This is an archive of past discussions about Mississippi River. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are no references for the non-inline cited material present in section Geography.
Wikilinks are needed to help the reader, e. g. silt, plume ...
A subsection cannot be named Present for it is time-dependant. Also, this section doesn't give much information except trivia.
Can the Major cities along the river section be turned into prose in order to give a little information to the reader on why are these major cities and why should they be mentioned on an article talking of a river.
The section Notable bridges should have its name changed as it is pov-oriented and the bullet-point information should also have a lot more to give to the reader as to why they are notable.
Popular culture section should remove non-notable stuff. And Trivia section should be removed.
I think the articles is missing a lot of inline citations and a lot of references (only encyclopedia or encyclopedia like books at present).
The most important comment the article should work on is citations and sources for the time being and to remove questionable facts. For more insight into the article, please contact me and come back to GAC once there is work done on the article. Good luck, Lincher02:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Scheduling of Professional Sports Contests
The Mississippi River is not the determining factor in scheduling sports contests, National Football League games for instance. The actual deciding factor is the time zone. Thus, Eastern and Central time zones have "early" games while Mountain and Pacific time zones have "late" games (except that some Eastern games are arbitrarily moved to a 4 p.m. schedule for the benefit of the television networks).
Consider, for instance, that games in Minnesota, St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans (as well as Oklahoma City and San Antonio in the wake of Hurricane Katrina) are scheduled "early" because all these localities are in the Central time zone.
I will remove the sports scheduling reference soon, as it is completely inaccurate (and, for that matter, unsourced).
It's good to see that "pollution" isn't mentioned in the article. It really isn't that important since the river is in such good shape after all the industrial use it has seen. The fish still taste great, despite the warnings not to eat it. Top job, guys.
Now now, no need to hide behind sarcasm. First of all, you could have signed your post; nobody's going to bite you. Second, you could edit the article yourself, and add information about pollution. Third, I notice that the Upper Mississippi River and Lower Mississippi River articles do mention pollution. Finally, we generally add comments to the bottom of a discussion page, rather than the top (oops). -- Lorrette15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll check if that has been fixed. If not, I'll add a new section in about Pollution. And please, sarcasm coulds up articles and if everybody made unproductive statements the pages would be clouded.(even more so)Dan15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added a large paragraph about pollution. I hope you like it, as i took a long time to write it.Dan15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It couldn't have taken too long to copy and paste from here, even with some slight rearrangement. You can take information, but not text, and such slight rejiggering of the prose does not prevent it from being a copyright violation. There are other problems aside from copyright with that text, too. The tone was all accusation with no source citations. By "source" I mean scientifically reputable sources of hard data. If I hadn't deleted the text as infringing I would probably have plastered it with {{citation needed}} tags. E.g., which schools' crew teams? Typhoid is not caused by industrial pollution as the paragraph seemed to suggest, and can be a concern in any flood situation. What does "centern" mean? "Theoretically" is a weasel word – we should know whose theory specifically. In short, the tone was all advocacy and not encyclopedic. This article certainly does need a proper section on pollution, though. Some of the links listed on that other page may actually prove useful as suitable sources of information (not prose). --Kbh3rdtalk02:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Mississippi River. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well, the battle did retain military control over the river for the Americans. Undoubtedly, the sentence/paragraph could be more clear, if it remains. The central issue is whether the battle is closely enough related to the river to warrant inclusion in the history section of this article. My sense is that it is, though I wouldn't necessarily object to leaving it out, as long as some rationale is given. Tim Shuba01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have pared it down to little more than two links. The linked articles explain the matter adequately. Perhaps someone can make the mention smaller without losing coherence; I would not recommend making it bigger.
Ok, I understand what they mean when they say "second longest named river", really I do. But it is still confusing. For a second, I was like, no, Mississippi has a longer name than Missouri, having 11 letters rather than 8.
we should make a place for myths and what not becasue i saw no mention of the "phizzel gobblin" in this articleChessmaster312:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
water falls
shouldn't the article state "remaining" waterfall? at the keokuk, ia lock and dam #19 were "the falls of the mississippi". i don't know of any others.
"in Clearwater County, Minnesota, the river falls to 725 feet (220 m) just below Saint Anthony Falls in Minneapolis, the only waterfall along the river's course."
STOP editing in nonsense about the I35W bridge, it is firstly NOT a notable bridge, it was built in the 60s along with almost every other modern day bridge on the river. This one was built frankly on the industrial cheap and carries no real significance for the river other than to put a highway across it. And considering not one pier went into the Mississippi itself, the bridge's relation to the river is minor compared to the other bridges which replaced historic structures (Cappelen Franklin Ave Bridge for example still has the old 19th century piers where the original bridge went). And considering the replacement bridge is ALSO being built on the fast cheap sidetracking even a visual historic review, there is nothing incredibly notable about it either. A disaster does not make a bridge notable and neither does it make its predecessor. One mention in the article is ENOUGH and even to that extent its highly irrelevant. 64.122.208.18415:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It was the bussiest bridge in Minnesota, and one of the most-travelled on the upper Mississippi. Its collapse stops the flow of traffic on the river--nothing can go upstream of that location. How is that not "notable" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.77.26 (talk)
Just for accuracy's sake - it was the third busiest in the state after I-694 and I-94 over the Mississippi.--Appraiser22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you look at the section of the locks in Saint Anthony Falls it is mentioned that there is little barge traffic up there. Having the river blocked is irritating, but is it encyclopedic? In five years is it encyclopedic? (SEWilco23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Actually, I think it is, because ultimately the NTSB will determine that the collapse was a combination of two errors: 1) raising the weight limit and increasing the traffic volume (by converting shoulders to traffic lanes) caused stress fractures in the steel to occur faster than the designers anticipated (it was designed to last 50 years), and 2) The on-going re-surfacing tempted the construction company to pile large quantities of sand and store water (in trucks) on the bridge, causing a concentration of weight that was unanticipated by designers. The findings will cause a major re-evaluation of every older bridge in the country, how much traffic it carries, the maximum allowed weight of trucks, and what repair techniques are allowed. The general population may not notice much difference, but I think this may be a major juncture in bridge standards. (All of this is my personal opinion and probably has no basis in fact.)--Appraiser00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We're discussing its relevance to an article on the River. You're welcome to learn how high are the rated capacities of bridges and try to publish a scholarly study before the NTSB, but that is hardly relevant to the River. (SEWilco18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
That was me above in a fit of anger. Anyway. I agree the bridge will become notable but in a very particular sense that will only be encyclopedically pertinent to certain topics. On its own the bridge will have faulted our transportation systems and revealed some ugly truths but its widespread effect across bridges over the Mississippi? I'm not so sure, bridge inspection and upkeep is a supposed daily part of every DOT and as many officials have downplayed bridges across the nation there may actually not be the crisis that is nationwide but locally to mismanaged DOTs. We haven't heard anything regarding contamination of the river, bridges disruption to waterflow, habitat, etc. I think a bridge anywhere could have fallen and we'd have the same situation, not necessarily a river bridge. I would rule in this instance the bridge is merely at the location of being over the Mississippi--A+B does not = C per WP Policy. Unfortunately I'm sure if we stringently applied this rule to the current list of "notable" bridges we'd be deleting some. Thoughts? .:DavuMaya:.07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
running through states
The article states that the river only runs through two states, followed by mentioning that it formed the borders of several others, though the course has changed. Specifically, it runs through a small portion of Illinois, at Kaskaskia. So, really, it should say that it runs through at least three states. Right? Murderbike06:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, yeah, and more than three. I recall numerous locations in Mississippi and perhaps Arkansas where the river has moved while the state boundary has not, creating "islands" of one state on the other state's side of the active channel. Maybe there should be wording to the effect that the river runs through two states proper, with numerous isolated cutoffs in other states... but I don't recall offhand where and how many.--Muffuletta18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Image re-arrangement
Hello guys, what a great article this is! I have done an overhaul on the images in the article. All preset image sizes have been removed and all images in the article are aligned on the right side now according to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images.
You might find that extreme but here is my reasoning:
The article looked very cluttered with all the big images on the left and right on a smaller screen and Wikipedia should be compatible with that, too. It is not unusual for articles that attract so many readers and contributors, lots of editors contribute material and images and everyone has their own idea of what looks nice. If there is such a mix of (individually nice) ideas of formats and alignment it is hard to find the common denominator. That's why I chose the drastic measure to reset them all to zero: All the same size and all aligned to the right.
I don't want to say that this is the ultimate solution for the design of the article, if you don't like some of the re-arrangements, feel free to change them. If you don't like any, you can even undo it. I did the changes in one edit, so they are very easily reversible.
There is no loss of information also, all the thumbnail images can be clicked for the large view, anyway. And I have not removed a single image nor a piece of information. I have added an image in the history secion.
I also added some subheaders in the history section for better readability and structure of the artcile. A nice side effect of the newly added subheaders is that the article gets streched a little to provide room for the abundant images.doxTxob \ talk02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In a second step I have re-arranged some of the content and applied subheaders to diverse paragraphs throughout the article. This should improve readability and make it easy for readers to find the information. I have tried to condense the information under the respective subheaders. doxTxob \ talk04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
New article for history section
Hello! The history section is quite long, it contains general history as well as navigational history. That is a lot of interesting material and certainly enough to deserve an article of its own.
What I am planning is to move the history section to a new article History of the Mississippi River and reduce the section in this article. In this article, I would refer to the new history article with the main article tag
Something not mentioned in this article is the dredging of the river near the MS delta to redirect it's corse. Not sure how much information is available online about this; you may have to actually do "real research" and make some phone calls to ERDC in Vicksburg. My great grandfather always used to say he was strong enough to "move the Mississippi". Years after he died we found some old newspaper clipping. Come to find out, he had worked on one of these dredge boats and, in fact, had helped "move" the Mississippi River. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.212.69 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Archives for this talk page
I have archived a whole lot of talk topics from this talk page. The archived topics can be found in one of the archives in the archive box at the top, the archives are dated, the dates refer to the date the topic was posted. I have tried to sort them in the arhcives by that date. I have also tried to leave topics with recent comments on the page. Should I have overlooked a topic that had recent comments, please take my apologies and move it back or revive the topic on the talk page. doxTxob \ talk01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
doxTxob asked me to provide a brief summary of some of the major things that this article needs done before nominating for WP:GAN. First, it wouldn't hurt to review the Good article criteria, which is a listing of six criteria that all GAs must meet in order to pass. The first three of these are the major ones: an article must be well written, with good prose, and mostly following the wikipedia manual of style; it must be reasonably complete, with most major topics covered; it must be verifiable, and information must be cited using inline citations. The last three are more minor, and usually easier to fix: adhere to WP:NPOV, be stable (no major edit wars, although random vandalism which can't be controlled is allowed), and the images must have appropriate image copyright tags (images should preferably be free use, as opposed to fair use -- licensed via GFDL, creative commons, or public domain; though fair use is still allowed, as long as they're tagged, and a fair use rationale is present).
With regards to the specifics of this article:
The lead/intro is too short. There's a lot of short, choppy sentences and paragraphs, and it doesn't really summarize the content of the article. The lead should be a summary here, and almost be like a short version of the article itself. See WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section.
The infobox looks good; the image looks a little under-exposed; perhaps a brighter one could be used? Take the photo on a sunny day? Although the image is sufficient for GA, this is just a suggestion for improvement.
The first thing I notice is evident from the table of contents. Due to the long length of the TOC, it seems to be caused by a large number of sections, subheaderss, and subsubheaders. And reading the article text, I see a lot of subsection headers with very little content, which could probably be combined better into main sections. If you look at some of the best FAs and GAs, they don't use a whole lot of subsection headers, sticking mainly to good-sized, well written main sections (the headers with the lines beneath them). Subsection headers should be used very conservatively.
Try to avoid listing content using bulleted lists, like the one with all the tributaries. Is this really the best way to present this information? Some alternatives to bulleted lists might be:
Write it out as prose. Some very long lists started because editors found it easy to just add bullet points while effectively brainstorming a topic. But once the topic gets going, these ideas should be converted to good, well written prose, with citations where needed. Try to find something to talk about each item in the list and how they are related to each other.
A figure or an image. In the case of the tributaries, listing them with the state that they are in doesn't exactly illustrate it best. What about an image of the central US, with all the tributaries drawn on it and labelled. The image to the right is a good start, but incomplete as it doesn't have all the rivers. Furthermore, the bulleted list is inaccurate -- the Ohio River isn't 'in Kentucky' -- it forms the northern border of Kentucky, and sits 'between' KY, IL, IN, OH, WV, & starts in PA.
Use a category instead. The section with the list of 'cities along the river' might be best done linking to the Cities on the Mississippi River in the 'see also' section, instead of listing them in bullet form here. Trivial information like this might be to put in 'see also' anyway.
Be careful with things like 'popular culture' and 'nicknames'. Sections like this tend to be heavily edited, because it doesn't take too many brain cells to hear some nickname of something (as minor as it might be), or see something mentioned on TV, and have the desire to go to wikipedia and make sure the world knows about it. Mentioning two or three of the more common nicknames in the lead is appropriate, and probably all that we need to include. Pop culture information should almost never be a bulleted list (because that's basically like putting a sign up saying "add to this list"), and should be written out as prose, with citations. For a good example of a well written pop culture section, see the 'media & popular culture' section of the Flagstaff, Arizona article.
Again, make sure that information that you add is sourced using inline citations. The citation should also not just contain an external link -- include full citation information, such as author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL was retrieved -- so that if the URL ever becomes a 404 not found, the citation is not rendered useless and it could still be used to locate the source (like if you had to go to a library), should someone want to do that. See WP:CITE for tips on formatting citations.
Also, citations don't just have to be online sources; it's always good to include some material from offline, such as books, magazines, or journals, to provide a good, well-rounded article. Although a lot of legitimate and reliable sources are being found online these days, so this is less of an issue. But you should avoid citing personal websites and blogs, as these do not have the same editorial control as the professional sources.
As far as the major sections are concerned, geography and history are good. Merge navigation history into history; it all seems related, and it seems kind of silly to separate the specific navigation stuff into a whole separate section. Nuke 'cities along the river' -- move it to a category (see above). Bridge crossings seems interesting; needs citations. Arts and culture also needs citations. I would also add a section dealing with wildlife (flora and fauna) of the Mississippi -- certainly there's a more natural component to the river than just the human parts,...
Ok, those are the big things to fix. Hope that helps to get you started. I think if you fix those major things, the article will be in much better shape, and then a little minor tweaking and it will be back to GA! Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In terms of coverage, there's hardly any material here about the economic or industrial magnitude of shipping or trade, either historically or present day. What is the typical transit time from St Louis to the gulf, if anything is still moved by this route? Is it cost competitive with rail transport, or has it fallen into a secondary niche? From my perch on the Pacific, I honestly couldn't guess the answer to these questions. MaxEnt (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Orphan paragraph
Under paragraph 2.4.1 Steamboat Commerce the first sentence says "Twain's book also extensively covered the steamboat commerce which took place from 1830 to 1870 on the river before more modern boating methods replaced the steamer." and yet there is no previous mention of Mark Twain in the article. It looks as if something has been removed earlier leaving this paragraph making no sense. Richerman (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I have re-formulated the paragraph. It looks like that part of the story stems from the arts sub-section. The article is in need of an overhaul and any input and contribution is welcome. doxTxob \ talk22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Short answer: mud. The river runs so much water through it that it eats away all the mud around the banks and from the bottom and such. It's essentially sediments and everything else. There's a fair amount of pollution in there, I grant you, but mostly it's the mud that makes it murky and dirty looking. It was just as muddy and dirty hundreds of years ago too. -- Otto16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear before its confluence with the Minnesota River in St. Paul. It's probably always been sort of muddy/dirty, but not nearly as muddy and dirty as it is now due to the widespread alteration of landuse away from forest/prairie to agricultural crops.Minnecologies (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The Mississippi River is planned to be one of the articles. Should there be important additions or improvements on anyone's mind or something major needs to be fixed. Now is the time!
Added a link from the local newspaper (Memphis, TN) in the external links section, but it was removed and called a 'local news aggregator'. I know AP content makes its way into the list of articles, but it seems like the local content from a singular credible source would be rather useful. Does wikipedia not link out to current news or archives? Let me know, as I'm new here and I would like to contribute.Whortman (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, and bearing with me ;). My responses:
(@Davumaya) The link has articles from a local newspaper when they publish a story about the Mississippi River. The link, then, obviously has something to do with the Mississippi River. Neither your comment nor the removal of the link from the discussion page seems very helpful.
(@SheepNotGoats) The link is not to search results, an aggregator or RSS feed. The page is maintained by an editor in a newsroom, so it's human edited not automated (at all). When an employee in the newsroom posts any article about the river or its affects on the city of Memphis, they then have the option to include it on this page. I read the links-to-avoid and external-links pages before I put it up in the first place. Are there other examples of links to newspapers being deleted, or are there any other discussions about this?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just having a hard time believing that a link to a newspaper is a bad thing. Once again, here's the link for anyone else to check/discuss. Please try not to delete it, as that kind of puts a crimp on discussion (despite an edit history). http://commercialappeal.com/mississippiriver/
No, that site actually is an aggregation. Basically, that's just a list of stories in the Commercial Appeal that have anything to do with the Mississippi River. That's what an aggregation *is*. It may be a permanent category or something like that, but it is not fixed content, it's a collection of links to other fixed content. There may or may not be editorial control over the content of the page, but that is irrelevant. It's a non-fixed changing set of links to content. External links like that should be to the content itself. -- Otto16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Otto! Thanks for the explanation! You guys (wikipedians, I mean) simply want direct links to static content, not links to links to content. I thought the idea was to keep out links to blog aggregators (the fully auto, fully useless advert farms). My thinking was that if someone were coming to wikipedia to do research, it would be useful to have all the news of record (vetted by humans) from the cities on the river. Is there anywhere like wikipedia where that would belong? BTW, check out the NYT topic page... not worthy either? http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/mississippi-river/index.htmlWhortman (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please create articles for Barfield, Arkansas, Tomato, Arkansas, and Reads landing, Minnesota? Having those redlinks there makes it confusing.72.2.214.33 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Mississippi vs. Missouri River Length
From the Mississippi River page: "The Mississippi River[2] is the longest river in the United States, with a length of 2,320 miles (3,730 km)". From the Missouri River page: "The Missouri River[8] is a tributary of the Mississippi River, and the longest river in the United States of America[9]." "At 2,540 miles (4,090 km)[1] in length..." How can both of these rivers be the longest in the U.S., and how can the Mississippi River be the longest in the U.S. if it is shorter than the Missouri River? Desertdave79 (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I vaguely remember someone doing an unexplained deletion of the word 'second' a few weeks ago. Although there seems to be some disagreement as to the exact length of the two rivers, I've added back the word 'second' for now and added a fairly straight-forward reference from the USGS. AlexiusHoratius15:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
...and almost 6 times the volume of the Colorado River.
That phrase "and almost 6 times the volume of the Colorado River." appears in the Discharge section, but I don't see how that is possible. The Colorado River is dry at its mouth. Are we talking about the historic discharge of that river or the discharge somewhere else along the Colorado river's course? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon1 (usurped3) (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Pollution
I would like to see a section regarding the current state of the Mississippi River and the pollution levels that the river is at. I've read things about it creating a deadzone in the Gulf of Mexico due to low oxygen levels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia listed two longest rivers?
I searched for the Missouri river and it was listed as the longest river in the US. Then I was reading on the Mississippi river and it listed the Arkansas river as the longest river in the US (and Ohio as having the most water flow etc..). So which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.10.195 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. That is odd.
From the Mississippi article:
"The Arkansas River is the longest tributary of the Mississippi River"
From the Missouri article:
"The Missouri River is a tributary of the Mississippi River, and is the longest river in the United States of America."
Doesn't quite fit, eh? The Missouri is definitely the longer of the two, with the Arkansas being the second longest tributary of the Mississippi. -- Otto (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The 2011 flooding might be important enough to be included in the article. Here is a small part of a Yahoo article:
"Forecasters and emergency officials said some of the high-water records set during the great floods of 1927 and 1937 could fall. On Wednesday, for example, the Mississippi eclipsed the 46-foot mark set in 1937 in Caruthersville, Mo., and the water was still rising, with a crest of 49.5 feet forecast for Sunday.
"But because of the system of levees and locks built since those disasters more than 70 years ago, the flooding this time is unlikely to be anywhere near as devastating as it was back then." 211.225.34.173 (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Tributaries of the Mississippi
We all need a project. I want to write an article on Paint Creek, (Iowa), a direct tributary to the Mississippi, but come on, it's just a creek in NE Iowa. See my article Butte Creek (California).
I put this up in the Missouri name section of the discussion but figure it should go here too.
The Mississippi itself is misnamed and should by rights end at St. Louis and the Missouri should flow on to the Gulf. However due to history and such the river is named as it is. This is why there is confusion about the Missouri River not being a tributary to the Mississippi and this is simply an oddity of the naming of the river. The Mississippi is actually the tributary to the Missouri.
A citation needed should be put there until I or someone can get one directly but I don't know how to put that remark in the edit. It is one of the Mississippi oddities and you can look it up that way and see that it is true. 12.214.61.1702:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. The segment of the Mississippi from STL to the Gulf should stay the Mississippi; it had that name from the Eurpoeans since well before they ever came upon the Missouri. At STL, the Missouri River should be renamed the Mississippi, and the current segment of the Missippi which heads north should be renamed. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Another issue: in the infobox on the right side of the article, the tributaries listed left and right appear backwards. Or, am I missing something? Foofighter20x (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles -- learning from my mistakes. I've started to make some changes to this Mississippi River page. So far I don't think I've added anything out of place or questionable. Now I want to make a change that is of some consequence. Under the Watershed heading the Red River is listed as a major tributary of the Mississippi. This is not correct. It's a problem because historically the Red was fairly recently (by river standards) a Mississippi tributary and there needs to be a way to address the Red's relationship to the Mississippi. At present the Red River now ends where the Atchafalaya River begins which is where the Red used to meet the Mississippi and no longer does. As is correctly noted elsewhere on the page the Atchafalaya is a distributary of the Mississippi at the point where the Red becomes the Atchafalaya. This is interesting given the Watershed heading of the section. Historically the area drained by the Red has been included in the Mississippi watershed as the included map so indicates. Technically this is no longer correct. It would be correct to say that the area drained by the Red is part of the combined Mississippi/Atchafalaya watershed as the Mississippi provides a portion of its flow to the Atchafalaya. Bottom line: not a drop of Red River water makes it to the Gulf via the Mississippi channel. --Dukedauphin (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That the Root River in Minnesota is named along with much more major tributaries to the system, is rather a laugh, the Root River is little more than a creek in reality and I know I grew up very near the Root, the Upper Iowa just to the South is much lager as is the Turkey a bit further south of the Upper Iowa. The Missouri may be the longer of the two main branches but the water Volume of the Upper Mississippi far exceeds that of the Missouri and any hydrologist could tell you that at the junction it is the Missouri that plays the part of tributary, to argue otherwise is purely emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazran (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
the mississippi river separate Missouri and Illinois —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.74.61 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The lower Mississippi should be considered a continuation of the Ohio river if we want to be technically correct about it.--209.7.195.158 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Map Scale
Hi, I have noticed that the map entitled: Map of the course, watershed, and major tributaries of the Mississippi River, appears to have an incorrect scale displayed in it's title block. The scale of 200 miles is not in proportion to the map if, the over length of the mississippi is correctly quoted in the main article.
I have posted this in the hope that somebody who knows what they are doing will be able to edit the article.
The scale is accurate enough as the crow flies. Keep in mind that there are a large number of bends in the river, especially in the South, which add a lot to its length but are not large enough to be shown on a map of that scale. AlexiusHoratius02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Canada
The statements "Flowing entirely in the United States" and "and even reaches into southern Canada" are contradictionary. Whch one is right? --Sigmundg (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
So th canada statement should read something like the water reaches into southern Canada through drainage into the great lakes, or whatever the case may be. Millertime246 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really - the only connection with the Great Lakes that I know of is the Chicago River, which artificially flows out of Lake Michigan when it used to flow east. It's fairly small and Lake Michigan is not generally considered to be part of the Mississippi watershed. I think the current sentence in the lead (With its many tributaries, the Mississippi's watershed drains all or parts of 31 U.S. states between the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains and even reaches into southern Canada.) is fine, although "watershed" (or drainage basin) may need to be wikilinked as it seems to be causing confusion. AlexiusHoratius02:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrifugal force impels river?
While the source of the river is above "sea level" and appears to flow "down" to sea level, the northern source is actually closer (maybe ten miles, rough order of magnitude) to the center of the earth due to the earth's oblateness. The river therefore flows south, not due to gravity (!) but due to centrifugal force! Student7 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I admit I can only find 19th century references to this. But this argument sounds compelling. You'd think that with a persistent theory, there would be something out there that would refute this. Not all 19th century science was wrong BTW. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The theory may sound compelling, but it is scientifically illiterate and bankrupt as a result of Blair and Hallowell (1832)'s complete lack of any understanding about the Earth's geoid and its relationship to Earth's center. A person need only consult any current undergraduate textbook about either physical geology, geomorphology, and even surveying to find the basic facts ("the something out there") about the Earth's geoid that completely refute the arguments made by Blair and Hallowell (1832). Also, a person by comparing the Nowthen and Lake Itasca 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles that contain the source of Mississippi River to the the Pilottown 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle that contains the end of the Mississippi, can ready demonstrate that relative to the Earth's geoid, Min thnesota is higher in elevation than the Mississippi Delta and, as a result, the Mississippi River flows from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico under the influence of gravity. The problem is not that the idea that the Mississippi River flows to the Gulf of Mexico because of centrifugal force is 19th century science. The problem is that the idea that Mississippi River flows to the Gulf of Mexico because of centrifugal force is scientifically illiterate 19th century science that is readily refuted by facts that can be found in any current textbook of either geology, geomorphology, or even surveying.
Reference cited:
Blair, D., and B. Hallowell, 1832, An easy grammar of natural and experimental philosophy, for the use of schools, 2nd. Kimber & Sharpless, Phidelphia. 249 pp. Paul H. (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to the hard copy to which you refer.
I agree that the height of the source of the Mississippi is well above the geoid than the mouth. This, however, was never in question.
What was in question was whether being closer to the center of the earth created a higher or lower gravity at that point. You are seeming to say 1) gravity isn't higher in the north, or 2) it is, but so slightly it is irrelevant, or 3) maybe it is significantly higher, but this is offset by rotational forces which make being closer to the center of the earth irrelevant.
I have heard you say multiple times that this 19th century science is "junk." But saying it and actually demonstrating or refuting it, is what is lacking. The disproof/proof of the contrary is lacking.
I am not trying to "prove" perpetual motion or "prove" that the Star Trek USS Enterprise can really travel faster than light therefore disproving Einstein. This is a bit different I think. I don't find that unpleasant adjectives are helpful in understanding the reason why this "theory" is incorrect. The label "junk" doesn't, by itself, quite disprove the spherical trigonometry and other material displayed in the angelfire diagram. Student7 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked into this a little. Didn't find a perfect and easily understood refutation, and I don't understand the science when it gets detailed. But from what I did find, it looks like the gravity difference on the surface between the equator and pole is minimal or non-existent. And even if it does exist it is overwhelmed by other factors. Also there's the thing about gravity not being caused by "the center of the Earth", a single point, but rather the entire Earth. At a distance one can assume a point source to make the math easier, but on the surface assuming a point source would result in a lot of error. Or so it seems from what I read--I barely understand the physics of all this. The Geoid page has a lot of info. So does Gravity of Earth. Pfly (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The fatal flaw in the arguments of Blair and Hallowell (1832) is that according to the way gravity works, "elevation" is not the distance from the Earth's center. Instead, as gravity operates, "elevation" is the distance above the Earth's geoid, which is equivalent to sea level. The Earth's geoid is not a perfect sphere with the Earth’s core at its center as they incorrectly presume. As a result, they falsely conclude that “elevation” is a function of the distance from the Earth’s center. Actually elevation is the distance above sea level as determined by the Earth’s geoid. This rather simple flaw is why I characterized the spherical trigonometry and arguments in Blair and Hallowell (1832) as “junk.”
The geoid, which is a surface of constant potential gravitational energy that coincides with mean sea level over the oceans, is controlled by the distribution of the Earth’s mass. Because the mass of rock and overlying water that comprise the Earth has roughly geometric or mathematical reference surface, which is an ellipsoid, the Earth’s geoid is also an ellipsoid relative to the center of the Earth. As a result, although the Earth’s surface is closer to the center of the Earth in Minnesota than it is in the northern Gulf of Mexico region sea level, the Earth’s geoid and sea level are both also closer to the center of the Earth in Minnesota than it is in the northern Gulf of Mexico region. As determined by the surface, which approximates sea level, of constant potential gravitational energy, the geoid, the area of the source of the Mississippi River in Minnesota is higher in elevation by about 1,475 ft (450 m) as far as gravity is concerned than the mouth of the Mississippi River Delta in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. As a result, the Mississippi flows in a direction that gravity regards as being downhill. Centrifugal force is an insignificant force in the direction that the Mississippi River.
I apologize, if being frank and honest and not sugar-coating the quality of Blair and Hallowell (1832) arguments is “unpleasant." However, this is something that any textbook writer, to whom my remarks are directed, should have known about. Again, their ideas are readily refuted by discussions that can be found in any undergraduate textbooks on geomorphology, geology, Earth science, and even in some surveying textbook. Unfortunately, a Wikipedia talk page is not the appropriate forum for a lengthy discussion such matters.Paul H. (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the length of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers have been transposed.
The lengths of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers have been transposed somehow and I cannot discern how to correct them..... Promiseto (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Coordinate error
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
To link to Google Maps, more precisely to the Mississsippi River Headwaters on Itasca State Park more decimals are needed
The coordinates should be: 47° 14' 23.15" N 95° 12' 27.15" W
Battle of New Orleans - securing American control of the river
The article currently says "In 1815, the U.S. defeated Britain at the Battle of New Orleans, part of the War of 1812, securing American control of the river". I don't see how this last part can possible be true, nor any source in the article suggesting this. The Treaty of Ghent which ended the war was signed on the 24 December 1814, while the Battle of New Orleans took place on 8 January 1815 after the treaty was signed (news of the treaty had not arrived there yet). As the peace had already been signed before the battle, the battle could have no affect on who would control the river after the war - even if the result had been different the British would still have had to withdraw under the terms of the treaty already agreed.
Therefore unless someone can explain (or produce sources to show) how the battle could possibly secure control of the river that last part of the sentence should be removed. I added a fact tag to the sentence but that has been reverted so am bringing it here. Davewild (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Response: The treaty may have been signed but it had not been ratified. If the British had won the Battle of New Orleans there is a good chance ratification may not have taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.75.2 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Image of river in flood is inappropriate for use as header image of article
It is important to note that the Mississippi River floods, and this article should have images of the river in flood. However, the river is not usually flooded, so an image of the river in flood does not present an accurate picture of what the river is likely to resemble at any given time. As such, the first image in the article should be replaced with one that depicts the river in its usual, non-flooded state. Tom (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons doesn't have much that would be suitable. There's this one, not very good quality though and there isn't anything else much better. I would be fine with the image that was used before. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me03:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and switched it back to the New Orleans one, given the age of this thread, lack of support for the flood pic and lack of complaints about the New Orleans pic. Obviously not set in stone; like I said earlier if someone finds a better one to replace it with speak up. (I checked out Commons too and didn't find much.) AlexiusHoratius02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The infobox image has been changed several times in the past and there have been discussions above about the most suitable available image for it. We seem to keep going back to the New Orleans image, but because it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing, many people are not completely satisfied with it. We can delete the second image and leave it only in the infobox for now so it doesn't appear twice. Then when we find a better image for the infobox, we could re-add the New Orleans image to the article body if desired. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me16:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Introduction
I found the mention of Manifest Destiny to be confusing, especially for those of us who aren't Americans. The fact that the river promoted the settlement of the west is an important a fact about the river. The fact that Manifest Destiny was an ideology that also promoted settlement doesn't seem to have much to do with the river. Better to drop the reference, or expand on it below.
The reference to the steamboat era in the context of agriculture us not clear. In y view, it should either be expanded to make the reference clear or dropped.
The reference to mound builders and herders in the context of native Americans and pre colonial times seems extraneous . Some more info, briefly said in this section, about life along the river before European colonization would be helpful but this reference lacks any real informational value.
Many almanacs and sources list the Mississippi's length as around 2,350 miles. The "source" for the 2,530 mile claim is not accesible through a direct link. This needs to be further researched to guard against "sneaky vandalism".Ryoung12216:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
A "citation needed" has been placed against my figure of 2,320 miles. There are several sources for this figure, however it really depends where you look. Encyclopedia Britannica says 2350, USGS says 2340, etc etc. Which is the most reliable/respectable source? As a Brit, I'm naturally inclined to prefer EB but for now I'm deferring to USGS. I don't really care what the figure is just so long as the same figure is used for both the text and the info box.TriumFant (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
footnote on the Encyclopedia Britannica.. It was founded in Edinbugh but they sold it to Americans in 1890 and EB has been based in Chicago ever since. Rjensen (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Mississippi River Info Box Photo
Greetings. I was doing a bit of casual research on the Mississippi River yesterday and came across this wonderful Wikipedia article. Well done! But it seems to me that the photo that was in the article's info box really does not do the river justice. I lived in St. Louis, MO for 15 years, and during that time travelled extensively up and down the river, seeing first hand its awesome majesty, beauty and power. The photo of the river at New Orleans to which I am referring represents the river as a dirty, muddy, relatively small river that could be any'ole river in the U.S. Hence the reason why I changed the info box photo to the (Aerial view of Lock and Dam 12 on the Mississippi River at Bellevue, Iowa) photo. This is a beautiful photograph of the river and it accurately represents the river as the "Mighty Mississippi."
I noticed that someone changed the info box photo of the river back to the photo of the river at New Orleans. I cannot imagine why. Let's compromise here. There is an amazing selection of photos in Wikimedia Commons under the search tag: "Mississippi River Lock and Dam," all of which capture breathtaking views of the river. Whoever changed the info box photo back to the photo of the river at New Orleans, if you do not like my current selection, then please consider one of the beatiful lock and dam photos; they depict the river much more accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.220.37 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have a question about why someone made an edit, check the article history for the edit summary. They're there for that reason, and you should get into the habit of filling in the edit summary yourself for every edit. As for "relatively small river that could be any 'ole river", that is a picture of an ocean-going cargo ship that is dwarfed by the size of the river in New Orleans, the size and depth of which there and for hundreds of miles upstream do not rely on artifices such as locks and dams. It is the smaller, upper Mississippi with its more than a score of dams needed to keep it navigable that could be any old river, IMHO. It isn't my article, however, and I'm open to discussion. --Kbh3rdtalk00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Replying to myself... For reasons detailed above I believe the information content of the New Orleans photo is higher and more suited for the infobox, but I'll agree that it's not a particularly pretty picture. My druthers would be for an image that is both striking and richly informative. --Kbh3rdtalk04:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I just changed the photo, and then found this discussion. I changed it to a more scenic imae of the uppper Mississippi (although perhaps less informative on human uses) as the New Orleans image is also used below. Kablammo (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Divisions
I reworded the existing content of the intro paragraph in the Divisions section simply for style and easier reading. I invite others to reword further to incorporate the concept of there being only an Upper and a Lower Mississippi in many (most?) references, with the division at Cairo and the Ohio River. Such is the content of the Upper Mississippi River and the Lower Mississippi River articles, with which this article should align more closely. --Kbh3rdtalk00:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the information on the Mississippi River page for divisions should just be a mention of the appropriate sections, such as Upper Mississippi River and Lower Mississippi River. Most additional information about each specific section should be contained within those article, not in this article. This article should contain the links to the division-specific pages, and any information that is concerning the combining of the two sections. I'd like to see the divisions sections trimmed extensively, with information removed or moved to the page for the upper/lower divisions. That's my thoughts. Anybody else have an opinion/comment? *Seen a Mike*16:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Mississippi River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Mississippi 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I really think that the triple image (File:MississippiRiver GulfMex MODIS 2004jul-aug.jpg) should be removed. It is nearly impossible for the average person to get any useful information from bottom two images, as most people have no idea what they are looking at. Where are they? Unschool05:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mississippi 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Mississippi 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Mississippi 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
This article defines the Upper Mississippi as the portion of the river as far as the Missouri River confluence. The article on the Upper Mississippi defines it as the portion as far as the Ohio confluence, and makes no mention of the Middle Mississippi River. One of these must be changed so that they match, or at least the article should mention that there are competing definitions. Joe Avins (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mississippi 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Mississippi 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Geologists consider the next major change in the course of the Lower Mississippi now overdue. Either of two new routes – through the Atchafalaya Basin or through Lake Pontchartrain — might become the Mississippi's main channel if flood-control structures are overtopped or heavily damaged during a severe flood.[1][2][3][4] However, the Mississippi returned to its present course following the great floods in 2011.[5]
Failure of the Old River Control Structure, the Morganza Spillway, or nearby levees would likely re-route the main channel of the Mississippi through Louisiana's Atchafalaya Basin and down the Atchafalaya River to reach the Gulf of Mexico south of Morgan City in southern Louisiana. This route provides a more direct path to the Gulf of Mexico than the present Mississippi River channel through Baton Rouge and New Orleans.[3] While the risk of such a diversion is present during any major flood event (such as those of 1973 or 2011), such a change has so far been prevented by active human intervention involving the construction, maintenance, and operation of various levees, spillways, and other control structures by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The first sentence of the next paragraph states a common misconception about Old River, overstating the size of the diversion from the Mississippi River. Recommended correction: The Old River Control Structure, between the present Mississippi River channel and the Atchafalaya Basin, regulates diversion of water from the Mississippi River so that 30% of the combined flow of the Red and Mississippi Rivers passes into the Atchafalaya River. [6]
--MississippiRiverRat (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The Old River Control Structure complex. View is to the east-southeast, looking downriver on the Mississippi, with the three dams across channels of the Atchafalaya River to the right of the Mississippi. Concordia Parish, Louisiana is in the foreground, on the right, and Wilkinson County, Mississippi, is in the background, across the Mississippi on the left.
The Old River Control Structure, between the present Mississippi River channel and the Atchafalaya Basin, sits at the normal water elevation and is ordinarily used to divert 30% of the Mississippi's flow to the Atchafalaya River. There is a steep drop here away from the Mississippi's main channel into the Atchafalaya Basin. If this facility were to fail during a major flood, there is a strong concern the water would scour and erode the river bottom enough to capture the Mississippi's main channel. The structure was nearly lost during the 1973 flood, but repairs and improvements were made after engineers studied the forces at play. In particular, the Corps of Engineers made many improvements and constructed additional facilities for routing water through the vicinity. These additional facilities give the Corps much more flexibility and potential flow capacity than they had in 1973, which further reduces the risk of a catastrophic failure in this area during other major floods, such as those of 2011.
Because the Morganza Spillway is located at slightly higher elevation well back from the river, it is normally dry on both sides.[7] Even if this structure were to fail at the crest during a severe flood, the flood waters would have to cause a significant amount of erosion, down to normal water levels, before the Mississippi could permanently jump channel at this location. During the 2011 floods, the Corps of Engineers decided to open the Morganza Spillway to 1/4 of its capacity to allow 150,000 ft3/sec of water to flood the Morganza and Atchafalaya floodways and continue directly to the Gulf of Mexico, bypassing Baton Rouge and New Orleans.[8] In addition to reducing the Mississippi River crest downstream, this diversion is also reducing the chances of a channel change by reducing stress on the other elements of the control system.[9]
Some geologists have noted that the possibility for course change into the Atchafalaya also exists in the area immediately north of the Old River Control Structure. Army Corps of Engineers geologist Fred Smith once stated, "The Mississippi wants to go west. 1973 was a forty-year flood. The big one lies out there somewhere—when the structures can't release all the floodwaters and the levee is going to have to give way. That is when the river's going to jump its banks and try to break through."[10]
If the main channel of the lower Mississippi River changes permanently to the Old River and Atchafalaya River channels in the Atchafalaya Basin, thus bypassing Baton Rouge and New Orleans, the ecological and economic consequences for Louisiana, the region, the nation, and international commerce would be immense.
Sedimentation and erosion patterns would quickly change greatly, including development of a new river channel and delta, as well as a new pattern of floodplains, natural levees, and backswamps. Changes to salinity of coastal waters (less saline near new delta, more saline near the present delta) would affect marine life, fisheries, beaches, and coastal marshes. The abandoned river channel would eventually fill and revegetate, probably with a major influx of invasive non-native species. On the other hand, the low-lying outer parts of the present delta, lacking replenishment, would mostly soon erode away. Over time, the new channel would itself develop meanders and cutoffs, eventually leading to formation of new oxbow lakes.
Human society would also be greatly altered locally, with broader consequences nationally and globally. Transportation by road, rail, sea, and river barge would all be dramatically affected, and various sizable new bridges would be urgently needed. Existing port facilities may have to be relocated or replaced, and channel alterations would be needed to maintain any substantial degree of commercial shipping on either the new or the old channel of the Mississippi. Power lines, pipelines, and fiber-optic and other communications lines would be similarly disrupted, and housing, agriculture, forestry, petroleum-production facilities, and other land uses would be suddenly altered, as would patterns of recreational activities. Morgan City in particular would be quite heavily impacted. Values of many properties would be greatly altered, some increasing, some decreasing, and ownership claims would need to be resolved for the newly exposed land of the old riverbed.
Another possible course change for the Mississippi River is a diversion into Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. This route is currently controlled by the Bonnet Carré Spillway, built to reduce flooding in New Orleans. However, the spillway and an imperfect natural levee about 4–6 meters (12 to 20 feet) high are all that prevents the Mississippi from taking a new, shorter course through Lake Pontchartrain to the Gulf of Mexico.[11] Diversion of the Mississippi's main channel through Lake Pontchartrain would have generally similar consequences to an Atchafalaya diversion, but to a lesser extent, since the present river channel would remain in use past Baton Rouge and into the New Orleans area. Following a Lake Pontchartrain diversion, the Mississippi's new delta would develop offshore of southern Mississippi.
Rjensen, I agree with removal of the uncited parts, but the first few paragraphs, with cites, and part of the last one, are salvageable, especially if shortened and copyedited. There is a strong belief that the river "wants" to take a shortcut, and may suceed some day. But the text above may be too strong, and the parade of horribles should not be present, unless condensed, neutrally worded, and well-cited. Kablammo (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
In Section 2.3: Divisions, Lower Mississippi, the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph states a common misconception about operation of the Old River Control Structure. The fraction of the Mississippi River diverted is variable and depends on the relative flows of the Red and Mississippi Rivers. 30% of the combined flow of the Red and Mississippi Rivers is routed into the Atchafalaya River. Recommended change: Deliberate water diversion at the Old River Control Structure in Louisiana allows the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana to be a major distributary of the Mississippi River, with 30% of the combined flow of the Red and Mississippi Rivers flowing to the Gulf of Mexico by this route...
Reference: [1]
This edit request to Mississippi River has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Done
From "name and Significance" to "New Madrid Seismic Zone" please change the section headers by removing an equals sign from each. === headers should be under == headers, but on all of these headers, there are too many equals signs. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is the Mississippi river drainage basin compared to the entire Hudson bay drainage system?
I apologize if I have done this incorrectly i dont often interact with Wikipedia like this.
However I thought it was highly unusual to compare the drainage basin of a singular river system to the multiple river drainage basin of a bay. shouldn't the Hudson bay drainage basin be compared to the entirety of the gulf of mexico drainage basin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:C280:441A:DD8:5D33:A0C0:AD01 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020
This edit request to Mississippi River has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
When listing names of the river in Native languages, add the name from the Ho-Chunk People, which is Nįįxéte. Meaning "Great Water" or "Great River". Source: Hocąk Teaching Materials Volume 1 Elements of Grammar/Learner's Dictionary, on Page 453. Edited by Johannes Helmbrecht and Christian Lehmann 184.59.7.67 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: We prefer to have sources that are online. Printed sources are allowed, but they are hard to come by. Please make a request at WP:RX (click the link) to request a link for the source online. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
External links
Moved (trimmed) over-abundance of links here for consideration for incorporating into the article or deleting. This is per guidelines (WP:ELPOINTS and WP:ELMIN) and policy (WP:NOTREPOSITORY), and inclusion should be according to WP:ELBURDEN:
This edit request to Mississippi River has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The word "at" needs to be changed to "to" in the Depth section of this article. As well as adding a comma for clarity.
Specifically, the third sentence of the Depth section currently reads:
"Between Saint Louis, Missouri, where the Missouri River joins at Cairo, Illinois, the depth averages 30 feet (9 m)."
but it should read:
"Between Saint Louis, Missouri, where the Missouri River joins, to Cairo, Illinois, the depth averages 30 feet (9 m)."
The way it is currently worded the article sounds like the Missouri River joins the Mississippi river at both Saint Louis and at Cairo. It appears the word "at" was simply used incorrectly instead of "to".
Done Slightly different rewording than the suggested ("Between where the Missouri River joins the Mississippi at Saint Louis, Missouri, and Cairo, Illinois, ..."), but the text is clearer. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Mississippi River has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
What I think should be changed:
The head of navigation on the Mississippi is no longer in Coon Rapids, MN, due to the closing of the Upper St. Anthony Lock and Dam further south, in Minneapolis. This means the Upper St. Anthony lock is the current head of navigation.
Why it should be changed:
It's an important detail about an important river.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
I just noticed that the image for the river has changed a lot recently. I do not like the current one as it is quite blurry and would rather the night time one. While I may be a bit biased, many images of the Dubuque section of the river looks better than the current one and is in the daytime. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision discourages overprecision, and a tenth of a second is a matter of only a few meters. The coordinates currently in the article seem as precise as necessary and, in fact, as precise as the proposed replacements. Deor (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Done
Not done for now: We prefer to have sources that are online. Printed sources are allowed, but they are hard to come by. Please make a request at WP:RX (click the link) to request a link for the source online. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Geographic data related to Mississippi River/Archive 2 at OpenStreetMap
Done Slightly different rewording than the suggested ("Between where the Missouri River joins the Mississippi at Saint Louis, Missouri, and Cairo, Illinois, ..."), but the text is clearer. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
