Jump to content

Talk:History of Minneapolis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleHistory of Minneapolis was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 10, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 15, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Proposed outline

[edit]

I'm going to use this as a timeline/outline for the article, along with a list of the books I plan to use for references.

Discovery

[edit]
  • 1680 - Father Hennepin visits the falls, names them Falls of St. Anthony (Pennefeather)
  • 1805 - Zebulon Pike negotiates with the Dakota Indians, who cede land that includes St. Anthony Falls (Pennefeather)

Fort Snelling and St. Anthony Falls

[edit]

City pioneers

[edit]
  • 1850 - John H. Stevens is the first settler on the west side of the river; receives a claim in exchange for providing free ferry service (current article)
  • Franklin Steele and Ard Godfrey
  • 1854-1855 - first bridge over the Mississippi built (Pennefeather)
  • 1854 - Stevens plats Minneapolis (Millett p. 26)
  • 1855 - St. Anthony incorporated (Pennefeather)
  • 1858 - Minnesota becomes a state (anyone)
  • 1867 - Minneapolis is incorporated (Pennefeather)

Industry at St. Anthony Falls

[edit]
  • 1848-1887 - Minneapolis leads the nation in sawmilling (Pennefeather)
  • 1869 - a bunch of brainiacs build a tunnel under the falls; hilarity ensues in the form of a tunnel collapse (Pennefeather)
  • 1870-1884 - falls are restored and protected by an apron, dam, and dike (Pennefeather)
  • 1872 - Minneapolis and St. Anthony merge (Pennefeather)
  • 1878 - Washburn "A" Mill explodes, taking many other mills with it (Pennefeather)
  • 1881 - Pillsbury "A" Mill
  • 1880-1930 - Minneapolis leads the nation in flour production (Pennefeather)
  • 1882 - Nation's first hydroelectric plant opens on Upton Island (Pennefeather)
  • 1883 - Stone Arch Bridge opens (Pennefeather)
  • 1883 - Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts (first meeting)
  • Railway development (Hofsommer)

Some section on late 1800s/early 1900s other than milling

[edit]

A changing city

[edit]

Modern Minneapolis

[edit]

Feel free to add anything I left out, or remove anything that looks too specialized. After all, I don't own the article; I'm just organizing it for now. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hennepin's exaggeration

[edit]

I think Hennepin may be getting the short shrift here. Using Google Earth, the water level at the lower end of Nicollet Island is 801' above sea level; under the Stone Arch Bridge, it's 751'; under the I-35 bridge, it's 725'. So, over 3/4 mi., the river currently drops 76'. We know that the falls moved upstream (see [1]), but the total drop in elevation has to be similar to what it was 330 years ago. Therefore, I don't think he was exaggerating. --Appraiser 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "At Franklin Steele’s original dam, the head–the distance the water fell from above the dam to below it–totaled only eight feet. By 1889 de la Barre had elevated the average head to 36 feet and later raised it to 45 feet." Maybe the 8 or 10 feet is a dam, not the waterfall? Here is the source for that quote. -Susanlesch 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

I don't understand how "building low dams above the falls" could reduce the limestone's exposure to the weather. Does that make sense to anyone reading this? Flour production is measured in barrels. Is there any information to convert barrels to pounds or cubic feet? The barrel article mostly talks about liquids.--Appraiser 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this article from the Corps of Engineers, they built a dam near the edge of the waterfall to maintain a constant volume of water over the falls. That would prevent the freezing and thawing of the water within the limestone cap. It sounds like they had to try a number of temporary solutions over the years immediately after the Eastman tunnel collapse, since the water had a tendency to scour out additional tunnels and leaks until the entire dike was completed in 1885. As far as a barrel is concerned, this page says a barrel of flour is 3 bushels or 196 pounds. It's slightly different for cornmeal, and Portland cement is another weight entirely. You have to love Imperial units. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
  • Considering the sheer quantity of content here, there should be at least two paragraphs in the lead (which is supposed to summarize the article per WP:LEAD) and an image.
  • Leave me if it's alright, but "These developments along the river are bringing a new appreciation for the falls that were instrumental in the foundation and development of Minneapolis." comes across as a redundant sentece and not really necessary at the end of the Rediscovering the riverfront section.
  • A judgement call has to made, but people that are realtively not notable outside of their specific actions in relation to the history of the city need not be wikilinked. Not that the red links are ugly or anything, but if the article has such a small chance of being created, they need not be there at all.
  • On several occasions, "Interstate Highway xx" is used. Is the "highway" part really necessary? It's seems kind of awkward and somewhat redundant; as a non-American I'm not sure how it's commonly said so fill me in.
  • Because of disambiguation, the link to John Ireland (archbishop) was sour. I fixed it.

The above mostly just require a response, so I can figure out what's going on, as much as a correction. --Phoenix (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll take a look into these questions and get back to you in the next day or two. Thanks for your review so far. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the lead to three paragraphs now, and I've added an image that gives a nice view of the city and some context. (Should I make the image thumbnail bigger?) I also removed some of the red links that aren't likely to get articles, though there are a few people and places that should probably have articles (like Hennepin Island, Ard Godfrey, and Franklin Steele).
  • As far as "Interstate Highway" versus "Interstate" is concerned, I think people are more likely to say "Interstate" than "Interstate Highway", though both are relatively common terms. Natives to the area could get by with saying "Highway 94" or "Highway 35W" instead of "Interstate 94" or "Interstate 35W", since there aren't any other highways with those names, but that probably introduces too much ambiguity for this article.
  • Let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be something about the bridge collapse?

[edit]

Not sure what section it would go under, though. DandyDan2007 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does not go under "Reshaping downtown" which I have reverted edits for. This is an article about the HISTORY of Minneapolis and if some people would simply read the article before making irrelevant edits to it, this would be clear. Because the article is presented in a manner in which earlier notable events occur first leading up to modern times at the end, a section on the bridge cannot simply be edited into earlier sections. The sections are chronological and not categorical. And due to the format of the article, the bridge cannot simply be given it's own section name because the article is presented in context of the chronology. (ie Reshaping downtown is in reference to many changes made over the latter 20th Century). Because no published (source) material has appeared yet on what era Minneapolis is heading in, we cannot definitively make judgment at this time per Wikipedia policy. I suggest we have a debate here before we place 35W back into the article. It should be noted other disasters have killed more people in the city limits, a disaster does not necessarily satisfy notability. Davumaya 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two questions here:
  • Is the collapse of the bridge notable enough within the history of Minneapolis that it will be considered a major historic event ten, twenty, or fifty years from now?
  • If so, where does a mention of the collapse belong in the article?
To answer the first question, it might be useful to compare the bridge collapse to the near-collapse of St. Anthony Falls or the explosion of the Washburn "A" Mill. Both of those events had a pretty significant impact on the city, though the city rebounded from both events. I'm not decided yet if the collapse of the bridge is of the same magnitude.
I think the "Modern Minneapolis" section can be flexible enough to accommodate significant historical events within the present. It's hard to say whether Minneapolis is in any particular "era" or not right now. Regardless, the organization of this article isn't set in stone. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O yay, a quick reply :) I am indeed in favor of continually advancing this article beyond the bounds of the original book.
  • Re new section: One topic which has not been addressed in the Modern section are the new city and transit corridors. The revival of light rail, street cars, bus rapid transit, road improvements mixed with pedestrian improvements, Midtown Greenway, and the reconstruction of major streets into more vibrant commercial districts are all a combination of massive capital improvements which were initiated with over a decade of visioning and planning work that definitely has made its mark on Mpls and will for years to come. Key words are "public reinvestment" "infrastructure and transit" and of course Rybak's favorite "great city." Condo development adjoined these improvements as many condo projects take on nearby amenities (ie: Eat Street Flats, Franklin Station Lofts, East Bank Mills, etc). 35W could be part of this section in terms of Rybak's insistence for light rail and his need to reconfigure the Central Corridor line onto University.
  • 35W disaster: Is it notable? Yes indeed. In the City? Somewhat. As already referenced in the article, the highways led to negative effects on the city proper. The collapse is a temporary boon as suburbanites now have to navigate city streets and be tempted to stop at shops and stores. The replacement bridge, if truly expanding road capacity will merely repeat the cycle of more suburban flight. There is no true gain or loss with the collapse and the replacement in the overall city's history since 35W will always be there. And 35W is owned by the State and the suburbanites who drive on it. 140,000 cars (cut in half for round trips) 70k-- the majority who used it were from Shoreview, Anoka, etc, their economic future was more threatened than the city itself considering the majority of the population live in the south to west metro. Consider how many businesses on fringe cities are allowed to apply for the hardship loans, officials see the bridge collapse as a regional event, and not localized to Minneapolis itself. The U as well talks about classes in session and how thousands commute to the U but says nothing of those who live on campus. And are traffic jams Wiki-notable? They close off the highways all the time during road construction season and its not uncommon to find certain streets completely jammed all summer long anyway.
  • Comparing past disasters: The one thing that past disasters have is a direct threat to the city's survivability and longevity. The collapse of the falls would mean complete loss of the hydropower center which began the city and put the city out of business. The Washburn fire revealed dangers in mill production which could have threatened the major employers of the region, again wiping out the economy. The Washburn fire did set new precedents for mill buildings and working conditions. I'm not sure if the 35W bridge has set any precedents for bridge safety or construction.
  • Counterpoint: Is it the 35W disaster or the 35W replacement bridge that is noteworthy? And to what extent do we report the disaster to remain relevant in context of reporting of previous disasters?75.72.162.175 09:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC) blah this is me Davumaya 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article deserves a few sentences about the tragedy for several categories of reasons:
A. Politics

This event will likely end the political career of Carol Molnau. Her reaction made her appear to have reached the pinnacle of her political life.
It has already reduced the power of Tim Pawlenty. He will never again be able to veto an infrastructure funding bill.
It may propel R.T. Rybak's career. His insistence on consideration of mass transit is popular and was apparently successful.

B. Infrastructure

The event may have a significant effect on inspections and maintenance of infrastructure, and notice by media outlets (they will start reading the reports and informing the public when substandard findings are documented).
The state will likely spend more on maintenance.

C. Disaster response

This was an excellent test of the disaster team response in Minneapolis. $3.5 million was spent after 9/11 to train Minneapolis first responders and officials on how to handle a building collapse. Any shortcomings in the response paradigm can be addressed with knowledge gained from this event.

D. Mass transit

It looks as though the collapse may accelerate the implementation of a mass transit system from downtown to Northeast.

Briefly surveying the coverage of comparable events on Wikipedia (1-7 are bridge failures; 8-10 are other disasters)

  1. History of Greenwich, Connecticut mentions the 1983 Mianus River Bridge collapse, which killed three.
  2. Hopewell, Virginia mentions the 1935 bus accident on the Appomattox River Drawbridge, which killed 14.
  3. Ashtabula, Ohio mentions the 1876 Ashtabula River Railroad Disaster, which killed 92.
  4. History of Chester mentions the 1847 Dee bridge disaster, which killed five, but also inspired officials to ban the use of cast iron trusses in new bridge designs.
  5. Taylor, British Columbia mentions the 1957 collapse of the Peace River Suspension Bridge (No one died.)
  6. Brunswick, Georgia mentions the 1972 collapse of the original Sidney Lanier Bridge, which killed 10.
  7. Gallipolis, Ohio mentions the 1967 Silver Bridge collapse, which killed 46.
  8. History of Boston, Massachusetts mentions the 1919 Boston Molasses Disaster, which killed 21.
  9. Kolding mentions the 2004 Seest fireworks disaster which killed one and injured 85.
  10. Henderson, Nevada mentions the 1988 PEPCON disaster which killed two, injured about 372 people and caused an estimated US$ 100 million of damage.

My conclusion is that failures of man-made structures that cause death, injury, and damage are mentioned in "History of" articles when they exist, and in the city articles when no history articles exist. Even in cases where the death toll was zero or low and inconvenience is limited to a small group, WP editors have found the events noteworthy in articles other than the disaster articles themselves.

In this case, presumably at least 70,000 people are affected each day, several effects (mentioned above) will have lasting consequences, and the financial damage is significant. I think the History of Minneapolis should have a few sentences summarizing the tragedy.--Appraiser 22:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

organisation

[edit]

I'm inclined to think that one or two paragraphs from "Reshaping downtown" should be moved to the "Transportation" section, starting with "Freeway construction..." What do others think?--Appraiser 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intended the "Transportation" subsection to be within "City pioneers" as a list of early transportation features in Minneapolis. Maybe the subsection within "City pioneers" should be renamed to "Early transportation", and the transportation section within "Reshaping downtown" should be given its own subsection heading. I don't think I want all of the transportation facts, from the first bridge at Hennepin Avenue to the I-35W bridge collapse, to be listed in one section. I prefer to have the eras in city history (city pioneers, development of business and industry, social changes and "urban renewal" through the 50's and 60's, and modern Minneapolis) grouped together. Within each of these loosely-defined time groupings, changes in one area (i.e. manufacturing) influenced another (i.e. transportation). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas

[edit]

I just read this article and thought it was really good. There were a couple things I thought of when reading.

  • Hubert H. Humphrey seems a bit over covered. Perhaps some of the three paragraphs devoted to him could be replaced with the political history of Minneapolis before the 1940s. Minneapolis changed from being pretty conservative in the 19th century to more liberal now.
  • No mention of anti-Semitism or other discrimination? Being called “the capital of anti-Semitism in the United States” in 1946 is definitely notable. [2]
  • The Minneapolis Teamsters Strike of 1934 is not mentioned. If it is included perhaps it should be noted that the rest of Minnesota had generally unionized by then. Maybe more labor history like the 1970 Teachers' Strike.

Just some general ideas off the top of my head. Some of these might be too detailed to deserve mention. Any thoughts? Eóin (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made minor corrections throughout the article as well. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in May. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Centric?

[edit]

I really like this article, but I'm getting the feeling that it only focuses on downtown. I think it's missing something on the Urban Renewal period...maybe, and the neighborhoods of Minneapolis? What do you think? I can dig up some info on that, if need be... BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it is missing such mentions. A good place to put n'hoods under is a paragraph on how the city expanded from downtown and its annexation + growth period. There is a bit of urban renewal mention in the Minneapolis main article which you can draw from and start on (including a source). Please go ahead! .:davumaya:. 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do...soon. Thanks. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is a bit downtown-centric. I think there might be some good history to be told about neighborhoods, such as the Kenwood and Lowry Hill areas and how they attracted the well-to-do who built nice houses. (I'm thinking architecturally on that one, though.) A lot of the source materials I used concentrated around St. Anthony Falls and downtown, so I guess I wasn't thinking a lot about neighborhoods beyond downtown. Are there references that indicate how certain neighborhoods were populated? For example, I imagine that some areas of south Minneapolis were populated by immigrants who worked for the Milwaukee Road or Great Northern Railway, or others. Come to think of it, maybe this article could include some mention of business development outside of flour milling and manufacturing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Of course, as the city grew, the inhabitants didn't just stay in downtown. They spread out. And there ARE compelling stories of many of the neighborhoods and some of the businesses as well. I'm not sure if I can find sources on the old history of the 'hoods, but I've got some leads on urban renewal, and I will pursue that angle of the city's history aas soon as the library gives me the books I need to tell the story. I think a little about the neighborhoods can be added to each section...anyone got anything on their histoy(ies)? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 23:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Meldahl

[edit]

To be a free society, how is it alowed for one man to bring down most of the low income people of North Menneapolis. Steve Meldahl, how can we ever succeed or get ahead with this KKK, bringing us down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.204.105 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Minneapolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Minneapolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on History of Minneapolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

History of Minneapolis

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There's lots of citation needed tags or unsourced paragraphs. There's page needed tags and a WP:FORUM tag. The great mill disaster and freeways sections are unsourced. Bambots reports "Page number citations needed (December 2017), Style editing needed (October 2018), Unsourced passages need footnotes [citation needed] (January 2021), ... (July 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I lost FA status for History of Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and good article status for I-35W Mississippi River Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I'm not holding out any hope for fixing this article either. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: and SandyGeorgia have been at work at Talk:Minneapolis, and have greatly revamped the main article. If Susan has interest, it should be possible to carryover some of the improved content at the main article to this one. Hog Farm Talk 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my hands are full at Minneapolis and this summons is a serious, inoportune distraction. We tried hard to save History of Minnesota and all agreed that we failed. Like Elkman, I don't have any hope this article will make it. We should surrender the star now before any more time and effort is wasted. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as SusanLesch says, for quite a few reasons I shall not go in to here, everyone's hands are quite full at Minneapolis and the hope that someone can restore this article is dim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Minneapolis&oldid=1224646615"