Talk:Iguazu Falls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Naming and accents[edit]

The English term is Iguassu. In Portuguese, it is spelled "igaçu" without an accent; words ending in l, u, z, i, or r in Portuguese have the emphasis on the last syllable unless they are accented. See

Three different spellings are used in the article n the title, text, and photo captions). Obviously these need to be regularized, but which should be the official encyclopedic spelling? Lee M 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Brazil is the bigger country and maybe the article should reflect the size of the 2 main countries (both very large) but I have only ever seen Iguazù used in English (with or without the accent depending on the author's laziness or not being able to find the key on their keyboard). The status quo with 'Iguazu' seems quite sensible. Luckily I have 'ù' on my keyboard as it's Italian.-- (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Stupidly just realised that 'ù' on my keyboard is not the same as 'ú' that's used in Iguazú Falls.-- (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty easy on a Mac—three keystrokes: option + ` then u. Fortunately for a Windowscentric world, the consensus here is to for the accentless Iguazu.. Rivertorch (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In Portuguese, it is Iguaçu (with a c-cedilla and no accent on the "u", though putting an acute one on it is a very common spelling mistake among Brazilians themselves). In Spanish, it is Iguazú, with an acute accent (that is, slanted to the right; "ù", with a grave accent - slanted to the left - does not currently exist in either Portuguese or Spanish).
Both spellings are troublesome for English speakers. The Portuguese one has a c-cedilla that many will not know that it is to be pronounced as an "s", rather than a "k". Likewise, Spanish has the letter "z" but not the sound of it in English and other languages; it is also pronounced as an "s" (the Portuguese and Spanish pronunciations for this name are nearly identical).
So, I believe Iguassu would be the most appropriate spelling for the English Wikipedia. In fact, the Brazilian city of Foz do Iguaçu is considering changing its official name to "Foz do Iguassu" because of the foreign tourists who come to see the falls, but it is finding legal problems to do so (since Portuguese spelling in Brazil is officially defined by the Brazilian Academy of Letters), as well as some opposition from upstream towns with no tourist traffic which don't want to change. --UrsoBR (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the current consensus for Iguazu per several discussions "upstream" on this page. In a context where all of these spellings are widely used, this spelling here has led to a stable version of the article with neither Spanish- nor Portuguese-language devotees crying foul—nor, for that matter, anyone else crying foul. (I misspoke above, btw; it's option + e then u on a Mac. The cedilla is easy: option + c.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's just as easy in Windows: ctl+alt+u. Isn't it about time we got over the childish OS wars? Bagunceiro (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


is it bigger than Niagara Falls?

What do you mean by bigger? Height? Total length? Volume of water?


In portuguese it is called Iguaçu and not igaçu. What should we do with the Iguaçu article. Should we merge or...?

Iguaçu and Iguassu Falls are two different articles (the river and the waterfalls).
Iguassu is the English name, prefered over Portuguese Iguaçu or Spanish Iguazú. (It's a Guarani name, and they had no writting).
BTW:Don't forget to sing your msg with ~ ~ ~ ~. --Marianocecowski 13:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, whatever spelling you choose, please make sure it's coherent in the title and the article itself. Right now, "iguassu" and "iguazu" are both used, confusingly. -- 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
If Iguassu is the preferred English name, then please move the article back to it. Icemanofbarcelona101 also moved Iguaçu without any reason. -- 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm no long so sure about the English name google reports 708,000 hits for "Iguazu falls", and only 280,000 for "Iguassu falls". Commens form any native English speaker? Mariano(t/c) 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, but here is some data:
  • Encarta: Iguaçu (the river also Iguassu)
  • Britannica: Iguaçu
  • Little Britannica (?): Iguazú or Iguaçu (ex-Victoria??)
  • Webster: Iguaçú or Iguazú
  • Columbia Encycl.: Iguaçu or Iguassú
To Iguaçu, I say. -- 13:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, what you gave is not necesarilly all. For instance, Britannica also uses Iguazu Falls and Iguazú River] as main titles. I'm more for Iguassu or Iguazu, but I would prefer a native speaker to give his/her point of view. Mariano(t/c) 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the third item. Btw, until the native speaker appears, you can consider those as the opinions of 5 native English speakers, namely the editors of those encyclopedias. They mostly seem to favor Iguaçu. -- 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, in the links I gave its the first item, not the third. Please, at least take a look at them before answering. your reasons are no better than mine, so I don't know why you replaced all the words saying that the decision is finnal. I hope the survey clears things out. Mariano(t/c) 07:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Third item.PNG
Third item. Did you even look at my comment? I doubt it. --193ypico 09:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a native English speaker and favor Iguaçu. The redirect of Iguacu should exist because the ç normally is not on our keyboards. I strongly believe that place names should not be translated when all possible. (note: many place names in the US and UK are translated in Portuguese and I don't like that hehe). However, Iguazu is Spanish and it is equally valid, since the falls are international.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, if you consider local names Iguaçu and Iguazu to be valid, vote at the section down below. Mariano(t/c) 10:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked my opinion here, but as for where the article should reside, I don't really have one. All the redirects should exist; all the common spellings should be listed in the lead section of the article; other than a mention of alternative spellings or in direct quotations, the article body should consistently use one spelling; but beyond that I have no opinion. - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker but want to make my comments anyway. I also believe that place names should not be translated when all possible. The original name of the falls is not Portuguese and not Spanish, it's Guarani. Though Guarani was not a written language it became one with a complete grammar and spelling rule since the Spanish Jesuits used it to instruct the natives hundred's of years ago. The real name of the falls in Guarani is Y'Guazú. Paraguayans, which actually speak Guarani name them Yguazú which is the nearest to the original Guarani term. I think it's important to notice the letter "Y" is also a word that means "water", so I think it's not a matter of spelling, it's a matter of meaning. LucasAntuna 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lucas, and thanks for your information on the Guaraní name of the falls, I'll add it to the article. Nevertheless, the naming conventions in wikipedia ask us to use wither the English name or the most commonly used name. The guaraní version is clearly not any of those two, so I would say it wouldn't be such a good idea to change the page's title. Take care, Mariano(t/c) 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I guess it was already there. Mariano(t/c) 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mariano, your right, it's already there. I vote for Iguassu as the English term because it's easier to type (without accents and wierd characters that are not available on American keyboards). The comparison with other famous falls is excellent, I'm going to link my related site page to this page. Maybe you find something interesting there to publish here (of course, your authorized) or want to include it as an external link. 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article has already been extensively discussed, and the Iguazu has been chosen as the most common English name. The site you point to seams to me fine enough to include it among the external links. Mariano(t/c) 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does one name have to be used throughout consistently? When writing an article about 'Derry' in the north of Ireland one editor may prefer this name and another may prefer the unionist Londonderry. Deciding between the two would be a very political decision to make and this is demonstrated in British and Irish newspapers which often use Londonderry in the first mention and Derry from then on (or viceversa). As long as the article indicates in the opening paragraph that Iguazú, Iguazu and Iguaçu (and what ever strange name someone suggested was the "proper" English name - Igussu, was it?) are the same thing then it doesn't matter what's used in the rest of the article. If a reader is too stupid to read the opening paragraph then they should probably get back to playing video games.-- (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the convention not only at Wikipedia but in most media to be consistent throughout. Most of our readers are far from stupid (even the ones who play video games), but we serve everyone from native English speakers to those just learning the language and children and people with visual and cognitive disabilities. Few people would be confused if we seesawed back and forth, but it would be potentially confusing and definitely look amateurish. Rivertorch (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The current Guarani spelling used throughout Paraguayan schools (Guarani is an official language there, alongside Spanish) for "big water" is "y guasu" . Olga Troxler Vda. de Maldonado’s "Gran Diccionario", 2004 Edition, renders "yguasu" as "sea, water in abundance" and translates the Spanish "catarata" into the Guarani "ytororõ". In the other hand, there is an academic consensus that proper names retain their traditional spelling. Indeed, the "Map of Paraguay. Political Division. Scale 1:1 000 000. 1996 Edition. Reprinted in 2004." published by the Paraguayan Military Geographical Service Directorate, spells "Cataratas del Yguazú" Aldo L (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls in fiction[edit]

Like in the Antarctica article, I suggest we remove the Iguazu Falls in fiction section of non-important trivial facts. Please see Antactica's talk page. -Mariano 07:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Such facts can be interesting, keep. 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. "Correct" names in Spanish or Portuguese would be Iguaçu or Iguazú, BTW. —Nightstallion (?) 10:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

As shown in #IGUAÇU, the preferred Englush name is Iguaçu. I don't understand why Marianocecowski refuses to move, what does he mean by this comment, or why he thinks that a random English-speaking Wikipedia editor's opinion should have more weight than three encyclopedias and one dictionary. Anyway, since he doesn't want to move, I can't move, and nobody else is here, I put the request on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I don't think a survey is necessary; but just in case... --193ypico 21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I stated enough reasons to doubt of which name should be used, and given the fact that the name of the article has been a controversial topic is enough reason to take the time to decide this with more than one or two users. And the fact that you seam to find your way so smoothly in the Wikipedia as to create move request minutes after your account was created makes me wander about your good will.
Given the three possibilities for the naming, I will reformat the vote.Mariano(t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The survey is not necessary; three encyclopedias and one dictionary agree. For some reason you think that your opinion is more important. I created the account for the sole purpose of moving this page, but moving is not allowed to new accounts and I was directed to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I supposse it's personal for you now, and you will fiercely defend anything else than Iguacu (there are you, choosing Iguassu over Iguacu (!), as if it were a preference survey), so I don't expect a quick resolution of this anomalous situation. It's a shame. I'll try to move it when my account is old enough. It was my mistake calling you to see the case in the first place; I judged you wrong. --193ypico 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The three encyclopedias and one dictionary where your finding. I can list you more examples with other spellings: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. I believe that the English name is Iguassu (W:English names), the Portuguese is Iguaçu, and the Spanish one is Iguazú. Many encyclopedias try to make use of the local names, so they might choose to use Iguazú, or given the size of Brazil Iguaçu. Now, I would prefer to restore the previous consented title of Iguassu Falls, which a user changed to the Spanish spelling, but wanted also to point out that Iguazu Falls is the most used term of the three, at least as I showed with the google hits (W:Common names). Given the fact that this is the English wikipedia, it would be hard for a English speaking user to type either Iguaçu or Iguazú, I think Iguassu should really be used for the articles name, of course pointing out the local spellings. I also whant to point out that I left messages asking people for their oppinion in this talk page in the Argentine, Brazilian and Latin American WikiProjects. Mariano(t/c) 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll sum up your links for you: (1) 3 of them use the same dictionary: WordNet (uses Iguazu or Iguassu w/o distinction, and doesn't know anything about Iguacu), (2) I didn't find anything related with the falls in the "Encyclopedia of Conscientology" (?), (3) Collier's Encyclopedia (if we believe that 2nd or 3rd hand citation) uses Iguassu (and thinks the falls are in Argentina alone), (4) I strongly suspect that thefreedictionary also uses WordNet, (5) the Concise Britannica article was linked before.
So, merging your findings with mine, we have:
  • Iguacu: Britannica, Concise Britannica, Encarta, Webster, Columbia
  • Iguazu: Concise Britannica, Webster, WordNet
  • Iguassu: Encarta, Columbia, WordNet, Collier's
(Small type means alternative accepted name.)
(The contradiction within Britannica itself is a little startling...) So, in reference works we have: 1. Iguacu, 2. Iguassu, 3. Iguazu. In google: 1. Iguazu, 2. Iguassu, 3. Iguacu. Probably we'll end up compromising on Iguassu, as you say. --193ypico 13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope so. In any case, we should wait for a week to end since the beginning of the survey since your first vote, that is, late June 8th (normal proceedings). Mariano(t/c) 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But probably reason will prevail and we'll rename it to Iguacu. Eh! One never knows... ;-) --193ypico 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


The following voting is for popularity, meaning a voter can vote more than one of the options.

Iguazu Falls[edit]

  1. -Mariano(t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. -Mtiedemann 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Taragüí @ 11:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Seattlenow 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (first choice--most common and seems like a better transliteration)(English words rarely have diacritics--"Iguaçu Falls" is Portuguese, not English)
  5. IlyaHaykinson 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iguassu Falls[edit]

  1. -Mariano - first choice (t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. -Mtiedemann 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Taragüí @ 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) My first choice
  4. Seattlenow 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. IlyaHaykinson 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iguaçu Falls[edit]

  1. Pro --193ypico 21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Reasons: Encarta, Britannica, Merriam Webster and Columbia Enc., all favor Iguaçu.
  1. Pro - it simply is the correct name. Dpotop 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Iguazu Falls. Mariano(t/c) 07:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


As the choice is now between Iguazu and Iguassu, I'd say we have a vote on just those two options. —Nightstallion (?) 10:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And just to clarify, "normal voting time" is five days after the move has been listed at WP:RM; that is today, so I've closed the move above. This run-off is an attempt to come to a decision, as Mariano claimed this was not a no consensus result. —Nightstallion (?) 10:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls[edit]



Iguassu Falls[edit]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Iguazu Falls in television[edit]

Who really cares about whether or not the falls were in a soap opera? That is the tackiest thing I have ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect the waterfall that appears in this episode is Gullfoss, located in Iceland in Hvítá river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Brought from main article by: Mariano(t/c) 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nov. 5 edits (spelling)[edit]

An unregistered user has changed most but not all of spellings in the article from Iguazu to Iguaçu. This was done despite a vote to the contrary (see archives below) and with no recent discussion. It was also done inconsistently. I have reverted the page. (I have no strong feelings one way or the other but have an aversion to sloppily executed edits by unregistered users on controversial topics without prior notice.) Rivertorch 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, usage must match article's name. Mariano(t/c) 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This rocks my sox![edit]

This is the coolest waterfall ever! I love it soo much! I have to do a report on this, and it was so helpful to have a page that is so informative! :) Thanx, Anyonoumus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


The article currently has no discussion of the geology of the falls. See for example the Niagara Falls article. Geology could be grouped with other aspects of a natural history survey. --Figsyrup 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Livingston de Chutes?[edit]

I am unable to find any non-wp related google reference to such named falls? However "Livingston Falls" is an alternate term to "Victoria Falls". If there is another "Livingston de Chutes", please reinsert with reference or link. Ekem 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


I can find no explorer by the name "Boselli" on Wikipedia, per the sentance in the introduction, "The falls were rediscovered by Boselli at the end of the nineteenth century, and one of the Argentinian falls is named after him.". Could somebody please clarify? Nigholith 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything on Boselli online, at least in English. Perhaps someone fluent in Spanish or Portuguese could Google Boselli and Iguazu (with alternate spellings) and make sense of what comes up; there are a lot of hits. Or maybe someone has a written work to cite. In the meantime, I added an inline citation tag (redundantly, since there's already a template on top). Rivertorch 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

can we use this image?[edit]

Hi, I uploaded a picture I have of Iguazu Falls to Wikipedia. It's entirely my own work, and I thought it'll be great if you guys can use it or add it somewhere in the article.

Iguazu falls.jpg

Let me know if it will be added. --Mitchipr (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In Paraguay?[edit]

When I visited Iguacu falls in 2003, I was told that the falls are located on the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, although I did not visit the paraguayan side, because apparently there is a shopping mall there. Is it true that the falls lie between the borders of 3 countries? If it is true then we should change this in the article. (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The junction between Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina are situated a few kilometers down the Iguazu River from the fall, when the river merges into the Parana river. Iguazu falls are clearly outside of Paraguay.S23678 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's my understanding, too, although some quick Googling for detailed maps was unproductive. The terrain is a bit confusing in the vicinity of the falls. A large-scale map or an aerial view with the national borders overlaid would be a valuable addition to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: For having spent 3 days in the area going from Argentina to Brazil to Paraguay, Iguazu falls AND river is, without a single doubt, outside Paraguay -- S23678 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You and I know that; unfortunately, our knowledge doesn't meet WP standards for verifiability. The article is correct as it stands, but since the question has been asked it would be nice to be able to point to something definitive like a clear map. Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"The park shares with Iguazú National Park in Argentina one of the world’s largest and most impressive waterfalls, extending over some 2,700 m." Official World Heritage Website, about Iguaçu National Park, in Brasil. -- S23678 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"The semicircular waterfall at the heart of this site is some 80 m high and 2,700 m in diameter and is situated on a basaltic line spanning the border between Argentina and Brazil." Official World Heritage Website, about Iguazu National Park, in Argentina. -- S23678 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Terrific. Let's see if we can work one or both of those citations into the article. (It looks like some rewording will be required, which is beyond me at least until tomorrow.) The Access section looks like a problem, too; it should specify that access to the falls from Ciudad del Este isn't direct access. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A MAP! Worth a thousand words. Geo-coordinates are nice, but nothing beats a picture. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


An editor reported (within the article, not on the talk page) that "Some of the numbers cited in this [Comparisons to other famous falls] section do not agree with the ones given in the reference (i.e. references 4 and 5, data from Should be reconciled." Anybody have time to check this out? I probably can't get to it for a couple of days. Rivertorch (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph of article: "The Iguazu River rises near the city of Curitiba." --- rises? really? As with anti-gravity? Please edit. Suggest "arises", at least, or better, "originates". (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Rivers rise. It's absolutely standard terminology and can be found in any good dictionary. Rivertorch (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Throat[edit]

There's an understandable tendency for specific editors to switch Spanish phrases to Portuguese and vice-versa, but it doesn't serve the article for this to happen. I am changing the article to use "Devil's Throat" rather than "Garganta do Diabo" or "Garganta del Diablo" throughout the article except for the first occurrence, where I have the other forms in parentheses. This would seem to be the best solution, since this is the English Wikipedia and it's awkward and confusing to switch back and forth from one language to another when referring to the same thing. Rivertorch (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Further note: there should be a similar consistency to the spelling of "Iguazu", so I'm doing something similar along those lines. ("Iguaçu" is perfectly legitimate as well, but let's go for consistency rather than randomness after the lede.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Upper and lower" Iguazu?[edit]

The following statement seems to have been completely invented, because I have never seen it anywhere else: "The falls divide the river into the upper and lower Iguazu." Considering that the Iguaçu/Iguazú river is over 1,100 km long and the falls are only about 30 km upstream from its mouth on the Paraná River, this extremely uneven division does not make the least sense in geographic terms. I strongly suggest that it be removed. --UrsoBR (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search indicates that the phrases "upper Iguazu" and "lower Iguazu"—particularly the latter—are in common use. (I tried to remove WP-based results from the search, think I mostly succeeded.) It makes sense geologically, if not geographically. Rivertorch (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil)[edit]

These falls are near to the Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil).Agre22 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

IMDb etc[edit]

Regarding Crech's edit of earlier today: If I understand correctly, IMDb is deprecated as a reliable source except in certain limited areas, none of which involve content of a film (e.g., setting or location). See Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb and Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb for discussion on this topic. It's not a policy or even guideline, as far as I can see, so there's probably plenty of wiggle room. Also, including the year of each movie's release seems a bit unnecessary. It's nice to know, but why stop there? Cast and director would be cool too, but it's all off-topic. In any case, that info is a mouse click away in each case and doesn't need to be in an article about a waterfall. Finally, the bulleted list format seems unnecessary for so small a group of films and distracts from the flow of the article. Rather than simply reverting, I thought I'd shoot for consensus. Your thoughts, Crech? Anyone? Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A little bit of detail about the significance of the waterfall in each movie would be good. I would prefer to have some prose as opposed to just the bullet lists. But eh, I dunno, I'm just passing by really. I've been watching the article for only a little while. Dawnseeker2000 05:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory wording[edit]

Clarifying, per a request on my talk page: on Dec. 14, I placed a "contradiction" tag in the first paragraph of the Geography section. The last two sentences in the paragraph seem to contradict each other:

The Devil's Throat (Garganta del Diablo in Spanish or Garganta do Diabo in Portuguese), a U-shaped, 82-meter-high, 150-meter-wide and 700-meter-long (490 by 2300 feet) cataract, is the most impressive of all, and marks the border between Argentina and Brazil.
The Argentine side comprises three sections: the upper falls, the lower falls, and the Devil's Throat.

If the Devil's Throat marks the border between the two countries, then is it really one of the three sections on the Argentine side? Conceivably, yes, if the border lies just past the Devil's Throat, but then the phrase "marks the border" is imprecise and shouldn't be applied to a 700-meter-long cataract. My reading of "marks the border" suggests that at least part of the Devil's Throat belongs to either country. A large-scale map of the falls (from a reliable source) clearly showing the international border would be helpful . Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the limit border is the Waterfall "Union", which is the beginning of "Garganta del diablo" (devil throat). --El rrienseolava (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We need a map. Rivertorch (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I will bring a map, and its reference, then you will see that I was saying the truth. --El rrienseolava (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the map, you should look to this webpage: And if you are a neutral person, please write that I wrote before. --El rrienseolava (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. While the source isn't quite impeccable, it does tentatively help to clarify where the international boundary (the brown dashed line, I presume) lies in relation to the falls. The precise boundaries of the Devil's Throat aren't clear from the map, though. You wrote above that "the limit border is the Waterfall 'Union', which is the beginning of 'Garganta del diablo'", and I'm not sure what the Waterfall "Union" is.
Regarding your proposed text, it has multiple problems. Aside from its being in nonstandard English and somewhat confusingly worded, it appears to be sourced to a travel company's website and two blogs, which don't meet the guidelines for reliable sources. Some of your proposed wording also seems to conflict with the map you've provided. If the map is to be trusted, then far more than 80% of the falls—including all or most of the Devil's Throat—are in Argentina. Also, only the Devil's Throat area, not the falls as a whole, appears to be in a horseshoe shape, and judging from the map, the views from Brazil should be significantly more panoramic than the views from Argentina. In any case, I'm making too many judgments based on incomplete information. We cannot afford to allow original research or synthesis into the article, so I'm afraid we need to leave it as it is, pending better sources. I am reverting, and I will reinforce my earlier comment here about edit warring. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you wanna, look to these photos and images: -







Is it enough? --El rrienseolava (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all interesting. What a complicated waterfall system! A good map made for Wikipedia would do wonders. I'm adding a request for one now. Maybe someday I'll attempt one myself. Pfly (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, this map, [8], appears to be a copyright violation, but otherwise a decent source for use in making a new map. Pfly (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
@ El rrienseolava No, it isn't enough. Sorry. I can search Google Images, too, but that's not the way to find reliable sources. I agree with Pfly—it is all very interesting—but as I advised you on my talk page, there are rules about original research and reliable sources. Thanks, Pfly, for requesting the map. Rivertorch (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Rivertorch n' Pfly. I will do some research on it later as well, maybe I can turn up something good. In the meantime, I requested speedy deletion on that map. It is clearly a copyright violation; the watermark on the map is a clear giveaway, aside from the source website.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm . . . didn't realize El r. had uploaded it. I found an article in The UNESCO Courier (I don't have link at hand but it's the Nov. 1995 issue, pp. 40–43) that has me thoroughly confused. It places the Devil's Throat in Brazil and says that "it is only from the Argentinian side that it is possible to get a panoramic view". If I had the cash, I'd say the heck with this WP:NOR stuff—I'm flying there next week and see for myself. In all seriousness, though, there seems to be a dearth of readily available reliably-sourced info on the falls, and that's just weird. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok! then... good luck in tour trip, I hope you enjoy it. And when you see through your eyes that I said is the truth, please remember the nick "el_rrienseolava". And when it happens, please, write here (again) that I wrote a few days ago, thanks.

OH! and... I recommend you visit the Argentine side and you would live something like this: (From brazil you can't do this thing.... obviously, the reason is my that I said in the text removed by you... :) )... --El rrienseolava (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Good source?[edit]

Just a quick note--this book seems like it might be a useful source. There's a chapter on the falls, starting on page 76: Waterfalls, p. 76. Have to run, more later. Pfly (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I've been poking around a bit but hadn't found that one. Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


I'm trying to do a general overhaul/copyedit of this page and just made a relatively simple first pass. A few points: I noticed one of the sources I had used recently was an exact duplicate of the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry about the waterfall, so I changed all those refs to Britannica (and added a few more). There's a good number of references now so I took off the "refimprove" tag--although like most pages it needs additional work. I took out the "Name" section because it was not just about the name but also touching on history. It made sense to include in the lead. Also, I took out the sentence "The falls were rediscovered by Boselli." This sentence was referenced to a blog website, [9], and I have not been able to figure out who this "Boselli" might be, when he or she lived, or anything about this "rediscovery". So, pending further info, it seemed best to just remove the sentence. The blog website ref is used elsewhere on the page, but probably ought to be replaced with something more reliable. What else? I guess that it about it for now. Perhaps over the weekend I'll do a few more copyedit passes. Pfly (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls in Argentina and Brazil[edit]

What do you thin about this map? I think, this one show the distribution between Argentina and Brazil.... --El rrienseolava (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry..., about this map: --El rrienseolava (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think much of it. It doesn't even indicate the border, as far as I can see. Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The border is in the middle of Iguazu river... can't you imagine it?... --El rrienseolava (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I can imagine it, all right. Problem is, imagining things doesn't work very well when determining content for Wikipedia. Only when we can verify what we imagine does it get to go into an article. (Incidentally, I can imagine the border being elsewhere just as well. Lots of rivers aren't split down the middle.) Rivertorch (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)