This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
History section: Orellana expedition description
The opening sentence starts: "Gonzalo Pizarro set off in 1541..." It makes it seem like Pizarro was on a one- man expedition. In fact there were hundreds of men, including at least a handful of Spaniards, and thousands of pigs and dogs on that expedition. The next sentence says: "Orellana offered..." Who was Orellana? He comes out of nowhere, and we may assume he was some Indian Pizarro met along the way. The section fails to mention Gaspar de Carajaval, their chronicler (without whose account we'd know nothing today about the expedition). It's also worth mentioning that Gonzalo Pizarro is the brother of the famous conquistador Francisco Pizarro, who was then a governor in Peru and nominally Gonzalo's "boss". This might also be the place to take up the relationship between Gonzalo Pizarro and Orellana; various sources say Orellana was Pizarro's son, nephew, or some more distant relative.Sbalfour (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Enough with the Wikipedia bashing! This is just Wikipedia not the Library of Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If Sbalfour believes the section could be better written, (s)he's free to edit it him/herself directly like any other registered Wikipedia user, instead of criticizing it here on the talk page. --UrsoBR (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This section is intended to cover the geology of the Amazon, or geological history, if you like. The Amazon in fact, used to empty into the Pacific Ocean, now empties into the Atlantic. That's cataclysmic, and interesting enough to detail. The geologic history of Brazil as a flooded forest which became an inland sea drained by a proto-Congo-Amazon river system when South America and Africa were joined as West Gondwana could be described.Sbalfour (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Do we really want to go into this? Whatever the result is, is a matter for the Guinness Book of World Records, not the encyclopedia. I'd approve of retaining the part of the research regarding exactly how long the river is, since that's directly relevant. But I think the rest of the discussion belongs in a footnote, or somewhere else, like the article on the List of longest rivers.Sbalfour (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
European discovery and Exploration subsections
I've tagged these with missing information templates, to structure the work (and maybe draw specific contributions from other editors). This kind of anemic content is what happens when contributors cut and paste from the web, don't really know the history, and aren't really interested in writing the article. Temporarily, the article looks messy, but it'll get fixed, as well as inform readers and scholars that use the article, that they need to be cautious.Sbalfour (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed your tags, because they were totally inadequate. Instead of putting all those visually polluting and confusing "missing information" tags with that screaming boldface text that doesn't give the reader complete and trustworthy information, you should have either written the information you consider to be missing in the article text yourself (duly referenced, of course) or put a single "disputed section" tag (which I have done now for the Discovery subsection) and discussed it here on the talk page.
However, a word of caution regarding the Discovery subsection and Pinzón's sailing: I am not a historian and can't vouch for either position (i.e., whether Pinzón was the first European to sail the Amazon or not), but I do remember that consistently being taught at elementary and high school. This suggests that it's an established position and an academic consensus. This doesn't mean that it's necessarily true or universally accepted, but if it's not, there must also be a reason why possible previous sailings are so often disregarded. If some of those previous sailings are disputed (you had stated that one of them, at least, was), then you should explain why they are not universally accepted and why they are dubious. If the academic consensus has changed based on new documental evidence and the previous sailings are now accepted as facts, you should also state and reference that. Meanwhile, I have added the word documented to qualify Pinzón's sailing, which seems to be the case. If that's not true, feel free to remove it, but also state and explain the controversy, as there appears to be one.
As for the Exploration subsection, I have simply and summarily removed your tags. If you think those subjects need to be written about and you're qualified for that task, write it yourself. Tagging the article to "draw contributions from other editors" is not a proper way of doing things. Wikipedia would be unreadable and would choke in noise if everybody did that for every piece of information they believe is missing from an article. --UrsoBR (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)