Talk:Nile/Archive 3

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2015

96.36.26.205 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ffd

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13(talk) 23:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

nile river modern exploration

Not sure what I am doing as I don't ever edit wikipedia but noticed something missing from the modern exploration section. Watched an excellent program where Levison Wood (levisonwood.com) walks the entire length of the Nile from start to finish. That was in 2014. If some kind person could add this in that would be excellent. It's called "Walking the Nile" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.101.148.1 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

The sentence:

Gish Abay is reportedly the place where the "holy water" of the first drops of the Nile develop.

Should be changed to:

Gish Abay is reportedly the place where the "holy water" of the first drops of the BLUE Nile develop.

(Caps not necessary; I used them to highlight the necessary change).

Because the sentence is next to a discussion about the still undetermined source of the WHITE Nile. It becomes confounding and misleading, if it is not stated that it refers to the source of the BLUE Nile.

Mauro Mello (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016

Nile Bridge, Juba South Sudan 62.41.20.214 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. st170etalk 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Most remote source

1. This article says that the Ruvyironza River is a tributary of the Kagera River. The article for the Ruvyironza River says that too. But the article for the Kagera River doesn't mention the Ruvyironza River as one of its tributaries. The Rurubu River (aka Ruvubu River) might be an intermediary. In any case, someone should make all four of those articles consistent.

2. This article says that the Nyabarongo River might be the most remote source of the Nile. In that case, we should list the most remote source of the Nyabarongo River. This article mentions something about the Rukarara River, but it doesn't make clear the connection between the Rukarara River and the Nyabarongo River. And even if it did, this article should also list the most remote source of the Rukarara River. That information should also be listed on the article for the Rukarara River itself, and it isn't.

3. There are conflicting claims about the most remote source of the Nile on the articles for Lake Rweru, the Ruvubu River, the Ruvyironza River, the Nyabarongo River, the Mwogo River, and the Rukarara River. I'd expect some conflicting claims, since the matter might not be settled. But not that many conflicts, some of which are definitely wrong. The most remote source of the Nile might be the Rubyiro River or the Nyirabugoyi River, since they're headwaters of the Rukarara River. But the article for the Rubyiro River doesn't mention anything about the Nile, and the Nyirabugoyi River doesn't have an article at all. Which seems weird, if they're in the running for what is clearly such a highly debated topic.

I'm going to let someone else fix all these mistakes, since I'm not an expert on the topic. - 72.184.128.205 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture in lead

Would it not be more appropriate to use a picture of the Nile trunk in Egypt or Sudan in the lead as opposed to one of its branches, as is currently the case with the picture of the White Nile in Uganda? I believe that was previously the case. One could also argue the since the Nile is associated more strongly with Egypt the picture should be of the Nile there, but that's a more subjective line of reasoning. Either way, I hope we can address this constructively, in line with WP:CAUTIOUS, rather than an edit war. --Varavour (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

The Nile River is the largest ocean in the moon.It is so big,you can see it from space.When the humans landed on the moon,they died.The End 205.155.62.2 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC) –—

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

In reference to the beginning of the article, the sentence, "IT is 6,853 km (4,258 miles) long," is ambiguous, as the previous sentence speaks also of the AMAZON River. Therefore, I suggest, please, that the two sentences be combined: "The Nile, which is 6,853 km (4,258 miles) long, is an "international" river as its..." Thank you. Duboisdad (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 22:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The section on Bridges has been vandalised.

Green Purple Black Red Yellow Nile Road & Railway Bridge should read Blue Nile Road & Railway Bridge Black Nile bridge should read White Nile Bridge Martin Cook (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Martin

well, yes. Went back to 2013 to try and find the edits concerned, but vandalism goes beyond that. Googling both bridges confirmed (as expected) that Martin is correct, so edits made. Thanks for the tip off, amazing that we all let that ride for over three years. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nile. 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) 18:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nile. 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) 11:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotection

This article (Nile) seems to get vandalized a lot, maybe you should consider semiprotection where only accounts and auto confirmed accounts can edit.Spidersmilk (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref 2?

From "Encyclopaedia" Blogtannica an article written by unknown people, no evidence its true, This DOES NOT meet wiki standard as a reliable source! So should be removed!--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Longest 2 Rivers?

How can a river have a lake in the middle? Even if it is the same river it stops and restarts and has 2 sections of different lengths.--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

ArnoldHimmler you count the lake as part of the river. The River flows through the lakeSpidersmilk (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You "can" count a lake as part of river, but you will find lakes have names and these are different names than that of the river usually. and are fairly distinct, they are clearly different. Since there is many definitions, the nile is the longest lake in the world.
The wiki definition of lake on the lake page implies the lake is not part of the river. Most people wouldnt count a lake as part of a river. The wiki page definition of river states a lake is not part of the river.
So by this standard either the lakes and rivers definitions need to be changed so the nile is the longest and matches the definitions on the 2 wiki pages or the list can be changed to match the definitions of river and lake on their pages. ArnoldHimmler (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@ArnoldHimmler:I completely get what you're saying about the lake in the middle of a river's course; it certainly seems like it's two rivers to me. However, I don't get to say if it's two rivers or one, nor does anyone on Wikipedia. This is a matter for geographers to decide, and it's been traditional since I first studied geography (in the 1960s) for the river flowing into the lake to be regarded as part of the river flowing out of the lake. And that's all there is to it. Unschool 05:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Unschool ArnoldHimmler I see what you mean, the names are different, however, other rivers are the same way. For example, the Saint Lawrence River is traditionally said to begin at the outlet of Lake Ontario, however, you could also say the St Lawrence starts in Minnesota as the St Louis River flows through Lake Superior and becomes the St Mary's River, flows through lake Huron, receves the waters of Lake Michigan and becomes the St Claire River, flows Through Lake St Claire and becomes the Detroit River, Through Lake Erie and becomes the Niagara River, through lake Ontario and becomes the St Lawrence.Spidersmilk (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, there is certainly some ambiguity in geography. Unschool 04:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Article says they are 2 rivers Not one river

"The two rivers meet just north of the Sudanese capital of Khartoum." So is it one or two rivers as the article claims both! The white nile flows into the blue nile.--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@ArnoldHimmler: There are many places where two rivers flow together to create one river (e.g., the Allegheny and the Monongahela flow together at Pittsburgh to create the Ohio River. Yet when calculating the actual length of the river, geographers count the farthest headwaters of the river's system, regardless of what name or names the different parts of the river have. For the Mississippi, the largest flow of water comes from the Ohio River (much like for the Nile, the largest flow comes from the Blue Nile), but the greatest length is found with the western tributaries. If you were to go up the Mississippi from New Orleans looking for the greatest length, you would actually leave the Mississippi at St. Louis and go up the Missouri River, then head up the Missouri into the state of Montana, and then take a fork and go up the Jefferson River. When you get to the headwaters of the Jefferson, you've reached what is currently believed to be the most remote source for the Mississippi.
The problem occurs because no one waits until the farthest headwaters of a river are found before naming the river. But hydrologically, the Mississippi is regarded as beginning in the Rockies. Unschool 06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The main point being the WIKI article on rivers says the Amazon is the LONGEST river. So are the niles the longest river or the Amazon? Both cant be and WIKI says both are! There can only be one answer on wiki. It doesnt matter how anyone calculates it as there is no correct method so all answers are correct and all answers are wrong depending on what each person wants as the answer.--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

though some sources claim that the Amazon River is longer.[3]

"commonly regarded as the longest river in the world, [2] though some sources claim that the Amazon River is longer.[3]"

The SOME SOURCES that claim the Amazon is longer includes THE WIKI PAGE "list of rivers by length" So is that page wrong or is it this one? They both can not be correct!--ArnoldHimmler (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. In the last year, someone has changed the Amazon to the longest river on the list of rivers page. It will be a major effort, involving the cooperation of several editors, to settle the dispute. I simply do not have the time to do it now. Perhaps in July. Unschool 04:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
If sources differ on this matter, it's something we should report; this is per WP:Verifiability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, the matter is inherently unverifiable. There is a division among geographers with this. I personally think that the List of Rivers should list the Nile as the longest, as there are more sources making that claim (also, one might note that the sources pushing the Amazon as longest are from Brazil), but without some way of establishing consensus, there is going to be ongoing conflict. And I simply do not have the time to invest in establishing that consensus. Unschool 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I agree that WP:Undue should also be taken into account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Nile is a river.

One editor (ZH8000) seems to have an obsession with editing out the description of geographical features such that the reader is left guessing as to what it is. In this case the word 'river' has been removed from 'Nile' at every instance so that any reader who does not know that the Nile is a river (and we have to assume that they exist) is left guessing. In fact in his version of the article, the reader never gets to discover directly that the river Nile is in fact a river except for a mention in the lede of the article or by detective work from the article text.

This is an encyclopaedia whose function is to inform and educate. That the Nile is a river is what the article should be telling the reader. Mentioning it in the lede only is unacceptable because

(a) The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, and if it isn't mentioned in the article body, by definition, it cannot be summarised in the lede.
(b) Not everyone reads all the words in an article.
(c) Incoming links can lead to sub-sections of the article where the fact that the Nile is a river is never mentioned. (This link is an example.)

I would also argue that describing it as [The] "Nile River" (the current position) is incorrect as 'River' is not part of its name and it should not be capitalised. Describing it as "river Nile" or "Nile river" would be more correct. I note that the article is entitled 'Nile' (without a river) and thus follows the naming convention because there is no other Nile requiring disambiguation. However WP:MOS#Geographical items says that, "Places should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of their article", which would on the face of it preclude 'river' from the text (and appeared to be the justification for removing all the rivers). But as explained above, that is just ridiculous and cannot possibly be the intent. I believe that the intent is that the article text should stick to the name 'river Nile' or 'Nile river' and not a totally different name (such as 'Iteru', the Ancient Egyptian name).

I am not about to change all the rivers to lower case R's without a discussion here first. DocFergus (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The applicable policy here is WP:NCRIVER. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@ZH8000: I am aware that you have been told on more than one occasion that WP:NCRIVER is totally irrelevant here. To reiterate: WP:NCRIVER is only relevant to the title of an article (and that is how I read it as well). It has zero relevance to the text of the article. I regard your continued attempts to remove the adjective 'river' from describing any river in question as highly WP:DISRUPTIVE (See also: WP:NOTGETTINGIT) and bordering on WP:VANDALISM. I have also observed that you are also disruptively editing around other geographical features, such as valleys. DocFergus (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
So, why then you wrote "Nile river" on the article's first line – intentionally without bolding "river" – not as a proper noun with a capitalized R, but then changed every occurance of "Nile" with "Nile River" as it would be a proper noun?! More than contradictorily, I would say. Probably, because you know it would be wrong and attract disagreement by others. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
And yes, WP:TITLE and WP:NCRIVER define the article's naming convention for rivers, and MOS:ARTCON defines its consequently consistent usage within an article!! -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@ZH8000:. Wrong again. WP:ARTCON requires the usage to be consistent throughout the text of the article. It does not require that usage to be consistent with the title. What you did was to remove virtually every reference from the article that the Nile was a river which is nothing short of absurd. I set out my views on the non capitalised 'river' above. DocFergus (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think ZH8000 has a point here. The title of this page is "Nile", not "Nile River" nor "Nile river", and we can assume this is for a good reason. So, regardless of any guidelines, common sense suggests we use that name without repeating ad nauseam the term "river", given the subject has been unambiguously defined and introduced on the top (unlike other pages merely mentioning it; like Africa). Zach (Talk) 13:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Zach I think the introduction of the article should begin with the text "The Nile is a river in Africa...." and every other reference to the Nile should just refer to the "Nile", not "Nile River" or "Nile river". The reason being, the first section anyone reads in an article is usualy the intro, and when reading other sections first, people know to look at the intro if they don't know what the article is talking about.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. But I would suggest keeping the Arabic name in the text (in accordance with MOS:FORLANG): "The Nile (Arabic: النيل) is a major river in Africa...". In case there are incoming links to sub-sections, I would also suggest subtly clarifying the text where necessary. But currently I'm not aware of any such links. Zach (Talk, No thanks, I'll stick to cow milk) 13:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
No you can't do that. Mentioning that it is a river in the lede and not mentioning it anywhere else because the reader is supposed to have gathered the fact from the lede doesn't always work. Links from other articles do not always take the reader to the start of the article. For example if reader follows a link from an article to White Nile, he doesn't get to find out that the White Nile is a river until the penultimate sentence in the last paragraph. Doing the same thing for Blue Nile, he never gets to find out at all. He is left to deduce it from the context of the section. (Yes, I know that White Nile and Blue Nile have their own articles. I was just illustrating a point).
This is an encyclopaedia, whose raison d'être is to inform and educate. It should not require the reader to have to figure out what an article is talking about for himself. And your assumption about there being no incoming links to sections of the article is incorrect - there are.
Also: many readers skip read over the parts of articles that don't tell him what he does not wish to know. DocFergus (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you have examples of incoming links (to sub-sections) from other pages? I fully understand your point of view but I'm struggling to understand the difference between this page and other articles/topics. Should for instance Dhaka, Karnataka or Canada follow the same standard? Currently they don't (i.e. "Dhaka" and not "Dhaka city") and they are pretty much the norm on Wikipedia, unless I'm seriously mistaken. Zach (Talk) 15:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
In the case of all three of your examples, each section of the article fairly quickly tells the reader what sort of geographical feature the subject is or has wording that makes it obvious. That was not the case with this article after ZH8000 removed all the word river's. Or are you talking about the title of the article because that is covered by the manual of style. In the case of Dhaka, for example, the article is called 'Dhaka' and not 'Dhaka City' or 'Dhaka (city)' because there is no other Dhaka to disambiguate it from. My personal view is that the title should be more complete, but the manual of style has consensus on its side, so my opinion is precisely that - my opinion.
I found a few incoming links to sections. I am not going to the trouble again, but Yellow Nile links to Nile#Yellow Nile via a redirect (but at least, in this instance, we are told it is a former tributary and what it was a former tributary of). But as I said, you cannot guarantee that no one will create a link in the future and there are always people who will click on a section from the contents and miss out the rest of the article. DocFergus (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the example. Just to be clear: I do not mind having some clarifications in the article (let's say at least every other sub-section) for those who arrive in the middle of the page. But I think the last version edited by ZH8000 ([1]) is still clear while less cluttered. For instance, the word "river" appears 70 (!) times within the body of the article, not to mention the words "water", "source", "course", "basin", "tributary" etc. at virtually every paragraph. I would say that the wording makes the subject pretty darn obvious, in the same way as it does for Rhine, Danube or Euphrates (rivers this time but not featured articles). Zach (Talk) 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that version either. DocFergus (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Good! (I thought you had a problem with the current version). I made a couple adjustments. Let me know if there is any problem. Zach (Talk) 13:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Page views

--WEGC1 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

bruh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D70:D800:226:BBFF:FE1B:2A1D (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Environmental Conditions of the Nile?

I find it strange that this article includes no real discussion about the environment of the Nile. No section dedicated to pollution, water quality, etc.? Maybe I missed something but I am just not seeing it. I also checked the article on the Amazon to see if it included anything like that and while there was at least a discussion of flora and fauna of the Amazon, unlike the Nile, I also see no discussion of the environmental situation. Are there separate articles for this because if so, I think that is a big mistake as most people are not going to know what to search for. I did find water politics of the Nile but I am having a really hard time understanding why it wouldn't be a in a comprehensive article. At the very least there should be something linking to that other article. I mean it is one of the largest rivers on the planet and to not have easy access to environmental information just doesn't seem well thought out.

I agree. I was disappointed to find no information on flora and fauna of the Nile, and am still not sure where to find this. I would also like to see more about climate and the environment of the Nile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.202.159 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Length value

As the current value for the length (6853 km) comes from an unpublished study[1] and seems to result from an edit without comment by a novice user (Special:Permalink/571184771), I propose to change it either back to the Encyclopedia Britannica value (6650 km[2]) or to the longest currently (peer-reviewed) published value (7088 km[3]), with an additional note like this: [n 1]

References

  1. ^ The length of the Nile is usually said to be "about" 6,650 km[2], but reported values lie anywhere between 5,499 km and 7,088 km[3]. The length measurements of many rivers are only approximations and differ from each other because there are many factors that determine the calculated river length, such as the the position of the geographical source and the mouth, the scale of measurement, and the length measuring techniques (see also List of rivers by length).[3][4]

A decision for either one is difficult, the Britannica value seems to be one that is generally accepted and a simple internet search for nile "6650 km" shows its impact, on the other hand we do not know where it comes from and who measured it. The Liu et al. value seems to be measured with scientific care but has not yet gained much attention.

--WEGC1 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I just did several hours worth of study searching scholar.google.com for articles and citations of Nile river lengths. The conclusion is that, believe it or not, the Liu et al. paper is the only peer-reviewed paper about Nile length measurement I could find. Looks like geographers do not publish their results in journals as many other scientific branches do. But if not there, where do they? I could not find out. What I can say though is, just as the paper describes it, there are many different values cited, one of them the 6650 km value of the Encyclopedia Britannica, but also 6695 km which seems to be an older value used by the National Geographic, these two values are cited quite often. BTW, the current edition of the National Geographic Atlas of the World[5], which I happen to own, states a length of 7081 km for the Nile and 6679 km for the Amazon. Two values that are not cited at all. People just don't use books anymore. --WEGC1 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
To come to a conclusion: I would love to introduce the Liu et al. value of 7088 km as the "true" length of the Nile, because it is the best source available. It is very well documented, reflects upon the whole problem of the existence of lots of length values without source, and it is done with the most modern mapping tools available. But I do not dare, at least without a proper discussion. So since the current value is not acceptable because of the above mentioned reasons, I will change it back to the "about 6650 km" stated in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But I invite all fellow Wikipedians to discuss the possible introduction of 7088 km as the accepted length of the Nile. --WEGC1 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "How Long Is the Amazon River?". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2018-12-24.
  2. ^ a b "Nile River". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 29 April 2015. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ a b c Liu, Shaochuang; Lu, P; Liu, D; Jin, P; Wang, W (2009-03-01). "Pinpointing the sources and measuring the lengths of the principal rivers of the world". Int. J. Digital Earth. 2: 80–87. doi:10.1080/17538940902746082.
  4. ^ "Where Does the Amazon River Begin?". National Geographic News. 2014-02-15. Retrieved 2018-12-25.
  5. ^ Society (U.S.), National Geographic (2014). Atlas of the World. National Geographic Books. ISBN 9781426213540.

Hi, WEGC1. The best source available (as you put it), it's about turning on your brain. The length of the Nile from lake Victoria to the sea is appr. 3,450 miles - this has been measured with the highest accuracy. The length of the upper Nile, which begins in Rwanda, including the length of lake Victoria , is almost 700 miles. From here, the length of the Nile is almost 4,150 miles and it is 6,650 km. Why did the Chinese write that the length of the Nile is 450 km longer? Where did he get this 450 km and where is the evidence? Find this Chinaman and ask him. 91.188.184.68 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could say the same for all other values floating around in the different books. How have the 6650 km been measured, is there any source on this? At least the Chinese have documented the locations of the river sources and the methods they used. I don't think that this paper is very good, so I admit that "the best source available" is an overstatement, but at least it's a scientific paper wheres all the other info cited here come only from books without mentioning the source of their information. Maybe you have other sources, could you please cite them? --WEGC1 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
6650 km (or more precisely, 6671 km) is a measurement of the 1950s. The fact is that the length of the Nile from lake Victoria to the sea - 3473 miles - was measured a very long time ago, already in the Britannica of 1911 there is this. In the 50s, the upper Nile was measured and summed with the main Nile, and so it turned out to be 6671 km. Then a large reservoir was built on the Nile and the length decreased slightly. So now scientists are rounding up to 6650 km. As for the farthest source from which the Nile was measured: it is the source of the Rukarara river East of lake Kivu. As for the Chinese: he does not prove his claims, he does not show what method he chose, he does not explain why in this case the previous length measurements (for example, 6671 km) are incorrect. The scientist must do this. The Chinese research is completely unfounded. 91.188.184.68 (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

In Tamil language Nir means water; and because this word has root in africa; Nile could be another pronunciation for water; this is not quoted from somewhere. Thanks Amir Arab 194.157.16.89 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Fish

Anyone know what kind of fish live in the Nile? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd expand and say I couldn't find a section on the table of contents with any sections on wildlife dealing with the Nile, maybe there is a whole separate article dealing with all that.Eruditess (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

About the annual flooding, a suggestion

One item about the Nile which is missing is an account of the record of its annual summer flooding, which goes back several millennia. (I had thought about doing this back in the Stone Age of Wikipedia, but failed to find a source that I was comfortable with.) This is important not only for historical & cultural reasons (it is one of the longest & oldest recorded events), but for climate history: the annual floods are caused by summer rains in the Ethiopian highlands, which are the product of the Indian Ocean monsoon, thus providing historical information about that part of the world. (The monsoon of the Western Indian Ocean is omitted in that article for some reason). Despite my failure to find the information back then, I'm certain records of the flood level survive for considerable portions even now, although with larger gaps the further back one goes (especially before Alexander's conquest of Egypt), & it would be informative to construct a chart of this information to add to this article.

Another section worth considering would be on ancient theories of the Nile, such as Greek theories why the river flooded in the Summer, unlike all other rivers they had knowledge of, & that the ancients confused a reach of the Niger River with the Nile, thinking that it flowed to the East before turning to the North to empty into the Mediterranean -- a misbelief preserved in many ancient maps. -- llywrch (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Mean annual flow contribution corrections

Hey! I'm new around here. The new Ethiopian dam may bring new traffic to this page, so I believe that we should replace the 80% mentioned here with a more exact figure: http://www.fao.org/3/an530e/an530e.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Puma (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rummskartoffel (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking that "The Blue Nile, however, is the source of most of the water, containing 80% of the water and silt." should be changed to something like "The Blue Nile however, contributes to 57% of the mean annual flow rate at the mouth compared to the flow downstream at Dongola", with the source being http://www.fao.org/3/an530e/an530e.pdfIron Puma (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The reference does not state what you want the text to state. Please see WP:SYNTH for why this is not accepted practice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

The Nile River is 4132 miles long, making it the longest River in the world - as per Encyclopedia Britannica. Being 132 miles longer than the Amazon River, the Nile edges the Amazon River to number 2. 68.134.135.123 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is a clear note that the length can be measured from various points... And we usually do not cite Britannica if we don't need to because Britannica is a tertiary source; while we should base ourselves on secondary sources RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Length value (continued)

I'm trying to get a breakup of the length of the Nile by country.

I can't find it: not on Wiki or Google.

Anyone know?

(No find for the Amazon, too).

PS: I thought it was just due to my inability to “search”, but having seen the difficulty Wiki has had at citing its length… I guess you need to be “in the trade”.

PPS: By measuring in Google Maps, (with about 100 data points), I get c1900 km in Sudan (along the White Nile), and c1300 km in Egypt.

MBG02 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Depth, width values

The values on this page for average depth (8-10m) and maximum width (2.8km) are unsourced, and I'm worried that any attempt to find a reference could lead to a citogenesis incident (other pages have values that appear copied word-for-word from Wikipedia.)

Can anybody find a reference to the river's average and maximum depths and widths that predates its presence on the article, so that there's evidence to back up those claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.100.2 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Source

On both this article and at White Nile, there are (understandably) contradictory statements about the source of the White Nile. Some editors have made assertions of certainty where none as of today exists. I began to work on these, but realized that I just don't have the time right now. I'm apologizing for starting it and leaving it unfinished. Unschool 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

“Congo”

This article says that one of the countries that the Nile River passes by is “Congo”. After I clicked the hyperlink, it redirected me to the Democratic Republic of Congo wiki page. I do not know which is appropriate (Congo DR, DRC, etc.) so I did not commit any changes. I just wanted to point out that writing “Congo” without mentioning whether it is the republic of the Congo or the democratic republic of the Congo might cause ambiguity, so I request editing it.

NINJAHSTERco (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox to use the full name. I think that is the only place where the full name was not used. Vpab15 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Historic and source of the Nile addition

The highest peak of the Rwenzori reaches 5,109 metres (16,762 ft), are a range of mountains in eastern equatorial Africa, located on the border between Uganda and the Virunga National Park in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, the range's upper regions are permanently snow-capped and glaciated and rivers fed by mountain streams form one of the sources of the Nile and because of this, European explorers linked the Ruwenzori with the legendary Mountains of the Moon, claimed by the Greek scholar Ptolemy as the source of the Nile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.142.3 (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add a table of contents.

Can you please add a table of contents because its hard to sort this all out without it. 2600:1700:DCC0:3290:C4B9:752C:CADC:7E9 (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

,xmxmxjxsismxksksm 118.103.255.15 (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nile/Archive_3&oldid=1205882335"