Talk:Ohio River

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

Is this original research?[edit]

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

I think this is a semantic issue, rather than a factual one. The "main" river of a system is the largest by volume, though there are exceptions due to historical naming conventions. Hydrologically, we'd like to keep the system pure, but it hardly matters in practice. In that sense, the lower Mississippi is part of the Ohio because the Ohio is the largest tributary at the junction, but no one is going to say that. In the same way, it's not original research to say the color of the sky is (sky) blue. Sbalfour (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery[edit]

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbalfour (talkcontribs) 20:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ebenezer Scrooge, in A Christmas Carol

List of major tributaries[edit]

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

Lead[edit]

One significant portion of the Ohio River is man-made, the McAlpine Locks and Dam (formerly the Louisville and Portland Canal) bypassing the Falls of the Ohio (which we don't mention in the lead, either). Sbalfour (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. However, even more significant is that the Ohio is no longer a free flowing natural river - it is divided into essentially 51 pools or reservoirs by 51 locks and dams for navigability. That's pretty significant, and it's not even mentioned in the article. Sbalfour (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

3 of 5 paragraphs and 64% of the text in the lead is history, and this is supposed to be a natural resource article. The largest paragraph is on prehistoric history, which probably doesn't need to be in the lead. We have 6 or 7 level 2 sections to summarize, and that ostensibly gives us our paragraphing. There's nothing on ecology or geology in the lead, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbalfour (talkcontribs) 23:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted a paragraph of prehistoric history copy-pasted from the text; the lead is supposed to be a *SUMMARY*. The history portion is now 2 out of 5 paragraphs and 45% of the text, still too much by a factor of more than 2. And there's nothing about geology or ecology in the lead. I also think it's worth mentioning the Allegheny and Monongahela headwaters, as well as the major tributaries including the Cumberland in Kentucky and iconic Wabash in Indiana. The statement that the river was the boundary of the northwest territory doesn't appear in the text; the lead isn't supposed to be new information. Sbalfour (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

The lead is worded suspiciously like a website I found. Normaly the lead sentence takes the form, “a foo is a bar, baz, quux”. I don’t know where Cairo, Il is. Geographically, I have to look up Pittsburgh to see exactly where it is. A foreign reader might not know either city. Not an auspicious start. That it is a tributary of the Mississipi is important but secondary to knowing where it is. How about this:

The Ohio River is a 981-mile long river in the midwestern United States that flows southwesterly from western Pennsylvania south of Lake Erie to its mouth on the Mississippi River at the southern tip Illinois. It is the second largest river by discharge volume in the United States and a principal east (left) tributary of the north-south flowing Mississippi River that divides the eastern from western United States.

I recognize that the Mississippi River is not the same as the continental divide of the Appalachians or Rockies. Yet in lore as well as in practice, the ‘Ole Miss’ separates the east from the west on account of the impediment to passage.Sbalfour (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drainage basin[edit]

The second paragraph says "...and its drainage basin includes parts of 15 states", and it's uncited (the end citation supports the drinking water clause only). I'm a scholar, so I get to nitpick. That's the largest number I encounter in web searches, which vary from 11 to 14 states, usually. And usually, those counts exclude the drainage basin of the Tennessee River which is rather confounding. I count 10 states rather obviously, excluding the Tennessee's basin: (north of the river) Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York; (south of the River) Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina. Then we come to Maryland: I was dubious, because Maryland is mostly east of the Appalachians. So I checked. The Youghiogheny River, a tributary of the Monongahela River, one of the headwaters forming the Forks of the Ohio, drains the western wedge of Maryland nestled in the bosom of West Virginia windward of Appalachia. So that makes the 11th state. In a separate enumeration, the drainage basin of the Tennessee River adds the following states: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia. Of those 3 states, the only state the Tennessee River does not actually flow through or form part of the border, is Georgia. However, the Hiwassee River, a tributary of the Tennessee River, as well as a few of its tributaries in the southeastern corner of Tennessee, flows out of Georgia into Tennessee. So clearly, parts of Georgia are in the Tennessee River drainage basin. I say the drainage basin of the Ohio River is therefore 14 states, s'il vous plaît. Sbalfour (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... the Eastern Continental Divide (ECD) passes through Jones Gap State Park on the northwest segment of the border of South Carolina. There is a sign there, the one and only sign in the state, demarcating the ECD. The French Broad River, which at the junction with the Holston River forms the Tennessee River, has headwaters located near the town Rosman, North Carolina 12 miles to the west but still only a few miles from the ECD. There, south of town, the East Fork and Middle Fork join other tributaries to form the river. The hydrography of those two creeks is local. But the East fork rises a few miles to the southeast, flows west a few miles then north. But its headwaters still don't appear to cross the SC border. Another tributary of the French Broad, the Little River, is further east and flows north from headwaters near the Blue Ridge escarpment. Jones Gap is located where U.S. 276 crosses the NC/SC border. In that vicinity are Clear Creek and Walker Creek and an unnamed tributary thereof, both tributaries of the Little River. Around there must be where that square mile in SC is drained by the Little River. The drainage basin might just be a slough, or a bunch of mountain streams. On the east side of the ECD at Jones Gap, the Middle Saluda River rises, flows through the park then south, ultimately draining into the Atlantic Ocean. One or the other of the former French Broad tributaries may drain the park west of the ECD, in which case the 15th state in the drainage basin of the Ohio River is established. But considering the slender chain of evidence here, it needs a citation by USGS, the SCDNR, or a professionally published hydrologic survey. Stay tuned. Sbalfour (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amidst staying tuned someone made an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_River&diff=933397700&oldid=931322015 which removed South Carolina from the list in the Drainage basin section. This leaves it inconsistent with the preceding text ("The Ohio drains parts of 15 states in four regions") and the number in the lead section. I don't have any idea what to do in this case (revert the edit? edit the numbers to match?) so I'll just leave it here.  — ⟨​∣µzdzisław​⟩ 08:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ohio Valley"[edit]

I came to this page looking for a definition of the "Ohio Valley" as mentioned in several other pages (ex: 1974 Super Outbreak#Meteorological synopsis). The closest definition I could find was this. 71.222.229.94 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery, redux[edit]

The subsection “European discovery” passively stipulates 5 expeditions to the Ohio. It beggars the question, what of them? Some of the claims are credible, others are incredulous. Scholarship would demand that we make some distinction between them. It’s not because we don’t know - in most cases the later historians have resolved the ambiguity and conflicts for us. We should cite them, and the evidence they present.

The judgment of history is the following: the claims of La Salle and Woods are incredulous; those of Arthur and Viele are indisputable. There is ambiguity about the extent of the post-Kanawha Falls leg of the Batts and Fallom expedition - they may have proceeded northward, up the Kanawha possibly to its mouth on the Ohio, or westward, crossing the Guyandotte River and possibly reaching the Big Sandy basin adjacent to KY. So it may be said the attributed Ohio claim is specious, and historians have not elucidated the matter.

For the sake of completeness, Marquette and Jolliet record passing the mouth of the Ohio on the Mississippi in July of 1673, but the record of their landings does not place them on its shore; a la, sighting is not equated with discovery.

The lone paragraph constituting the section is worth more than one blanket sentence per putative claim. Maybe several paragraphs summarizing the authorities for each, so that some judgment about the answer to “Who discovered the Ohio River?” can be formed, while still maintaining the encyclopedia’s NPOV dictum.

We been thru a round of this - see the Discovery discussion above. It appears we’ve elided all controversy by eliding all exposition. Some part of that discussion could reasonably be text in the article, esp. the Lasalle-Margry-Parkman thread. It’s ok to document controversy and ambiguity, as long we don’t opine. I’m more bluntly discriminating here than I/we would be in the article. Sbalfour (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Major" tributaries[edit]

The section Major tributaries of the river, in order from the head to the mouth of the Ohio, include: lists 35 bullet items, including 3 streams we don't even have wiki articles for, and numerous creeks. It appears that we attempted to list anything bigger than a ditch. The other tributary sections above limit themselves to 10 bullet items, which seems more discrete. I'd propose cutting anything we don't have an article for, and anything that's a "creek". Maybe, we should only list things that appear in one of the tributaries-by-category lists above. We could also shorten the section title to something like Major tributaries, in order, from the forks. This might be the place to identify whether an item is a left or right tributary. Sbalfour (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]