Talk:Ohio River/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Geological age of river

age of ohio river

Studies by Dr. Darryl Granger of Purdue University have very convincingly shown that the Ohio River formed at or slightly prior to 3 million years. Further development continued for 100s of thousands of years.

what is the age of the Ohio River?

It is 2.5 to 3 million years old.

what is the age of the Ohio River?

If no one is answering, it's probably because no one who has seen this knows the answer. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Bridge Picture

The bridge in the picture is not the US Grant Bridge. It is, in fact, the Carl D. Perkins Bridge, located about a mile from the Grant Bridge. The new Grant Bridge has not been completed.

http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0004785üÜöÖÙùÒÓʋĊ

Dblevins2 30 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)

Volume of water

The Ohio's volume of water is a questonable claim. The Missouri River is usually larger, and at times (depending on weather) the Tennessee River is also larger. Lou I 16:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In fact, the statement about the Ohio River having more discharge (volume of water per second) than the Missouri River is entirely correct, as a general rule. The Ohio River drains a large, very humid region and as a result carries more water. The US Corps of Engineers maintains a very extensive system of dams on the Ohio River. The Corps and US Geological Survey carefully measure flow in the Ohio River. Otherwise, maintaining stable water surfaces would be impossible.

You can check out flow at any given moment for rivers that are monitored at: http://water.usgs.gov/

Select Real-Time Data. You can search for specific rivers and streams or... you can also click on the map in the upper right corner at http://water.usgs.gov/ and see the conditions of rivers throughout the United States. DirtBoy 18:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Erosion

is there any erosion problems?

No more than any other large river. Some areas have a major problem and others are essentially stable. One area strongly affected by erosion is in southeast Ohio where a tragic barge accident temporily(sp?) disabled a dam in early 2005. Water levels fell quickly and without the river pushing back, the water-pressurized banks began collapsing for large distances upstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laramide (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 April 2006‎ (UTC)

Map

Please include a color map of the whole Ohio River

I added one Kmusser 15:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Apr 2007 edits

Since an anon keeps restoring it, I'll say that I believe this statement to be incorrect: "The Ohio River is the second largest river in North America, the 6th largest in the Western Hemisphere, and the 12th largest river in world." When I deleted it, I also changed the discharge figure in the infobox using a cited source -- the previous figure was not cited, and was larger than the discharge figure presently on the Mississippi River page, which makes no sense. Please respond here if anyone disagrees. Thanks --Female peasant 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ohio River is larger than the Mississippi where the two meet, plus much of the Mississippi discharges into wetlands in LA & MS before entering the ocean, whereas the Ohio flows through harder soils and has very few wetlands. The discharge figures are from the Army Cores page, which is given in real time. It is a tributary of the Mississippi in name only, if the naming had taken place in modern times, everything below Cairo would be called the Ohio River because it is the larger of the two rivers at the confluence.

Usually when talking about rivers "largest" refers to length not width. If named today everything below St. Louis would be called the Missouri River. Discharge figures should ideally be annual averages, using a real-time value now when flows are at their highest is going to be an inflated value compared to other rivers. Kmusser 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Crytids?

I realize that it is kind of odd but I am wondering if there are any cryptids (monsters or strange out-of-place animals) associated with the Ohio River. There have definitely been reliable reports of alligators and Bull sharks caught in the Ohio River, any info on stuff like this out there? It would be interesting if there was at least a separate but linked article on Ohio River Cryptids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.238 (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed References to Ripley

There were several sentences that went into detail about one author and what she wrote about slavery around Ripley. The several sentences were poorly written and had no bearing on the river itself so I removed them.Tempestswordsman (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indian Territory?

The second paragraph of this article begins: "The river had great significance in the history of the Native Americans, and served, at times, as a border between Kentucky and Indian Territories." Perhaps, Indiana Territory is meant here? Jmdeur (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Kmusser (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Ohio River does not "regularly freeze over" in Louiville or even Cincinnati

The article is factually inaccurate in stating: " In winter it regularly freezes over at Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. Yet at Paducah, Kentucky in the south, near the Ohio’s confluence with the Mississippi, it is ice free year round. Paducah was founded there because it is the northernmost ice-free reach of the Ohio.". I have lived near the Ohio River for most of my life and have only seen it freeze over once and it was a BIG deal/news event, but don't take my word for it, here are some links: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] I have taken the liberty to remove Louisville and Cincinnati from the sentence. I truly don't care to start an editing war and am thinking that maybe this statement may have been true at the time Paducah, KY was founded (possibly due to being before the Ohio River was dammed or a colder climate then or both, either way it is not factual today). I left the following statement about Paducah unedited (except for striking "Yet") because it states "ice free" and "not frozen over", (there is a big difference): "Yet at Paducah, Kentucky in the south, near the Ohio’s confluence with the Mississippi, it is ice free year round. Paducah was founded there because it is the northernmost ice-free reach of the Ohio". I did find it interesting that there is no mention of this proposed "fact" in Wikipedia's Paducah, Kentucky article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.43.115 (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As a metaphor for the Jordan?

One version of the slave song "Michael row the boat ashore" contains the lines:

River Jordan is deep and wide

Milk and honey on the other side

This has been cited as a metaphor for death but I always understood this as referring to the Ohio River, which is deep and wide, unlike the Jordan, and which was the boundary between slavery and freedom. Can anybody find a source for this interpretation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northfold (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A source if there is one for this reading would likely be in a discussion of slavery-era spirituals and the Underground Railroad. The symbolism, obviously, being that of coming out of bondage in Egypt and into the Promised Land. Before the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, crossing the Ohio River brought one to freedom. Later, the Underground Railroad would be extended northward to Ontario, Canada. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

volume

Is it true that the Ohio's volume is actually larger than the Mississippi's (just before the confluence)? I'd heard that but didn't know if it was true... --84.138.242.234 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes.74.83.14.59 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ohio River. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Change cities in geo box?

Does anyone object to changing the list of cities in the geo box because of clutter? Personally, I think it makes definitive sense to remove Madison, Indiana and Milton, Kentucky as they aren't that large in population and don't really add any geographic 'weight', or underpinning, to their position between the two large cities of Louisville and Cincinnati. At the very least, Milton, Kentucky can be dropped. Also, I think it's a good idea to remove New Albany, Indiana and Jeffersonville, Indiana as they're just suburbs of Louisville. I also think Ashland, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio can be dropped in favor of Parkersburg, West Virginia. Thoughts? --Curoi (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Curoi: I'm not sure what, if any, guidelines there are for inclusion. It may be best to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Continuously-spilling creek

The claim that the word "Ohio" derives from a Seneca term meaning "continuously-spilling creek" seems to be original research. The only source appears to be synthesis from a Cayuga, NOT Seneca, online dictionary. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

"References" lists the Ohio River Guidebook. This is an excellent resource on google books that shows many maps, photos and information relating to the article. I recommend that a link to the google books site be included with the listing so that readers can see this infomation. http://books.google.com/books/about/Ohio_River_Guidebook.html?id=-CWFN4uL8L8C 74.130.46.99 (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Ohio River Guidebook is now in Further reading with a more complete citation, as it is not referenced in the article specifically. The References section now has the inline citations, and Notes was deleted as a section title. Notes usually means Notes in sentences to explain a point in the text and this article does not use that feature. Larry Hockett, sorry I made that change on my phone, when I should have used a lap top. On the phone, I can open only one section at a time. I added the google book url, and left the newer publication date and publisher. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Gallery caption

Note: The heading of this talk section was originally "Cities along the Ohio River".

This section could use some improvement. For example, the Tall Stacks festival (Cincinnati) has not taken place for years. --Calumnies (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Calumnies, the photo of Cincinnati is in the Gallery, and the caption is updated and more accurate as to what the image shows, the John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge to Covington, Kentucky against the night skyline. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sold down the river, refs supporting the origin of the phrase

One of the two references supporting the origin of the phrase "sold down the river" was not valid, even the archive link. I took the title from the old ref, found that it was published in a book edited by John Inscoe, and put that as the reference. I am running into trouble on the format of the reference, as it will not show the chapter title, which is the title of what was written by Wilma A Dunaway, the source of so much research on Kentucky and its era of slavery. Her essay is also on line in a google doc. I used chapter-url= for the url for the google doc, but that is not accepted either. What I wrote seems to match an example at 'Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor' here. But it does not work like the example. Can anyone figure out my error and fix it, so the pertinent title shows, and the chapter-url is allowed? --Prairieplant (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I found out my problem. The reference said cite web instead of cite book. I changed it to cite book and now everything prints as intended. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Köppen updates

The river now lies entirely within humid subtropical zone, which now reaches about half way up Indiana#Climate and Ohio#Climate, and even Pennsylvania has significant humid subtropical. B137 (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

See the new section on Climate transition zone, with reference to the 2016 climate zone map, B137. The Pennsylvania article was not persuasive about changes related to the Ohio River. Pittsburgh is still in the other zone, not humid subtropical. Philadelphia does not matter for issues related to the Ohio River, too close to the Atlantic Ocean and its effects on climate. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved photos to the right. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I put the images in a gallery to keep them within this talk section. --Pipetricker (talk), 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Discovery

We now know that the Ohio River was not discovered/explored by La Salle in 1669, or at any other time. He never set foot on it, though he must've passed by its mouth on the lower Mississippi during his second expedition in 1682-83. The history and lead need to be corrected. Start with: The First Explorations of the Trans-Allegheny Region by the Virginians 1650-1674, chapter 1, The Discovery of the Ohio Waters, re the Batts and Fallam expedition to the Kanawha River in 1671, p. 19 but later claims they never made so far west as the Ohio itself, p.187-192 by Professor Clarence Alvord, 1912; and The Discovery of Kentucky re the Needham and Arthur expedition to the Kanawha Valley and beyond in 1673-74 by Willard Rouse Jillson, Sc. D. in Register of Kentucky State Historical Society Vol. 20, No. 59 (MAY, 1922), pp. 117-129 Sbalfour (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That is some pretty interesting information. Do the sources say he was actually falsely attributed as the discoverer? I am sure there are many sources which state he is the discoverer. There is plaques even hanging over the river on various bridges attributing the discovery to him. Granted they could be wrong, but we should be pretty certain before rewriting the article. And if this is the case, the story how the discovery was falsely attributed to him is certainty worthy of inclusion in the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Spent a little time trying to dig for sources, found this:
Happy editting! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I see you found Francis Parkman, the idolized scholar of the American west. Sigh... The rest of your sources are tertiary. There is a mythology around La Salle, and it goes back to one man, Pierre Margry, a French partisan and archivist, who published in 1876 what amounts to an epic romance, part fact and part fabrication, called Découvertes et établissements des français dans l'ouest et dans le sud de l'Amérique Septentrionale (1614-1754) (Discoveries and Settlements of the French in Western and Southern North America). La Salle's journal of the expedition was lost in 1756; he himself never claimed the Ohio River, at least in such documents as we have. There are only two extant accounts of the expedition, both written later, in the late 17th century, by éminence grises in France who had never been to North America.
Margry's compendium was so bad, that in that timeframe, the U.S. Congress appropriated $10,000 to have the original French archives photostated, witnessed by disinterested third parties as to veracity. Parkman was Margry's agent; his burnished reputation magnified Margry, who might otherwise have remained obscure, into a larger than life figure. And a legend was born: the search for the lucrative Northwest Passage fired men's souls, in much the same way as the search for El Dorado, which occurred in roughly the same era. A succession of mythical and enchanting rivers were named and thence "discovered", including the Chucagoa, Baudrane, Louisiane (Anglicized "Saint Louis"), and Ouabanchi-Aramoni (think of the many names and hypothetical locations for the city of gold on Lake Parime).
The early scholars, mostly relying on Parkman, and mostly French/European, repeated Margry's tale. The 20th century scholars, mostly English and American, mostly dispassionate, and in possession of the documents so assiduously provided by the Congress and published by the staid New York Historical Society, pronounced a judgement. And Margry's hero, like the Greek hunter Narcissus, looked in the mirror, and saw himself as nothingness. They already knew: as early as 1879, there was published in New York, a little known pamphlet, a herald, like the four horsemen,[1] titled, The Bursting of Pierre Margry's La Salle Bubble by John Gilmary Shae. But alas! it was on the other side, and Parkman had already spoken[2].
The two accounts are:
  • Récit d’un ami de l’abbé de Galliné, and
  • Mémoire sur le projet du sieur de la Salle pour la descouverte de la partie occidentale de l’Amérique septentrionale entre la Nouvelle-France, la Floride et le Mexique.
So thither thou goest, if you be a seeker of the truth.[3] Others have done that for you; here is one: Dictionary of Canadian Biography: Rene-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle by Celine Dupre. I'll save you the time; he concludes, "In any case, it is beyond doubt that La Salle came to Quebec, having discovered neither the Ohio nor the Mississippi, between 18 Aug. 1670... and the following 10 November."
But we're not done there; if not La Salle, then who? And there, my friends, is where the boots meet the gravel. Sbalfour (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ pestilence, war, famine and death - Book of Revelation 6:1-8
  2. ^ The Discovery of the Great West, 1869
  3. ^ For a summary of the evidence see Krauskopf, Francis (1951), The Documentary Basis for La Salle's Supposed Discovery of the Ohio, Indiana Magazine of History, Vol. 47, Issue 2, June, 1951

Metropolitan areas section (previously Cities and towns along the river)

The section is now called 'Metropolitan areas' listing the n largest cities by population. The previous cities-by-state list was deleted. I grudgingly concur. However, what's vital about a city isn't how big it is today, because that could change at any time. It's what does/did the city mean to the history and current status of the river? For example, Martin's Ferry, a little known place across the river from Wheeling, WV, was the first permanent European settlement in Ohio in 1785 (then known as Norristown), preceding the founding of the popularized Marietta by 3 years. Its population is 7000. It doesn't tell you anything you didn't know to say Pittsburg is on the Ohio River, but I just told you something rather vital, and you didn't know it. So what am I saying? Big cities can be important, but we need a cross-matrix here. because bigness isn't perhaps the most important arbitor of worthiness. Sbalfour (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered that 'Metropolitan areas' doesn't mean cities, but statistical areas, some bean counter's notion of how people ought to be counted for census purposes. Bah! Humbug![1] Here's the list: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, Huntington-Ashland, Evansville, Parkersburg, Wheeling, Weirton-Steubenville, Owensboro. Odd, that the list is 9, not 10.

Here's what I would do - describe the notability of the cities in text:

Along the banks of the Ohio are some of the largest cities in their respective states: Pittsburgh, the largest city on the river and second largest city in Pennsylvania; Cincinnati, the third largest city in Ohio; Louisville, the largest city in Kentucky; Evansville, the third largest city in Indiana; Owensboro, the fourth largest city in Kentucky; Huntington, the second largest city in West Virginia; Parkersburg, the fourth largest city in West Virginia; Wheeling, the fifth largest city in West Virginia. Only Illinois, among the border states, has no significant cities on the river.

I'd cut off the list at cities smaller than 25,000 people or not among the ten largest in the state. I think I've got the whole list. But I'd do one more, the oldest cities on the river, i.e. ones of historical interest, by date of founding:

Cities along the Ohio are also among the oldest cities in their respective states and among the oldest cities in the United States west of the Appalachian mountains (by date of founding): Pittsburgh, PA, 1758; Wheeling, WV, 1769; Huntington, WV, 1775; Louisville, KY, 1779; Clarksville, IN, 1783; Maysville, KY, 1784; Martin's Ferry, OH, 1785; Marietta, OH, 1788; Cincinnati, OH, 1789; Manchester, OH, 1790; Beaver, PA, 1792.

Before there were cities, there were forts. Colonial forts along the Ohio river include Fort Pitt (PA), Fort McIntosh (PA), Fort Randolph (WV), Fort Henry (WV), Fort Harmar (OH), Fort Washington (OH), and Fort Nelson (KY). Short-lived special purpose forts include Fort Steuben (OH), Fort Finney (KY), Fort Finney (OH) and Fort Gower (OH).

Maybe there are other things to note, like bridges, interstate highways, waterfalls, etc.

Other cities of interest include Cairo, IL, at the mouth of the Ohio on the Mississippi River and the southernmost and westernmost city on the river; Pittsburgh, PA, the easternmost city on the river at the head or Forks of the Ohio, where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join to create the Ohio; and Beaver, PA, the site of colonial Fort McIntosh and the northernmost city on the river. It is 548 miles as the crow flies between Cairo and Pittsburgh, but 981 miles by water. Direct water travel the length of the river is obstructed by the Falls of the Ohio just below Louisville, KY. The Ohio River Scenic Byway follows the Ohio River through Illinois, Indiana and Ohio ending at Steubenville, OH, on the river.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbalfour (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ebenezer Scrooge, in A Christmas Carol

List of major tributaries

Who says these are tributaries of the Ohio? And even if "Simon says", who says they're major tributaries, and what's the criteria for major? I've tagged the section. It's somewhat long, though a 1000 mile long river could have a few dozen major tributaries. However, about ten of the entries, mostly identified as creeks or runs, are hardly major. I think the list might've gotten to be a 'Me, too!' thing. A hydrologic map would be whole lot more useful to this presentation than a list of names. Sbalfour (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this original research?

The article opens with a sentence like this: "the Ohio River is the main stream of the whole river system." There are numbers from USGS to make that case. The information is again stated in the Geography and hydrography section. But this statement is not made in the Wikipedia article about the Mississippi River System. The Ohio River is described neutrally, like all the other major tributaries. Is this an original observation, or is there a published source, written in words, not tables with no judgements among the numbers, to back this view point up? I do not know which editor provided that information originally. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a semantic issue, rather than a factual one. The "main" river of a system is the largest by volume, though there are exceptions due to historical naming conventions. Hydrologically, we'd like to keep the system pure, but it hardly matters in practice. In that sense, the lower Mississippi is part of the Ohio because the Ohio is the largest tributary at the junction, but no one is going to say that. In the same way, it's not original research to say the color of the sky is (sky) blue. Sbalfour (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ohio_River/Archive_1&oldid=1224134656"