Talk:Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

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


Untitled[edit]

Can we see a map?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.165.193 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correction at the bottom of the page indicates the engineer's surname is Randolph, but the text above lists it as Oliver. Does somebody know his true name? Raymondwinn 09:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to insert information on the Asian Carp controversy, and I don't know how to properly cite link in the references section. Can someone help me properly format it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim E85 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for picture of lock[edit]

What is meant by "Lock and dam at and also the ship canal was by the main stemLockport" in the caption for the picture of a lock? I am hesitant to rewrite this as I don't know the original intent, but it doesn't seem to make much sense. Aednichols (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to have been the result of a misplaced edit by a novice user. I have restored the previous version.—Jeremy (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

In 2014, a person jumped into the canal to escape police and died. Notable? [1] — goethean 15:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volume of Navigation Usage[edit]

How many ships traverse the canal each year? Of that number, what percentage have ocean-going capability?—ozziemaland 10:03 19 August 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozziemaland (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None. "and Ship" is pretty much a lie. It is only a through route for the water itself, the "lake" ships and "canal" barges need to be transloaded. They snuck a couple of new-built ships through in World War II (edit add: and Korean Conflict), otherwise they are not compatible. I think this often isn't understood. Moon Joon (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. 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: 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) 20:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. 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: 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) 04:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening[edit]

This sentence in the opening paragraph is unclear:

"Since the sewer systems were already flowing into the river, the decision was made to dam the river and reverse its flow..."

It makes it sounds like it was to be dammed at its mouth; that's the only way to read this because the river didn't exist west-southwest of the Chicago Portage, so there is no way they could be talking about Lockport. It also does not seem to have been the original plan and concept, and wouldn't happen, anyway, until nearly 1940. Anyone want to describe what they think this sentence meant? I'd remove it. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would lose "dam the river and". It is the elevation that controls the direction, the canal is lower than the lake. The dam at the mouth of the river was built to reduce/control the flow of water out of Lake Michigan.
If you are interested you might want to check out "Volume of Navigation Usage" above. Moon Joon (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "dam the river and" should be removed. It might be okay to adjust the rest of the wording, but removing the offending phrase would fix the immediate issue. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1: "The two provide the only navigation for ships between" is unsourced and not accurate. Para 2 :"The canal was in part built as a sewage treatment scheme." It was entirely sewage, the "ships" came later. "inland where it could be treated before emptying it" is wrong, the treatment came later. Para 3: "Another goal of the construction was to replace the shallow and narrow Illinois and Michigan Canal (I&M)" I think it was only meant to replace the I&M as a larger sewer, the I&M was too small and not built for it.
The last paragraph of "Reasons for construction" uses "as a conduit to the Mississippi River". I think that's accurate. "the old canal...and improve shipping" is for the canal barges, maybe I'm pushing the Great Lakes System vs. the Mississippi System.
As a sort of informed local, I see nothing in the body that is inaccurate (I don't know the carp). This looks like a "B" to me. FWIW. Moon Joon (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever you need to do, please do it. Simply removing the sentence about damming would be enough, quite frankly. The other stuff might be a bit pedantic, though perhaps important. The canal was built to dilute the raw sewage, so perhaps "sewage treatment" is not the best phrasing. Whenever I talk about its original usage/purpose, I used "sanitation" which is a bit more general and accurate.
As for its other functions, it was definitely conceived to place BOTH the sanitary and navigational functions of the I&M. We can debate which function was considered initially more important; I'd definitely argue it was the sanitary aspect. But it'd be a bit more than silly to have any wording that implies that they did not envision or plan for navigation on this canal. lol The entire rebuilding of the bridges had navigation in mind.
Anyway, fixing the sentence about damming would be more than enough. Have at it. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. First, I don't mean to be rude, maybe I shouldn't be posting about this. I just think the shipping is far less important than sewage. I believe the Sanitary District of Chicago was formed to drain the Chicago River into the Des Plaines River valley. Navigation and hydro power were planned for but the first function has always been sanitation. Trying to replace the I&M is a strange spin for me.
I should go now. I thought an outside POV might help but I've overstepped. Have a nice day/night. Moon Joon (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_Sanitary_and_Ship_Canal&oldid=1206801842"