Talk:River Thames

Points

The main picture of the Thames looks very dull, surely another can be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.34.226 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it possible to add a bit on the Thames Estuary forts and possibly a link to Sealand? Orville Eastland

Just what the hell is "pre-celtic Old European" supposed to mean? For goodness' sake the celts are the aboriginal peoples of all western europe with the small postulated exception of Eire-Iberian Atlantic cultures. The idea of a "celtic invasion" of britain has long ago been disgarded by historical and anthropological circles. 17:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)~G.Hargreaves

Actually, British Celts are only genetically Old-European (i.e., their genetic features - Y-DNA, for example, is very similar to that of Basques and other isolated groups). However, distinctly Celtic languages are relatively latecomers to Western Europe, having arrived about 3.000 YBP, together with the introduction of iron into the region. Before that, these tribes probably spoke languages that might be related to Basque, considering that genetically the Irish and Welsh are indistinguishable from Basques. I agree that the text in the etymology section is confusing, though. 201.37.64.107 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the cleanest river in the world which flows through a city.

I think that this should read It is the cleanest tidal river in the world which flows through a major city, because off the top of my head (and I am no expert) what about the Limmat which rises at Lake Zurich in the city of Zurich? Or as a tidal river in a city what about the Shannon as it flows throught the city of Limerick? Perhapse some one who specalises in this area could fix the sentence or comment on what I have writen here.Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed it until its meaning is clarified. - SimonP 18:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Oxford bit isn't quite right. The Latin name Tamesis (from which derives the English "Thames") applies only to the section below Dorchester. The name is a pure portmanteau of the Latin names of the Thame (the Aylesbury river) and the Isis (which Oxonians hold to refer to the entire section from the source in Gloucs to Dorchester), rather than Isis being an abbreviation. Now to work that in without totally wrecking the sense... Phlogistomania 00:26, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The British punk group Sex Pistols played a concert on a riverboat on the River Thames on June 7, 1977. They said they were "serenading" the Queen. They later got arrested when they docked. I thought this would be nice addition to history. User: Anonymous 21:44, Feb 26, 2005

Didn't they dump a couple hundred gallons of gasoline into the Thames for New Year's 2000? Micahbrwn 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Only if it was a very long way from the barges of fireworks for the "River of Fire" (2.5 tons of explosive per barge...Ouch!) JackyR 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing after the anti-climax that was the "river of fire" that the plan was supposed to be to pour some kind of flamable liquid (Perhaps meths rather than gasoline, or something more eco 'friendly'?) onto the Thames and set light to it, creating a real river of fire. The adverts for it, voiced by Ian McShane, along with the hype various officials were spouting in the months leading up to it certainly implied it would be much more than a firework show, and what we got in the end certainly looked like the desert without the main course! I can't believe anyone put that together as a stand-alone firework display. Now new years eve 2005 was a real firework display! I saw it on a TV and at the very end panicked for a second because I thought something had gone off, it was so intense!

Thames forts

Yup, I'm (slowly) getting together stuff on the Chatham Defences, which include many of the Thames forts. Will try to do a bit on the remainder, if I ever finish... :-) JackyR 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

what ever!
yyyyyy

River Xxx vs Xxx River

This was in the sydney morning herald, and just wondering if any experts can explain it:

all (or most) rivers in England are called the River Xxx: River Thames, River Avon, etc.

Australia was (mainly) settled by the British, yet its rivers are all Xxx River: e.g. Parramatta River in Sydney, Yarra River in Melbourne, etc.

My theory is that River Xxx indicates that Xxx is the name of the river itself. (e.g. Thames is not also the name of some city or area). By contrast, Xxx River indicates "a river associated with Xxx". But I'm not sure if that works. --Sumple 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be something in your theory. I have seen the term 'London River' used to describe the River Thames, but only in older documents. Perhaps that sort of usage was fashionable in the 18th/19th centuries (when presumably most Australian rivers got their names), but has now fallen out of favour again in the UK. I have a feeling Dickens uses the 'London River' term, which fits the chronology, but don't have the books to hand here. -- Chris j wood 11:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the banks

Does anyone have any material on the changes of position of the banks of the river thru London? The building of the Victoria Embankment (bit by Embankment tube) meant that all the posh houses along the Strand (and how about that name!) no longer had direct water access at the rear. Not sure whether there was a change at the Tower of London - is the outer watergate original or a tunnel through the new embankment? Also, old pics of from the river where the R. Fleet ran out show a confusion of (I think) islands: nothing like the smooth, single edge we see today. But this is all from memory - sources, people, sources! JackyR 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pleistocene Thames as tributary of Rhine

"the early River Thames ... crossed what is now the North Sea to become a tributary of the Rhine." I'm finding this confusing. Wouldn't the Thames have flowed downhill along the valley which later became the English Channel, rather than crossing to what is now continental Europe? The confluence of the Thames and Rhine would have been in what is now the Channel or the North Sea, right? -- 201.51.166.124 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Thames turned northwards following what is now the Essex and Suffolk coasts and joined the Rhine roughly in the middle of what is now the North Sea; the Rhine continued to northwards to an estuary about the same latitude as Edinburgh.

Linkspam

Some IP has been desperately adding links to his site about Hampton Wick and related matters. Actually his site isn't commercial and it isn't bad, which is why Hampton Wick should have and does have a link to it. There's no reason why this article should have a link to his page on Hampton Wick or his page on the Thames Path, as the Thames Path has its own article. Coming to this article to zap both links, I noticed two commercial-sounding links in bold (always a danger sign), looked at both, and zapped one for excessive commercialism and the other for irrelevance (it's primarily about the path, not the river). A number of the other links here smell spammy, irrelevant, or both, but I lack the stamina to look into them all right now. Please keep an eye on the links here; it does seem that a number of people are particularly keen to use WP for their own purposes. -- Hoary 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice

There's some nice pics in this article. BalfourCentre 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning repetitive vandals

I've just had one vandal banned, their history goes back to before October and seems to be school children. The IP block should restrain them (albeit temporarily) for the time being. Please report any commonly recurring vandals here. Thanks, Jamsta 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti on this page...

Paragraph two starts:

"Future aliens dat suck balls At the height of the last ice age around 6000 years ago..."

Sorry, I'm a complete newbie and don't know how to correct that -- curiously, it doesn't show up on the "edit this page" version of paragrpah two.

Just thought somebody should know, and do what I cannot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.60.2.178 (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Rowing

I think the list of all notable rowing clubs is overdoing it - it unbalances the article. Also - how are we defining notable - notable according to whom? Secretlondon 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's also a lot of kayak/canoe clubs on the Thames which I wouldn't add to the main article. I suggest list the top 3 if they are ranked - or none if they aren't ranked, and create a new article called 'Watersports clubs on the River Thames', add rowing, sailing, canoe, windsurf, etc. Jamsta 10:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was originally my addition when I beefed up the section on rowing (which was previously rather lacklustre). I'm not going to make a great impassioned defence of it. In terms of how notable is defined, you'll see that I did specify size, history or success - but I concede that this is still potentially rather subjective. It is tricky - to answer Jamsta, no there aren't any rankings (the sport doesn't really work like that) but some clubs are definitely more equal than others. I would also contend that rowing is by some measure the biggest sport on the Thames (somewhere in the order of 21,000 ARA members in the Thames region I think) and does therefore deserve detailed treatment in this article. Perhaps if I get a moment, I will delete the list myself and try to replace it with something better. James of Putney 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work James, IMO more information is better on Wikipedia. I think making a sub-article is the best idea, with a paragraph description on the main page + link. This way you can expand the information even further if there is more too add. If rowing is the most popular watersport on the Thames, can you provide a link to a reference please, otherwise we'll use a phrase like "Rowing is one of the most popular watersports" rather than "is the most popular". I'm going to do this in my sandbox (click here: [1]) before modifying the main article. Please let me know your comments. Thanks Jamsta 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the main article - someone has already taken it into their own hands, but in a different way. I still think a sub-article is good. Anyone agree? Jamsta 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but see my suggestion below.--A bit iffy 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

New section on industry or commerce or tourism or something? Plus a sub-article?

I'm surprised there's no section about the use to which the river is put. There is this section on sport, but that's just a small aspect of the Thames. One major use is obviously tourism, with the many sightseeing boats. Also, there's a lot of other river traffic, though I'm not sure what all the other vessels I see are for. Anyone know? In any case, I'm thinking that some sort of section on the use of the river (with a subsection on sport) would be justified, along with a separate sub-article as Jamsta's suggested, but to include other aspects of its use. Can anyone suggest a good name for such an article? Use of the River Thames maybe? Exploitation of the River Thames?--A bit iffy 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically, the Thames was FULL of boats,particularly traders from the Caribbean and Far East (17th-19th century?). More on the docks and trading companies? Paulbrock 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of this is or should be covered by the Port of London article, though this concentrates on the river between London and the sea. Pterre (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

River Thames and "The Amulet of Samarkand"

I rephrased the note on The Amulet of Samarkand added to the Culture section by 69.235.164.190. However I don't understand the beginning to the sentence that reads, "Another is featured ...". Another what? As it reads it could mean another journey but I don't know The Amulet of Samarkand. Is anyone able to clarify the sentence? Brother Francis 12:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Century

"By the 18th century, the Thames was one of the world's busiest waterways, as London became the centre of the vast, mercantile British Empire. During this time, one of the worst river disasters in England took place on September 3, 1878..." But 1878 was in the 19th century, not the 18th century. This should either be changed to "By the 19th century...", or else the words "During this time" should be removed. Art LaPella 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sailing

I think that the section on sailing is now suffering from the problem previously identified and corrected in the section on rowing (see above) - the list of clubs unbalances the article. The list could surely be dealt with as a wikipedia category 'Sailing clubs on the river Thames' (or two categories, one for the tidal reaches and one for the rest of the river) and with a sub-article if necessary.

James of Putney 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that James. Incidentally there is nothing on wild-life on the Thames, but fish and birds are quite important (there is a bit on Trowlock Island). I am not an expert but perhaps someone could put together some sub-articles on that too. Motmit 09:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion

This section at the end Catholics are bizarre I have never heard such an expression before. Citation required or it should be removed, and in any case it would belong under the trivia section rather than its own heading. Unusual Cheese 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

i love this —Preceding

pie

ilike pie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.100.131 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight reshuffle

I find the present structure of the article a little bit unsatisfactory. It starts 58 million years ago and then hops between human and physical aspects in a very ragged way. However before changing it I am giving a heads up in case someone is attached to the current structure for some reason. I have already encapsulated the suggested revised structure in the summary which I added before Christmas and that seems to have been accepted. Then perhaps we can move forward and improve the content. QTCV.

As in real life, the River Thames attracts a awful lot of rubbish, so well done to Colinfine for getting rid of a load of flotsom. Motmit (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just another heads-up. The last set of changes seem to have gone down OK so thanks for tacit support as well as some appreciation. The final section on my hit-list is the Culture/literature section which seems to have picked up a lot of flotsom - but changing it might be seen as a matter of taste rather than fact. Books named after books about the river and books only mentioning the word Thames once don't seem worthy of inclusion whereas others could be made more of - anyway I'll give it a go in a day or so and hope it's OK - Regards Motmit (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacement lead image

As discussed in the edit summaries, there's been a back-and-forth between myself and Motmit regarding the lead image. The old image is as follows:

My suggestion for the replacement of the lead image is as below:

The fact that it is at sunset doesn't distract since there is really nothing you can 'see' of the river Thames itself in either of the images - what is of interest is what surrounds the river, and I'd argue that there is more to see in the replacement candidate. In terms of composition and quality, I'd argue that the second image has better detail (the original is extremely poor quality when viewed 100%) and is more attractive.

I can't really see anything objective that would favour the original over the replacement. I'm evidently not going to pursuade Motmit to accept the new image, but the only argument he has put forward to keeping the old one is that he doesn't want another 'bloody sunset'. I could equally argue that I don't particularly want to see another bloody overexposed, poor quality overcast skied photo too, as tends to be par for the course in London-based articles. :-)

I'm not against the cohabitation of both images in the article somewhere, since they both clearly illustrate different parts of the Thames in London, but I do still feel that the replacement is a stronger candidate for the lead image.

Anyway, he's reverted the image twice now and we're heading for a third revert so I wanted to see what others think about these images. Your opinions welcome. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish this had been put up for discussion in the first place out of respect for those who have been looking after this article for many months now and have been happy with the lead existing picture, and for the original photographer, whoeverer he was. The Thames, as we know, is 215 miles long and not just the 2 miles through the tourist zone so the balance of the article has to reflect this. When I restructured and brought in extra pictures, I felt it thoroughly appropriate to leave the lead picture, even though it was central London, as it shows the House of Commons, the London Eye and the Hungerford bridges - all key elements not illustrated elsewhere in the article. It shows the river in daylight and if the sky is overcast that is also showing reality. It is also a soothing introduction to an article about what is to those of us who know it a delightfully soothing river. The proposed alternative is frankly rather garish and illustrates a bridge that is already in the article twice. IMHO pictures of sunsets illustrate nothing but sunsets. We do finish the article with a night glamour shot (so I do not think we need another), and I left the existing sunset shots (both pretty awful, but realistic sunsets rather than touched up) as they seemed to lead into it quite effectively.

There are literally millions of articles that do not have pictures at all so it would be good if photographers could concentrate on illustrating those. The 'Tideway' article describes the tourist zone of the river through London in London which makes it a good place for tourist shots. Using a bit of imagination might come up with ideas like illustrating the song 'Waterloo Sunset'. Diliff appears to have been replacing existing clear natural daylight pictures with dusk and night shots. I don't give a stuff about Glasgow University. but I do love the Thames. Motmit (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Please do not make gender assumptions)

• I accept your points, but I don't think any of them are particularly strong. Yes, you have no doubt been a care taker of this article for some time now, but just because people were happy with the existing photo, that doesn't mean that a better can't come along and replace it. Wikipedia by its very nature is not static, and the project guidelines encourages all to 'be bold'. I know that doesn't imply you should be single-minded about it and I don't think I was. I brought it to the talk page when it was appropriate to. But to bring every single potential change to a talk page before acting is extremely counter productive. I've been a pretty long term photographic contributor to Wikipedia and the vast majority of changes to images in articles have not met controversy, so I've used my judgement about where and when a talk page should be used (ie I did bring it to the London talk page, as I wasn't sure where it would be best served, if anywhere).

• Your point that an image that taken an overcast day is merely illustrating reality is exactly the same point I was making. The only difference is that aesthetically, a photo taken near or at sunset is generally more pleasing to the eye. To say that it illustrates nothing but a sunset is ridiculous. The same buildings and landmarks are clearly visible in this photo, whether it was taken at sunset or the middle of the day. And I could argue that when viewing both images at full size, far MORE detail is visible in the sunset photo.

• I haven't been systematically been replacing daytime shots with night time shots, but both are equally valid as long as they illustrate the subject. Aesthetics are merely a bonus. If you look at my featured pictures on my user page, you'd see that there are as many, if not more daytime photos there. You would also find that I do illustrate a lot of mundane, ordinary articles with my images when I can. Its just that I tend to put a bit more effort into providing a high profile article with an quality image. I'd certainly be interested in providing an equivalent but technically and aesthetically better photo of the Thames towards the Houses of Parliament and London Eye too, but I do see the benefit of the sunset photo in the article, regardless. Are you really that convinced that the image has no place in the article, even though you admit that it has two pretty awful sunset pictures currently? Surely at the least, those images should be removed first and foremost.

• And I do take issue with your assertion that the image in question has been 'touched up'. I have adjusted it subtly for exposure, but I certainly have not 'created' a scene that did not exist. Any and every' photographer, whether they mean to or not, will have some impact on the capture of a scene. Whether it has been adjusted in photoshop or through the settings on the camera, there will always be a discrepancy of some sort between reality and what is captured, and in turn, outputted on your computer monitor. That said, I've always striven to keep my photography as realistic as possible.

• Anyway, I think enough has been said between the two of us. I'd prefer a third party's input here since we're clearly not seeing eye-to-eye on the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Third opinion? I'm afraid I'd have to side with User:Diliff here. To me the proposed image is of a more fitting quality than the existing version. Of course preferences in images are subjective, but I have a BA in Art & Design for what it's worth (not much I know!).... :-) -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it's not the image that is at issue - it is the totality of the article. We could have a beauty contest between thousands of pictures. The point is that pictures need to inform and support the article. The River Thames is a huge subject and the challenge is to encapsulate it efficiently especially for the benefit of those who only know it as a 2 mile tourist zone. So it comes down to some fundamental questions.

1 What should be the subject matter of the lead image? If you think about it, it has to be the River Thames at Westminster flowing past the seat of the United Kingdom Government - throw in an icon of 21st century London as well for good measure.

2 Do we need three pictures of Tower Bridge in an article about the whole river? I think not

3 Should this picture replace the existing Night panorama which has the bridge in? Over to you

4 Will we miss out if this picture is not included? No - it is already on the article for Tower Bridge in large format. That article is directly linked from the River Thames page - I know cos I put the link in

I am fully with you in wanting to see better pictures - the subject deserves them. We could certainly have a higher definition version of the existing one if it showed the HP, the Eye, a bridge, a riverboat in service and any other features that link into the article. Some of pics were already there and I didn't have the heart to replace them, although I shuffled them and moved the sunsets to the Tideway as a first step. Others were the best I could find to illustrate a point (and that seems to have cut down some of the rubbish we were getting). The maps are lousy too. I am not a creature of the night so we may not see eye to eye on some aesthetics. But please have a good read through the article and then treat yourself to a trip up river following the crossings or islands or locks, stop off at the towns and explore a few tributaries. Then come back and discuss - I should be interested in your views - all the best Motmit (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

I was supporting the image as a replacement for the lead photograph. I think issues of the over representation of the City of London in the article is an important, but slightly different issue. I think it's fair to expect to depict the iconic part of the River rather than a banal section in the lead, but I'm with you that this shouldn't be the only part with images. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I also completely agree that there shouldn't be an overload of London-based images in the article, but as Jza84 mentioned, that is a separate issue. It seems as though you have been single-minded in stopping the inclusion of the image in the article, despite admitting that there are similar, but inferior photos already there. I still maintain that my image is the better one to lead the article, but as I said I'm not against the old image remaining in the article elsewhere until a superior one is available (it is something I'll consider photographing when time and weather permits - as I said, I think aesthetics is important and while true to the weather of London, an overcast day is not usually conducive to good photography). That said, and based on the discussion here, I'll be bold and look at both re-arranging some of the images and removing the less useful ones. You're welcome to have some input too, but I hope you'll compromise and not simply revert me again. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very condescending of you to allow me some input!!!! If there is any single-mindedness, it is on the part of a page-trampling photographer with no previous interest in this article. Not sorry to see the back of those other out of hours shots, but I reserve the right to be bold and replace your image at any time with a picture of my own that I consider superior. Motmit (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Steady on.

The night-time one has its merits but is in a lurid red that reminds me of tourist postcards. Meanwhile, in the daytime one the Hungerford bridge is in unfortunate superimposition with other stuff that the viewer might find more interesting.

I'm half a planet away from the Thames, but I'm sure many people reading this are not. So please, somebody, get a third and better photo of the Thames to use here. (It's not elusive or hard to get into focus, and it doesn't require a model release. Should be pretty easy. It's probably in its regular position and inviting photographers as I write. But there's no rush.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake Motmit, you have a real attitude problem here... I didn't say I'd allow your input, I welcomed it. Big difference. You're very selective in what you choose to see of my words and actions. Of course you reserve the right to be bold and replace my image, but if I disagreed we may end up back in an 'edit war.' This is why I brought it to the talk page in the first place, so that we could try to find consensus with other contributors, and discuss it like civilised human beings, but as Hoary says: steady on.

Hoary, I'm not sure what you mean by needing a third photo or how the daytime photo is in 'unfortunate superimposition'. As for my image, I know what you mean by it looking like a tourist postcard, but I don't think this should prohibit it being in the article. The colours are realistic for a sunset/dusk photo, regardless of whether it is to your personal preference. Really, when it comes down to it, the issue should be whether the photo is of high quality and has encyclopaedic value. If it can satisfy these criteria, it shouldn't matter whether it was taken at night, day or in between. That said, I think there is room for a variety. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One problem here is the nature of "reality" in the coloring of dusk or night-time photographs. As is well known, the response of our eyes to color is dulled when it's dark. This doesn't happen with photography. (Of course there are anomalies there too, such as reciprocity failure, but they seem minor compared with this one big difference between eye and camera.) So colors recorded at night can look impossibly lurid even without filters, photoshoplifting, or other jiggery-pokery. Rightly or wrongly, I judge the colors in the night-time photo here against what I've seen with my eyes, and not against what I think I'd get from Ektachrome or a CCD. And perhaps unfairly, I do tend to think of night-time shots on postcards. As for "unfortunate superimposition", this was my awkward way of saying that the composition is such that the bridge in the middle ground spoils the view of what's in the background. -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the well considered explanation.. but I will say that significant dulling of our eye's response to colour happens at a much lower luminance level than in this sunset (eg moonlight), so I'm not sure thats what is happening.. Of course, the human mind is very complicated, particularly the process of sensation and perception.. Long ago I wrote a big essay on the subject in fact. :-) But the question then remains, should we be capturing a scene as accurately as possible or should we be modifying it to appear as our eyes would see it? An ethical dilemma with no single answer. You're right, though, that there are aspects of the scene obscured by the bridge, but then, I can't think of a photo that does illustrate this many things without some obscuration. London is not an easy city to photograph. There are only so many suitable viewpoints. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary - another frequent vandal reverter on this article - for echoing my points precisely. The bridge in the day time one does obscure parliament and a better pic would be of the Houses of Parliament from upstream (Anyone got access to Millbank Tower?). Regards Motmit (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Watershed map

Please could we get a map of the Thames and all its tributaries? 82.16.1.141 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

quality of the water

What about the quality of the water? is it drinkable? since when? is it truth that the river was already considered dead? how and when was the process of revitalizing done? is it over?