Talk:Mississippi River/Archive 1

message: The Mississippi is not the longest river in North America, the Missouri is. Various sources confirm this, one of which is the USGS: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html . Although that site gives the Mississippi's length as 2,340 miles, I think it's best to use round numbers as we have done. For example, another USGS site (http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/ms137.htm ) says 3,705 km, which would be 2302 miles; Webster's New World 3rd Ed says 2348 miles. Probably they are all correct given different methods of measurement. -- Nate
:Isn't this page counting the Missouri from its headwaters to the mouth of the Mississippi in the Gulf of Mexico and not to where the Missouri flows into the Mississippi? But I am not sure. --rmhermen
::You are probably right about the Missouri being measured from its headwaters to the ocean (which would include part of the Mississippi). I've been Googling this one and there are enough different measurements that you can pick how long you want the river to be! For the Mississippi I'm going with ~3,700 km since that seems to be the most prevalent. If some kid is doing a report on the Mississippi, that's probably the number the teacher expects to see. For the Missouri, there is no measurement on that page and probably shouldn't be, unless someone can explain the method used to measure.
:: I've also edited the page on the "largest/longest" issue by stating that the Mississippi is the "largest river system" in NA, which nobody disputes. I've removed the ref to the Missouri being longer by some measurements. -- Nate
::: Reading the article cold I think it sounds odd to refer to the Mississippi/Missouri system's length without the Mississippi's alone. This should probably be in a subsequent paragraph about the river's watershed and geography, and perhaps a note that there are reasons to consider the Lower Mississippi the Lower Missouri instead. To my mind the simplest answer -- the length of the Mississippi itself from source to sea -- is the one that should be in the opening. --Dhartung 01:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know and really don't care, but the article named both the Missouri and the Mackenzie as longest - can't be both so I removed one. Should probably take out the reference to the Mackenzie from the lead, too - as simple trivial nonsense. Won't get no edit warring here - unless you claim both as longest again :-) Vsmith 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missouri longer 

message: People have always made a fuss over the longest river, highest mountain, tallest building, and so on. We should not add or delete any claims without defining the criteria used in the claim.
If we're speaking of the source discovered by Lewis and Clark in the US Northwest, from which one could presumably coast all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, I wonder if that stretch of water retains a single name throughout. Let's do some research before the next edit, eh? --Ed Poor
The photo at Missouri River of the meeting of the Missouri and Mississippi above St. Louis makes it abundantly clear why the Bitterroots-to-Gulf flowage is not correctly considered the same river. Jerry picker 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know and really don't care, but the article named both the Missouri and the Mackenzie as longest - can't be both so I removed one. Should probably take out the reference to the Mackenzie from the lead, too - as simple trivial nonsense. Won't get no edit warring here - unless you claim both as longest again :-) Vsmith 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "longest" 

message: I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't think this article should state that the Mackenzie River is the longest river in North America. Assuming the numbers in the various articles are correct, the Mississippi River is longer than the Mackenzie River, and the Jefferson-Missouri-Mississippi system is longer than the Peace-Finlay-Mackenzie system. I don't think comparing the Peace-Finlay-Mackenzie system to the Mississippi River alone is a very interesting or intuitive comparison, and that's the only way that I can see that you could support the current language in this article. Am I missing something?   Rkstafford 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know and really don't care, but the article named both the Missouri and the Mackenzie as longest - can't be both so I removed one. Should probably take out the reference to the Mackenzie from the lead, too - as simple trivial nonsense. Won't get no edit warring here - unless you claim both as longest again :-) Vsmith 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mackenzie? 

message: Can anybody tell me why the Mississippi still is called Mississippi after it is joined by the Missouri, although the Missouri is the longer river at that time? --Sim  March 11th 2004, 14:56 CET
:My understanding is that the Mississippi has a greater volume of water flowing at the confluence than the Missouri does (though I see Bluelion appears to dispute this below).  Additionally, the headwaters of the Mississippi were probably explored well before the Missouri was (although the currently-attributed source in Itasca took a long time to figure out). —Mulad 06:38, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
::I don't dispute that the Mississippi has a greater volume at the confluence. It's also wider. It's also joined by the Illinois a few miles upstream. Whatever. Neither the Missouri nor the Mississippi above St. Louis is anything to sneeze at. It's hard to question the names the rivers were given, and there's no changing the names now. Bluelion 03:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The names come from what American Indians called the rivers. The Algonquin names were Mississippi (Big River) and Missouri (Big Boats). The Sioux called the Mississippi and Missouri, respectively, Ne Tongo (Big River) and Ne Shodse (Muddy River). Bluelion 02:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, I think much of the Mississippi was mapped before the Missouri River. (SEWilco 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a lot of interesting info on how rivers acquired their names in George Stewart's book "Names on the Land".  A basic trend has to do with whether a river was explored (by Euro-American putting names on maps) up or down river.  When exploring upriver, it was common to name tributaries but retain the main branch name, or just say awkward things like South Fork North Branch Potomac River.  The Missouri River may be longer, but at the confluence, back when the rivers were free flowing, it was not seen as the main branch but rather a major tributary (note that stream flow data from today is quite different from what it was centuries ago; the rivers have been massively controlled, dammed, and diverted into canals and irrigation).  When exploring downriver, the various tributaries, including the "main branch" (whatever that might mean) were often given their own names, only for explorers to realize at some point that the main river already had a name given to it far downstream.  So the Alleghany River and Monongahela Rivers were given names before anyone realized they were the main branches of the Ohio River, which thus "starts" at the confluence.  The Tennessee River similarly "starts" at the confluence of the French Broad and Holston rivers.  Many rivers of the southeast change names at each forking, and I think this is due in part to the upland backcountry being explored in detail earlier than much of the coastal tidewater region.  Anyway, there is a great deal of info on this topic in Stewart's book mentioned above. Pfly 06:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "Tributary" refers to the names of streams, not their length or flow. There are many many cases in which a tributary stream is larger or longer than the "main" stream into which it flows. The Missouri is far from unique or unusual in this regard. Pfly 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not called Missouri 

message: Davenport, Iowa is the only city over 20,000 people bordering the Mississippi that has no permanent floodwall or levee. -- I'm not convinced that this is true.  Minneapolis, for example, does not have a floodwall or levee. -- UninvitedCompany 20:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, although from a civil engineering viewpoint it is relevant that the river runs past Minneapolis between cliffs which it has cut.  Minneapolis and St. Paul are atop those cliffs and the river can't reach the city.  I don't think Congress has funded the Corps of Engineers to install cliffs elsewhere.  (SEWilco 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities without levee 

message: This article should say something about the big flood of the 1990s (for a reference point a bit more recent than 1927).  It should also say something about the history of bridges across the rivier (there's a particularly significant bridge at St. Louis, but I no longer remember the details).  18.24.0.120 04:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990s flood 

message: I can't believe there's not an article about the Eads Bridge over the Mississippi at St. Louis. Completed in 1874, Eads Bridge provided a vital railway link that allowed St. Louis to compete with Chicago as a railway center. The Eads Bridge is also one of the most significant bridges in the world from an engineering standpoint, a metallic ribbed steel arch, a revolutionary design at the time. It's sure to be covered in any introductory course in civil engineering. The Eads Bridge was once the symbol of St. Louis - replaced first by the Apothesis of St. Louis (a statue that stood at the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis), and later by the Arch in whose shadow the bridge still stands. The Eads Bridge just underwent a reconstruction of the automobile deck. BTW, the Missouri and Mississippi branches are misnamed. Where they meet at St. Louis the branches are appoximately the same size. The intention was to give the name "Mississippi" the longer branch, but original estimates of the lengths were wrong. What is now the 'Missouri' branch above St. Louis is actually longer than the 'Mississippi' branch. In other words, when the branches were named, a mistake was made. Bluelion 22:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're cordially invited to create such an article. It's seems like you're the natural one to do it. :) -- Decumanus | Talk 22:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eads Bridge at St. Louis 

message: This is one of the rare times Google has failed me over the last 8 years, and the Wikipedia entry is similarly lacking.  Can someone who actually knows (or knows where to find the information) add a list of nicknames for the river?  I imagine I can track them down eventually, but the moment where I needed them has passed.
--JohnRDaily 00:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a popular culture section including some of the best-known nicknames. It should do for a start. --Dhartung 01:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: I've merged the information on the river delta to the Mississippi River Delta article (with some of the lobe details relegated to :Image:Mississippi Delta Lobes.jpg for now).  Also, I don't believe the part about fertile farmland should be included with the river delta section, since that's refering to that other Delta which (I believe) wasn't formed by deltaic switching.  Certainly the very fertile lands around the river should be expounded upon more, but I don't understand the geographic origins enough to even introduce that.  Hopefully all of this is agreeable. -Interiot 20:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  River delta 

message: "Father of waters" is an awfully fanciful translation of "Mississippi".  Ziibi simply means river in Ojibwe, and I doubt many speakers of the Algonquin dialect ever saw the river.  Miizii in modern Ojibwe means to take a dump, if anyone is interested.  I found a reference with a more plausible etymology that I intend to replace the current one with. --Diderot 16:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Ojibwe, Misi-ziibi (Great River) is the correct name for the river, but only for the portion below the jucture with the Crow Wing River.  Above that juncture, it is called Gichi-ziibi (Big River).  In Ojibwe, misi- and gichi- are not the same.  The preverb misi- means great while the preverb gichi- means big.  Other misi- words in Ojibwe, for example, are Misi-zaaga'igan (Lake Mille Lacs) and misaabooz (snow-shoe hare).  In Algonquin language, the preverb is minsi-.  Consequently, I will be changing the wording in the article. CJLippert 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: I think it would be noteworthy to add that radio call letters begin with either K or W depending if they are west or east of the mississippi respectively. --TBH 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting fact, but it's about radio, not about the river.  There's a difference.  It's unrelated to any characteristic of the river at all, except for, perhaps, its geographical location which is already well noted.  I wouldn't fight it being noted here, but I think it has nothing to do with the river and everything to do with the FCC's naming convention and belongs in a radio article.  (BTW, it's not a universal rule; WGNU, WRTH and WIL are/were radio stations in St. Louis, a stone's throw west of the river.  Legacy/grandfathered?  Interesting question, but about radio, not the river.) -- Kbh3rd 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  radio 

message: I changed the discharge value at Saint Louis : 4,260 ft³/s --> 156 ft³/s. Is it correct ? --Gloumouth1 15:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, meters are larger than feet, so cubic meters are much larger than cubic feet: more than 35 times larger, in fact. I've added the correct figure. And thank you for bringing this up, because I corrected the other numbers as well; somehow I was off in the earlier round of conversions I'd made. —Papayoung ☯ 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I multiplied by 0.3048^3 instead of devide ! Anyway, the previous value (4,260) was not correct... We should only use the International System of Units. The others are confusing. Moreover, it is a bit disturbing to have this kind of values for the first system (194,231 ft³/s) and round values for the second one (5,500 m³/s) --Gloumouth1 08:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, Wikipedia policy is to use both imperial and metric units. And since this is an American article, U.S. units of measurement take precedence over the metric ones. Kevin M Marshall 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The cubic-feet figure was derived from the cubic-meters value; if you have a more specific value in meters, it would be welcome.  —Papayoung ☯ 14:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you for the explanations. You are right, it is an American article. A last question : do you know where the value 5,500 m³/s comes from ? --Gloumouth1 15:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know; I took the (metric) values from the old river template for this article, calculated the Imperial units from them, and added them with to the new Infobox. You could spend some time paging back through the history and see if the original contributor cited his or her source for the data. —Papayoung ☯ 16:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  conversion error 

message: Concerning the recent annonymous addition of Natchez, Mississippi and Vicksburg, Mississippi, note that the section title is "major", not "historic".  No offense meant to these two interesting communities of historical importance, but I don't think the term "major city" applies to towns of 26 thousand and 18 thousand souls each.  Add them together and you might get an average suburb of St. Louis.  Note that I've not reverted them out of the article, being willing to discuss other viewpoints here.  Perhaps the section should be retitled to "notable cities"?  I'd agree that they are "notable" if not "major". -- Kbh3rd 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, both cities are mentioned in other parts of the article, particularly Vicksburg.  As long as Vicksburg's historical importance is mentioned somewhere in the article, its removal from that particular portion of the article is okay by me.  (though it's somewhat inconsistent to follow the "Major cities" section with the "Notable bridges" section.  It'd be best to either change both to "major" or change both to "notable").  --Interiot 07:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cities along the river 

message: me and the mississippi river is very close it is my bro. i love it it is my homie yo ya down with dat.k yall betta listen we cool and all but the mississippi river is mine got dat ya weird peoples. ya betta treat it nice or ill hunt ya down ya hear yall betta listen or yalls head is gonna be gone ya losers
*I also like the Mississippi River very much.  Malepheasant 05:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  me and the mississippi river  

message: Do we want to include a section on the page describing sport fishing as well as invasive species such as bighead carp? I'd also like a mention of breaded & fried Southern catfish, mm-mmm :) Isopropyl 08:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishing 

message: What is the longest river in the United States, the Mississippi or Missouri?  Two different Wikipedia articles have different answers:
The Mississippi?  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River;  "is the longest river in the United States; the second-longest is the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi")
The Missouri?  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_River;  "it is the longest river in the United States ").
The United States Geological Survey, a bureau of the Department of the Interior and official surveyor of the U.S. Government says it's the Missouri.
georgephawley@comcast.net
216.241.240.30 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed by an Anon IP user on February 25. Looks like no one noticed until now. I'll fix it. older ≠ wiser 22:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest River? 

message: Not to be superfluous, but I started the Upper Mississippi River and Lower Mississippi River articles  because, a) this article seemed to be getting pretty long, and b) the Upper and Lower are such different rivers.  The Lower resembles the Missouri and Ohio more than it does the Upper.  There have even been opinions expressed (in years past) that the name Mississippi should originally have been applied instead to (what are now called) the Missouri and the Lower Mississippi.  Any thoughts? -- Muffuletta 18:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Upper & Lower articles

message: I changed the number of locks to 29, based on these three (and other) references:
* 
*
* 
I know there are some sources that say 27, but I have all 29 of those bad boys listed in the Upper Mississippi River article.  Some confusion can result because there are four named locks, then a bunch of numbered locks, beginning with 1 and ending with 25.  But there's also a Lock 5A, and there's no Lock 23. -- Muffuletta 18:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many locks?

message: Sounds like a fun summer vacation.  What's the most dingy boat I could get by on?  Where can I buy it?  Are there any obstacles between the Source and the Gulf?
lots of issues  | leave me a message 10:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a raft down the Mississippi  -- Help! 

message: This statement is factually inaccurate: "It runs through two states -- Minnesota and Louisiana -- and forms the borders of eight states -- Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi -- before emptying into the Gulf of Mexico about 100 miles (160 km) downstream from New Orleans." 
The state borders are set at where the Mississippi flowed at the time the States were admitted to the Union. However, the river has shifted since that time. The greatest shift occured after the New Madrid earthquake. 
Presently, the River is surrounded by Missouri, Illinois, and Kentucky at various points.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.60.50 (talk • contribs) .
:Kaskaskia, Illinois, former state capital of Illinois, is now on the west side of the current Mississippi River channel. It might be better to say that the river predominately forms the border of those states. I think Kaskaskia is one of the few examples, maybe an island or two, but it seems the border statement originally shown is accurate enough. However, the western border was specifically mentioned in the Illinois Constitution and was stated as follows: thence west to the middle of the Mississippi river, and thence down, along the middle of that river, to its confluence with the Ohio river (see also:Illinois Constitution of 1818). It was listed that way until the most recent version of the Illinois Constitution in 1970. I don't think it was removed because it was no longer true, but because the border was well established and it was not necessary to restate it. --Dual Freq 22:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current Wisconsin Constitution says its border is: down the center of the main channel of that river [the Mississippi] to the northwest corner of the state of Illinois. --Dual Freq 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The boathouse community pictured in the article is east of the main channel, yet it is part of Winona, Minnesota, not Wisconsin. The main channel moved many years ago, but the border stayed in the same place. There are many islands like this all along the river on the "wrong" side of the current main channel. For the most part, though, the river is the boundary. Jonathunder 12:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mississippi No Longer Forms State Borders

message: I fixed a minor vandalism done by 195.92.67.74.  This IP added a section header with the text "Headline text" and added the city "Big Bum, TX" to the list of Major cities along the river.--Jelloman 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Vandalism

message: ::The word Mississippi comes from the Ojibwa name for the river, "Messipi" (or Misi-ziibi in contemporary spelling), which means great river, or from the Algonquin Missi Sepe, "great river," poetically, "father of waters."
Who first used the term "father of waters" in English?  Is that a poetic translation of a prosaic original phrase, or is the Algonquin phrase itself considered poetic? Michael Hardy 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which poet?

message: Substituted at 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment