Talk:Red River of the North

Flood of 1826

I grew up on the Red River of the North and I never read about, nor heard oral history from old-timers, of a flood (let alone a major flood) in 1826. No one was recording floods that early either. One of the early and major floods of record was 1897. Others after that were 1948, 1950, 1966, 1969, 1979, and 1997. There were other minor floods in other years. I challenge the 1826 date... -- 6 October 2005 (UTC) Trish Lewis

You can challenge it but every Canadian historian will tell you you've been hearing your oral history from Americans. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that "a flood" by no means implies that the entire river flooded! To be specific, in Fargo the maximum flood level was in 1997 at 28,000 cfs, followed by 1969 (25,300) and 1897 (25,000). However, the top three in Grand Forks are 1997 at 136,900 cfs, then 1826 (135,000) and 1852 (95,000). For Winnipeg it's 1826 at 225,000 cfs, 1852 (165,000) and 1997 (162,000). As you can see, different years lead to different flows at different points. As you can also see, the flooding in Winnipeg is generally much worse, which should not be surprising given snowfall patterns and the fact that it's down-river. To answer the original question, here is the answer to your challenge [1] Maury (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the damages to Manitoba to 500 million from 51 million. First 51 seems really, really low considering the extent of the damages. I don't have a 'real' source right off-hand, but the article on the 1997 Red River Flood has a figure of 500 million, so that's what I used.

Conversions to Imperial needed

The Metric distances need to have Imperial equivalents. clariosophic (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I have put in the ones I found in the Time Almanac 2003, but there are more. clariosophic (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Also it would be helful to have a breakdown of the distances in the US and in Canada. It appears that the distance in the US is more than half of the total length. clariosophic (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC) According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the length the US is 394 miles.[2] clariosophic (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

According to that site ([3]) the river's total length is 550 miles. And there are excellent maps of the US part there too, with river miles labeled. The source is marked as mile 550 and the US-Canada border as river mile 155. This would make the US portion 395 miles long and the Canada portion 155 miles long. River length measurements often differ from source to source, especially for meandering rivers like the Red, so it's not surprising to see one site say 545 miles and another 550. The Red River, The Columbia Gazetteer of North America] puts the length at only 533 miles. Since the MN DNR source seems particularly good (check out those maps), perhaps we can use it for total length and US-Canada lengths. If I get the chance I'll make the edits. Also for metric-imperial equivalents I'll use the convert template to keep things matched up nicely, time permitting.. Pfly (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to use Imperial measure. Metric measure is appropriate for any Wikipedia article, and also appropriate for an article about Canada. U.S. Customary measure is appropriate for an article about the U.S. Imperial measure is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For length/distance, Imperial and U.S. Customary units are one and the same. An English mile is the same length an American mile. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proper Name

What's the correct name, just "Red River" or "Red River of the North" 63.26.74.103 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)eric

The current lead has it correct, the name is just "Red River" (at least according to USGS), but "Red River of the North" is commonly used in the U.S. to distinguish it from the larger Red River in the southern U.S. Kmusser (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the local news up here just calls it the Red River, Red River Valley, ect. i think the of the north bit is just used to tell which red river is being talked about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.201.80 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map of the Red River is entirely inaccurate. The Red River does NOT start in Fargo and flow north, it starts further south. Someone needs to update this map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.234.190 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely at the map, you can see that the river starts south of Fargo, and the location where the shading begins is in fact the location of the confluence of its source streams. It is a little confusing given the scale, as the Wild Rice River (shown approaching the border from the west) does not join the Red at its source, but closely parallels it and joins further north. (You may be able to make that out if you look closely.) The Bois de Sioux (a source stream) comes from the south but is the border and therefore is obscured and overwritten by the black line representing the border. The first river shown south of Fargo east of the border is the other source stream, the Otter Tail. The shading identifying the Red starts where the Otter Tail meets the border, which is correct. Kablammo (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

Would anyone mind if I exchange the image in the infobox of the page with this one: Red River?   TRBP  talk  19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red River of the North. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120331014105/http://www.cjob.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1414873 to http://www.cjob.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1414873

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Red River of the North → Red River (Lake Winnipeg)
• Red River of the South → Red River (Mississippi River)

– The WP:COMMONNAME of both rivers is simply "Red River." Most locals of both rivers probably don't even know there's another river with the same name. Most maps (if not, all the maps I've looked at) simply use "Red River" when labeling them. The only time these rivers are referred to as such is when there might be confusion, but even then, that's rare. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

These rivers have similar names, similar histories, and both have a 'Red River Valley.' There also appears to be some speculation and personal interpretation as to the appropriate history and notoriety that applies to them. Both involve European expansion, traders and bandits, Native Americans, Cowboys, lost loves, etc. The legend, myth, and romanticism of both rivers is often difficult to define, so attempts at providing separate and accurate histories that will satisfy everyone may be difficult, if not impossible. Renaming these articles to anything other than 'Red River of the North' and 'Red River of the South' opens the possibility of further confusion and degradation of respect for both, so it seems that these names do provide the best and most objective descriptions. Though I don't prefer it personally, the only rational caveat that I can see, would be the inclusion of '...-(North America)' on both articles. Curley Wolf (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: There are 24 officially named "Red River"s in the US. Both the Red River of the North and Red River of the South have Britannica articles under these names. Other RS also use these names. The USGS Geonames database officially names the "Red River of the North" with Red River a variant. No reason to think these titles will confuse anyone. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But in Wikipedia, we use the WP:COMMONNAME, which may not line up with what some people consider the "official" name. The number of rivers in this case is irrelevant (FWIW, Red River lists 18 rivers). What matters is using a disambiguator that is unambiguous (in this case, these are the only rivers that flow into Lake Winnipeg and the Mississippi River respectively). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Some evidence for Red River of the North as COMMONNAME

• Red River of the North State Water Trail
• Britannica
• Fishing the Red River of the North
• Red River of the North flood at Fargo, April, 1897.
• Red River of the North NWF
• Red River of the North at Fargo NOAA
• Bridge Hunter,.com
• Red River of the North Watershed Map
• Google Scholar returns 3450 hits for "Red River of the North" in quotes

Additionally, using Red River of the North is unambiguous and requires no disambiguation. However the disambiguation suggest doesn't make much sence as the river is not in Lake Winnipeg but in Minnesota, North Dakota and the province of Manitoba. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Although less common, but no less ambiguous than Red River of the North, Red River of the South does have some evidence of COMMONNAME
• 124 Google Scholar hits with "Red River of the South"
• Google Books
• Additionally the suggested disambiguation is incorrect as the Red River of the South is technically not a tributary of the Mississippi River but of the Atchafalaya River which is a distributary river of the Mississippi. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support these moves 73.154.175.89 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for Red River of the North, Support for Red River of the South, deferring largely to USGS. For the northern river both Red River and Red River of the North are common names in wide usage, so I'd lean towards using the USGS name which is the closest we have to an official name. In contrast Red River of the South has never gained as wide of usage, used mainly in academic works that are discussing both rivers. There the USGS name is simply Red River, Red River of the South isn't even listed in the long list of variant names. I'm ok with Red River (Mississippi River) even if Red River (Atchafalaya River) would be more correct, the hydrology at the mouth there is complex and if you wanted to be real technical it should be Red River (Old River Control Structure) but that just get unwieldy and I think using Mississippi River would let users know they have the intended river without confusing them. Kmusser (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate your explanation and would like to endorse it. I currently live in Oklahoma, and I've literally never heard of the Red River being referred to as the "Red River of the South." I also just assumed it was the same way for the northern river by doing a cursory search and assuming it was a "both or nothing" deal. After looking over Mike Cline's links, I can see that "Red River of the North" can be considered a common name for that river, but it clearly isn't the case for the Mississippi River tributary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for Red River of the North, Support for Red River of the South per User:Kmusser, i.e. per WP:UCN (use [relatively] common names). —  AjaxSmack  23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NATURALDIS favours Second-most-common name over Most-common name (foo) jnestorius^(talk) 13:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • For the southern river I think we're choosing between Obscure, but unambiguous name and Most-common name (foo). Kmusser (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I would argue that "Red River of the South" is far more common than the clearly ambiguous "Red River" which requires uncommon disambiguation.

A number of small, intermittent streams rising on the High Plains section of Texas join to form the Red River of the South, which then flows south and east for 1,300 miles before entering the Mississippi River.

— Durrenberger, R. W. (1998). Red River of the South. The new encyclopedia of the American West. CT: Yale University Press.

The major tributaries are the Arkansas and the Red River of the South, which reach the Mississippi from the west.

— Durrenberger, R. W. (1998). Mississippi River. The new encyclopedia of the American West. CT: Yale University Press.

• JSTOR search returns 40 citations, mostly unique for "Red River of the South" and ZERO citations for "Red River (Mississippi River).--Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Name (foo) is a Wikipedia convention, I wouldn't expect to see that in the literature. What you should be comparing is the 40 "Red River of the South" citations to "Red River" Mississippi which has 7,947 - a few false positives in there, but most of them are referring to the southern river, or ever "Red River" Atchafalaya, which has 278. I stand by calling Red River of the South obscure, sure it has been used, but it's very rare outside of the academic press. Kmusser (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As a P.S. I also disagree with arguing for using the Geonames database for Red River of the North, and then arguing that we ignore it for the Red River of the South. Kmusser (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both are common enough to serve as WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. I'm getting 20k hits on Google Books, which suggests it's not so obscure that it should be avoided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mike Cline, Jnestorius and Cuchullain. The names used in the scholarly literature and in Britannica (and thus far here on Wikipedia also) provide a natural disambiguation that's more immediately apprehensible than the proposed alternatives. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red River of the North. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090327/national/mba_flooding_15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322060720/http://www.rrbdin.org/about/flood-tables.jsp to http://www.rrbdin.org/about/flood-tables.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820202613/http://mbfloods.ca/reports/view/1334 to http://mbfloods.ca/reports/view/1334
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010104340/http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/floods/redriver/index_e.php to http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/floods/redriver/index_e.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)