Talk:Minneapolis

@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:

• From the first page of Google search results for "dakota boom", South Dakota State history, Uni Nebraska, and the South Dakota State Historical Society don't ever mention Minneapolis.
• Your article cites David B. Danbom, as does this one. He is a great source but he doesn't mention the Dakota Boom or a tie to Minneapolis. Everything other source you have is either South or North Dakotan.

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]

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

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)

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.

• In 2007 per the Minneapolis Public Library:

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.

• And two years ago

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I just saw this now. Plan to reply in a day or so. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

Love it. Thanks for your hard work on this. Jbt89 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Jbt89, for the important insight. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

I made two edits to add material about Operation Metro Surge. I was shocked there was no mention whatsoever. Probably the body portion needs to be shorted. I wrote up a simple version for the WP:LEDE that also likely needs to be revised for WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I mention this subject here: Talk:Operation_Metro_Surge#Minneapolis_+_St._Paul. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, David Tornheim. As other editors have explained, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Look again. The paragraph on George Floyd, for example. took years to write. (I for one, was "shocked" when Amir Locke was murdered downtown. That doesn't automatically mean we include him here.) Thank you for your interest. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: I am well aware that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. You may believe this is a trivial event that will be soon forgotten. I very much doubt it. The fact that Operation Metro Surge is sufficiently notable to have its own article should make it clear that it should be in the article. Los Angeles had something similar happen in June 2025, and it still has a paragraph that says:

In June 2025, the city experienced protests and riots following raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).^[1] Los Angeles is being targeted by the Trump administration over its sanctuary city status sending in hundred of federal agents to target the immigrant community of the city.^[2] Trump sent in the Army National Guard and US Marines without the consent of local governments.^[3]

I did say all along that the section I copied and pasted was too long. I would have shortened it--if I had time. I assumed--incorrectly--that editors would thank me for putting in this information that is so important and would happily cut it down to an appropriate size. The mere fact that this important information was not in the article justified having something WP:NPOV added, so I copied the WP:LEDE from the other article. WP:LEDEs are supposed to be summary. I'm sorry you and the other editor did not appreciate my effort to improve the article by including this important information that I am sure readers are looking for in the article based on the increased viewing right after the killing.

Something similar to what is in the Los Angeles article would certainly be better than absolutely nothing. This is not just about one killing. Even according to the British media, "Make no mistake, this is an occupation’: ICE’s deadly presence casts long shadow over Minneapolis". ^[4]

Although I have not had heard about Killing of Amir Locke, it is obviously notable. Just like the Killing of Breonna Taylor, which has been in the news for years in Kentucky. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Renee Good was killed on January 7. Views of this article spiked on January 8 and have partly subsided. That tells me some readers had expectations of finding coverage like a newspaper.

I think if we are cautious, we can find consensus to add two sentences in §Social tensions under Floyd. It is premature to add a section heading and a paragraph to the lead because as AP says the "scope and duration could shift".^[5]

There's one unchangeable fact. DHS launched on Minneapolis (and Saint Paul, and Minnesota) the

largest immigration enforcement effort ever carried out in the U.S.^[5]

I invite editors to help write two sentences. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

One might ask, why only two sentences? For comparison fifty years ago, Minneapolis was the site of the nation's biggest ever urban renewal project around 1960. Two sentences. The long, hot summer of 1967 is covered in two sentences. Yes, we have exceptions but I believe that might be enough for a two weeks-old story in light of WP:RECENT. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I have been meaning to thank you for both replies. I do intend to get back to this article and the one about the Twin Cities, which should also have at least the two sentences. The current section in not WP:NPOV. It lacks mention of:

• massive opposition by the public (residents)
• anti-ICE protesters overwhelm pro-ICE protesters
• Governor called in National Guard to protect Minneapolis and his and police chief's negative comments on ICE behavior
• Trump is talking about deploying 1,500 military units from Alaska.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Maybe NickDE2002 would mention local opposition? I thought NickDE2002 did a really good job. That restraint is exactly what WP:NPOV is all about. Concentrate on Minneapolis (not the metro or state).
• Whoa to your other points, David Tornheim: I'll repeat, this is not the place for a blow by blow chronology—yours was removed already as WP:UNDUE. Nor do we take sides—only to have to backstep and synthesize the whole mess afterwards. And hold on, the National Guard is on standby, neither are US Army paratroopers presently in the city. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by "taking sides"? Who is taking sides? I'm just talking about reporting what is the in the reliable sources per WP:NPOV. That coverage is WORLD NEWS and the current paragraph does not reflect what is in the reliable sources, because it does not mention the protesting at all. In fact, of the three sources currently used--all of which mention protesting--the first two show prominent pictures of protesters. So to omit that is POV.

  FYI. The section was not written by the new user NickDE2002 who has made only 15 edits. It was introduced by here.

  Also WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the issue of potential troop deployment. This is not some speculation by a psychic, fortune-teller or astrologer; It is the documented actual rhetoric and military orders from those in power and is reported in the WP:RS around the world.,,,,,,,,

  Lastly, I would appreciate if you stop saying that when I added the content originally it was not WP:DUE. We have been in agreement on that from the beginning. In the summary I said, "It will likely need to be reduced down to a more summary form." which I repeated above, "Probably the body portion needs to be shorted...likely needs to be revised for WP:NPOV and WP:DUE." I repeated again: "I did say all along that the section I copied and pasted was too long. I would have shortened it--if I had time. I assumed--incorrectly--that editors would thank me for putting in this information that is so important and would happily cut it down to an appropriate size." There has never been any disagreement on that, so I would appreciate it if you stop repeating it and we can focus on creating a POV entry that mentions what is in the RS. The current version is not WP:NPOV.

  Anyway, now that we have gotten that out of the way, I might propose a rewrite of about the same length as is currently in the article that is more WP:NPOV and reflective of what is in the WP:RS

  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Pardon me. Magnolia677, thank you! Well done. Can you edit that to include protests in Minneapolis? I'd work the comment about scope into a different major sentence. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

CheeseburgerWithFries, why start an edit war? Where do you find this rule governing "events must occur" from your edit summary? the historical event described took place 50 miles away. To be relevant to the history of Minneapolis, an event must occur in the city of Minneapolis. Just last month the UofM Gopher spirit squad won again in Orlando, Florida, about 1,575 miles away from Minneapolis, so I updated their national championships to 30. Your rule would say they "must" not appear here, when clearly they should. We've had an RfC decided about a photo of Prince made in Japan (thought to be Ireland at the time). Prince rarely permitted photographs and we are fortunate to have any free photo of him for this article. I think you'll find that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline makes room for events occurring elsewhere to be included. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

As a party not involved in this edit, I partially agree with CheeseburgerWithFries. It isn't clear how this eugenicist event in Faribault (sp) is directly linked with the history of Minneapolis, at least based on the current wording, without treating Eitel Hospital as a WP:EASTEREGG.

There's no WP rule that something has to happen in a place to be important to its history, but at the same time, lay readers need to clearly understand why such an event appears on the page. Even if we specified that Eitel Hospital is in Loring Park, we wouldn't have a clear connection between this and social tensions in the city. Was there a social response in Minneapolis, e.g. protests or a policy change around eugenics? If so, we can mention that. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 18:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Malvoliox, yes, after George Floyd's death, the city renamed Dight Avenue for John Cheatham, a firefighter. Charles Fremont Dight has an article explaining this. A vigorous social response, but now I agree the connection with George Eitel is tenuous. I have no desire to hang on to misinformation, and welcome the chance to remove a stain from Minneapolis history. Best not to whitewash it though. Eighty percent of the patients were women and many were likely not feeble minded. I don't know how to tie it in to the city beyond the citation given. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that's very appropriate to include discussion of Eitel in Faribault, Eugenics in Minnesota, and History of Minnesota. It isn't erasure to define history accurately in terms of its connection to place. He isn't mentioned in Faribault right now and it's important history for the state.

I'd argue that discussion of the former Dight Ave. would more directly prove Minneapolis has a history of embracing eugenicists, as the city council directly honored him with the street naming in 1918. Whether it is presented in the context of 2021 or 1918, when the street was renamed, that would make sense. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 00:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the connection of Dight to the city honoring eugenicists. The article specifies the street was renamed in 1918 and he was part of the city council at that time, with his biggest noted contribution being "instrumental in passing an ordinance requiring the pasteurization of milk."

After he had the street named for him and he left the council, he "became a proponent of eugenics during the 1920s" and founded his eugenics society in 1923. The timeline does not support the premise that Minneapolis embraced and honored eugenicists for their work.

While it took a long time to rename the street, awareness of the origins of street names is extremely low, and political will to rename streets is similarly low except in extreme circumstances.

If anything, a reference could belong in the context of "In the post-Floyd Minneapolis, a sweeping package of changes was implemented to promote inclusiveness and honor deserving figures..." but only if sources could be found and as part of a group of changes. Dight himself was forgettable, even if his actions were a stain on the state. I believe elevating and singling him out goes beyond the "general overview" purpose of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US Guideline#History along with the inaccuracy of connecting the street name to his eugenics advocacy. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Prior to making the change, I reviewed the source on the article and went looking for additional sources. I've been unable to find anything that details any response in Minneapolis. There are anecdotal connections where a victim was released from Faribault and returned home to Minneapolis, but nothing notable. It seems Eitel Hospital and Minneapolis are completely disconnected from Faribault, and George Eitel was acting in the context of his job when he left the city with no notable crossover. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You're right, Dr. Dight doesn't belong here. His efforts are a tangent. Disagree however with your characterization years ago that he was "a sterilization loony". The paragraph above is quite wrong. Mildred Thomson's memoir Prologue is online. She describes Harmon Girls Club many times, as a way-station in Minneapolis for patients discharged from Faribault. You may have expertise but you won't share what sort. I will attempt to restore what you've removed based on this source.^[1] -SusanLesch (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I reject your claim that I'm "Starting an edit war." Per WP:3RR that requires 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I made only 1 revert when my changes were undone, far short of the standard. My initial change had a proper summary, and your revert without discussion did not address the issue at hand.

I have reviewed Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and am unable to find where it "makes room for events occurring elsewhere." While I acknowledge that history and context can connect multiple locations, the subject of Minneapolis is the city of Minneapolis, and by absolute definition things must be relevant to Minneapolis to be included. I'm also relying on the History guidelines that say "History sections can easily become very long with more detail than appropriate for a general overview. ... Only describe the minimum of what is required to understand where the community has come from and let the History of_ article give the details."

P.S. Showing the guideline's flexibility, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Sports says It is common practice for sports sections to include discussions of teams that are within the metro area, even if the team's home venue is outside the city limits. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

My reasoning for this specific edit:

Using the physical location of Eitel Hospital in Minneapolis to connect to events in Faribault is extremely flimsy. To use your sports team example, the U of M squad left Minneapolis as representatives of the city (or the state, depending on how you see the U), won the competition while representing us, then came back to the city with a trophy which is notable and had an impact on the city. Eitel was acting on his own in the context of his job, and not as a representative of the city. The source does not mention any impact on Minneapolis or the Twin Cities. The only time the source references Minneapolis is on p.244 when it briefly details one victim who came home to the city and lived in a group home. In fact, I have been unable to find any source that connects Faribault to Minneapolis protests, unrest, societal changes, city government policy, or anything that is relevant to the city's history and the "Social tensions" section.

Faribault State Hospital and the eugenics law are completely off-topic from the history of Minneapolis due to this being a state law that Minneapolis city government had nothing to do with, events occurring 50 miles away from Minneapolis, Eitel not being a representative of the city, and the lack of notable impact on the city. This fits the Guidelines of "Only describe the minimum of what is required to understand where the community has come from" in relation to a section about "events that shaped the community."

I'd suggest the relevant articles to include this information would be Eugenics in Minnesota, George G. Eitel, Minnesota Correctional Facility – Faribault, and a short note on Faribault that the correctional facility was founded as the "School for the Feeble Minded" and the year it changed purposes. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, we sidestepped an edit war. I'd have expected talk page discussion before we saw aggressive edits. I searched those and other related articles for contributions from you and found none. Happy will be the day when you have made some. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

"aggressive edits"

I removed one sentence that had no support from its own sources, and reverted one edit. Please do not mischaracterize my actions.

"I searched those and other related articles for contributions from you and found none."

I can say the same about you. It's clear that eugenics is a passion topic for you with how quickly you discarded my contribution and jumped to attack with claims of an edit war, so I'd encourage you to contribute to relevant articles instead of shoehorning it into Minneapolis. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)