do you ask the same question, over and over? You know about the Jucy Lucy rivalry but you've insisted on your choice unfairly here for months. From WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable policy: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well." -SusanLesch (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
And that is why you wanted to replace it by a photo of rather random restaurant out of the many, many restaurants in the city? This is a very strange argument. The Bannertalk23:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: Cool your jets friend. First, the most recent photo choice was made by consensus at an RFC you initiated. Second...and let me get this straight...because there is a rivalry between these two restaurants about which one invented some greasy local cheeseburger, you feel it would be unfair to feature the photo of one restaurant over the other. Is this correct? Seriously?Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. But there is also the option of incorrectly using it. Perhaps it sounds rude, but to me it looks that you are using NPOV to push another restaurant. The Bannertalk14:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@The Banner: Now you could be verging on rude. I have no conflict of interest in Minneapolis including Owamni. Owamni has been my preference for months, before a 5-8 Club photo was introduced and before WP:NPOV was an issue. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
For a little bit of perspective, San Francisco is a world famous food and restaurant destination city. There are 40 Michelin starred restaurants within the city limits and dozens of others nearby. Category:Restaurants in San Francisco includes 82 articles. Many notable dishes and drinks have been developed there. And yet, there are no photos of restaurants or food items in that article. Why argue about a cheeseburger? Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
And San Francisco was an FA until a year ago. No photo is the best route (this was my opinion, and you strengthened it). Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, {{multiple image}} shows image2 in page preview tooltips and in mobile Android. (My phone never displays the other six images.) That template also causes a tiny but noticeable rendering delay in Firefox and Safari (I don't see a delay in Chrome). For these two reasons, heads up I plan to restore an older montage. commons:Category:Montages of Minneapolis has four: 2010, 2015, 2016, and 2018, of which I'm choosing File:MinneapolisCollage2018.jpg for the time being. Too bad, because in the multiple image template, it was so easy to swap images in and out. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone here contribute a new collage based on one of these four? Unfortunately the 2018 file is the weakest design. I'd replace the left image in the second row. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
User:SusanLesch has reverted an edit to add the following (along with a photo she took uploaded):
After each significant snowfall, called a snow emergency, the Minneapolis Public Works Street Division plows over 1,000 miles (1,609.3 km) of streets as wide as possible—in "lane miles," enough to plow a lane between Minneapolis and Anchorage, Alaska.[1] Ordinances govern parking on plowing routes during these emergencies, as well as snow shoveling.[2]
A "snow emergency" means the city is expecting over three inches of snow, so be careful where you park. In fact, this article indicates that a "snow emergency" is all about parking, and the city website also indicates that a snow emergency is all about parking. Seems kinda trivial for an article about a big city that gets lots of snow. And why do readers need to know the distance to Alaska? The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
No per my edit summary. This talk page will be improved when you stop to admit your mistake and give Andrew Ciscel credit for his ingenious photo. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: Not your photo, you only uploaded it. Let's focus on improving this article. Could you please tell me why you reverted an edit so you could re-insert the distance from Minneapolis to Alaska? Not all readers are from the United States, so many may find this "factoid" confusing. Also, do you agree that featured articles should avoid unencyclopedic "amazing facts" and the use of sensational comparisons? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: You accuse me of reverting but it was you who removed the entire paragraph—about the only perennial weather problem facing Minneapolis so far. This article has given credit to the Minneapolis Public Works department for fifteen years. Minneapolis without mention of clearing snow is unrecognizable. Excuse me, I intend to withdraw from this argument now. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: I have not found another article about a large North American city that mentions snow clearing (see Chicago, Edmonton, Calgary). And again, what is the purpose of informing readers of the distance to Alaska? I'd rather not take this unencyclopedic edit to dispute resolution, so I'm hoping you can explain your edits other than just saying those who clear snow need to be "given credit". This isn't a tribute page. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This is unencyclopedic trivia, and the photo is a generic one that could've been taken almost anywhere. I say leave it out. MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Opening discussion here for candidates for an image to represent the city in the infobox. Collages/montages have caused us recurring copyright violations over the years, and now the multiple image template only displays the Minneapolis Institute of Art in tooltips and on cellphones. Feel free to add candidates and !vote here. I think we can use a single good photo. We don't have any guidance from WP:USCITIES which refers us to MOS:LEADELEMENTS which says the lead image should be "representative" and the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Nr. 3: Aerial photo of downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
The multiple image template now shows the whole city on mobile. So my objection to it is over. Also the whole city appears in tooltips. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Can you point please to the rule or guideline that says an article can't have a second photo of something pictured first in the lead image? The closest I've found is the common sense rule MOS:REPEATLINK (for links not images). -SusanLesch (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Does that mean your edits like this are based on your interpretation of "decorative" and not on a specific guideline? I would say we disagree mightily on what would be useful to the reader of the section where these second images used to be. In this example, I can't believe you would send a reader back to the top just to find out if that was Minnehaha Falls they caught a glimpse of earlier. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Adding multiple images of the same thing would junk up the article with unnecessary images that readers would need to download, but perhaps a discussion about redundant and duplicate images could result in a policy about it. Seems like a no brainer to me, but whatever. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wikipedia cannot decide a winner in the dispute between the 5-8 Club and Matt's Bar over who invented the Jucy Lucy, by picturing one and not the other. Picturing both is undue weight for cheeseburgers. The current photo violates Wikipedia core policy at WP:NPOV. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
You unfairly picked your favorite to picture. Please stop arguing the same point over and over.
"There’s a war going on in south Minneapolis between two rivals... For half a century, these two bars on Cedar Avenue South have claimed to make the original, and best, Juicy Lucy."[1]
With the other restaurant having a history going back to 1928, focusing on rather recent awards for a 2-year old restaurant is RECENTISM. The Bannertalk17:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
COME VISIT MINNEAPOLIS! Eat at James Beard award-winning Minneapolis chef Gavin Kaysen's Spoon and Stable built in 1906, plus if I'm not mistaken his Demi restaurant building was built in 1918. Here's your invitation. 😃 -SusanLesch (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
If you look at the actual article, you see 2 sources saying the restaurant has opened and 3 sources that it has won an award. The article does not prove its notability. The Bannertalk19:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
No - The photo of the 5-8 Club is both significant and relevant, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. The article mentions the history of the 5-8 Club, and its connection to the mouthwatering Jucy Lucy burger. The photo itself is interesting too, and meets some criteria of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Regarding the photo of Owamni restaurant, all it shows is people eating on the second floor of a building that says "water" on the front, and nowhere at MOS:IMAGES does it suggest gimmicky "award-winning" restaurants get priority. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
No - The photo of people sitting at tables on the second floor of a dark building does not make for a good illustrative aid. The 5-8 Club is at least readily recognizable as a restaurant to the average reader, so if there is going to be a photo of a restaurant, it should be the 5-8 instead of Owamni. --Sable232 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes I don't believe that this or that WP quideline will provide our answer here. It's just a preference issue, IMO. The building photos are better than the hamburger photos. Of the two building photos, I prefer the Owamni. I think it's a good photo that adds a lot to the cuisine section. As far as a decision on whether Lucy or Indian food is more important to portray, is old or new better? Who's to say? In this case I'm saying new. Owamni was recently feathered on both PBS and NBC. The chef was interviewed, the food was shown, the history was presented, awards mentioned, etc. I believe that it shows a modern Minneapolis looking back at its roots and learning to appreciate them. Sectionworker (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
User:SusanLesch has added duplicate and similar photos to the article. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE suggests that images be not be "primarily decorative", and I question the encyclopedic value of multiple similar images on city articles. Unnecessary images also add an extra load for mobile users. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Prior to adding back these duplicate images, you made a point that there was no policy about this. The input of editors more familiar with image policy would be of benefit. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I offered a compromise. You didn't respond.
The editor who made the infobox changed the image of Minnehaha Falls. You didn't respond.
Evidently the purpose of this thread is to enshrine your preferences in MOS policy. Development of MOS policy could better be done on MOS Images talk.
I am most happy to hear you are back and well. I have just read through the new comment our friend SandyGeorgia has left for us below as a part of our FAR. Demographics are not usually the thing I am the best at, but I am quite familiar with WP:U.S. Cities guidelines for this part. I am currently in California visiting family, however I will be back soon. I would be happy to help then. If you aren’t in need of a teammate, don’t feel like you need to wait for me!
Thank you, I will. I will be back home soon, so would you like me to take a crack at trying to dissect that lead section? If not, I will take it off my personal to do list for when I return. Whatever is the most convenient for you!
.jpg)
Powderhorn
Phillips West
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
