Jump to content

Talk:Great Dayton Flood

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

Cleanup

[edit]

This article needs sections pretty badly and inter-wiki links would be nice. I will work on it as much as possible when I have time, but any help is always appreciated. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The entire text of this article was taken from two separate articles on the Ohio History Central website listed in the external links area. I discovered this after making some reformatting changes and added external links. I can't spend much more time on this article tonight, but will return very soon to rewrite the entire article now that I've found this plagerism. CRKingston 10:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite completed

[edit]

I've just updated this article based on research. It's rewritten to avoid the copyright violation, and the facts have sources, along with an extensive list of references. CRKingston 02:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CRKingston (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'd like to offer my services to any map (re)renderings on a slightly less than professional level (I'm not a cartographer) and more of a practical application level. Example here of my handy work.--Kjmoran 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Flood of 1913

[edit]

This flood extended over much of Indiana and Ohio, and devastated other major cities. Should we expand this article to cover the damage in other cities, or should we create a new article on the broader flood? Mingusboodle (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like an artificial distinction to be making, calling it the Great Dayton Flood. Where did that title come from? Although I favor expanding and renaming the article, I recommend first looking for precedents set by the articles on other floods and blizzards. —mjb (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a marker in Indianapolis. According to it, over 200 people died and 200,000 people were left homeless. That's fairly comparable to Dayton (less casualties, more homeless), so I'm not sure if I should expand this existing article or make a new one. You're right about precedent. I'll wait for input from others. Mingusboodle (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It became known as the Great Dayton Flood, because the mayor of Dayton at the time was very good at PR. He wanted to ensure a large amount of state money came his way for rebuilding and, as they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Todd Carnes (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be "original research" on your part Todd. However, as I live near Dayton, I agree that it's called Great "locally". I don't know enough of the actual history of either the event, the town, or other Dayton floods to be able to put actual data here about whether its called Great because some wise politician was trying to dig deeper into someone's pockets. If you have something to back up that statement, it would be a noteworthy reference to add to the page. Everyone enjoys reading about greedy politicians...
However, to the larger question, I'm not sure whether this article should be expanded to include other regional floods just because they occurred over the same time period - even if it was also due to flooding on the Mad River (which I don't think includes Indy). The page is large enough to stand on it's and the event was a significant impact locally (Ohio laws were changed because of it, local/regional transportation was changed, huge areas of land around Dayton were set aside after dams/levees were built, and a significant amount of the Wright Brothers' archives and reasearch was destroyed). My opinion is if there are other major floods that hit areas at the same time that had "similarly significant impact" then new pages should be created rather than co-opting an existing, mature page such as this. Ckruschke (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Documentation is of course, essential, and I wish I could back this up: The Great "Dayton" Flood became so well known in 1913 because Dayton OH was a major node for the railroad and the telegraph/telephone lines that were planted alongside the tracks. Word of the Flood got out quickly and broadly because the communication system was so far-reaching and effective. Sadly, I can't tell you where I learned that info, perhaps it was from the local public TV documentary some years back. Yes, floods were elsewhere too at the time, but the word just wasn't getting out so much for those places. Moreover, early estimates of flood deaths in Dayton were estimated to be in the thousands, which must have put Dayton on the front page of the newspapers across the country. But even if we discount the exaggerations and an extremely effective delivery of the message, the "Dayton flood" remains a unique and important story. Many developments of substance occurred: 1) the devastating fires that followed; 2) extensive photographic images, including time-lapse photos; 2) the San Francisco World's Fair (Panama-Pacific Public Exhibition) which included Dayton Flood exhibits; 3) the birth of the City-manager Form of Government as NCR temporarily headed the city's rescue efforts, 4) the expansion of still-controversial non-elected governmental super-entities with the rise of Arthur Morgan of the Miami Conservancy District (and their clones across the country) and his subsequent heading the nascent Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Taken altogether, these components make the Great Dayton Flood a rich and unique story with an integrity of its own, and a important part of American History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytoncapri (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing lede

[edit]

The second and third sentences of the lede read

"Ohio passed the Vonderheide Act to allow the Ohio state government to form the Miami Conservancy District, one of the first major flood control districts in Ohio and the United States. This also inflicted a domino series of events, resulting in a further disruption."

However nothing in the article indicates that the Vonderheide Act caused further disruption. I think something is wrong here. Maybe these two sentences are in the wrong order? Maproom (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Great Dayton Flood. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Dayton Flood. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Dayton_Flood&oldid=1214913439"