Talk:Amazon River/Archive 1

Archive 1

Greatest River?

This is too unspecific. Greatest what? Volume? Area? Voice? --Menchi (Talk)â 10:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's a nonspecific word, that's true. But there's a controvery on wether or not it's the longest - Nile is longer traditionally, but it's a close call and small inaccuracy adds up. Likewise for other measurements: Volume, area, rate of flow. We do have to find something else to put here. -- Unknown

This is ridiculus...Amazon river as long 7051 Km and it is the longer river of the word... - Unknownyuyiuiujk

Longest or not, it certainly has far-and-away the largest water-flow. There's no controversy there. In that sense, it's the greatest; I've also heard "mightiest." 140.147.160.78 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Major revisions

I've just moved a lot of stuff around, re-written a lot of stuff, revised things from 1911 that are way out of date and generally, hopefully, improved this article a lot. Still pretty patchy, though, there's loads about Dom Pedro opening up trade in the 1850s and hardly anything about wildlife. But I thought it was improved enough to take the notice off about needing attention. Feel free to put it back if necessary. Worldtraveller 21:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

clarify this please

"In the year 1500, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, in command of a Spanish expedition, became the first European to explore the river and ascended the Amazon to a point about 50 metres from the sea." (from "Name subsection)

Fifty metres? He explored fifty metres? Is this accurate?Pedant 07:23, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Don't know where that number came from. It appears he explored the mouth of the river, on discovering that the ocean around there was fresh water. Worldtraveller 00:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Name in opening paragraph

The opening para used to say it was called the River Amazon in UK English. While we say 'River xxx' for all our own rivers and some foreign ones (eg River Nile) I've never heard anyone call it the River Amazon, so I removed that bit. Worldtraveller 00:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have watched too many American programmes on TV. In English, the word "river" always goes first. The other word order ("Colorado River", etc) is acceptable only in where it is the locally used name (i.e. in the US and Australia). Chameleon 12:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you British? Have you ever heard anyone British say 'River Zambezi', 'River Mekong', 'River Yangtze'? I doubt it - we don't ever refer to those rivers like that, and nor does anyone call it the 'River Amazon'.Worldtraveller 22:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, from London. Of course I have heard or read those and others (the Seine, the Rhône...) with "river" first. I have also heard Brits ape the Americans by putting it after. The tendency to forget the normal order increases with the distance away from the UK (and therefore the likelihood that the person has got to know it from watching some US documentary). Give it a few decades and I'm sure we'll be drinking out of "aluminum" cans beside the "Thames river" and watching films in "theaters", but not quite yet. Chameleon 22:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good, me too. I'm not the kind of person to let americanisms encroach on the language we speak on this island, and I am certainly not 'forgetting the normal order' or aping anyone, I've simply never heard any British person refer to the Amazon as the River Amazon. It sounds as weird to me as 'Thames River' does. Most common usage would probably be calling it simply 'the Amazon'. My most recent change to the opening para reflects that, hope that's acceptable to all.

I would definitely refer to the River Zambezi and the River Yangtze that way. Likewise the River Amazon. The "Amazon River" sounds like it should be some minor river in Connecticut. 82.36.26.229 18:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

82.36.26.229, I kind of took that the wrong way. I know all of you are from England, but we should just keep it in the middle, like requested earlier, "The Amazon". I'm just not used to calling any river with it's name second. It looks weird to me.nyrockz 22:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)nyrockzss

I am in the UK and River Amazon sounds perfectly correct to me. I'd probably usually refer to it simply as the Amazon, but if I had to include the word river I would place it before the name. In British English this is the usual construction, eg River Avon, River Severn, River Trent never Avon River, Severn River or Trent River. They would sound unacceptably unnatural. River Zambesi would be perfectly acceptable to me. However there are exceptions, such as Orange River and Great Fish River, never River Orange or River Great Fish. I think this has something to do with the rivers being named for a person or persons (Eg the House of Orange), or including an adjective. Being much more ancient, the meanings of the names of British rivers are usually long obscured to most people while foreign names like Mekong or Zambesi are similarly opaque. So we have the River Zambesi, River Rhine, River Seine etc.

Imagine we were naming rivers. If we had one to name after Smith we would no doubt call it the Smith River, not the River Smith. If we named a river after its depth we'd call it the Deep River, not the River Deep. Only if the name was simply a name whose meaning we did not know would we place "River" first - if there was a river called "Nozama" we'd call it the River Nozama. Booshank 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazon name

spanish dude (Francisco de Orellana) travelled the length of river, waz attacked by savage warrior women called dem amozans, so river waz called dat!

more likely, long haired male warriors.

This guy is correct. That explorer did name this river after the female warriors found there. He/she should sig his/her statements. WP rules state that. Powerzilla (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tapajós listed twice

In the #Longest rivers in the Amazon system section, Tapajós is listed twice. I believe this makes the whole list suspect. --cesarb 19:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources of moisture

I thought that most of the rain that falls in the Amazon Basin is generated through evapotranspiration within the basin. Also - the idea that moisture moves inward from the Atlantic, across a whole continent, before being forced to rise by the Andes seems rather unusual to me. Can anyone source this information? Guettarda 14:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amazon basin is definitely in the Trade Wind zone and these blow monotonously to the west, except of course during El Ninos. The tropical Atlantic generates a tremendous amount of moisture and the trades blow this across the Amazon Basin to the Andes. I don't have a reference for this. The ITCZ is well known. Yes I guesss half of the moisture is recycled, but still precipitation greatly exceeds evaporation. Hence the unparalleled volume of water in the Amazon User:Zyzzy

It may be incorrectly stated that...

^This statement made me laugh... The following one does not look right either.

The Amazon River ... is the longest river on Earth, the Nile River in Africa being the other.

--Bjarki 18:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Contradicting Information

The width information in the article is in need of significant work. Early in the article it is stated that the width of the river, during the rainy season, swells to AS MUCH as 25 mi. Later, the text indicates that the river's AVERAGE width can reach 25 mi. Still later, the article mentions that the river can be as wide as 6 mi from bank to bank. These are vastly different numbers, and they appear irreconcilable.

In the main box of information the length is stated as 6296 Km, whereas the section the Longest rivers in the Amazon system the length is stated as 6762 Km. If the second of these is correct then the river becomes the longest in the world as the Nile is stated as being 6695 Km. If someone can find a reliable source to find which is correct, that would be nice

Actually older lexigraphic information gives about 6518km for the length, i think the whole thing is mainly due to the debate about the real source. My suspicion is that 6296 km is definitely wrong and the correct answer somewhere above 6500 km. It would be nice if someone could research the official data from some cartographic institute or some brazilian government statistics. Additional note: Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica both list the length as >6400km

--????

In 2001 a Research Expedition confirmed that the source of the Amazon River is at Nevado Mismi and Río Apurímac is to be seen as the main headwater of the river, and no longer Río Marañón which is shorter than Río Apurímac. This might explain that in many encyclopedias this information has not been taken into consideration yet.

--Meister 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the national geographic article is not really helpful at all. While confirming the apurimac as source river, which seems to common consensus now (?), it gives a length that is shorter than the other figures and thus contradicting its own information (source = spring farthest away from the mouth). My guess would be a factual error by the article concerning the length data. Also the article still fearures different/contradicting length information at different locations. It might be helpful to use the same throughout the article and maybe have a note/comment on the different length data on the amazon in general.

Length of the Amazon River

With the help of satellite photography it should be possible to survey the length of the Amazon River anew after the source of a Río Apurímac-tributary at Nevado Mismi has been confirmed as the river's true origin (instead of Río Marañón which had been believed to be the Amazon's source until the 1970s).

See:

• National Geographic Society 2001
• Jacek Palkiewicz 1996

Using Google Earth, I have attempted to measure the Amazon from its source at Nevado Mismi to its mouth on the Atlantic shores in 25 km segments. This way I have worked out the total length of the Amazon River as being 6,386.8 km (3,968.6 mi).

I measured each 25 km segment in partial segments of 40 m (Google Earth elevation: 7,292 ft), and have specifications of latitude and longitude for each 25 km-stopover noted down below.

I ask all the Wikipedians to check the different segments and note down below where their length differs from my measurements. When you write down differing length, you might do it this way: "Segment 175-200 = 25.322 km" (= Distance from Point 175 to 200) and note it down at the bottom of each river's name.

Río Apurímac and tributaries

• Point 000 - 15°30'36.95" S 71°41'58.92" W (below Nevado Mismi: Río Lloquera)
• Point 019 - 15°23'44.87" S 71°45'39.02" W (from km 19: Río Callamayo)
• Point 025 - 15°22'44.91" S 71°43'38.34" W (here: Río Callamayo)
• Point 050 - 15°17'17.66" S 71°37'52.80" W (here: Río Hornillos)
• Point 065 - 15°10'40.29" S 71°38'09.86" W (from km 65: Río Apurímac)
• Point 075 - 15°10'00.78" S 71°34'52.25" W
• Point 100 - 14°58'35.97" S 71°36'33.16" W
• Point 125 - 14°49'45.66" S 71°28'57.13" W
• Point 150 - 14°39'44.34" S 71°26'02.38" W
• Point 175 - 14°29'19.97" S 71°27'55.07" W
• Point 200 - 14°20'27.04" S 71°30'14.20" W
• Point 225 - 14°09'30.40" S 71°34'06.44" W
• Point 250 - 14°03'06.08" S 71°43'11.75" W
• Point 275 - 13°53'22.25" S 71°48'38.05" W
• Point 300 - 13°49'37.25" S 71°55'11.59" W
• Point 325 - 13°45'51.12" S 72°03'37.47" W
• Point 350 - 13°43'04.28" S 72°13'56.19" W
• Point 375 - 13°39'45.94" S 72°22'34.96" W
• Point 400 - 13°34'02.00" S 72°31'34.40" W
• Point 425 - 13°31'20.13" S 72°40'26.37" W
• Point 450 - 13°25'33.84" S 72°49'00.89" W
• Point 475 - 13°24'16.79" S 72°59'28.71" W
• Point 500 - 13°25'36.99" S 73°09'04.67" W
• Point 525 - 13°22'21.74" S 73°16'59.04" W
• Point 550 - 13°14'46.21" S 73°22'16.83" W
• Point 575 - 13°06'41.10" S 73°26'56.93" W
• Point 600 - 13°00'39.41" S 73°30'18.38" W
• Point 625 - 12°52'54.60" S 73°32'48.85" W
• Point 650 - 12°43'17.69" S 73°39'33.83" W
• Point 675 - 12°37'03.43" S 73°47'53.65" W
• Point 700 - 12°27'45.97" S 73°51'55.31" W
• Point 725 - 12°18'37.14" S 73°58'27.88" W
• Point 730.70 - 12°15'46.15" S 73°58'43.87"

Río Ene

• Point 000 - 12°15'46.15" S 73°58'43.87" W
• Point 025 - 12°08'11.27" S 74°04'21.73" W
• Point 050 - 11°58'36.95" S 74°00'23.11" W
• Point 075 - 11°49'51.06" S 73°58'04.47" W
• Point 100 - 11°41'28.28" S 74°01'37.52" W
• Point 125 - 11°33'07.87" S 74°04'22.42" W
• Point 150 - 11°23'18.20" S 74°09'51.93" W
• Point 175 - 11°12'44.14" S 74°14'30.05" W
• Point 180.6 - 11°09'55.60" S 74°14'07.65"

Río Tambo

• Point 000 - 11°09'55.60" S 74°14'07.65" W
• Point 025 - 11°11'38.45" S 74°04'01.63" W
• Point 050 - 11°12'57.63" S 73°54'18.65" W
• Point 075 - 11°17'36.99" S 73°43'33.63" W
• Point 100 - 11°08'22.16" S 73°43'38.17" W
• Point 125 - 10°57'14.47" S 73°45'34.21" W
• Point 150 - 10°46'03.26" S 73°45'08.19" W
• Point 158.5 - 10°41'56.61" S 73°45'21.93" W

Río Ucayali

• Point 000 - 10°41'56.61" S 73°45'21.93" W
• Point 025 - 10°36'09.79" S 73°53.34.61" W
• Point 050 - 10°28'40.08" S 74°01'08.74" W
• Point 075 - 10°17'33.43" S 74°01'44.45" W
• Point 100 - 10°13'17.53" S 74°03'42.33" W
• Point 125 - 10°07'05.72" S 74°03'43.19" W
• Point 150 - 10°03'55.14" S 73°59'25.38" W
• Point 175 - 9°57'27.83" S 74°03'33.41" W
• Point 200 - 9°57'13.12" S 74°00'20.18" W
• Point 225 - 9°50'05.79" S 74°02'28.60" W
• Point 250 - 9°47'12.31" S 74°09'01.63" W
• Point 275 - 9°38'01.91" S 74°07'20.48" W
• Point 300 - 9°35'37.37" S 74°12'51.43" W
• Point 325 - 9°28'43.51" S 74°11'42.62" W
• Point 350 - 9°24'09.49" S 74°18'14.88" W
• Point 375 - 9°22'00.58" S 74°23'57.91" W
• Point 400 - 9°11'09.09" S 74°25'37.91" W
• Point 425 - 9°01'55.42" S 74°27'27.17" W
• Point 450 - 8°51'22.70" S 74°31'43.80" W
• Point 475 - 8°43'29.09" S 74°27'25.77" W
• Point 500 - 8°34'27.93" S 74°21'59.90" W
• Point 525 - 8°26'40.78" S 74°25'36.34" W
• Point 550 - 8°20'52.74" S 74°29'19.36" W
• Point 575 - 8°13'39.48" S 74°32'28.62" W
• Point 600 - 8°06'43.59" S 74°37'04.00" W
• Point 625 - 7°58'48.67" S 74°41'24.17" W
• Point 650 - 7°52'14.71" S 74°46'40.92" W
• Point 675 - 7°53'33.86" S 74°51'04.42" W
• Point 700 - 7°51'09.45" S 74°55'31.03" W
• Point 725 - 7°46'33.18" S 74°55'01.42" W
• Point 750 - 7°39'03.06" S 75°02'13.46" W
• Point 775 - 7°37'44.01" S 74°56'08.84" W
• Point 800 - 7°27'53.16" S 74°58'26.51" W
• Point 825 - 7°19'24.98" S 75°04'19.00" W
• Point 850 - 7°15'17.16" S 75°14'02.52" W
• Point 875 - 7°06'14.76" S 75°14'40.83" W
• Point 900 - 6°58'52.14" S 75°06'51.54" W
• Point 925 - 6°48'42.08" S 75°06'09.89" W
• Point 950 - 6°41'08.44" S 75°03'33.76" W
• Point 975 - 6°36'48.62" S 75°03'06.50" W
• Point 1000 - 6°31'19.90" S 75°10'14.51" W
• Point 1025 - 6°21'39.16" S 75°05'58.06" W
• Point 1050 - 6°10'58.66" S 75°08'53.91" W
• Point 1075 - 6°07'28.09" S 75°03'38.12" W
• Point 1100 - 6°02'30.51" S 75°00'17.99" W
• Point 1125 - 6°03'33.55" S 74°50'10.53" W
• Point 1150 - 6°01'45.39" S 74°42'16.41" W
• Point 1175 - 5°52'36.89" S 74°39'46.30" W
• Point 1200 - 5°43'31.79" S 74°32'24.98" W
• Point 1225 - 5°45'12.56" S 74°28'38.49" W
• Point 1250 - 5°45'19.14" S 74°21'47.06" W
• Point 1275 - 5°46'34.88" S 74°17'27.94" W
• Point 1300 - 5°39'36.19" S 74°15'01.91" W
• Point 1325 - 5°34'43.34" S 74°08'00.99" W
• Point 1350 - 5°27'36.77" S 74°11'51.79" W
• Point 1375 - 5°22'22.41" S 74°08'01.75" W
• Point 1400 - 5°15'37.43" S 74°04'50.40" W
• Point 1425 - 5°06'24.53" S 74°03'12.84" W
• Point 1450 - 5°02'24.80" S 73°58'26.68" W
• Point 1475 - 5°01'40.80" S 73°49'52.55" W
• Point 1500 - 4°51'40.73" S 73°46'31.10" W
• Point 1525 - 4°51'06.03" S 73°43'16.14" W
• Point 1550 - 4°44'38.98" S 73°36'16.77" W
• Point 1575 - 4°36'08.34" S 73°31'20.78" W
• Point 1600 - 4°26'45.64" S 73°27'02.64" W
• Point 1600.1 - 4°26'42.14" S 73°27'02.73" W

Amazon

• Point 25 - 4°15'49.76" S 73°23'06.55" W
• Point 50 - 4°08'15.21" S 73°16'39.97" W
• Point 75 - 4°04'26.78" S 73°09'58.60" W
• Point 100 - 3°54'45.67" S 73°15'34.86" W
• Point 125 - 3°43'55.30" S 73°11'43.07" W
• Point 150 - 3°34'30.25" S 73°06'54.46" W
• Point 175 - 3°29'31.67" S 72°55'21.32" W
• Point 200 - 3°27'41.09" S 72°42'39.39" W
• Point 225 - 3°29'16.61" S 72°29'56.48" W
• Point 250 - 3°32'25.26" S 72°18'00.62" W
• Point 275 - 3°26'29.04" S 72°06'29.49" W
• Point 300 - 3°24'14.10" S 71°53'24.31" W
• Point 325 - 3°26'10.28" S 71°44'59.42" W
• Point 350 - 3°39'24.08" S 71°45'21.14" W
• Point 375 - 3°46'36.60" S 71°34'46.99" W
• Point 400 - 3°52'04.04" S 71°24'05.60" W
• Point 425 - 3°52'39.52" S 71°13'02.65" W
• Point 450 - 4°00'45.09" S 71°04'47.41" W
• Point 475 - 3°56'08.26" S 70°52'42.37" W
• Point 500 - 3°52'07.99" S 70°40'19.93" W
• Point 525 - 3°51'49.41" S 70°27'21.35" W
• Point 550 - 3°50'24.59" S 70°16'18.10" W
• Point 575 - 4°00'33.71" S 70°08'53.24" W
• Point 600 - 4°10'54.52" S 70°01'05.53" W
• Point 625 - 4°21'35.26" S 69°59'41.99" W
• Point 650 - 4°22'51.5" S 69°47'30.92" W
• Point 675 - 4°19'19.55" S 69°35'03.28" W
• Point 700 - 4°10'31.54" S 69°25'24.38" W
• Point 725 - 4°07'43.49" S 69°29'25.71" W
• Point 750 - 4°00'02.19" S 69°25'18.70" W
• Point 775 - 3°46'52.28" S 69°23'28.13" W
• Point 800 - 3°36'07.75" S 69°21'06.72" W
• Point 825 - 3°28'13.73" S 69°13'28.30" W
• Point 850 - 3°26'23.79" S 69°00'35.13" W
• Point 875 - 3°26'56.96" S 68°47'36.26" W
• Point 900 - 3°23'25.54" S 68°35'32.71" W
• Point 925 - 3°21'18.80" S 68°22'48.19" W
• Point 950 - 3°20'51.30" S 68°15'08.64" W
• Point 975 - 3°20'45.89" S 68°02'01.28" W
• Point 1000 - 3°12'11.22" S 67°56'06.06" W
• Point 1025 - 3°00'20.25" S 67°51'08.55" W
• Point 1050 - 2°49'53.15" S 67°43'03.89" W
• Point 1075 - 2°45'05.43" S 67°30'54.46" W
• Point 1100 - 2°34'34.24" S 67°22'50.38" W
• Point 1125 - 2°38'08.45" S 67°14'33.33" W
• Point 1150 - 2°36'55.98" S 67°04'18.31" W
• Point 1175 - 2°46'35.27" S 66°57'54.24" W
• Point 1200 - 2°41'59.26" S 66°48'26.35" W
• Point 1225 - 2°39'08.39" S 66°36'46.41" W
• Point 1250 - 2°26'36.77" S 66°37'34.06" W
• Point 1275 - 2°24'46.23" S 66°24'58.39" W
• Point 1300 - 2°35'35.64" S 66°19'40.09" W
• Point 1325 - 2°31'05.48" S 66°08'35.84" W
• Point 1350 - 2°28'07.13" S 65°56'10.84" W
• Point 1375 - 2°35'39.82" S 65°45'40.22" W
• Point 1400 - 2°39'00.20" S 65°34'02.50" W
• Point 1425 - 2°29'54.70" S 65°24'33.92" W
• Point 1450 - 2°37'38.38" S 65°18'17.60" W
• Point 1475 - 2°46'16.18" S 65°20'37.62" W
• Point 1500 - 2°48'42.83" S 65°09'30.51" W
• Point 1525 - 2°58'24.88" S 65°03'16.65" W
• Point 1550 - 3°06'36.01" S 64°53'34.06" W
• Point 1575 - 3°13'20.19" S 64°42'25.45" W
• Point 1600 - 3°20'32.55" S 64°31'22.49" W
• Point 1625 - 3°31'31.85" S 64°23'53.39" W
• Point 1650 - 3°38'30.46" S 64°12'30.77" W
• Point 1675 - 3°44'21.50" S 64°00'52.24" W
• Point 1700 - 3°51'22.41" S 63°49'55.41" W
• Point 1725 - 3°51'06.76" S 63°36'44.36" W
• Point 1750 - 3°52'46.74" S 63°25'14.36" W
• Point 1775 - 3°55'28.45" S 63°12'27.49" W
• Point 1775 - 3°55'28.45" S 63°12'27.49" W
• Point 1800 - 4°04'54.62" S 63°06'12.68" W
• Point 1825 - 3°56'32.56" S 62°56'29.45" W
• Point 1850 - 3°53'43.97" S 62°43'49.93" W
• Point 1875 - 3°50'35.82" S 62°31'11.20" W
• Point 1900 - 3°45'38.39" S 62°19'09.85" W
• Point 1925 - 3°50'09.93" S 62°06'13.43" W
• Point 1950 - 3°57'08.97" S 61°54'02.08" W
• Point 1975 - 3°52'49.06" S 61°44'49.88" W
• Point 2000 - 3°45'09.82" S 61°35'11.74" W
• Point 2025 - 3°36'56.57" S 61°24'39.01" W
• Point 2050 - 3°35'16.91" S 61°11'38.59" W
• Point 2075 - 3°36'44.54" S 60°05'22.16" W
• Point 2100 - 3°30'03.31" S 60°47'01.52" W
• Point 2125 - 3°19'35.90" S 60°39'06.19" W
• Point 2150 - 3°18'50.50" S 60°25'50.68" W
• Point 2175 - 3°21'17.14" S 60°13'55.24" W
• Point 2200 - 3°17'04.67" S 60°01'18.91" W
• Point 2225 - 3°09'18.20" S 59°53'48.93" W
• Point 2250 - 3°03'50.71" S 59°43'05.16" W
• Point 2275 - 3°07'39.47" S 59°30'31.79" W
• Point 2300 - 3°12'22.52" S 59°18'03.14" W
• Point 2325 - 3°15'49.84" S 59°05'34.01" W
• Point 2350 - 3°17'48.08" S 58°53'14.64" W
• Point 2375 - 3°22'18.54" S 58°40'33.17" W
• Point 2400 - 3°13'05.04" S 58°33'30.22" W
• Point 2425 - 3°10'52.07" S 58°22'07.46" W
• Point 2450 - 3°08'45.69" S 58°10'38.64" W
• Point 2475 - 2°55'33.35" S 58°08'08.32" W
• Point 2500 - 2°48'59.59" S 57°57'18.56" W
• Point 2525 - 2°44'37.13" S 57°44'56.37" W
• Point 2550 - 2°33'31.64" S 57°37'11.45" W
• Point 2575 - 2°22'43.47" S 57°30'07.32" W
• Point 2600 - 2°29'00.85" S 57°18'58.43" W
• Point 2625 - 2°37'53.06" S 57°10'41.02" W
• Point 2650 - 2°32'46.95" S 56°59'10.57" W
• Point 2675 - 2°36'47.51" S 56°46'18.40" W
• Point 2700 - 2°32'19.98" S 56°33'58.38" W
• Point 2725 - 2°22'40.81" S 56°25'23.56" W
• Point 2750 - 2°13'54.55" S 56°17'03.78" W
• Point 2775 - 2°04'21.23" S 56°07'13.71" W
• Point 2800 - 1°56'55.63" S 55°59'49.12" W
• Point 2825 - 2°00'10.09" S 55°45'21.32" W
• Point 2850 - 1°53'56.30" S 55°34'32.33" W
• Point 2875 - 2°02'16.35" S 55°24'12.02" W
• Point 2900 - 2°08'15.32" S 55°13'34.47" W
• Point 2925 - 2°09'23.39" S 54°59'26.17" W
• Point 2950 - 2°12'38.09" S 54°47'41.49" W
• Point 2975 - 2°24'57.85" S 54°40'58.17" W
• Point 3000 - 2°27'20.34" S 54°29'07.79" W
• Point 3025 - 2°24'43.81" S 54°16'01.72" W
• Point 3050 - 2°17'58.72" S 54°04'12.26" W
• Point 3075 - 2°04'44.82" S 54°01'54.35" W
• Point 3100 - 1°57'29.04" S 53°51'23.30" W
• Point 3125 - 1°53'19.60" S 53°38'38.41" W
• Point 3150 - 1°49'26.53" S 53°25'51.61" W
• Point 3175 - 1°45'34.02" S 53°13'10.00" W
• Point 3200 - 1°44'56.56" S 53°00'03.83" W
• Point 3225 - 1°35'11.96" S 52°51'01.88" W
• Point 3250 - 1°34'45.53" S 52°38'22.53" W
• Point 3275 - 1°33'17.38" S 52°24'40.78" W
• Point 3300 - 1°27'50.00" S 52°11'15.27" W
• Point 3325 - 1°25'33.77" S 51°57'50.33" W
• Point 3350 - 1°13'57.27" S 51°54'00.62" W
• Point 3375 - 1°08'09.25" S 51°44'00.68" W
• Point 3400 - 0°57'12.27" S 51°41'12.13" W
• Point 3425 - 0°44'05.94" S 51°39'05.92" W
• Point 3450 - 0°33'42.32" S 51°30'42.75" W
• Point 3475 - 0°26'31.56" S 51°19'36.07" W
• Point 3500 - 0°18'51.67" S 51°08'41.05" W
• Point 3525 - 0°06'58.42" S 51°03'42.29" W
• Point 3550 - 0°04'04.28" N 50°56'17.77" W
• Point 3575 - 0°08'31.98" N 50°43'47.21" W
• Point 3600 - 0°12'16.41" N 50°29'06.44" W
• Point 3625 - 0°13'44.63" N 50°20'47.82" W
• Point 3650 - 0°21'42.97" N 50°10'10.64" W
• Point 3716.9 - 0°30'17.23" N 49°35'02.95" W

Meister 17:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Photos Availible

I have recently returned from the Amazon. I have several hundred photos that might interest the Community. Any who knows the guidelines for addign them is free to use any they want. They are availible at Yahoo Photos, account name Veniceslug1. Let me know if you need any info from me. Veniceslug1 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Longest River Dispute

I am changing this article to describe the Amazon as the second longest in the world. I readily acknowledge that, for some, this is a controversial issue. Please see my detailed arguments on the Nile River talk page before reverting. I will gladly discuss the issue, but I think that this is actually a matter of Wikipedian credibility, as I believe I make clear in my comments. Unschool 16:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

THE LONGEST RIVER IN THE WORLD IS AMAZON RIVER, please check this article. Famous Explorer Jacek Palkiewicz discover the real source in the 1996 ... check it out http://www.palkiewicz.com/ekspedycje/index.php?p=zrodl_amaz -- 87.8.242.27

It's always a positive thing when a discussion is relating to a wide variety of scientific findings. In this case, however, the above mentioned article of the Jacek Palkiewicz expedition does change very little in the discussion of the length of the Amazon River. The source found at Quehuisha Nevado by Jacek Palkiewitz (15°31'05" S, 71°45'55" W) is only 7 km west from the source at Nevado Mismi (15°30'36.95" S 71°41'58.92" W) as even the maps presented by Palkiewitz show. This means that right now there is only a discussion which is the source proper, but no news concerning the length of the Amazon. - What has to be changed though is that neither of these sources is the source of the Apurimac but of one of the Apurimac tributaries. Accordingly I will alter the above detailed findings of the "Lenth of the Amazon River" within the next days. -- Meister 13:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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. -- 200.121.134.140, 27 September 2006

Unspecified user 200.121.134.140 added the above piece of discussion in late September, forgetting to sign it and forgetting to place it under the already existing 'Longest River' headline, so I've moved it here now -- Meister 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

most voluminous river on earth

By watershed, the Yenisei River is the most voluminous river system. It is helped by Lake Baikal, though. Anon user 19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Yenisei basin might contain more water than the Amazon, but by most voluminous we mean the river with the greatest discharge. The Yenisei's average discharge is 19,600 m³/s while the Amazon's is more than ten times that much at around 200,000 m³/s. Booshank 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No bridges

I've been told that there are no bridges over the Amazon. Is this true? It should definitely go in the article if it is. Mahahahaneapneap 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Added. —Kanodin 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

History of course

I'm too lazy, but someone might want to incorporate this story [1] about the river's past. Algebraist 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why is the geological history of the planet's oldest continuously-flowing river a single line under Trivia? I was surprised that this information is "new": it's well known to freshwater ichthyologists. --Wetman 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

grammar

I tried to help by simplifying grammatically. I'm not sure what the paragraph about the cloud cover was trying to get across- after parsing (read the edit I did, and you can see) the meaning of it seemed to be that the photographs referred to were taken in a manner that did not prove the assertion they were tacked on to- that there are no clouds, like in the picture, but that the picture was taken in the morning, when there are nevewr any clouds anyway? The hell? If anyone can make sense of it or edit it to make some sense, it'd be interesting to know what it's about. (smiling) Resonanteye 13:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The length of the Amazon

I've updated the beginning of the article concerning the length of the Amazon. Though I'm not saying my wording is perfect I strongly believe the controversy concerning its length should be mentionted. BTW, why do the Spanish and Portuguese version of Wikipedia each state Amazon is the longest river in the world, though they don't agree on the figure? I read a lot of discussions here on Wikipedia and they all quote just English sources. Isn't the Amazon a Latin American river? Shouldn't the Latin American sources be taken into account preferably? --Caroig 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That the local source say that the Amazon is the longest is not only irrelevant, it may even be suspect (due to local bias). I don't care if the source is South American, North American, European, or Martian, as long as its scientific. But even one single source is not enough in this case. I'm going to revert this because the widespread, world-wide consensus is still that the Nile is longest. You've given us no citations, but there are literally hundreds of citations that could be brought to bear on this opening that would refute your contention. I personally don't care which is the longest. But I do care that Wikipedia is not used for one person's grandstanding of their own pet issue. This issue has been discussed at extreme length both here and on the Nile pages. this issue may not be settled once and for all, but it's not going to be overturned by one person who thinks he knows better than the majority of the world's geographers. 216.199.161.66 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read what I wrote? Neither I care which river is the longest. But I do care that Wikipedia is a reliable source and that gives a reader the most updated information and if there exists a controversy, it informs them so. Though using the world controversy seems to be an euphepism. And writing according to most sources is a lie. Because the correct statement is according to most online accessible English sources such as Britannica, Encarta, etc. the length of Amazon is some 6,400km. These are your citations. But these are not scientific proofs. I've read all the discussions very carefully and there are links, e.g. to a an expedition led by a Polish scientist, whose findings were approved by the Lima's Geographic Society (not a scientific body?). Why can't there be a simple text stating, that according to various sources the length of the Amazon varies between 6,400 km and 7,062 km? Full stop. I've spent a long time in Latin Amrica and as a matter of curiosity I was checking their atlases, textbooks etc. and as I remember, they were all quoting the length to be around 7,000 km. I'll try to get exact book quoatations with ISBNs. I simply don't like the fact English Wikipedia states the length of the Amazon is 6,400km, while Spanish Wikipedia quotes 7,020 km (seems to be the most common figure in Spanish media), Portuguese 6,868 km, German Wikipedia quotes various measurements of various sections of the river though not giving the overall length etc. So there definitely doesn't seem to be a world-wide consensus. There might be an North-American census, or rather a tradition. If you write about biased information, there rather seems to be a bias against any non-English source. Once again I simply suggest the core text state something like there exist various measurements and quoting the range. BTW, why don't you sign your edits (or sign them with an IP only)? --Caroig 08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, while you quoted the LGS before, I don't believe you had a link to the info, correct? So that was only nominally better than a non-cited source. Secondly, the date on this information is 1996-99. The National Geographic Study's most recent finding on this is 2001 and—and this is where I get confused—indicates that the current source, Nevado Mismi, is even further upstream than the source that you quote, yet still the NGS says that the Amazon is the second longest. Okay, so the sources I'm quoting are English-language sources. Guess what, this is the English Wikipedia, most of us are going to be reading and citing English sources. That does not mean that other sources are not welcome. I would be happy to change this, IF you can bring to bear multiple sources from whatever languages that confirm the Amazon is longer than the Nile. I do not accept a sentence like, "Why can't there be a simple text stating, that according to various sources the length of the Amazon varies", because the length of the river does not vary. Something stating that sources disagree on its length is acceptable, but how high up in the article this belongs depends on how many and how authoritative those sources are. For example, if all you have to show that the Amazon is the longest is the LGS, then no, that's not enough to merit inclusion in the introduction. It only merits inclusion in the introduction if you can show, later in the article, that there exists no consensus. The information that I have indicates that the consensus is that the Nile is the longest. Show me differently, then we can begin to rewrite this article. Oh, and as to why I sign this way? It's a personal matter. Sorry, but I have no choice.

First of all, I apologize - I am not experienced in Wikipedia talk. But interesting information: the true source of Amazon river near Nevado Mismi was explored by Czech and Peruan expedition in 1999 and 2000 led by Czech sciencist Bohumír Janský, not by National Geographic Society. His reaction (disagrees with NGS claim): http://certik.ruk.cuni.cz/press/aktualita/archliv/2000/0012/001218-01.html Sorry, only in Czech language, but the point is: there is not one source of Amazon, because LLoqueta River (source of Apurimac, source of Amazon) consists of four streams - Apacheta, Carhuasanta, Ccaccansa and Sillanque and using hydrogeographic rules (height of source, length, amount of water...) no one is the most important (well Sillanque is less important than other three). I know it does not refer to length of Amazon much but I think it is important information.

89.102.13.47 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 216.199.161.66 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course the length doesn't vary, it's the sources which don't agree on its length. I'm not going to do any edits on this article until I can add a bit more sources (preferably from books on geography not from general compendia). The main point here is not what the longest river in the world is but what the length of this river is. The fact this is English Wikipedia (or rather an internatinal one?) doesn't mean it should rely on English sources only, especially not in an issue which concerns a scientific fact. The new source, Nevado Mismi, is really a bit more upstream than the previously identified one, but only by kilometers (or tens of kilometers), so it shouldn't change the figure very much. I can't help it but I believe the traditional English sources adhere to the 6,400 km length simply because of convenience, because it has been used for so long. Perhaps, when they try to update it, they found so many other figures, varying quite substantialy, that they rather keep the traditional length, nicely rounded to 4,000 mi. I see nothing bad in stating we are not sure. I might ask our friends from the Spanish Wikipedia (which quotes 7,020 km, they definitely didn't invent this number, it's the same one I've been familiar with for many years) if they could quote some sources (atlases etc.), and, if my language knowledge allows, from other language Wikipedias too. One more thing, I came upon this issue when I was updating the river infobox, using a new template I created and I was surprised to see this, in my view, real old figure when all sources I ever came upon (mainly Spanish, but also in other European languages). Anyway, I think the article would need some rewriting, because it is not well structured, contains out-of-date information etc. If time allows, I'll try to collect more sources (not only about the length) and start working on it. --Caroig 07:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this rather intense discussion, and have already made many arguments about it in the past over on the Nile page. May I make a few comments about some of the points here? And before I do, let me first of all extend my apologies. I'm a tad anal retentive, and it has rubbed me the wrong way every time I look at this discussion section and see the word "length" mispelled, so I've corrected it. Also, Caroig, I've taken the liberty of pushing your last comments over one tab space, to more clearly delineate your comments from your colleague's.

• One thing, Caroig, that I felt hurt you initially is that, as I recall, on your first edit of this issue, you implied—no, you stated (I went back and looked)—that the previous writers were using "19th century" information. That was a bit of a broad swath to cut, and probably contributed to the level of vitriol in the response. Surely you don't really believe that the English speaking sources whose credibility you impugn are so irresponsible as to be relying on sources over 100 years old, especially about such a remote area as the Amazon basin?
• I believe you also invited a harsh response, Caroig, when you wrote, "writing according to most sources is a lie." A lie? In Wikipedia, one of our key policies is to assume good faith. In my world, if someone speaks a untruth, it is a lie only if the person speaking the untruth is aware of the non-truthfullness of their statement, and is making the statement for the purpose of misleading others into believing that untruth. Do you really believe that whoever wrote those earlier comments was lying? If not—and maybe even if yes—you would be wisest to avoid using that term in your discussions here, methinks.
• I think that your assertion that English speaking sources are, essentially, allowing inertia to make their judgements for them in this matter is not altogether impossible. Many persons (I hope that I am not amongst them) do wish to hold onto to what they have been taught in the past and have difficulty integrating new information. But acknowledging that this is possible is far from saying that it has happened, or even that it is likely. After all, the scientific community, regardless of the language they speak, is rife with persons who live each day in hope of being the one who comes up with something "new". That is why the National Geographic Society made such a big deal about the discovery of Nevado Mismi. Why would they not also trumpet that this discovery made the Amazon the world's longest river? NGS has a long history—almost all from their first half-century of existence—of bringing the world up to speed on the newest geographical information. I'm sure it pains many of their leaders that there is so little left to "discover" today, and that they would have given their left arm to be able to "prove" that their new discovery also led to a new ordering of the world's rivers.
• You say that the Spanish sources for many years have quoted the longer figure. Could they too not also be guilty of information inertia? After all, the most recent investigation in this matter has been done by an English-language organization.
• Your comments about the article needing some reorganization are well taken. While this is by no stretch of the imagination the worst large article I've come across (most of it's organization is at least understandable), it can definitely use some work.
• I don't think that this article exhibits a bias against non-English sources. I think it simply is a realistic reflection of the fact that most of its writers are English speakers, the majority of whom speak only English. I speak a bit of Spanish, and could probably handle any Spanish-language sources you would care to include, but what am I to do with something Polish or French or Japanese? How much can such a source mean anything to me? You could put a quote in from a Hungarian journal on bovine diseases, tell me that it discusses the length of the Amazon, and I wouldn't know the difference. I have to assume that Wikipedia has policies in place for handling these sorts of things, but I am unaware of them.

Okay, so that's my two cents worth. For now, I must say, I think that, until Caroig or someone else documents appropriately, I recommend leaving the language in the article as it stands currently. Unschool 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the recent article from the National Geographic Society that claims it is now the longest river. 999mal 06:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article only says that Brazilian scientists claim to have found out a new length of the river, but "scientific results .. have not been published" yet. -- Meister (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A recent scientific investigation, this time joint between the International Science Community and the the Geographic Society of Lima have officially concluded that the Amazon River is longer than the Nile by approximately 400 kilometers. Here's the source: http://www.peru.com/noticias/idocs/2008/5/7/DetalleDocumento_507266.asp --MarshalN20 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This article only repeats the theses of the Polish Jacek Palkiewicz of 1996, - and the source of the Amazon mentioned in the article is near Nevado Mismi which recently has been discussed as being the source of the 6,400 km long Amazon. So we still have to wait for more detailed scientific explanation. -- Meister (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My school project help

Um... would anyone possibly be able to help me with the location of the Margay sub-species in the Upper Amazon. I'm having trouble finding them. (occasionally interrupted by the obvious cuteness of the photos I find on Google Images)

Frodo 11011 08:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You might be better off asking at the reference desk, if you haven't tried already. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring how to work that. Hehe. Frodo 11011 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

length discussion in first paragraph

Hi All,

This was recently added: "but that has some dissagreements.the Amazon river is anywhere between 6,259km/3,903mi and 6,712km/4,195mi long. The exact length of the two rivers varies over time and reputable sources disagree as to their actual length. The Nile River in Africa is reported to be anywhere from at 5,499km/3,437mi to 6,690km/4,180mi long. But there is no question as to which of the two great rivers carries the greater volume of water"

As no citation was given, it seems to contradict what was previously there. I am inclined to revert it. Thoughts? Debivort 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree you revert that Batboy23130 entry, it's rather a statement for the Talk-page - Meister 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy in first paragraph

The paragraph now reads: "It is also the second longest river in the world. .... Most sources regard the Amazon as the second longest river; however, some sources disagree." Maybe the first sentence should be dropped to avoid redundancy. What do you think? (Antonio.sierra 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Antonio, I think that that was an excellent observation; I'd read this article dozens of times and not caught that. How do you like my revision? Unschool 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation and prehistory of the river

I don't know enough about the river to contribute to this article, but for those who do, might I suggest including a section on the geologic history of the river? For example, covering how and when it was created, the major changes it has undergone over time, and any other facts of related interest. The introduction mentions, in passing, that during the Cenozoic the Amazon flowed the opposite way until the Andes rose up, which piqued my interest, but there's nothing else like that in the article. Is there scientific consensus on how old the river is? 71.129.81.136 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Longest River?

It's now claimed to be longer than the Nile.[2]

I am afraid to say that when Brazil scientists claim there to "have discovered a new source for the Amazon in the south of Peru and not the north of the country as had been thought for many years", this fact has already been published at Wikipedia for a couple of years now (see on the discussion page above). And it has not made the river any longer (see above). Still, it's only too understandable that they want to prove their home river is the world's longest. -- Meister 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has spent as much time as I have arguing for the Nile being the longest river in the world [See this archived discussion as well as the above], per the consensus of the geographic community. But it is a BBC report, and so I thought it merited inclusion. Please comment on my compromise wording. Unschool 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It IS a BBC report, yes, but their main argumentation is that the source of the Amazon has been relocated, this making the river longer than stated before. But: this relocation of the river's source is no recent fact, but has been done by Palkiewicz in 1996 and the National Geographic Team in 2001. Selling this relocation as 'new' devaluates the contents of the BBC article, I'd say. This means that your statement in the article, that "according to recent reports—detailing more remote sources for the Amazon—the South American river may very well be the longest river in the world" is giving too much weight on the BBC article. Palkiewicz and National Geographic are given as sources at the bottom of the page, and - if at all - the recent BBC article should be placed there as well.

In 2005, I have attempted to measure the Amazon from source to mouth on high resolution GoogleEarth maps at scales of 1:10,000 (see above), and my result of the total length was near 6,400 km. Of course, this is no scientific proof, by no means. But I doubt if the guesses of the scientists mentioned in the BBC article are any closer to the river's REAL length. -- Meister 16:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I shall yield to your and others on the issue of how (indeed, if) to include this "new" information. I have too many other birds to hunt. Unschool 17:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Potable water at sea?

I seem to remeber reading that you can get potable water up to 50 miles from the river mouth. Anyone know anymore ??? 85.22.21.252 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mar Dulce"

Hey... I am not familiar with the origin of the "Mar Dulce" name for the Amazon River, however, I believe that the parenthesis saying (Sweet Sea) is inaccurate. In Spanish, fresh water is referred to as "agua dulce." A literal translation of "agua dulce" is infact "sweet water," however the phrase means "fresh water" (no salt) and not "sweet water." For that reason it may be wise to remove "(Sweet Sea)" from the end of the article's introduction since it is more than likely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.56.176 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

300 Dead From Piranhas?

I call BS. There are absolutely no results coming back for this, and the only thing I can find is in English (no Portuguese or Spanish!) and is even always just a copy & paste of the same paragraph -- there are no independently written accounts of this anywhere as far I can tell. I speak Spanish, but not Portuguese, so maybe I messed up, but I really doubt it. Can we delete this nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlexc (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to upper Amazon?

"Today, the Upper Amazon has a series of major river systems in Peru..."

Today the upper Amazon has a series of major river systems? What about the past. This implies human activity has changed the flow of the river somehow. By contrast, it makes sense to say "Today the Colorado River never makes it to the sea", since it did in the past. I don't think the Amazon has been altered significantly by human activity.

Recommend deleting the word today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.4.53 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In River&redirect=no&oldid=228214408 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Mann" :
  • {{Mann, C, C., ed. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. University of Texas. ISBN 1400032059. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) page 296
  • {{Mann, C, C., ed. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. University of Texas. ISBN 1400032059. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha...

I saw someone'd vandalized this, so I raqn to make anj account and change it, but by the time I'd done it it was fixed! O.o xD Hikari Tajiri (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Name

This subsection says what names the river bore earlier but not when or why it came to be called Amazon river and river amazon.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.166.237 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2004 (UTC)

Its the same name accept the words amazon and river swap places. look, River Amazon. And Amzon River!!

The Name

Why or How did the Amazon come to be named the Amazon River?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.191.224 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2005 (UTC)

Point of Interest

I'm not much of one to contribute since i'm not good at this type of writing, but it might be interesting to point out the annual wave that travels down the amazon and its ability to be the potential "endless wave." Cool tie in to surfing i think.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.44.240 (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Possible Mistake

In the second para the flow rate is given as '184,000 metres cubed during the rainy season'. However, the table on the right gives it as closer to 220,000. Which is correct? Surely the figure in the table, as the average flow rate all year round, should be lower than the figure in the text?

I'm no expert, but I found this from one website.

"Flow rate is an important measurement when examining a river’s size. The average flow rate of the Amazon River is about 200,000 cu m/second (7,100,000 cfs). However, during flood levels the discharge of the Amazon increases to nearly 300,000 cu m/second (10,000,000 cfs). For comparison, the average flow rate of the Mississippi River is 16,800 cu m/second (593,000 cfs), and its flood discharge at St. Louis, Missouri, during the floods in the summer of 1993 was 30,000 cu m/second (1,000,000 cfs)."

Could this be more accurate? Interestingly, I did find a page that gave the flow rate as "184,000 cubic meters (6.5 million cubic feet) per second in the rainy season" (direct quote) which seems to suggest the person who wrote this page got the info from that site. However I would like to respectfully point out that the name of the website http://www.junglephotos.com/amazon/students/homework/amazonfacts.shtml does sort of suggest it was never meant for serious study.

Some update:

Actually both figures are correct but the measurements are taken at different locations. 219,000 is the average at the mouth while 184,000 is rainiy season value for around 960 km (?) upriver. Sources:

http://www.brazil.org.nz/main.php?page=brazil_content&article=21
http://www.brcactaceae.org/hydrography.html
http://www.rdinstruments.com/success_stories/s_amazon.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.21.69 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

Headline text

The Amazon River is located in North Eastern Brazil.

The Amazon River is in South America in Brazil. It is about 6280km long or 3920 miles long. It may not be the longest, but it is the widest. The Amazon covers close to 2.2 million square miles or 6,100,000km2. The Amazon is the largest river in the world! It is 30x the length of Britain. The Amazon River Basin is roughly the size of the forty-eight contiguous United States (the United States not including Alaska and Hawaii)

Amazon River has a temperature, of about 26°C (78°F).

When the Amazon River floods most trees around the river have their roots under water. When its further bank is out of sight it looks like an inland sea.

The annual outflow of freshwater is approximately 20% (one-fifth of the ocean). The Amazon's daily freshwater discharge into the Atlantic Ocean is enough to supply New York City's freshwater needs for nine years. More water flows into the ocean from the Amazon River than the combined output of the Mississippi, the Nile, and the Yangtze rivers. It is estimated that the Amazon discharges between 34 million and 121 million litres (9 million and 32 million gallons) of water per second and deposits a daily average of 3 million tons of sediment near its mouth.

The Amazon has been described, as the “greatest river in the world”, but in the future it could be littered, fish dead, a bit like this river

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.76.34 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This unsigned and pointless remark (because I see no point in putting it on the discussion page) sounds like an elementary-school work and has a lot of factual errors. First of all, one just has to look at a map (which the author above obviously hasn't done) to see that the Amazon river flows through Northern Brazil - the Northeastern region of Brazil is actually mostly arid and its only significant rivers are the much smaller São Francisco and Parnaíba. Many of the Northeastern rivers dry up completely in the region's frequent droughts - very different from the humidity of the Amazon Basin.

The Amazon River (including its upper-course names of Solimões, Ucayali, etc.) also flows through Peru and bathes a piece of Colombia as well at the town of Letícia. Tributaries also come from Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. It is this basin that has such a large area, which is not entirely in Brazil, a country which includes many other kinds of landscape, soil, climate and vegetation.

Water temperature varies a lot along the course of the river and with the seasons. It is mostly warm in the lower course, but try bathing in its Andean section in Peru, or during the annual cold South wind phenomenon called friagem, which can happen from June to August (winter in the Southern Hemisphere)...

The flooding of the Amazon banks and the trees' adaptation to it is a complex phenomenon hydrologically, geologically and biologically, and cannot be described in a few simple words. It is not uniform along the river and is different in the Amazon itself and its many tributaries, and also depends on the topography of the banks (elevated or not, sandy or rocky, etc.). The outflow is far from being "one fifth of the ocean" but it is about one fifth of the river water that flows into the oceans.

The source for those numbers was not stated. So, I am glad that this text did not make to the main article. And as for the Amazon being "littered, fish dead," while the Amazon is subject to serious pollution problems like all freshwater in the world, and has many endangered species (mostly due to overfishing or overhunting), I seriously doubt that it is within human capability, even with intense deliberate effort, to completely litter a river this size and kill all fish in it, especially considering that there is only one large city close to its banks (Manaus) and three medium-sized ones (Iquitos, Santarém and Macapá, this last one already very close to the Atlantic). Please read more and better sources, get better informed, and be critical of what you read before making such statements. --UrsoBR (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct of course, but you are commenting on some 3 year old nonsense :-). However I added a proper reference for the statistical infos (1/5 of the world's river outflow).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I know... I had also noticed that the "nonsense" part was over 3 years old, and being an IP address, it was unlikely that the author would ever read my countering comments. However, I wrote them thinking more of other people who might come and read this page - I felt they should have access to a different perspective. Most Wikipedia visitors don't bother to visit discussion pages, but if that person did, others might as well, and I didn't want them to find those claims uncontested. Since the article is about one of the world's best-known and most important geographical features, I suppose it must be accessed very often - which increases the likelihood of the discussion page being visited as well.

Anyway, thanks for adding the river outflow part. --UrsoBR (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation and prehistory of the river(2)

See wikipedia articles on Continental drift and plate tectonics and you will be satisfied Gerard Pieter Koenraadt 12:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

the aftermath of the sediment discharge of the Amazon

The sediment discharged at the mouth of the Amazon is carried by the NE winds etc to the coast of the Guianas and up to the Orinoco delta(!) and settles as mudbanks on which Mangrove trees grow, which stabilize the mud. so that the coast of the Guianas is the fastest accreting coat in the world. I have asked permission by ELSEVIER to use these data, either to add to this article, or as a separate article Gerard Pieter Koenraadt 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Gerard Pieter Koenraadt 12:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koenraadt (talk • contribs)

Elsevier is a well-reputed scientific publishing house, but a single, isolated research paper does not necessarily mean that there is consensus in the scientific community about that particular issue. Be careful about that. However, you don't need to have their permission unless you are going to re-publish the entire article or quote large parts of it. You can perfectly say that "according to Author X et al. (add link to full reference in footnote), the sediment... etc." (using your own words like - I suppose - you did above). Or (even better, in such a case where there is only one paper): "author X et al. (reference) claim that..." --UrsoBR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if the "Google search" on that subject which appeared listed in the "External links" section was yours, I removed it. It was not even a link and was totally inappropriate there. --UrsoBR (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Several edits (September 2009)

I have made several edits to the article, too numerous to list in a one-line summary, so here goes a list of them:

• Several Portuguese-language names had their spellings corrected (I am Brazilian, I know how to spell them). Most of them were just missing diacritics, though. However, the headland on the Amapá coast mentioned several times in the text is called Cabo Norte, not "Cabo do Norte" (the latter would be acceptable in Portuguese as well, but it just happens that the other name is used instead, including in the official IBGE naming, as I could see on that entity's maps).

• I practically rewrote the "Mouth" section for clarity. In particular, the original text mentioned a certain "Punto Patijoca" as one of the extremities of the river's mouth. Punto is not a Portuguese word (it would be "point" in Spanish), so no place in Brazil could have that name, and it was obviously wrong. I could find no references in Google to such a place except many literal repetitions of the original Wikipedia phrase - I don't know if they just copied and pasted the Wikipedia text including the mistake, or if it all came from the same source (1911 Britannica, perhaps?). An extensive look at the web site of IBGE, the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, finally confirmed my guess and solved the problem: the correct name is Ponta da Tijoca and can be found near the town of Curuçá, state of Pará, as shown on this map .

• The "Tidal bore" section was largely rewritten, too. It was probably from the 1911 Britannica, as it mentioned the coast north of the Amazon's mouth as being "Guiana coast" - it had been part of French Guiana until 1900, when it became Brazilian territory. Either 11 years were not enough for the Britannica writers to learn that, or whoever wrote the Wikipedia article consulted an even older source. I kept the part where it is said that the tidal bore is the reason why the Amazon does not have a delta, but added a "clarification needed" tag, as it is not clear why and how this would occur.

• I added further information on the boto legend (it is supposed to become a man who seduces maidens by the riverside) and added the popular name of the "arowana" fish in Brazil (aruanã).

• I removed the sentence that said that Monte Alegre reaches several hundred meters above sea level. The municipality (which is as large as Slovenia) does, but the small urban area of it on the banks of the Amazon is far lower than that, and the sentence only added unnecessary confusion to the text.

• I added the word "alleged" to the supposed attack of Amazon-like women warriors that would have given the river its name, because there is no evidence that such a tribe ever existed in reality. I also put the "dubious" tag in the part where it is said that there were large cinnamon trees there. Cinnamon is an Asian plant, one of those famous "spices" that made Europeans crazy to sail out and seek in distant lands. Although cinnamon is now successfully grown in Brazil as well and is very popular as a seasoning for sweets, it would have been impossible to find it growing in the wild in the Amazon in the 16th century. It would seem that Orellana was too good a storyteller and/or wanted to really impress the King with the wonders of his adventurous voyage.

• I rewrote the part on the highway projects of the 1970s because it gave the impression that a network of high-quality highways had been successfully built there, when in fact they are unpaved, falling apart and impossible to pass most of the year.

I hope I haven't forgotten anything... But here goes my contribution to this article. --UrsoBR (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would clarify what the dubious tag is applying to, it is highly unlikely that there was actually cinnamon trees there - but Orellana was prone to exaggeration. That he would make some far fetched claims isn't especially dubious, he was trying to justify a 2nd expedition. Perhaps reword to specifically attribute the Amazon warriors and cinnamon claims to Orellana? Kmusser (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the whole paragraph on Orellana's expedition to make it more coherent. I have added the distances involved, which are what makes the whole expedition so very remarkable. The first point which attracted my attention was the status of cinnamon in South America. Indeed, there cannot have been true cinnamon there in 1542. But there are many species of the same genus (Cinnamomum) present in South America, and even more of the same family (Lauraceae). The active substance of cinnamon (cinnamaldehyde) is present in many Lauraceae, at lower concentrations than in Cinnamonom verum. So it is perfectly plausible that, with good reason, Orellana mistook an Amazonian plant for cinnamon. Besides, in the 16th century, botanical nomenclature was still in a relatively primitive state, and there was no clear concept of a species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanMich (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazon River Is 11 Million Years Old

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090707155827.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.229.136 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Countries

Please note that there is a difference between the river itsself and its drainage area and in the same context that Amazon river is not the same as the Amazon basin/area/watershed. The Amazon river itsself flows only through 2 countries Brasil and Peru´ and maybe tiny bit of Colombia. All those other countries only have areas belonging to the Amazon watershed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The river Amazon flows through Peru, Colombia (a short lenght of the river Amazon works as a triborder between Peru/Colombia/Brazil), and Brazil. Other countries belong to the Amazon basin or drainage area. From its source to the triborder flows for around 3000 km (this is the lenght in Peru and less of 100 km shared with Colombia as a border), and the remaining in Brazil towards the Atlantic. 190.235.95.29 (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting Facts

The length of the Amazon is listed as 7062km in the box, between 6,259 and 6,800km in the section labeled "dispute regarding length", and as 6992km in the list of longest rivers in the system. The section labeled "major tributaries" claims that there are 17 rivers over 1500 km in length, but the list of longest rivers includes only 12 (13 if you count the amazon). In the list of longest rivers, the Tapajos is listed twice with wildly different lengths. These sort of conflicts make the entire factual veracity of the page suspect, IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.18.244 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos?

There is a severe dearth of photos of the actual river. There's an extreme over-reliance upon satellite imagery, maps, and photos of things only incidental to the river itself. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Kennedy Lebogang Matshedisho Thagane

The Name

Does anyone know why the river has the same name as the legendary female warriors of Greek mythology? Is it just a co-incidence? It the name of South American origin or did the Europeans give it this name? Just curious. SmokeyTheCat 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do, de.wp has a section on the name that is appropriately sourced. In fact i thought i had included that ino here as well, but either i forgot or it got (accidentally) deleted. I can add a chapter similar to the one in de.wp. Basically there 2 main explanation. One is that Orellana encountered tribes with women warriors and hence used the Greek myth as a name and the other is derivation from a similar sounding indian term for the river or river related phenomenons.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Origins

The current description is a bit confusing and incomplete. Afaik the correct description is:

• headwaters of the apurimac ->apurimac-> Tambo->ene->ucayali->solimoes/amazon (after the confluence of maranon and ucayali)-> amazon proper (after confluence with the negro)-> atlantic

--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a "short" distance

Regarding the beginning of the actual Amazon, the article says:

While the Ucayali–Marañón confluence is the point at which most geographers place the beginning of the Amazon proper, in Brazil the river is known at this point as the Solimões das Águas. Shortly downriver from that confluence the darkly colored waters of the Rio Negro meet the sandy colored Rio Solimões,

"Shortly downriver"? A map of Brazil shows at more than a thousand kilometers between the Ucayali–Marañón confluence and that of the Rio Negro with the Amazon (or Rio Solimões). And that's as the crow flies; follow the actual course, and it would be considerably more. That's hardly "shortly." 140.147.236.195 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I did a quick fix replacing shortly by further. However maybe the whole section should be reworded and also the issue raised in the section above still neds to be addressed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Big underground river found beneath Amazon

There are reports from Brazil about a 6,000 km-long river flowing under the Amazon River.

Discovered "by studying temperature variations at inactive oil wells drilled in the 70s and 80s."

DonL (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Even the wiki page for the Hamza correctly calls it an aquifer. Why do people keep calling it a river? Petronivs (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because clueless news reporters splashed it all over. Google scholar returns zero hits for Hamza River. See the only sane report :) Vsmith (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Geology section

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)

Dispute regarding length section

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)

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 63.225.200.85 (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)

Copyright problem removed

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 or plagiarize 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)

Etymology

Can't find any etymology here, or any reference to a river of this name at {{Amazon]].--Pawyilee (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Shrunken Head

I'm not really sure that an image of a shrunken head should be used in the article. It's kind of graphic and not really necessary to include an image of it in this article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree and removed the image. Surely we can find a more relevant image for the section. Vsmith (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazon River or Amazon (river)?

If the name of the river is Amazon the lemma should be Amazon (river) and not Amazon River. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Meter or metre?

A recent edit highlights the fact that the article contains a mismash of "meter" and "metre". I see a few "color" but no "colour". I guess that makes this US spelling? If we agree, someone can stick {{Use American English|date=March 2015}} at the top. If wanted I'll do it, and fix the converts with |sp=us. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's South American Spanish/Portuguese and SI units, so "metre" is appropriate. I've added in a couple of missing uses of {Convert} templates, and this has eliminated the discrepancy. Given it's SA, however, there should be no issues with use of "color", which is the Spanish spelling. I don't believe that the {Use <whatever> English} templates are quite appropriate. Cheers, Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Most distant source

The 2014 study may well be good, however:

• 1. Neither is specifically a Geographer. Contos indicates that his PhD is in Neuroscience, and Tripcevich is an anthropologist/archaeologist, though one with a GIS focus.
• 2. Although the journal is peer-reviewed, there appear to be no cites of this study or post-publication verification/confirmation.
• 3. [this article].

I've edited what was there for WP:NPOV, indicating that current weight of opinion (obviously by default) is with Nevado Mismi. If and when weight of expert opinion shifts per WP:RS, then the article can and should change to reflect that, but until then, I believe that Nevado Mismi should stand (eg in the infobox).Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Geography

I think this section should be title distributaries instead as relative geography has already been mentioned earlier. Either this section informs the earlier section, or should be re-titled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themechacat (talk • contribs) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Themechacat: Thanks for the flag. I have copyedited the Course section and it now has Upper and Lower subsections -- not saying it's good yet, mind, but how's that? Please note that the rivers mentioned are tributaries (which flow into the Amazon mainstem) rather than distributaries (which would flow out). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 08:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's usual to put the word 'River' before the name

River Thames, River Seine, River Amazon. Putting the word River second is a sure mark of a non-native English speaker.123.255.134.196 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's worth looking at the references. Even just the first two are pretty authoritative sources for the article's current title. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

An IP has been making some recent edits. While some of the ref cleanups appear useful, the bulk of those edits were WP:ENGVAR issues and other grammatical changes. The IP began a discussion on this at User Talk: Bronze2018#Amazon River - but I requested the discussion be moved to here as it's specifically about this article.

My primary concern with the changes is that the IP arbitrarily selected a spelling variance. If the community supports this variant, then no problem - but I believe consensus should be confirmed or at least clarification of the reason for the variant selected given. I also noticed that the IP incorrectly changed the capitalization of proper names, such as changing "Native Americans" to "native Americans". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Color occurs very infrequently, but by contrast "metre" and its derivatives (e.g. "kilometre") appear frequently. So it would appear that ENGVAR B is the right one to choose here. 87.81.237.158 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks IP87, I appreciate the explanation - it wasn't clear to me why you were using the specific EngVar you were standardizing onto. I would like to see if anyone else has any concerns with the EngVar changes - but documenting this on the talk page alleviates many of my concerns.

My main two remaining adjustments would be to "terra preta" - I've already restored your spelling correction to the article, but it's not a proper noun so should be lowercase. Meanwhile the term Native American is a proper noun, so both words should be capitalized - although this one may need further clarification. The term primarily identifies the aboriginal peoples of North America - in South America the preferred terminology appears to be "indigenous peoples of the Americas" - so maybe we should just adjust the languange to avoid the term? Would appreciate your thought on that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI: The IP user 87.81.237.158 has been blocked from editing for a period of one week as yet another sockpuppet of User:Vote (X) for Change, a banned user. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  23:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi protection request edit on 3 June 2016

To prevent vandalism and possible future vandalism — 2601:183:4000:D5BD:4DF6:4958:91E:FD70 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Misplaced request. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is the appropriate venue. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amazon River. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411011122/http://www.inpe.br/ingles/news/news_dest29.php to http://www.inpe.br/ingles/news/news_dest29.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

This article originally had no clearly defined spelling convention, but since July 2012 the instruction at the top of the page has been "use dmy dates". This suggests that Engvar "B" was adopted no later than that date. 62.140.210.135 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia guidelines go, the date format and spelling issues are separate. The article currently uses American spelling and appears to have done so since its inception. Deli nk (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information from? The Manual of Style states:

These varieties (for example American English or British English) differ in a number of ways, including vocabulary (elevator vs. lift), spelling (center vs. centre), date formatting ("April 13" vs. "13 April"), and occasionally grammar (see § Plurals, below).

In the current revision ENGVAR "B" spellings outnumber ENGVAR "A" spellings by a ratio of about 2.5:1. 62.140.210.135 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The article appears to use American spelling throughout, including:

Color (4 times), not colour (0 times)

Center (1), not centre (0)

Organized (1), not organised (0)

Characterize (1), not characterise (0)

Recognize (1), not recognise (0)

Baptize (1), not baptise (0)

Which words are you looking at to conclude that that British spelling outnumbers American spelling by 2.5 to 1? If the dates are in British format and the spelling is American, and you would like them to be consistent, then WP:ENGVAR recommends "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision" which in this case would be the very first edit on 13 September 2001‎. That version appears to be using American English ("organized", etc). Deli nk (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

In my notes I have:

• travelled (not "traveled")
• metres (13) compared to "meters" (0)
• kilometres (28) compared to "kilometers" (1)

Consensus was reached five years ago - I'm not sure what point there is in looking further back. As to the original version, that's not really relevant - it was an excerpt from Encyclopaedia Britannica, and direct quotes are kept "as is", even when they conflict with the article's style. The consensus takes account of the fact that the Amazon has no language ties to the United States, and speakers of the parent languages (Portuguese and Spanish) use ENGVAR "B" when writing English. 62.140.210.135 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently mislabeled waterglasses

The the glasses of water depicted in the article, one allegedly containing water from Rio Negro, are apparently mislabeled. The water of a blackwater river surely would appear darker in direct comparison to a water of a whitewater river.

Nick Fisher (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not the one making changes

I just wanted to let it be known, I have received a couple of messages informing me that "my" edits to this pages will be reverted. I have never edited this page. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.151.77 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Shrunk Head

I find pictures of shrunk heads disturbing AND I find it annoying that there is one here. Ok, so the Jivaro living near the river kill people and shrink heads. Is it really SO relevant to the river to deserve a picture of a shrunk head? There is no such picture even in the Jivaro's article. Come on. I'm getting rid of that head now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudyed (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Length value

As the current value for the length (6992.6 km) comes from an unpublished study, and is not representing the scientific majority, I changed it according to WP:RS to the Encyclopaedia Britannica value ("at least" 6400 km) which seems to have general agreement, is a reliably published value, and is used throughout the web (simply search for amazon river "6400 km"). For clarity I added a note describing the origin of the value.

Although personally I would prefer to use the value of 6575 km published in a peer-reviewed journal. Because IMHO 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 think this should not be done without a proper discussion. So I invite all fellow Wikipedians to discuss the possible introduction of 6575 km as the accepted length of the Amazon. A decision for either one is difficult, the Britannica value seems to be one that is generally accepted and a simple internet search (see above) 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) 17:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Geology Section

The geology section either needs a lot more detail about the "Amazon/Congo" river system, or it needs to not mention it. The only place I can find mention of such a river system is in this article or places that quote this article.Rockphed (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Length

the length of the Amazon from the source of the Ucayali and the south channel to bypass the island of Marajo is approximately 7,100 km. It is known since fifties of the 20th century. This fact is for example in the Great Russian encyclopedia. If measured from the Northern channel (which is the main mass of water) the length of the Amazon approximately 6800 km. The Polish dimension 6992 km - this is not recognized by the scientific community, as well as the endless measurements of Chinese scientists who are made to raise the citation index. "Approximately 6,400" is an old figure that appears in all English-language sources, just because it's 4,000 miles. It's an old estimated length of "about 4,000 miles" but it's not really an accurate measurement.

Please understand: the exact river lengths were measured in the 50s-60s of the 20th century, and the latest, including satellite technology, can not change anything. The length of the river is measured not by space research, but by the river channel (along the deepest part of the channel), this is done by cartographers and surveyors.

The length of the Nile, which is officially recognized by the scientific community is 6671 km. Other statements have no official recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.188.184.50 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Inflow to Amazon

I added a new subsection giving the inflow of the major tributaries. I obtained the information from WP articles on the tributaries. I tried to find all the major ones (I found eleven whose flow seemed to dominate all others) but I may have overlooked some, so I only assigned rank to the first 5. I included the two tributaries that form the Amazon. I welcome corrections from anyone. Thanks for the help. Zaslav (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

hydropower potential

he mean flow of Amazonas currently is 200.000m3/s. I guess it was much more in history.

How much Hydropower is that?

Answer: 2GW per 1meter dam.

50m, 100GW Hydro. Wikistallion (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Consistent capitalization?

Should it be "Amazon River" or "Amazon river"? The format seems to change throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatehowobvious (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)