DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Featured articleMinneapolis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2008, and on December 31, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
October 5, 2024Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Dwa

[edit]

Why does fargo North Dakota is considered bordering Dwa climate, and Minneapolis, with a pretty similar climate, does not? (Non of them suits the definition of Dwa but more than halfway close to it). Both has 1/6 of the precipitation of the wettest month(june) in the driest month (January). 2A06:C701:4F25:FA00:D8E4:37C3:9CBB:491E (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question is over my pay grade. Maybe you can get your answer at the WikiProject WT:WEATHER. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bde Maka Ska image

[edit]
Original image
Revised image

@SusanLesch, I know you do a lot of quality control on this article, but I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd be opposed to using the image on the right. The old image is objectively of a very low resolution & quality, even for being shrunken in the infobox. Both images show a boat, so the only difference I can pull out is the lack of the skyline? I'm sorry, I'm really just struggling with this one. Best, 636Buster (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 636Buster. As far as I know, Commons has only two images of a Minneapolis lake with a sailboat and a sail. We used to have Lake Nokomis. I agree the Bde Maka Ska pic isn't the best quality but it's more cheerful. Please restore the sailboat with a sail. A sail is the city logo and appears on city uniforms, police for example. Thanks for asking. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Hopefully someone can contribute an updated image soon. 636Buster (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Nokomis

Dakota Boom

[edit]

@Jbt89: Thanks, I learned something here. No question, the Dakota Boom was huge; it was bigger than the California Gold Rush. However we have very slim evidence. I find no source that assigns Minneapolis flour milling to the Dakota Boom, and one source that seems to assign the reverse. I conclude that a full sentence attributing Minneapolis flour milling to the Dakota Boom per se is too much and WP:UNDUE (if it was true). Maybe you could propose some new wording?

Against inclusion:

Food for thought:

  • In Britannica (sometimes but not always a reliable source per WP:BRITANNICA) the subject is "North Dakota wheat" not Dakota Boom. In light of the other two sources here I'd question this:

During the period known as the Dakota Boom (from 1878 to 1886), many giant farms stretched across the new state, and North Dakota wheat made Minneapolis, Minn., the milling centre of the country in the 1880s.

  • From a regional geography:

From the start, Minneapolis was the economic control center of the northern Dakota economy[1]

  • Uni North Dakota says it was the other way around:

So it was that the spring-wheat country of northern Dakota was born a hinterland of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.[2]

References

  1. ^ Across this land: A regional geography of the United States and Canada by John C. Hudson, ISBN 9781421437590, p.276
  2. ^ History of North Dakota, University of North Dakota, chapter 7, pp. 133–134

-SusanLesch (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The goal was not to not to ascribe the sole credit for Minneapolis flour milling to the Dakota Boom (if that's how my sentence reads to you, feel free to revise). There are ample sources for Minneapolis mills using Minnesota wheat, including those cited in this article.
The idea I had hoped to convey, succinctly, was that the extension of the railroads into the Dakota Territory, the expansion of milling capacity in Minneapolis, and the settlement and cultivation of the Dakota Territory were mutually reinforcing: Dakota wheat provided a large new feedstock for the mills (facilitating their expansion), the mills provided a nearby market for the wheat, and the railroads enabled it by connecting the two. For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, Minnesota-based sources don't seem to use the term "Dakota Boom" but do reference it indirectly: what else could a period in the late 19th century during which Dakota wheat production rapidly expanded possibly refer to?
Re: Danbom, he states it well here: "The millers at St. Anthony Falls and the wheat farmers of western Minnesota and Dakota enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. The millers provided the farmers with an attractive market close by, and the farmers provided the millers with the lifeblood of the mills. Wheat farming, the milling industry, and Minneapolis grew together" [1] Similarly here, "A number of converging factors contributed to Minnesota becoming a flour milling leader in the 19th century,” said Dave Stevens, Mill City Museum site manager. 'The rich prairie soils of Minnesota, the Dakotas and Montana were ideal for wheat growing.'" [2] It's strongly implied that the way in which those soils contributed was by being put into wheat cultivation in the late 19th century (i.e. the Dakota Boom), but for some reason that isn't stated outright.
As far as WP:UNDUE goes, I don't really think one sentence on a significant contributing factor to the growth of the Minneapolis milling industry (if, as you note, we can satisfactorily show that) is excessive in the context of an article devoting, e.g. two sentences to William de la Barre's engineering career or 5+ sentences to events in the Dakota War of 1862 that happened closer to New Ulm. Jbt89 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Jbt89 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to make a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (per the featured article criteria, specifically c). I consulted indexes for a sample of the books used to write this article: Kane, Lass, Stipanovich, Weber, and Wingerd. Nobody made claims remotely like yours.

Then I went back to see what the article said earlier.

Following an initial burst of activity in the lumber industry, the city's economy developed around the processing of grain from the Great Plains, which is reflected by the presence of companies such as General Mills, Pillsbury and Cargill in the city.

Towns built in western Minnesota with Minneapolis lumber shipped their wheat back to the city for milling.[3]

Can you please give us another stab at what you want to say? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow reply. I was traveling to, of all places, Minneapolis. Highly recommend the Mill City museum 😂
As currently written, the article states the following: "In 1877, Cadwallader C. Washburn co-founded Washburn-Crosby, the company that became General Mills. Washburn and partner John Crosby sent Austrian civil engineer William de la Barre to Hungary where he acquired innovations through industrial espionage. De la Barre calculated and managed the power at the falls and encouraged steam for auxiliary power. Charles Alfred Pillsbury and the C. A. Pillsbury Company across the river hired Washburn-Crosby employees and began using the new methods. The hard red spring wheat grown in Minnesota became valuable, and Minnesota "patent" flour was recognized at the time as the best bread flour in the world. In 1900, fourteen percent of America's grain was milled in Minneapolis and about one third of that was shipped overseas."
I would like to change it to read something like this:
"By 1876, eighteen flour mills had been built at St. Anthony Falls, but the winter wheat they were best equipped to process was an unreliable crop in Minnesota's climate. In 1877, Cadwallader C. Washburn co-founded Washburn-Crosby, the company that became General Mills, and set out to build the world's largest flour mill, the Washburn "A" Mill. Washburn and partner John Crosby sent Austrian civil engineer William de la Barre to Hungary, where he gained technical knowledge about gradual-reduction milling, and funded the development of the Middlings purifier. These technologies enabled de la Barre to construct a mill capable of processing spring wheat, a much more reliable crop in Minnesota's climate, into high-quality flour.[4]:277 The C. A. Pillsbury Company across the river soon hired Washburn-Crosby employees and began using the new methods. The hard red spring wheat of the upper Midwest became valuable and Minnesota "patent" flour was recognized at the time as the best bread flour in the world. Wheat farms and railroads connecting them to the Minneapolis mills sprang up in Minnesota, the Dakota Territory, and Manitoba during the Dakota Boom allowing the mills to expand even further.[5]:147-148[6]:272 By 1900, fourteen percent of America's grain was milled in Minneapolis and about one third of that was shipped overseas."
As currently written, the article incompletely contextualizes the rapid growth the Minneapolis milling industry, which happened in the place and time it did because of:
(1) Power from St. Anthony falls (this is discussed well)
(2) The development of the Middlings Purifier and gradual-reduction milling (alluded to, but could be more specific; History of Minneapolis has more)
(3) Cultivation of wheat in the Red River Valley (in Minnesota, but also in the Dakotas and Manitoba; only Minnesota wheat is mentioned)
(4) Railroad connections from Minneapolis to wheat-growing areas (mentioned only in passing)
The last three factors didn't appear until about the same time the mills did. There is no real way to know how large the mills would have grown without them or the farms and railroads without the mills; they grew together, and hence the period of rapid growth in railroads and farming in the Red River Valley is important context here.
That development did not stop at the Minnesota state line (easily seen in that many of the counties of western Minnesota, like their Dakota counterparts, were organized between 1875 and 1880), or even at the Canadian border. Unfortunately, "Dakota Boom" or "Great Dakota Boom" are the only names I can find to refer to this period, and only Dakota-centric sources seem to study it as a cohesive historical phenomenon, so that's the terminology we're stuck with.
I disagree that seeking to create a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" obliges us to make the same oversight that Wingerd, Stipanovich, et al. made. See also criterion (b) on the featured article criteria: "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." (emphasis mine) Jbt89 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Jbt89 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources contain a number of references to the Dakota Boom being closely tied to the development of the Minneapolis mills but don't use that term, for example "the building of the railroads leading into the wheat fields"[7]:145
Here we have one expressly crediting the Dakotas with keeping the mills going past 1880: New conditions were making the millers' monopoly untenable, however. For one thing the millers found that they could no longer rely solely on spring wheat. As early as 1880 complaints were made that Minnesota wheats were deteriorating in quality and yield. The farmers tried to increase their yields by planting softer varieties, but these, the millers claimed, were of poor milling quality. They tried to raise standards by offering a premium on Red Fife, but with little success. On the other hand, the advance of milling technique had taught them the advantages of blending many different varieties of wheat. Consequently they began to purchase in widely separated sections of the country. And finally the opening up of the Dakotas brought in more wheat than the millers could use. [8]:147-148. "The opening up of the Dakotas" here being an obvious reference to the Dakota Boom.
Also of interest: "By 1876 probably a majority of those who were operating flour mills in Minneapolis had had previous experience in lumbering. This does not mean that lumbering was the sole source of capital for the early flour mills. There were many others, some of which will be discussed in another connection. The close relationship between the two industries, however, needs to be emphasized. The lumbermen helped to build up flour milling first, by providing a local market at the start ; second, by providing supplies of capital as expansion became desirable; and third, by combining with the millers to secure favorable transportation and banking conditions for their products."[9]:143 Jbt89 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Jbt89 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.

  • I intentionally left the details of milling innovations and the railroads to the History of Minneapolis article. Yes, of course they are important, but the History section of this article is already stretching suggested limits at WP:USCITIES. For example, this was cut in the recent FAR:

Cadwallader C. Washburn founded Washburn-Crosby, the company that became General Mills. He learned of and adopted three flour milling innovations: middlings purifiers blew out the husks that had colored flour; gradual reduction by steel and porcelain roller mills combined gluten with starch; and a ventilation system decreased the risk of explosion by reducing flour dust in the air.

  • I am not opposed to adding the Dakota Boom if a reliable source can be found. Your sources however indicate we're veering into WP:OR. (Neither citation mentions Manitoba.)
  • I'm not impressed with your omitting de la Barre recommending steam power (and his industrial espionage).
  • The topic sentence says MN wheat is unreliable and then the para wraps around into reliable again. This should all be skipped.

So, can you give us one short, reliably-sourced sentence that says some or all of this?

Wheat farms and railroads connecting them to the Minneapolis mills sprang up in Minnesota, the Dakota Territory, and Manitoba during the Dakota Boom allowing the mills to expand even further.

I'd copy it in today but as it stands it may be true, but it is original research that fails verification. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC) SusanLesch (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the relative importance of biographic information on de la Barre vs. the technological and socioeconomic developments that suddenly made Minneapolis milling lucrative. Why is "de la Barre calculated and managed the power at the falls and encouraged steam for auxiliary power" essential to understanding the history of Minneapolis? Of course development of energy resources at the falls is important, but "de la Barre calculated and managed" adds nothing. Readers interested in the (admittedly fascinating) exploits of this industrial pioneer can learn more at his article since space here is at a premium.
For that matter, if space is an issue, "Charles Alfred Pillsbury and the C. A. Pillsbury Company across the river hired Washburn-Crosby employees and began using the new methods" can easily be shortened to "Competing mills soon adopted the new methods" with no significant loss of content; the exact way in which they acquired those methods isn't particularly important to the history of Minneapolis, enjoyable though the tale of industrial espionage is. Further material of tangential importance can be found in the "Dakota Homeland" subsection: "At the beginning of the American Civil War, annuity payments owed in June 1862 to the Dakota by treaty were late, causing acute hunger among the Dakota. Facing starvation a faction of the Dakota declared war in August and killed settlers. Serving without any prior military experience, US commander Henry Sibley commanded raw recruits, volunteer mounted troops from Minneapolis and Saint Paul with no military experience. The war went on for six weeks in the Minnesota River valley. After a kangaroo court, 38 Dakota men were hanged." Other than Sibley's raising of troops, none of the events discussed even occurred in Minneapolis, though the war did affect the city and does deserve some mention.
The invention, in the latter half of the 19th century, of milling technologies capable of processing spring wheat (reliable crop) rather than just winter wheat (unreliable crop) into marketable flour was vital to Minneapolis's development as a milling hub. Why do you think that fact should be skipped? Jbt89 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the Dakota Boom goes, consider the following:
Wheat farms and railroads connecting them to the Minneapolis mills sprang up in Minnesota, the Dakota Territory, and other areas to the west of Minneapolis during the Dakota Boom allowing the mills to expand even further.[10][11]272,281[12]93
If you object specifically to using the term "Dakota Boom" for the extensive development of wheatfields and railroads to west of Minneapolis in the 1870s and 1880s on the grounds of WP:OR, fair enough. That term clearly falls well short of universal adoption in reliable sources. I think, however, that I have provided more than adequate sources to demonstrate that such development occurred, and that the supply of wheat it provided was important to the growth of the Minneapolis mills. Jbt89 (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also [13]103,125 for the importance of roller milling and the middlings to the development of Minneapolis, per my previous comment. Jbt89 (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this now. Plan to reply in a day or so. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How's this, Jbt89?
...C. A. Pillsbury Company across the river hired Washburn-Crosby employees and began using the new methods.[14] Wheat farming developed west across the Great Plains, from Minnesota, to the Dakotas and Montana,[15] and new rail lines connected these farmers to the Minneapolis mills, reciprocally spurring further expansion.[16] The hard red spring wheat grown in Minnesota became valuable...
-SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Love it. Thanks for your hard work on this. Jbt89 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Jbt89, for the important insight. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Minneapolis, Minnestoa" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Minneapolis, Minnestoa has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 7 § Minneapolis, Minnestoa until a consensus is reached. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]