Talk:Mississippi River

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). -- Lorrette 15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

An event mentioned in this article is a May 8 selected anniversary

watershed size - Mississippi VS Nile

Answers.com http://www.answers.com/topic/nile has the Nile with a watershed of Watershed area 3,400,000 km² (1,312,740 mi²) This is larger than that of the Mississippi or the Congo, according to the areas on this page. (note that the Wikipedia Congo page lists the Congo as having the second largest watershed in the world) Who is right? This is the first time that I have ever posted here, so if I am doing something wrong, please be gentle. DChapman.

miles vs kilometers

The original article said the Mississippi was 3,700 miles long. It's 3,700 kilometers long, or about 2,300 miles. -- Nate The Mississippi is 2,348 miles long from its source at Lake Itasca to Head of Passes in the Gulf of Mexico. -- Joe Angert: oldmanriver.org

Missouri longer

The Mississippi is not the longest river in North America, the Missouri is. Various sources confirm this, one of which is the USGS: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html . Although that site gives the Mississippi's length as 2,340 miles, I think it's best to use round numbers as we have done. For example, another USGS site (http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/ms137.htm ) says 3,705 km, which would be 2302 miles; Webster's New World 3rd Ed says 2348 miles. Probably they are all correct given different methods of measurement. -- Nate

Isn't this page counting the Missouri from its headwaters to the mouth of the Mississippi in the Gulf of Mexico and not to where the Missouri flows into the Mississippi? But I am not sure. --rmhermen

You are probably right about the Missouri being measured from its headwaters to the ocean (which would include part of the Mississippi). I've been Googling this one and there are enough different measurements that you can pick how long you want the river to be! For the Mississippi I'm going with ~3,700 km since that seems to be the most prevalent. If some kid is doing a report on the Mississippi, that's probably the number the teacher expects to see. For the Missouri, there is no measurement on that page and probably shouldn't be, unless someone can explain the method used to measure.

I've also edited the page on the "largest/longest" issue by stating that the Mississippi is the "largest river system" in NA, which nobody disputes. I've removed the ref to the Missouri being longer by some measurements. -- Nate

Reading the article cold I think it sounds odd to refer to the Mississippi/Missouri system's length without the Mississippi's alone. This should probably be in a subsequent paragraph about the river's watershed and geography, and perhaps a note that there are reasons to consider the Lower Mississippi the Lower Missouri instead. To my mind the simplest answer -- the length of the Mississippi itself from source to sea -- is the one that should be in the opening. --Dhartung 01:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "longest"

People have always made a fuss over the longest river, highest mountain, tallest building, and so on. We should not add or delete any claims without defining the criteria used in the claim.

If we're speaking of the source discovered by Lewis and Clark in the US Northwest, from which one could presumably coast all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, I wonder if that stretch of water retains a single name throughout. Let's do some research before the next edit, eh? --Ed Poor

The photo at Missouri River of the meeting of the Missouri and Mississippi above St. Louis makes it abundantly clear why the Bitterroots-to-Gulf flowage is not correctly considered the same river. Jerry picker 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it very odd that the Wikipedia article for the Mississippi River has no problem declaring that the Mississippi is the longest, and the the Wikipedia article on the Missouri River makes the same claim, and both articles justify their claims with numbers. Don't American geographers have a consensus, if only for the sake of academic harmony?Jerry picker 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the length thing is the geographical difference in origins for the two streams. The headwaters of the Mississippi are a lake: a simple defined starting point. The headwaters of the Missouri are three streams, contiguous and continuous with the main stem formed by their juncture. The fact of the naming of the Headwaters of the Missouri as the Jefferson, Madison, and Gallatin is arbitrary. It is the hydrology that matters. Also, if you start measuring the Missouri at the union of Three Forks, then you might account for the length of the river before the artificial Pick-Sloan dams and before the Sioux City to St. Louis straightening.Jerry picker 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Name of river

I'm worrying about the name of the river: is it 'mississippi' or 'mississippi river'? Do you say the river mississippi river? -- german wikipedian

It's "The Mississippi River" or simply "The Mississippi". I've never heard it called anything else. --Nate 19:06 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

1990s flood

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

Why not called Missouri

Can anybody tell me why the Mississippi still is called Mississippi after it is joined by the Missouri, although the Missouri is the longer river at that time? --Sim March 11th 2004, 14:56 CET

My understanding is that the Mississippi has a greater volume of water flowing at the confluence than the Missouri does (though I see Bluelion appears to dispute this below). Additionally, the headwaters of the Mississippi were probably explored well before the Missouri was (although the currently-attributed source in Itasca took a long time to figure out). —Mulad 06:38, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the Mississippi has a greater volume at the confluence. It's also wider. It's also joined by the Illinois a few miles upstream. Whatever. Neither the Missouri nor the Mississippi above St. Louis is anything to sneeze at. It's hard to question the names the rivers were given, and there's no changing the names now. Bluelion 03:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The names come from what American Indians called the rivers. The Algonquin names were Mississippi (Big River) and Missouri (Big Boats). The Sioux called the Mississippi and Missouri, respectively, Ne Tongo (Big River) and Ne Shodse (Muddy River). Bluelion 02:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Based on data at the US Geological Survey's Waterdata website, the Mississippi River has a greater volume at the confluence but the Missouri River drains a greater area:

	area	streamflow
Missouri River at St. Charles	524,000	63,810
Mississippi River at Grafton	171,300	124,200
Mississippi River at St Louis	697,000	186,500

Drainage area in square miles and annual mean streamflow (for 2002) in cubic feet per second. (according to the Wikipedia article, the entire Mississippi River basin covers 1,245,000 square miles) Bluelion 02:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, I think much of the Mississippi was mapped before the Missouri River. (SEWilco 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC))

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

The photo at Missouri River makes clear the relative volume issue. Jerry picker 02:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cities without levee

Davenport, Iowa is the only city over 20,000 people bordering the Mississippi that has no permanent floodwall or levee. -- I'm not convinced that this is true. Minneapolis, for example, does not have a floodwall or levee. -- UninvitedCompany 20:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

True, although from a civil engineering viewpoint it is relevant that the river runs past Minneapolis between cliffs which it has cut. Minneapolis and St. Paul are atop those cliffs and the river can't reach the city. I don't think Congress has funded the Corps of Engineers to install cliffs elsewhere. (SEWilco 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC))

Eads Bridge at St. Louis

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

You're cordially invited to create such an article. It's seems like you're the natural one to do it. :) -- Decumanus | Talk 22:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I figured someone would say that. I guess I am a natural one. If I have some time, I'll create at least a stub. Eads Bridge is a beautiful bridge and a tremendous engineering achievement. (ask any civil engineer; historically, Eads Bridge is right up there with the Brooklyn Bridge, the Golden Gate and the Firth of Forth). Eads Bridge definately deserves an article, no doubt in my mind. Bluelion 23:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nicknames

This is one of the rare times Google has failed me over the last 8 years, and the Wikipedia entry is similarly lacking. Can someone who actually knows (or knows where to find the information) add a list of nicknames for the river? I imagine I can track them down eventually, but the moment where I needed them has passed.

--JohnRDaily 00:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added a popular culture section including some of the best-known nicknames. It should do for a start. --Dhartung 01:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

River delta

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

Etymology

"Father of waters" is an awfully fanciful translation of "Mississippi". Ziibi simply means river in Ojibwe, and I doubt many speakers of the Algonquin dialect ever saw the river. Miizi in modern Ojibwe means to take a dump, if anyone is interested. I found a reference with a more plausible etymology that I intend to replace the current one with. --Diderot 16:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In Ojibwe, Misi-ziibi (Great River) is the correct name for the river, but only for the portion below the jucture with the Crow Wing River. Above that juncture, it is called Gichi-ziibi (Big River). In Ojibwe, misi- and gichi- are not the same. The preverb misi- means great while the preverb gichi- means big. Other misi- words in Ojibwe, for example, are Misi-zaaga'igan (Lake Mille Lacs) and misaabooz (snow-shoe hare). In Algonquin language, the preverb is minsi-. Consequently, I will be changing the wording in the article. CJLippert 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

radio

I think it would be noteworthy to add that radio call letters begin with either K or W depending if they are west or east of the mississippi respectively. --TBH 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting fact, but it's about radio, not about the river. There's a difference. It's unrelated to any characteristic of the river at all, except for, perhaps, its geographical location which is already well noted. I wouldn't fight it being noted here, but I think it has nothing to do with the river and everything to do with the FCC's naming convention and belongs in a radio article. (BTW, it's not a universal rule; WGNU, WRTH and WIL are/were radio stations in St. Louis, a stone's throw west of the river. Legacy/grandfathered? Interesting question, but about radio, not the river.) -- Kbh3rd 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

conversion error

I changed the discharge value at Saint Louis : 4,260 ft³/s --> 156 ft³/s. Is it correct ? --Gloumouth1 15:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, meters are larger than feet, so cubic meters are much larger than cubic feet: more than 35 times larger, in fact. I've added the correct figure. And thank you for bringing this up, because I corrected the other numbers as well; somehow I was off in the earlier round of conversions I'd made. —Papayoung ☯ 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I multiplied by $0.3048^{3}$ instead of devide ! Anyway, the previous value (4,260) was not correct... We should only use the International System of Units. The others are confusing. Moreover, it is a bit disturbing to have this kind of values for the first system (194,231 ft³/s) and round values for the second one (5,500 m³/s) --Gloumouth1 08:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia policy is to use both imperial and metric units. And since this is an American article, U.S. units of measurement take precedence over the metric ones. Kevin M Marshall 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The cubic-feet figure was derived from the cubic-meters value; if you have a more specific value in meters, it would be welcome. —Papayoung ☯ 14:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the explanations. You are right, it is an American article. A last question : do you know where the value 5,500 m³/s comes from ? --Gloumouth1 15:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know; I took the (metric) values from the old river template for this article, calculated the Imperial units from them, and added them with to the new Infobox. You could spend some time paging back through the history and see if the original contributor cited his or her source for the data. —Papayoung ☯ 16:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User Gloumouth1 asked me where I found the values for the Mississippi discharges. I found them on a webpage of the US Army Corps of Engineers. I was trying to retrieve that page but couldn't find it. While doing that, though, I found some even better data from the USGS at [1], so I modified the infobox using the new data. Metric system should always appear first, even though this is a US related article. Check for instance the country infobox at USA. Hardouin 22:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Major cities along the river

Concerning the recent annonymous addition of Natchez, Mississippi and Vicksburg, Mississippi, note that the section title is "major", not "historic". No offense meant to these two interesting communities of historical importance, but I don't think the term "major city" applies to towns of 26 thousand and 18 thousand souls each. Add them together and you might get an average suburb of St. Louis. Note that I've not reverted them out of the article, being willing to discuss other viewpoints here. Perhaps the section should be retitled to "notable cities"? I'd agree that they are "notable" if not "major". -- Kbh3rd 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, both cities are mentioned in other parts of the article, particularly Vicksburg. As long as Vicksburg's historical importance is mentioned somewhere in the article, its removal from that particular portion of the article is okay by me. (though it's somewhat inconsistent to follow the "Major cities" section with the "Notable bridges" section. It'd be best to either change both to "major" or change both to "notable"). --Interiot 07:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

me and the mississippi river

me and the mississippi river is very close it is my bro. i love it it is my homie yo ya down with dat.k yall betta listen we cool and all but the mississippi river is mine got dat ya weird peoples. ya betta treat it nice or ill hunt ya down ya hear yall betta listen or yalls head is gonna be gone ya losers

• I also like the Mississippi River very much. Malepheasant 05:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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).

Fishing

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