Talk:Nile/Archive 1

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


longest river?

Someone has methodically done his or her best to make it seem that the controversy has been resolved and that the Nile is the longer river, although upon finding the begnning of the Amazon it was defiend that the Amazon was one continious river while the Nile was instead a sum of smaller rivers.. Maybe I'm wrong to think such a conclusion came... But I'm not wrogn to expect that if the statement does not favours the Amazon it shall be neutral and mention the dispute... Instead of being final about someone's beliefs

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make. Also, are you the one that moved around the order of this discussion page? If so, could you explain your reason for doing so? Unschool

Longest River Dispute

You know, if there is one thing out there that is going to kill Wikipedia as a credible source of information, it is when people get on a high horse and try to promote their pet theory about something or another. Just the other night I saw the comedy news program "The Colbert Report" do something on how all it takes to establish "truth" on Wikipedia is to convince a majority of editors that something is true. Truth by democracy? Please.

So what brings me to all this is the campaign (apparently waged for more than two years now) to argue that the Amazon is longer than the Nile. Now look, I could not care less which river is the longest. I find the Amazon to be a far more impressive geographical feature than the Nile, given its volume, its width, its basin, almost every measure that there is to a river. Except length. Now granted, the ultimate source of the Amazon has only been determined in the past few years. And the two rivers are close enough in length that it is understandable that we still may not have a perfect grasp on the ultimate truth. But this much is true: The Nile is generally regarded by most authorities as being the longest river on earth. Period.

The fact that someone can find some sources indicating otherwise does not change the fact that this is true. Folks, this is the internet age, and anyone can say anything. And even semi-reputable sources can get their odd-balled ideas out. This is not to say that I think that the "Amazon-is-the-longest-river crowd" are nutcases. Indeed, I still hold out hope that someday the mighty Amazon will be proven to be longer than the Nile Trickle. But today, it just ain't so. I looked at the sources posted on the discussion page regarding this dispute. The pages posted by User:Ankur in April of 2004 unanimously state that the Nile is the longest river, and these are highly credible sources, including Britannica and Encarta. And there are literally dozens of additional supporting sources out there, including National Geographic. But in response, we are offered four sources, all of which are questionable, at best. I clicked on each of them, and this is what I found:

  • The Encarta entry is merely a caveat, found later in the same article that states unambiguously at the beginning of the article that the Nile is the longest river on earth.
  • The "Ecoworld" entry opens up to some kind of daily bulletin page—meaning, I got a page from August of 2006—not the source that was supposedly there. I'd have to spend I don't know how long searching for the information that allegedly supports the editor's point. And, by the way, who or what is Ecoworld? I've never heard of them.
  • The Radio Prague entry—wait, do I have to further? Radio Prague? As a reference that is supposed to refute the world's major encyclopedias? Puhhleeeeze.
  • The alleged link to the European Working Group on Amazonia now opens up to a sorry, "we're rebuilding our page" message. But even so, take a look at the portion of the article that is provided us. They are not using a traditional measure of the longest river, from headwaters to mouth, but rather, it appears that they have created a new definition using something along "the main axis" of the river. And even then, the difference cited is only one kilometer! Six-tenths of a mile! Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the difficulties of measuring the lengths of rivers must recognize that this is statistically insignificant and unreliable.

So we are being asked, on the basis of such sketchy sources (yes, yes, I know, many other such sources undoubtedly exist) to overturn the accepted verdict of the world's geographers because someone who edits Wikipedia, an undoubtedly intelligent person, to be sure, but someone who nonetheless has failed to recognize the difference between what is currently accepted fact with something that might be true.

I taught geography for many years. Never once did any text that I used ever state that the Nile was anything but the longest river in the world. Now, to tell you the truth, I think they would have been better textbooks if they had included a section indicating the challenges faced in measuring almost any river, and perhaps an inclusion of the fact that current lists of river rankings by length are subject to future revision. And I think our articles (on Wikipedia) on rivers, including the articles on the Nile and the Amazon, should include such caveats. But these caveats—as of today—are minor, and as such should not be included at the top of the article. They should be placed in a subsection near the end of the article.

In the interest of maintaining an harmonious environment, I am not going to revert right now. I will wait for responses. But I want to point out that the comment made much earlier in the discussion, "(clearly) it is not generally accepted to be the longest, otherwise there wouldn't have been this edit war in the first place" is not clear at all. Five billion people could feel one way, and two or three individuals could disagree, and you could thus have an edit war. That having been said, it is of course also possible for those five billion to be wrong and the two or three individuals to be correct. Accordingly, I have no problem giving voice to that tiny minority. But having the right to voice opinions does not equate with being able to categorically state that the opinions that they (the tiny minority) possess are presumed to be equal in authority with the opinion of the majority. Of course, the majority is not correct because they are the majority. In fact, the obligation of the majority is to listen and honestly evaluate minority opinions which contradict the conventional wisdom. The obligation of the minority is to offer substantive proof when wishing to overturn the conventional wisdom. Unschool 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I am still waiting for a response. If there isn't one by this weekend, I am going to edit this article to state that "the Nile is generally regarded as the longest river in the world". Unschool 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Having waited more than a week, I have made the change. Note that the link, which was already there, even linked to a Wikipedia page whose chart lists the Nile as the longest (albeit acknowledging the dispute). Again, please read my notes above. I do not deny that this is a matter of contention; I am merely stating that there does exist a consensus amongst the world's authorities. Unschool 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose when it comes to superlatives you could check what the ultimate authority says. i.e. the Guinness Book of Records. And they say that which is longer is not a simple case of measurement but one of definition. As you say, you don't want to write an article by democracy (quote: 'Truth by democracy? Please.' ) Then ironically you do just that by saying that 'The Nile is generally regarded by most authorities as being the longest river on earth. Period. End of story, ' I must admit I did have a chuckle at 'and these are highly credible sources'. When 3 of them were Google searches. Admittedly, Britannica is a credible source, but there was no citation on Britannica as to where that length was referenced. Without a citation of reference, there is no credible source. 'Generally believed' too is irrelevant to an encyclopedias needs. People generally believe that Eskimos have lots of words for white/snow/etc. It's totally untrue.
Do what the Guinness Book of Records has done since 1955: simply state that it's not a simple case of measurement but one of definition and the two longest rivers are the Amazon and the Nile. "Which is longer is more a matter of definition that simple measurement ... if the Para estuary is counted its length is approx. 6750km ... the Nile is approx. 6670km" . So it's simply a matter of definition regarding the Para estuary. This is the best solution. Any mathematician will tell you too that measurement of length can never be exact due to fractals. (The more wiggly something is the more likely it is to be underestimated - think of the coast of Norway) . You cannot solve this problem because there is no answer. Accept both are the longest and leave it at that - it is the only solution that does not come down to a definition. Like this:

"The Nile is with the Amazon one of the two longest rivers in the world". Make a new section about the length and explain the above.

  • I am still waiting for a response. If there isn't one by this weekend, I am going to edit this article to state that "the Nile is with the Amazon one of the two longest rivers in the world". The first paragraph ridiculously states 'by most authorities' at the moment without citation. Macgruder 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've been gone for a while. Anyway, I didn't think it ridiculous to state "by most authorities", because the "authorities" are so incredibly unanimous on this that it wasn't worth listing any. Yes, I know that you can find dozens of opposing sources, but their level of credibility is quite limited compared to standard sources. Is Guiness an acceptable source of info? Well, it's better than many of the websites out there. But I have added the following sources to the article, confirming the Nile as the longest river: The National Geographic Society, The Encyclopedia Britanica, World Book Encyclopedia, the United States State Department, and the New York Times. Personally, I think the cites distract from the article, and are unnecessary (would I have to cite my sources for the statement that "most mammals give birth to live young"?) because of the general consensus, but there you have it. If you like, I'll add sources for other encyclopedia, other world governments, other US government agencies, other world media outlets, etc. But I really think this is more than enough. Unschool 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I hadn't read your entire entry. A comment about the fractal measures. A very good point, but it has less application to rivers than to coastlines. This has been addressed by others more expert than I, but consider the following. Imagine measuring the coast line by walking along the shore. The fractal problem is made clear when you come along an inlet that goes "in" for, say, 0.5 metres, but is only 2 cm wide. If you wish, you can step over this "inlet" without even breaking your stride. Or, if you want to be very careful, you will take a step to one side, and go around the "inlet". This will add one metre to your measure, if you do this. It is a very serious, real problem in coastal measurements. But rivers are different. We measure rivers by their center course, as if running a skiff down the middle of the river. Doing this, our path is not affected by these minor indentations on the shoreline. The river's turns are counted for, yes, but the fractal issues only enter in at the very smallest portions of the river, near its source, where its turns may be wider than the river itself. (Such as those places where you can still step over the river.) I'm not saying that it's an irrelevant point, because it does have relevence (and is fascinating as well). But it's clearly (given the consensus of the authorities) not enough of a point (at this time) to make the difference. Look, as I've stated, I have no problem with someone establishing the Amazon as the longest. I'd like to see that case made. But we don't do original research on Wikipedia, and not all sources have equal authority. So for now, the Nile is the longest. Period. Unschool 12:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the Guinness book is more than just an acceptable source. I'd say that in this case it is the ultimate source. The Guinness book is THE trusted reference to records and has been for over 50 years. Unfortunately, your sources aren't actually sources. The New York Times is not an expert publication on the measuring of rivers. It simply will refer to another reference. A source means the original source. In other words, the people who carried out the measurements. Even Britannica here is doubtful as a source because the Britannica entry gives no citation itself, and ditto for all sources that you have given. So in other words your incredible unanimous sources aren't necessarily more than a case of each sourcing the other (perhaps just one source - although that may be generous because none of them actually state who made the measurements).
Your mammals citation analogy doesn't work. Certain things are accepted as scientific fact - the length of rivers is not one of them because they are actually undefinable and not subject to factual proof. You can compare say the size of Russia and Canada and factually state which one is bigger but you cannot say the exact size of Russia as a fact. As the Amazon's length is dependent on definition, and the Nile and Amazon have a very similar length you cannot say which is longer. This is made clear in the Longest River's Section where it states:

The Nile is 4,157miles long. The Amazon is 3,969 long OR 4,202 long. This is clear: which is longer cannot be stated.

I'm not convinced about your fractals argument. It's no different for a river because the centre of the river is subject to the same 'fractalization' as the river bank. "Doing this, our path is not affected by these minor indentations on the shoreline." Why not? A minor indent on the river bank will affect the position of the centre of the river equally. (or half it). So if the bank indents 50cm so the centre course will be shifted 25cm. So fractals will have a similar effect.
The position now is Wikipedia doing 'original research'. Which is longer of the two depends on the definition of a river: specifically the Para estuary. There is no real consensus on this.
For now I have reverted your sources as they are not really sources but have left the longest river bit. Macgruder 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The mammals analogy was not only inexact, it was ridiculous. It was meant to be a light-hearted jibe towards your apparent need to have everything sourced. I wouldn't have bothered if I had known how silly your stance on sourcing would be. Okay, so you're saying that only original sources are acceptable on Wikipedia? I sure hope you've got a lot of time on your hands; you're going to be awfully busy deleting the 99.98% of the citations within. As to your critiques of the sources I'd chosen, I'd like to see a show of hands indicating whether or now the world's two largest encyclopedias, America's largest geographical entity, the United States government, and the pre-eminent paper (much as it pains me to acknowledge that) in the United States are unacceptable sources, in comparision to THE ostensible ultimate authority, the Guinness Book. Look, Guiness is awfully entertaining, and when it comes to records that no one in any scientific field is concerned about (e.g., "longest fingernails", or "most lollipops consumed by a pre-adolescent child"), maybe it is "the" authority. But go to a research university and cite Guinness in your arguments with a professor and be prepared to hear uncontrollable laughter.
You do make a legitimate point about the fact that these sources, by and large, are simply referencing the work done by others. That's absolutely true. But what is different than Britannica making a statement based upon someone else's original research and the statement made by Joe Blow on his personal website, is that Britannica has had decades to build up a well-deserved reputation for reliabilty in vetting such information. Wikipedians (and 5th grade elementary school students) cite encyclopedias in their writing specifically because it is recognized by virtually all reasonable people that this information can be reasonably expected to be accurate. It is guaranteed to be perfect? Of course not. But then, neither is the original research done by Dr. Scientific Researcher. His work must be replicated by others afterwards, and then, after others have gotten the same or similar results, then the compilers of such data (read: encyclopedia writers) put it together into articles for public consumption. In point of fact, because it looks at the wide view of what most researchers are saying on Topic X, a well-written encyclopedia is more likely to be accurate than the findings of any single researcher. How often do we hear about a research study stating one thing, that then, three years later, is negated by a new study? All the time. But if, after 20 years, seven out of eight studies show the same thing, well then, maybe we're on to something.
Look, it's obvious reading your stuff that you're a very intelligent, thinking person. I enjoy carrying on discussions like this with people like you (as opposed to some of the ninnies that insert garbage that they think is true simply because they haven't learned to distinguish between fact and opinion). But consider what you're asserting here. You actually said that we can't tell how large Russia is. Well of course, on a fractal level, that's absolutely true. But does asserting that truth here serve any purpose at all? I mean, unless you want Wik to become a philosophical wasteland, you've simply got to accept that some statements, such as "Russia's area is 6,592,800 square miles", need to be allowed, or else we can't say much of anything.
You're on stronger ground with the point about definitions. Clearly, the definition can change the outcome of this debate, much as it can many others. But who are you and I to say what definition should be used? It's simply not our place. It is the place of the "authorities". If the National Geographic Society says that the Nile is the longest river, do you suppose that they're too stupid to know that there's an issue per the definitions? Of course they know. And for whatever reason, they have decided to come down on the side of those whose definition ends up making the Nile the longest. (And don't think that it's just because they don't want to change the status quo. If there's one thing that's been true of NGS for a long time, it's that, in an age where there is little to no exploration left to be done on the planet, they love to sieze opportunities to shake up the world with a new claim. If they thought that they could make the case that the Amazon was longer, they'd do it in a heartbeat, pounding their own chest all the way. I wouldn't be surprised if someday they do.)
Okay, I'm falling asleep here at the keyboard. I hope I've been coherent enough for you to respond. I'm okay with your deletion of the sources, not for your reasons, but because, as I think I stated somewhere in this discussion, that I believe cites on this are almost superfluous. I may not be available for a reply for a week or longer, but I look forward to your comments. Unschool 15:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not lack of lots of original sources. It's lack of even one original source.
You totally missed the Russia point. I said you can't tell exactly how large Russia is. But it is not significant because there is no other country that is close. In this case the length of the Nile is significant when compared with the Amazon because of their similar lengths. The length and the definition are essentially the same issue.
Mammals? Don't use what you yourself regard as ridiculous statements to back up your assertions. Far from asking for sources to back up everything - it's the request of ONE original source to back up a highly contentious issue that has divided this article and had dozens of Wikipedians arguing about, caused vandalism of the page etc etc. If you don't recognise that a source in this case is important rather than something to 'joke about' you certainly shouldn't be having anything to do with editing this part of the article.
Far from laughing, people take the Guinness book seriously when it comes to its speciality. That's because it rigorously checks what it publishes. In fact, its section on rivers on my last check actually does state who did the measurement and further discusses the issue of the contention - a far more detailed approach than Britannica in this case - which simply states it is a fact without any citation. So what you are saying is that if you check Guinness for records about the longest fingernails they get it right, but say the highest mountain, largest planet, lightest element, suddenly they get it all wrong. Don't use fallacy to make your points - Wikipedia also has articles about so-called 'entertaining' subjects, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of the encyclopedia.
"But if, after 20 years, seven out of eight studies show the same thing, well then, maybe we're on to something." Yes, true. But this is very different from the zero studies quoted so far. None of the 'sources' you quote actually mention ANY study. But the point is moot anyway, because the issue is one of definition anyway.
"I wouldn't have bothered if I had known how silly your stance on sourcing would be". As I pointed out, far from being 'silly' in this case is essential for the integrity of a contentious issue to have at least one original source rather than zero. But you know, I'm not very inclined to discuss issues with people who bandy words around like 'silly'. Such comments are not really worthy of Wikipedia, and don't have any part in an intelligent discussion. Macgruder 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A productive discussion requires more than facts and reasoning (though those of course are paramount). It also requires at least a modicum of civility. Sometimes that civility involves choosing one's language carefully, so as to make one's point without giving offense. You appear to be so worked up that you failed to recognize that I did not include the word "silly" in an encyclopedia, I used it on a discussion page, where a more informal tone is considered appropriate by most fair-minded and civil editors. Anyway, I'm sorry that you failed to recognize "silly" as a euphemism for "inane", but employing euphemisms to take the edge off the point without totally clouding the intent is commonplace both in real life and on pages of this project where people endeavor to work things out peaceably. But there you have it, what I'm saying is that your stance on sourcing at least borders on inane.
Your insistence that "at least one" source needs to be original fails to address my central point about original research, namely, that no single piece of original research means a great deal in the sea of knowledge. It needs to be verified by other original researchers. You can find "original" research by well-funded scientists that "finds" that HIV does not cause AIDS. Suppose their existed an article on AIDS with no sources quoted, but then an editor goes and places in that one citation from that one scientist, who asserts HIV and AIDS are unrelated. Would that make it a better article? Of course not. There is nothing sacred about having original sources in a particular place, as long as those original sources do exist, and that they are considered as a whole. That's what Britannica, World Book, and other encyclopedias do. Sometimes, it is what journalists do, though admittedly, they are far less likely to vet their information as well as encyclopedia publishers.
Which brings us to Guinness. True, Guinness is legendary for the extent to which they have gone to verify information. They have literally traveled the world, to some of its most remote locales. It gives them a degree of credibility, and they're welcome to the discussion table. But even Guinness has, at times, had to change its stance on certain things, such as the oldest person. Why? Because sometimes better information becomes available. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. But the point is, no single source is likely to have a monopoly on information (I will allow that there are probably some exceptions to the rule). That's why the scientific community requires for research to be replicated, and research teachers require multiple sources. You deleted five sources that I had in the article ostensibly because they did not include any original research. I admit that I share your assumption. But I also presume, given their nature, that at least some of those sources did consult with original researchers. I mean, who writes the articles for Britannica? Have you ever looked? They are a mix of experts in the field, some of whom are original researchers, along with professional writers, both of whom compile an extensive bibliography in the process of preparing their articles. Encyclopedias are valuable for this very reason; they allow you to "hire" someone who can glean the information from the right sources, and give you the overall results.
Now this pre-digested version is not fit for all purposes. I would not allow a student of mine to simply use nothing but an encyclopedia for a research paper. Besides losing the chance to learn to do research, it's simply kind of lazy. But I do encourage someone who is beginning to research a subject of which they know next to nothing, to first take a look at an encyclopedia, as it gives them a general overview of the subject, with a high degree of reliability. It's certainly better than doing a Google search and just reading the first website that pops up (unless they get really, really lucky).
Oh, about your point about my acceptance of Guinness for fingernails but not rivers and the like. First of all, I do not reject Guinness, I merely note that it is a single source. I'm inclined to accept in on the fingernail issue and other such "fun" topics, simply because it is so often the only source in such cases. Look, if fingernail length were a major issue in Western society, there would be a multitude of other researchers delving into this topic. But that is not the case; I accept Guinness because, not only is it the only source, it is the only source in a realm of information that I, like most of Western society, am really unconcerned with. That's not very sound or logical, but there you have it.
The one area in which we clearly agree is that this entire matter hinges on definition. But you failed to address my point on this issue. Who are you and I to decide, not on the definition, but on whether or not the definition is worth debating? Despite my life-long infatuation with geography, in particular regarding bodies of water, I am in no way a recognized authority on the subject. If you are, you have not made that point clear to me. But even if you are (or I were), the point is that the bulk of the world's authorities do hold to the definition that crowns the Nile as the world's longest river. You cite a lack of resources to back this up. Do you seriously think that the writers of virtually all of the world's major encyclopedias just made this up? What they did was look at the statements of people who truly are experts, found either near- or actual unanimity, and placed that in their articles. To cite Britannica is not to reject original research, it is to embrace it in its entirety, as it is currently recognized. (I say "as currently recognized" because facts can and do change. E.g., undoubtedly, some time in the future, the Nile will lose its status as the longest river, even without a change of definition, because the High Dam at Aswan is causing a gradual destruction of the Nile Delta. Once the Delta is gone, the Nile will be dethroned.)
I feel a bit disappointed because I realize that I'm repeating points that I made in my previous diatribe, some of which you seem to have ignored. I meant what I said, Macgruder, that your intelligence is obvious. But your tone comes across (to me, anyway) as rather uncivil. Of course, I could be wrong--misreading the tone of anything typed out rather than spoken is easy to do. So too it is easy to incorrectly guess from a person's writings anything about that person's background. I actually hope that you are what you appear to me to be--a highly intelligent teenager who is learning to flex his intellectual muscles within a worthy forum. If that is who you are, then I'm sure you make your best teachers proud and you must frustrate your less-gifted instructors, who cannot keep up with you. But if you are as old as I, then it saddens me to think that your mind has ossified into what appears to be such an intolerant state.
I think we still have a discussion to finish. But I can see that you may think otherwise, and the call is now yours. Unschool 04:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, this whole discussion is a bit ironic, simply because I personally do not care for the definition of river length as it currently stands. Since I first learned as a child that river length is calculated to the most distant source, even when that river passes through a lake or lakes, I have never thought that that made much sense. To me, the river going into a lake is a different body of water than the river flowing out. If my definition were accepted, we wouldn't follow the Nile back to Rwanda or even to Lake Victoria. By my definition the Nile does not start until it flows out of Lake Albert. Since the Amazon is a "true" river from its source onward, it would easily eclipse the Nile under my definition. In fact, so would the Yangtze, I believe. But of course, no one's asking me. Unschool 04:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case should the Nile not begin at the outflow from Lake Nasser, or do you only consider natural lakes? I feel this definition is unsatisfactory because it introduces unnecessary ambiguity - how large does a lake have to be in order for the river flowing out of it to be different from the inflow? When is a lake a lake and when is it merely a broadening of the river? For example, is the Stanley Pool of the River Congo sufficient to divide the river into two seperate rivers? This definition depends on arbitrary decisions. For example, no doubt due to the great size of the River Congo, the Stanley Pool would not be considered by most to be large enough relative to the river to divide it, but if the river passing through it was the size of the Thames then it probably would be large enough.
As for the Para being included in the length of the Amazon, I see its inclusion being illogical and seemingly done simply to lengthen the Amazon. Rivers are usually measured mid-stream along the path of strongest flow. The mid-stream of the Amazon certainly does not flow through the Para, in fact most sources state that the quantity of Amazon water entering the Para is negligable. It is illogical because if we abandon the mid-stream measurement to allow the Para to become part of the Amazon we must surely not then abandon mid-stream measurement selectively simply to include the Para. To be consistent we must then not measure the Para section mid stream, but by its longest and most distant distributary, no matter how obscure. Similarly the river upstream of the Para should be measured by the longest possible route through the smallest braided anastreams if necessary. The absurdity of such a measurement should be plain to see due to the difficulty of identifying the longest route, the constantly changing nature of the river and the fact that the smaller the streams one was prepared to measure the longer the measurement would be. Booshank 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening arguments

As requested, I am discussing my changes here. My changes are limited to the opening paragraph of the page.

First, I am changing "The Nile, in Africa, is generally accepted to be the longest rivers on Earth."

I am changing this because (clearly) it is not generally accepted to be the longest, otherwise there wouldn't have been this edit war in the first place.

I am changing it to "The Nile, in Africa, is one of the two longest rivers on Earth, with the Amazon River of South America being the other."

I believe that this is a factual statement and NPOV.

Second, I am changing "The length of Amazon and Nile have been reason of much debate."

I am changing this mostly for grammatical reasons.

I am changing it to "Which is longer has long been the subject of much debate."

Third, I am removing the sentence "The Amazon River, in South America, is the greatest river in the world."

I am removing this for several reasons. First, no mention is made of what "greatest" means. Second, a claim that the Amazon River is "the greatest" river, in some unspecified way, has no place in an article on the Nile River. Third, it certainly has no place in the middle of a paragraph about the length of the Nile.

If someone wants to put such a statement back in, I strongly suggest being specific about what you mean instead of relying on the subjective term "greatest", and mentioning it in a subordinate fashion (for example, "Which is longer has been the subject of much debate (although the Amazon unquestionably has a greater volume of flow).").

Fourth, I am changing the sentence "Length of rivers vary over time especially in the plains (where rivers change course) besides the point from which river length is measured is not always agreed upon, hence most sources disagree on the length of the rivers."

I am changing this mostly for grammatical purposes and purposes of clarification.

I am changing it to "This is, for the most part, due to two reasons: First, the lengths of rivers vary over time (especially in plains, where rivers often change course). Second, the point from which the length of a river is measured is not always agreed upon."

-Rwv37 01:27, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

All seems generally uncontroversial. Do we have a scientific citation or two that addresses the competing claims? Presumably this issue is not something made up by amateurs... Stan 05:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort to clearly specify why and what changes you made. Please now, can you point to a resource which says that Nile is not generally accepted to be longer than Amazon. From all the google searches I could carry out, I could not find a single resource that said the Nile was not the longest.
Try these if you may
If the links do not work please do a search yourself.
Well if this does not define generally accepted what does? I must correct myself now -- I am not saying (anymore) that I could not find a single webpage that claimed Amazon is the longest river but none of them were credible enough - in fact quite a few were wikipedia articles. I even did a Google news search to see if there was something new - well I could not find anything. Still, if there is some new discovery that I do not know about - sorry to waste your time.
most sources disagree on the length of the rivers should be added. Finally, the problem in the case of Nile (I think) has more to do with the point to which the length is measured rather than from. Not sure tho. -AY 09:32, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Regarding "Please now, can you point to a resource which says that Nile is not generally accepted to be longer than Amazon.": Sure. Try [1]], from which I quote:
"The Amazon is known everywhere as the largest (volume and area) basin of fresh water on Earth. Ongoing research undertaken at the Brazilian National Institute of Space Research (INPE) indicates that the Amazon is also proving to be the longest river. Brand new features extracted from LANDSAT temporal data are showing new routes for the Amazon main stream, mostly in the flooding season. (...)"
"Besides those longer meanders and channels a new birthsite of the Amazon headwaters was mapped following the Ucayalli and the Apurimac waters. The new site liess deep in the snowed cliffs (nevados) of the Chila Mountains part of the Andean Range in the vicinity of Arequipa, south of Peru. The new first slope of the Amazon was depicted through LANDSAT images. (...)"
"Following just the longer channels/meanders and measuring the new segment in the Chila Mountains the standing length of the Amazon (6,550km) is increased by more than 300 kilometres. The figures are still partial because the whole River is being geo-referenced in order to have a GIS support to proceed with the measurements. The current length of the Amazon (6,850km) is slightly longer than the Nile (6,670km) (...)"
Would you like more than one resource? I'll find them if you want. Right now, though, I have to go to work. -Rwv37 12:35, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting - I think this and the Amazon page should reference the issue, and it would be good to have a two-paragraph section in River talking about this in some more depth - first para to explain concept of length measurement and touch on the complexities, and second summarizing the question of longest. Readers interested solely in the Nile just want to know that "longest" is unsettled, if the unsettledness piques interest, they'll click on the link. Stan 16:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan to me. -Rwv37 22:13, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Since I'm back from work now, I figured I would give a few more sources:
  1. [Encarta's "River" entry] says, in the "Measuring Rivers" section: "Scientists have traditionally considered the Nile River to be the longest river in the world, although in the 1990s some debate arose as to whether the Amazon River is longer, as new satellite maps revealed a small tributary in the Andes Mountains." Note two things about this: (1) "have traditionally", past tense, and not "do generally"; (2) No refutation of the claim is given.
  2. [EcoWorld] says, "the Nile and the Amazon can both be called the longest river in the world depending on how you define longest. With several mouths, the exact point at which the Amazon ends continues to be uncertain. Counting the Para? estuary (the most distant mouth), the Amazon?s length is approximately 4,190 miles. Once officially recorded as having a length of 4,145 miles, the Nile has since lost a few miles due to the formation of Lake Nasser behind the Aswan High Dam."
  3. [RadioPrague] says, "A joint Czech-Peruvian expedition has confirmed that the Amazon is the longest river in the world, ending years of dispute on the subject. Scientists from Lima's San Carlos University and Prague's Charles University announced after months of research in South America that the remotest source of the Amazon river was a stream in the Peruvian region of Arequipa. Quoted by Russia's Itar-Tass news agency, they said the Amazon was 7,062 kilometres in length, 500 kilometres longer than its nearest rival, the Nile. Their findings now have to be confirmed by satellite."
  4. [The European Working Group on Amazonia] says, "The main axis, along the Amazonas, Solimões, and Ucayali Rivers, is 6,672 kilometres in length, longer, in fact, than the Nile (6,671 kilometres)."
If you would like more than the four I've listed here plus the one I listed this morning, please let me know and I'll post more. -Rwv37 22:13, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply I was away. I am happy with whatever links you have listed, thanks. Again, sorry to waste your time. AY 13:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
No need to apologize. It wasn't a waste of time. On the contrary, it was interesting, and I learned a bunch of stuff that I wouldn't have otherwise. -Rwv37 22:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nile/Archive_1&oldid=98115662"