Talk:Minnesota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Minnesota is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result June 17, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed July 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Minnesota articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Ravedave, Appraiser, Atomaton

Here is the sandbox!

Contents 1 Conflict between intro and FA summary 2 IPA 3 FA-related inquiry 4 Featured on may 11th 5 audio link 6 Crime 7 Template 8 Conflict in Median Income

[edit] Conflict between intro and FA summary

There is a conflict between the introduction and the FA summary in the last sentence of the first introductory paragraph, and the FA summary is inaccurate.

In the third week of November, during the FA push, the sentence read:

Its image as a primarily white, Scandinavian, and Lutheran state still has some truth, but it is changing, with substantial influxes of African, Asian, and Hispanic immigrants joining the descendants of European immigrants and Native American descendants of the original inhabitants.

On November 28 that sentence was changed [1] to start as follows:

While the state's residents have been primarily white, Northern European, and Lutheran, . . .

Note the (unintended) change in meaning. The sentence formerly addressed the image of Minnesotans (familiar to Minnesota residents and to anyone who listens to Garrison Keillor); it was changed to a factual statement that the state primarily consisted of Nordic Lutherans.

That made the sentence incorrect, as Lutherans are not a majority, nor even a plurality any more. Recently the sentence was changed to start:

While the state's residents have been primarily white and Northern European, . . .

The FA summary however has the incorrect language, which was in the article in December:

While the state's residents have been primarily white, Northern European, and Lutheran, . . .

Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Minnesota

Either the sentence in the article should be reverted to the version in place before 28 November (which I prefer), and the FA summary should be changed to conform to either that version or the current version of the intro. As I believe I wrote the original version I’ll stay out of the decision. It's not a major point but should be corrected. Kablammo 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry - change back. –Outriggr § 06:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think my concern was with "it is changing". In this sentence, "it" is, strictly speaking, referring to the "image", but surely we are talking about the racial makeup now, not the "image"—so there seems to be an unintended subject shift. Should it be "but Minnesota is changing"? That's better, but I still think some kind of rewording of the sentence is needed, because I find the clause ", but xx is changing," awkward. Not criticizing anyone's writing! I just wanted to let you know the reason I changed it (during a requested copy review). –Outriggr § 06:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I see your point (depends on the meaning of "it", to paraphrase a recent president). What I was trying to do was preserve the substance of prior content (which had an overly-long laundry list of ethnicities), acknowledge the accuracy of the image of Minnesotans as relatively homogenous, but note that diversity is increasing. Kablammo 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the sentence in the intro, and in the FA summary, to conform. Kablammo 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

Should the IPA pronunciation and audio file stay or go on this page? -Ravedave 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it because it illustrates a dialect that is somewhat unique--Appraiser 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be helpful to some readers; I see no reason not to include it since it's available. Jonathunder 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... I really don't like the idea of adding audio files and IPA to articles with perfectly intuitive pronunciation. Like all types of translations of terms it tends to lead to pronunciationcruft. Eventually you'll have people asking why don't have pronunciations in British or Australian English. At worst it'll be like at Hong Kong, where the pronunciation has a separate article... And I hope you realize that the speaker is not from Minnesota, but California. She's very good at recording these kind of files, but the dialect is to the best of my knowledge fairly standard California English.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly intuitive to anyone who's already heard it pronounced, yes. But anyone who has never heard the word pronounced has no way of knowing how it sounds unless we provide an IPA transcription and audio file. —Angr 10:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA-related inquiry

How is it that, in 3 well-developed introductory paragraphs, wherein a great many assertions regarding the awesomeness of MN are proffered, there isn't even a single solitary reference provided? Tomer^talk 00:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As you may know, there has been a long-running discussion on the necessity of references in the introduction, with some adhering to the position that the intro or "lede" should contain references, and others stating they are not needed if the intro is a fair summary of an adequately-referenced main body. It should be clear what side of that debate the contributors to this article take. And if you care to read a truly effusive article on the "awesomeness of MN", you can go to the archives of Time Magazine.[2] Regards, Kablammo 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh 1973. Tomer, have any resources saying otherwise? I am always open to NPOV. -Ravedave 02:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Devil's advocate says, "Oh, I dunno, this comes to mind..." :-D Tomer^talk 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, when Norman Rockwell was painting N. Mpls, I think he missed the Minnesota Mile... :-p Tomer^talk 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. A google search indicates that the PDR MN has successfully purged all references to the sex slave industry in N. Mpls! Congrats! :-D Tomer^talk 06:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Man the St. Croix bridges! There may be a cheesehead on the loose. Kablammo 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Batten down the hatches, I'm comin' to getcha! [ya sure, you betcha] Tomer^talk 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured on may 11th

Raul654 has said that this article will be featured on May 11th, so lets try and make it FA+ by then as well as getting all the surrounding articles up to shape. -Ravedave 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We should refresh the citations and check them for consistent format prior to then. Kablammo 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have at it! I am trying to do another copy edit pass, while checking each and every wikilink. -Ravedave 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] audio link

So it's been a while since the audio link was placed on the word "Minnesota" and I still like the old way better. Anyone agree? -Ravedave 03:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the old way? Gopher backer 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This rev [3] is one way, and this rev is another way [4]. I think I like the 2nd one better. I think the new way is confusing, because it makes it look like the help/info links are about Minnesota, not an audio file. -Ravedave 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

TODO: [5] -Ravedave 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By recent indices the state is 32nd in overall crime rate, 35th in violent crime, and 38th in murder rate [6], but has the second-lowest incarceration rate [7], and no death penalty. Now, to find a place for these data without making the article even larger . . . Kablammo 11:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I created a crime section back in the day, but I couldn't find any good overall stats except for the whole 'murderapolis' thing so I axed it, heres the diff showing the old section [8]. Also has no refs... -Ravedave 04:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Does anyone know why the MN template doesn't look right here today? It looks OK elsewhere e.g. Bloomington, Minnesota.--Appraiser 14:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hello. A day or two ago User:Zyxw changed some templates including Template:US_state_navigation_box, I would guess because some cities and states who have a lot of templates in the footer had a cacophony(sp?) of wide and narrow, collapsed and not. In the presence of two or more collapsible tables (in Minnesota there are two, in Bloomington one) the 'state' parameter collapses the box. Do you like it collapsed or open? -Susanlesch 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh. I didn't realize that it was collapsed. It's fine.--Appraiser 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict in Median Income

The median income measurement for Minnesota residents is listed as $55,914 (5th) in the intro, but $52,024 (11th) in the Economy section. Dunno which one is right. --Marumari 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Both the statistic in the infobox and the text in Economy are supported by the sources cited (and it is unlikely that the slight difference in years for those data would have that great an effect). I'll let whoever contributed these parts sort this out, or make it consistent. Nice catch. Kablammo 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The 2005 (survey) median household income data and the 2005 census bureau per capita income data both rank Minnesota 11th. Perhaps we could switch the measure to per capita, which may be a better measure of the state's economy. Kablammo 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)