Jump to content

Talk:Cuyahoga River

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

Boundary

[edit]

Rather than do a revert the article myself I figured I'd start a discussion about the Cuyahoga River as a boundary. While it and the Portage Path are often described as the western boundary of the US at that time, they were actually the western boundary of the area for European settlers. The portion to the west was for the Indians. It was all part of the Northwest territory that was part of the settlement with the British at the end of the Revolutionary War. --Beirne 00:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. The idea that the Treaty of Greenville established the Cuyahoga has the western boundary of the United States originates from a misreading of the treaty text. The treaty states in its Article 5:

To prevent any misunderstanding about the Indian lands relinquished by the United States in the fourth article, it is now explicitly declared, that the meaning of that relinquishment is this: the Indian tribes who have a right to those lands, are quietly to enjoy them, hunting, planting, and dwelling thereon, so long as they please, without any molestation from the United States; but when those tribes, or any of them, shall be disposed to sell their lands, or any part of them, they are to be sold only to the United States; and until such sale, the United States will protect all the said Indian tribes in the quiet enjoyment of their lands against all citizens of the United States, and against all other white persons who intrude upon the same. And the said Indian tribes again acknowledge themselves to be under the protection of the said United States, and no other power whatever.

In other words, the United States did not relinquish sovereignty over the Indian lands (they couldn't, for instance, make a treaty with Great Britain for protection), but rather, created the first "insular areas" of the United States by giving local control to a non-state government, and forbidding white settlement. Kbrooks 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dam

[edit]

I expanded the environmental paragraph to reflect the impact of Combined Sewer Overflows and dams on the water quality, including a brief discussion of the mitigation efforts undertaken at the Munroe Falls and Kent Dams--and the proposal by Advanced Hydro Solutions to draw a small amount of power from a large dam.--RattBoy 01:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the latest changes a bit to remove some POV and correct a fact. The coal-burning plant survived into the 80's or 90's but I couldn't find the date. It definitely wasn't the 70s. In the paragraph on the Advanced Hydro's power plant I felt that a little more of their reasoning could be used to balance the paragraph. While the existing quote is good it should have a reference so we know where the quote comes from. Their point could also be added that the dam was created to generate power, which I think AHS makes but I couldn't find a source and don't want to create new info for the article.--Beirne 03:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The reference for the existing quote is the Falls News and Press article[1], linked later in the text. The point, that the dam was created to generate power, is already made in the second paragraph in this section-an edit that took place on 7/21/05. RattBoy 10:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "quote" this morning. The word "mitigated" was nowhere to be found in the article so it was not an actual quote. I replaced it with the points made in favor of the dam from the BJ article. --Beirne 12:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. The quote appeared in the original article which was linked. After the Falls News-Press apparently changed its URL, the link was changed, referencing an article which did not include the quote (though it did include the present-tense form, "mitigate").
In the Falls News-Press July 18 article, Paragraph 18 reads:
"(Company president David) Sinclair noted the firm will ensure the impact to the Gorge Metro Park 'is mitigated as much as possible . . . physically, environmentally [and] aesthetically.'"
Therefore the quote is real, in fact, though its source is a different article from the one currently linked. I'd recommend re-including the quote in the article.
OK, makes sense.--Beirne 13:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful about how we achieve balance in this article. Since the project is opposed by many groups-not just PETA and Tree Huggers For A Stagnant Economy-and apparently supported only by entities which stand to gain financially from the project, reporting in a "he-said, she-said" fashion is doing a disservice to the intrepid surfer. In particular, I'd like to balance AHP's impressive-sounding "taking 10,000 cars off the road" claim with some context. Their stat is over the 50-year lifetime of the project. Therefore, they're proposing the perpetual operation of a dam which has known, large detrimental effects on the river's ecology, justifying it by taking the equivalent of 20 cars off the road per year. That goal could clearly be achieved (and surpassed) by small conservation efforts which would have no detrimental impact on the river. I plan to do some more research before I insert text which will put their grandiose claims in perspective.--RattBoy 10:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see what you come up with. It might be worth it for both of us to reread the Npov article to know how to best write this. --Beirne 13:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The public meeting took place yesterday, so I'm adding a link to the news story in the Akron Beacon Journal. However, I don't know how long the article will be viewable.--RattBoy 10:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be good to do more formal references at the end of the article and reference it as a newpaper article rather than a web page. I suspect, though, that with the news changinig the reference to the article will soon be obsolete. --Beirne 12:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. The lynx obtained by searching the Falls News-Press archive on the words, "Advanced Hydro" are:
Removal could be in dam's future (May 17, 04) by Phil Keren, Editor
Change proposed for Gorge Dam (July 18, 05) by Phil Keren, Editor
Metro Parks discuss future of Gorge Dam (July 25, 05) by Lauren Passell, Reporter
--RattBoy 10:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a references section with these and the BJ article. I don't have time right now to fix the citations in line and won't be able to work on this for the next few days. --Beirne 13:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I added the 7/28/05 BJ editorial to the References section. I'm not certain that an editorial really qualifies as a "Reference," however. If someone moves it or nukes it, I won't pitch a big-ol' fit.--RattBoy 23:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someday I'd like to add more info to the description of CSO's and the dissolved oxygen content in the Shipping Channel--and maybe some more positive stuff about what is, in IMHO, a troubled but lovable river that has a lot to offer. But...one thing at a time.--RattBoy 23:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly, I'll try to add some information on the Navigation Channel, the importance of the Cuyahoga River and the Ohio and Erie Canal as contributers to the development of an American national economy (the O&E closed the circle with regard to waterborne shipping from NYC to New Orleans, and opened up the Northwest Territories to settlement), and the increased numbers and varieties of aquatic vertebrates since the improvement of H2O quality. Avogadro94 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's copying word-for-word...

[edit]

Just passing through, but I noticed that a passage in this article is identical to a passage on an EPA webpage - http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga.html

EPA site: The Cuyahoga River is located in northeast Ohio. It begins its 100-mile journey in Geauga County, then flows south to Cuyahoga Falls where it turns sharply north until it empties into Lake Erie. The river drains 813 square miles of land in portions of six counties. Native Americans referred to the U-shaped river as the Cuyahoga or "crooked river."

Fires plagued the Cuyahoga beginning in 1936 when a spark from a blow torch ignited floating debris and oils. Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured national attention when Time magazine described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays." This event helped spur an avalanche of pollution control activities resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies.


Wikipedia: The Cuyahoga River is located in Northeast Ohio. It begins its 100 mile (160 km) journey in Geauga County, then flows south to Cuyahoga Falls where it turns sharply north and runs through Cleveland until it empties into Lake Erie. It also flows through the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, established in 2000 from the Cuyahoga National Recreation Area, which was protected in 1974. The river drains 813 square miles (2,105 km²) of land in portions of six counties. Native Americans referred to the U-shaped river as the Cuyahoga or "crooked river".

....

Fires plagued the Cuyahoga beginning in 1936 when a spark from a blow torch ignited floating debris and oils. Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured national attention when Time magazine described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays". This event helped spur an avalanche of pollution control activities resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal and state Environmental Protection Agency.


Anyway, figured it couldn't hurt to bring it to someone's attention. 70.25.208.177 05:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting. Since the Ohio EPA is a public agency, I don't think this necessarily fits the definition of "plagiarism." The EPA website isn't copyrighted, as far as I can tell. Anyone else have any legal knowledge that bears on this issue?--RattBoy 02:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism and coypright violation are two completely separate issues. Plagiarism is an ethical matter of copying another's work without giving due credit. Copyright is a legal matter. It may be "legal" to copy text in the public domain (as works of U.S. government agencies are), but it is very dubious ethics to not credit the source of material used. And WP:CITE is a widely accepted guideline for articles. older≠wiser 03:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No crossings?

[edit]

There appear to be no bridge fans in Cleveland. Is this true? A number of rivers have these things called "bridges" and "ferrys" and even "tunnels". As a result, various Wikipedians have created "List of crossings" articles, such as List of crossings of the Columbia River, List of crossings of the Rivière des Prairies, List of crossings of the River Thames, List of crossings of the Connecticut River, and many others. I'm not in the Cleveland area, but maybe I could get y'all started on this using Yahoo maps. What say you? Let's see.... List of crossings of the Cuyahoga River - Denimadept (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

[edit]

I moved the WikiTables to the bottom of the article, thus moving the other text up higher.

I added the appropriate CSS class="collapsible" so that they can be collapsed, If other contributors desire, another CSS class="collapsed" can be added which collapses them by default. LeheckaG (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation graphic

[edit]

Somebody clearly put a lot of work into the elevation graphic, which is pretty cool. However, I think it is far too dominant for the article -- it takes up a massive amount of space. What to do? It could be converted into a graphic and included as a thumbnail…or it could be moved to a sub-article like tributaries of the Cuyahoga River…thoughts? -Pete (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

Please see Talk:Cuyahoga#Pronunciation. Mapsax (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More info on river fires?

[edit]

I don't think the Cuyahoga is the only river to catch fire, just the most infamous. Is there any justification to there being a river fire article? If it's known by another name, I couldn't immediately find what it's called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.80.115 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was surprised as well -- the 1969 fire in particular is globally infamous, and there is almost no information on it. It probably does not need a separate article, but it definitely needs expansion here. If there is so little information because it touches a nerve, think of it as the pivotal point when things started changing for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.81 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I logged in to create a redirect with possibilities at the above redirect, though there was already a less appropriate and unused burning river redirect. If there have been any other river fires anywhere, an article/stub could be created so for now the redirect can act as a placeholder. Klknoles (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is this http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/22/the-fable-of-the-burning-river-45-years-later/ , which has links to other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.133.50 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuyahoga River map

[edit]

Copied from User talk:Wetman (Wetman (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)):[reply]

Looks like just one branch to me. - Denimadept (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't jibe with the article's assertion that the Cuyahoga River begins where the two branches join. If the caption were to read "Cuyahoga and Upper Cuyahoga watershed" that wouldn't be quite correct either. The narrowing of the watershed downstream suggests interesting paleogeography here. Not that I'm competent to summarise it... Let me copy this to Talk:Cuyahoga River. --Wetman (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kmusser made the map. I'm sure he'd make whatever adjustments are needed. His to-do list can be pretty long, but he's a trooper and keeps plugging along! Remember to tell him how awesome a Wikipedian he is. :-) Pfly (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the origin coordinates I took a look at the source coordinates in ACME Mapper's USGS topo map view. At the highest quality zoomed-in scale the river seems to be labeled simply "Cuyahoga River" above and below the source point. If you zoom out until the topo map switches to the next lower resolution map, then the branches are labeled West and East. Weird. I'm not saying anything is wrong here, just it struck me as odd. At first I thought there was a mistake, looking only at the zoomed-in topos. Could it be that the East Branch is sometimes considered the main stem? ...hmm, perhaps so... I note U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: East Branch Cuyahoga River says a variant name is "Cuyahoga River". Maybe Kmusser's data has the East Branch as the main stem. Pfly (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that when I was tracing the river upstream to make List of crossings of the Cuyahoga River, the satellite imagery for the upper bit was crap. From this map, it does look like the east branch is considered the main river. - Denimadept (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the imagery has improved a lot!! - Denimadept (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look, that I'm showing the east branch as the main river seems likely, I'll get the west branch added on there. Kmusser (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might have been acting like a typical Wikipedia: demanding more consistency than exists. I'm not competent here: all I can do is make tiresome noises, but the article is so good and so well put together. --Wetman (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice map of tributaries and their watersheds here (also pages with info on the 25 of so tributaries shown--looks useful). This site distinguishes the east and west branches. They both seem fairly short compared to Tinkers Creek, Breakneck Creek, and the Little Cuyahoga River. I was a little surprised to see no page for the Little Cuyahoga River, but perhaps it is not as significant as its name suggests. Pfly (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's not a quick fix - the data source I used (National Atlas) has the east branch as the main stem and doesn't have the west branch at all. To correct I'd need to remake the map using better data. I'll put it on the to do list and I could add the other major tribs while I'm at it. Kmusser (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New and improved map is done. Kmusser (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
suh-weet! - Denimadept (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the fire?

[edit]

It would be desirable if someone could find a picture of the fire that meets Wikipedia's licensing requirements.

Something like this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SJ5S43VGz5Q/SIS1UaGBRRI/AAAAAAAABZs/o03-km2bMsM/s400/burning%2Briver%2Bnov%2B3%2B1952%2B-%2Bjames%2Bthomas.jpgBetter Example Below

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a picture has a valid fair-use rationale, it can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia (but not the Commons) in the article it has a rationale for, just like a logo. It will need a valid source too. Chances are there are pictures out there that could easily be used. With the picture in your link, though, there is nothing to tell where the picture came from, who took it, or where they took it. The Cuyahoga was not the only river to catch fire because of pollution. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know whether it ss usable, bu here is a picture of the 1952 fire from lisacanter.com:
http://lisacanter.com/teachcleveland/images/stories/the_sixties/cuyahoga_river/s-cleve-rivers-cuyahoga%201952%20fire.jpg
And one of the 1936 fire:
http://lisacanter.com/teachcleveland/images/stories/the_sixties/cuyahoga_river/s-cleve-rivers-cuyahoga%201936%20fire.jpg
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


1969 Fire?

[edit]

The section about the 1969 river fire has almost no information about the fire, is there no information available? Can't someone check Life magazine or something?

Before you jump down my throat, re-read it. It discussed a report from a year before the fire. It discusses other fires in the past. It mentions how policy changed because of the fire, after the fire happened. But there is nothing in this page about the event of the fire. For example, where was it? Clearly the whole river from end to end wasn't on fire. How long did it burn? Just on June 22nd? Were there photos?

It just seems that the 1969 fire is mentioned repeatedly as a significant event that lead to songs, policy, and other changes. And somewhat predicted. But there is almost no information about the actual event itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.58.148 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still many months later and not even a single link about the history of the fire in the main section? It sounds to me like perhaps some are trying to engage in historical revisionism. I witnessed the fire and some online accounts do not seem accurate or complete. [Another user and former Cleveland resident]

You're welcome to find and post about the fire in 1969 and any of the other ones. - Denimadept (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error with Temperature

[edit]

In the Environmental Concerns subsection under history, it is written that cooling water being dumped into the river warmed it by -9 degrees Celsius. I'm guessing that this was the result of a quick conversion from the Fahrenheit scale, but seeing as it comes from another text I was wondering if it was there because it was copied verbatim from the source. Does this matter? Sunghail (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Kent State University symposium text quote

[edit]

In the "Environmental concerns" section, there is an error in the text, quote: "water increases the temperature by 10 to 15 °F (−9 °C)." As this is an interval temperature (rather than a scale) this should be stated as a "6-8 °C increase" instead of being converted to the scale temperature of -9 °C. I did not correct this because it is not clear if the -9 is from the original symposium text or if it was added as part of the article. If the former, the correction should be added as an editing note; if the latter, the text should be changed to an editing note and corrected.   — CoyneT talk 02:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was an error in usage of {{convert}}. - Denimadept (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote behind pay wall

[edit]

Footnote 12 links to a PDF source behind a pay wall. I found an open copy of this source, but I do not know how to edit it, as this set of References isn't editable on the page (called Reflist|30em). The link I would ask to replace the existing one is here. wbm (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12 is here. It shows up at the {{reflist}} template, but that's not its source. - Denimadept (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! wbm (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1969 fire photos extant

[edit]

The article states "No pictures from the 1969 fire are known to exist" with a citation. The respective source is probably useless now since I just found a WJW-TV report about the 45th anniversary of the fire, and it includes photos and archival film footage. Maybe there's an outside chance that they confused the 1952 fire with the 1969 one like Time did but it's doubtful given the history of the station. Mapsax (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And more. (WEWS-TV) Mapsax (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually correct. Both sources above show the after-effects of the fire, but none actually show the fire itself. Perhaps the statement "No pictures from the 1969 fire are known to exist" should be modified to "No pictures of the 1969 fire..." There most definitely was a fire in 1969, but it wasn't a major news event in Cleveland at the time, and it had been contained before any members of the media arrived. The best sources I can find indicate the damage was $50,000 and the most visible damage was the warped railroad tracks (which are shown in the video). But neither video shows the fire itself, which is consistent with older sources. See pages 9-10. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. With no audio I interpreted the hosing down as putting out the actual fire since it was small and therefore likely easy to be hidden from view.
I think that what you linked to above should be the first if not the only source for the statement. What's there now only repeats what's said in the WP article with no elaboration. Mapsax (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the paragraph that mentions it. The source I used was already being used (without a citation template) earlier in the section. I removed the sentence that said there were several fires between 1952 and 1969. The Adler work makes no mention of any fires between 1952 and 1969, but lists several others. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cuyahoga River. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cuyahoga River. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cuyahoga River. 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) 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cuyahoga River. 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) 16:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cuyahoga River. 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) 03:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Several references have broken links. For some of these, it may be possible to substitute an archived page. For example, the article has this sentence and reference: 

 The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats, a bridge, and a riverfront office building.{{dead link|date=August 2014}}<ref name="EPA-AOC-CR">{{cite web | title =  Cuyahoga River Area of Concern | publisher = [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] | url = http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga.html }}</ref>

There is an archived copy at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/cuyahoga-river-aoc/about-cuyahoga-river-aoc_.html .

Here is another example. The article has this: 

Two dams in Cuyahoga Falls, the Sheraton and LeFever Dams, were scheduled for demolition in late 2012.<ref>{{cite news|last=Walsh |first=Ellin |title=Dismantling of dams along Cuyahoga River to get under way in September |date=August 2, 2012 |work=Falls News Press |url=http://www.fallsnewspress.com/news/article/5207513 |accessdate=August 6, 2012 }}{{dead link|date=December 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> .

There is an archived copy at https://www.mytownneo.com/news/20120803/dismantling-of-dams-along-cuyahoga-river-to-get-under-way-in-september .

Note that the EPA archived page is not actually hosted by the EPA. It was created as an effort to preserve EPA documents when it was feared political changes could result in the loss of EPA documents. SlowJog (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name Cuyahoga

[edit]

This listing indicates there is no clear connection to any particular Native American tribe. Really? The Iroquois, Five Nations included Mohawk and Seneca people. Not a Native American but a native Ohioan, I doubt the name information. The tribes did not live in complete isolation. The FiveNations clearly did not form over night but by long term (years) of tribal interactions. Yes, the Mowhawk word for crooked river could certainly have been used to name this river. Do the Wyandot have a name as well? Not in my library of knowledge. Currently the information needs to be researched again with additional current sources and new linguistic information. It is highly likely the current information was taken from an old history book. Could someone with the proper background, Native American, Native American languages, historical languages/linguistics do us all a big favor and help us with or update this information? Maybe it’s correct but it doesn’t seem correct to me. Thanks in advance. 188.213.202.36 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuyahoga_River&oldid=1230788143"