Talk:Red River of the North/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alvaro Garza

Do we really need an entire section about a near drowning? Although the event took place in the Red River, I'm not sure that it actually is a good fit for a generic article about the Red River itself. I propose removing the material. --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alvaro Garza

While this might be mentioned in a sentence or two if we had a more comprehensive history of the Red River, I agree that having a whole section is a little overboard. The reason I would include a mention of this is because it was a big news story on the regional/ national scene at the time (December 1987). It had been featured in magazines such as Life and People; was mentioned in the NY Times and the major news outlets; and Garrison Keillor has mentioned it a time or two on his show. Also this is not the only incident of near cold water drowning, even at that time. I propose there may be a better home for this information, maybe under the DROWNING or related article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.199.68 (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not notable at all and should be removed. However, the name should not be mentioned at all, because of data protection. --213.155.231.26 12:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Data" protection? --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Since the boy is/was not a notable person in public life, the name should not be mentioned. --213.155.231.26 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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.