Talk:Suwannee River

Etymology

I have removed from the section on Etymology the following: [Timucuan people], "who named it Suwani, meaning 'Echo River'." While I do not doubt that there is a source that says this, I would question the reliability of the source. Nothing resembling Suwani appears in A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language (3rd Ed.) by Julian Granberry (The University of Alabama Press, 1999). The Timucuan word for "river" is given on page 223 of Granberry as ibi. It also appears that the Timucuan word for "echo" is not attested in the material available to Granberry, which is all that is known to have survived. The Spanish during the mission period called the river Guacara. Initial 'gu' in Timucuan words normally is a Spanish spelling of 'b' (Granberry:131). There is a known Timucuan word, bacara, a verb meaning "ripen"(Granberry:118), however I do not know if this is the source of the name used by the Spanish. -- Donald Albury 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there is a tough editor on this Suwani etymology. I doubt its veracity, but in wikipedia, might makes right. 50.80.146.188 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Really a blackwater river?

Can it still be called a blackwater river if it has rapids at one point? Maybe it would be better to say that it's a blackwater river for most of its course? I guess we need a better definition of blackwater rivers. Lime in the Coconut 14:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Suwannee is (speaking for myself) tea colored. This is a result of the various vegetation that feed/fall into the river, combined with the mineral content of the springs that feed the river, resulting in a chemical process somewhat like brewing sun-tea. At the headwaters (Sill at Fargo GA) the color is initially established by the natural processes in the Okefenokee Swamp (also plant matter breaking down). Most of the spring heads are clear, but when the river is in flood, and the spring runs flow backwards, some of the river coloring can leak into the aquifer, and eventually (after enough backflow) into well sources near the river.

Cosmicray (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Suwannee does not have the only rapids in Florida

There is at least one other. The Hillsborough river has class 2 whitewater rapids. See the official South West Florida Water Management District web site for validation. http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/education/interactive/watershed/statepark.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.92.6 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This article should talk more about the river itself

There should be more in the article about the hydrology, geomorphology and ecology of the river. The history and human use/associations are fun and interesting, but they are sort of secondary "trivia" type aspects that are associated with the river. The Suwannee is a pretty substantial waterbody and there is a lot that could be said about it here. USGS data would be a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanesmo (talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've started a section on ecology and biota. Hopefully others will join in Pufferfyshe (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits regarding Steven Foster 11/30/19

Maybe I should invoke Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding policy on John from Ideogon.JoeScarce (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC) The Secretary of State source is also included on the Old Folks at Home page too.JoeScarce (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@JoeScarce: You were not reverted because anyone questioned the sources. You were reverted because your additions to the article are not well written and your attempts to add citations were badly formed. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates for information on how to properly format citations. I think you also need to reread the policy on wikihounding before charging @John from Idegon: with that offense. - Donald Albury 13:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

JoeScare, even if I were to review every single thing you've done here, I would not be harassing you. Your editing is not up to standards, and no-one has stated otherwise. Reviewing poorly performing editor's work is part of an experienced editor's job here. If you'd simply start taking the input you've been given, people wouldn't need to dog your edits. If you have problems accepting criticism, this is probably not a good fit for you. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Joe, you also seem to have the mistaken opinion that if something passes WP:V, that somehow guarantees inclusion. It doesn't. Content of an article is decided on Consensus. And, no, I really do not think a state government agency is a good source for information at all. If adding that Mr. Foster never visited Florida is that important to understanding the river in your view, than a much better source is required. Something like a biography of Foster published by a mainline publisher or a university. Taking the section above this in account, it's very possible none of this belongs here. He's right. This article is about the river. It isn't about a song written about the river. That has its own article. There is very little need to discuss Mr. Foster in this article. One brief sourced mention that he wrote a song named after the river is all that is needed. After all, there is no content in the article Africa about Toto (band). How is this different? John from Idegon (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

And, even though this isn't even the first time I've mentioned it, much less others: WHAT IS IN OTHER ARTICLES HAS NO BEARING ON SOMETHING'S SUITABILITY FOR THIS ARTICLE. WP:OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Crossings

Several things about the Crossings bother me. First, at some crossing points, there have been successive bridge structures. The Fanning Springs / Old Town crossing has had 3, possibly 3.5 depending on how this gets resolved. The first was built in 1923, the "Three County Suwannee River Bridge", and was wooden. The second was built in 1935, the "Benjamin Chaires Bridge"and contained steel box frames. There was a point in time, and can be seen on at least one photo at Florida Memories, when a second span (to the upriver side) had been constructed with concrete piers. Eventually the Chaires bridge was dissasembled, removed, and replaced with a concrete east-bound span on the south side, which is the present day arrangement. The other thing about crossings is that it focuses on permanent fixed structures, and ignores the fact that (prior to bridge structures) there were simple cable ferries operating. Florida Memory has a photo of a farmer, his car loaded on the small raft-like ferry, and is using an overhead tool to incrementally pull the raft across the river. Several of these existed below Branford, and possibly above as well. Lastly, I am aware of at least one wooden fixed structure (at Yellow jacket I believe) that was removed in 1923, and parts were used to build the "Three County Suwannee River Bridge". So the story of crossings is complex, and has many varied bits. Cosmicray (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There is an essay about that problem; Wikipedia:Recentism. For one thing, it is often easier to find information about events/structures/etc. of the past few years on the Internet, than it is to find older history on the the same topics. It is also possible for users to take photos of existing structures, but it can be very difficult to find free-to-use images of structures that no longer exist, which colors what some editors want to write about. All too often, what information is out there about older local or less well known events/objects/etc. does not qualify as reliable sources. All of which means that those of us who care about the past have to work to find appropriate sources. Donald Albury 12:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

With reference to the "Three County Suwannee River Bridge", the documentation about that is from WPA documents (c 1933-1935) created in the specific area(s) as historical records, and stored at Florida Memory. Does that meet the litmus test of "reliable sources" ? Florida Memory does not appear to have specific images of the first bridge, but it does have images of the second, the transition from second to third, and the third bridges.

Cosmicray (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Images are generally not subjected to reliable source scrutiny. What they depict is generally taken at face value, especially if found in a historical archive. WPA documents are a mixed bag. While I know of several articles that cite such sources, I also know of at least one WPA writer's project that produced documents that were either invented out of whole cloth by the writers, or were fed to the writers by the local chamber of commerce, which had in turn invented the material. In general, each source should be evaluated on its reliability for the content for which it is used as a source. I would generally tend to accept WPA descriptions of contemporary places and conditions, be careful of historical accounts, and reject things that sound legendary, fantastic or overly promotional. Donald Albury 14:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)