Talk:List of longest beaches

Cox's Bazar Beach: Is it really one beach?

The Bangladesh Cox's Bazar Beach is interrupted, most importantly it is cut by the Reju Canal. It also have several interruptions by human Constructions and many other streams. Also, a part of the beach is called Inani beach, so even by beach naming it is not one beach. Cox's Bazar is the northern part. So what exactly is the definition of a single beach?

In contrast, the Danish coast from the Jutlandic town of Hvide Sande to Skallingen is almost 70 km long and apart from a very small stream, it is completely uninterrupted. This (small) stream is just north of the middle. If interruptions by human construction and big canals are acceptable, as in Cox's Bazar beach, then it continues to the north of Hvide sande town, ending in Thyborøn and it is altogether about 150 km long. It has four interruptions, all much smaller than the Cox's Bazar beach interruptions. Longest completely uninterrupted segment is from Hvide Sande to Thorsminde at around 42 km. So why is Cox's Bazar beach even on the list, when there are much longer beaches not even on the list, if we accept interruptions by rivers and constructions?

In contrast, the Portuguese beach is completely uninterrupted, so it is indeed the longest beach in Europe that has absolutely no interruptions. However, it is also longer than any uninterrupted segment of Cox's Bazar beach. ~2026-40287-23 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The reason that Cox's Bazar Beach is on the list is because a reliable source gives its length as 120 km. Wikipedia exists to summarize what reliable sources say, not to publish editor's deductions or arguments. What you wrote above may be 100% true, but per WP:VNT, Wikipedia is concerned with what is verified by reliable sources, not what is true. If you have more questions feel free to ask here, or if you prefer, you can use the Teahouse to get input on more general questions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

How is that yearbook a reliable source? Sure, it mays state a length, but how do you qualify the source for comparative purposes when making this list? It creates incomparable comparisons if the different sources don't use the same standard for defining what they consider "a beach."

If I cannot point out things about the list because you have a "source" - then how does the list itself have verisimilitude, when it is created by Wikipedia editors and does not have an actual external source - for the list itself?

It seems to me you people looked for beaches and compiled a list, so it's based on your personal knowledge and not a list made by any kind of authority. Is that how it is? ~2026-40287-23 (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not "a yearbook", it is the Europa World Year Book. If you don't think it's reliable, explain why.

As for the rest, what you're describing remains WP:OR. You have not presented any other sources, so there is no comparison of sources. I suggest you read WP:HOW, which discusses what Wikipedia is, how articles are written, and so on, and again asking at the Teahouse if you have further questions. If you have a legitimate question about how the process works, rather than an attempt to argue your position (which we call WP:WIKILAWYERing), you may also ask at my talk page. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I talk about the list itself, it is itself WP:OR. It relies on what you could find randomly of long beaches, and are you a source? No, Wikipedia becomes it's own reference source for this list. This list is your "personal research." Is it hard to understand that different sources can have different definitions, and without a clear qualifier, comparisons can be meaningless?

The yearbook is a second hand source in the manner Wikipedia itself is. So we have no idea what qualifies as a "beach" according to the original source. The entry is dubious because the different beaches, no matter their individual reference, are possibly not defined the same way by the sources you reference. So they could be incomparable. That is the point of my original text.

I am not a Wikipedia editor. Just someone pointing out potential false info in Wikipedia. I don't care about the internal Wikipedia rules, because I don't write Wikipedia articles. I don't say you have to change it, I only point it out. That is all. You can do with it what you want, or not do. I just make the observation, then Wikipedia editors, which I am absolutely not, can do what they believe is necessary.

Note: the wiki rules you mention is about writing articles. I don't write Wikipedia articles, but I support Wikipedia also financially. I want the info to be as reliable as it can be. ~2026-40287-23 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, compiling summaries is something editors are supposed to do, as you would know if you read the article I linked. Because if you're trying to get something changed, you are, however indirectly, writing articles. If you are not trying to get anything changed, then you are violating WP:NOTFORUM, and should desist. I also encourage you read WP:OR; a list of something is not itself facts, allegations, [or] ideas, and thus is not subject to OR. The contents are, but this list is sourced.

Regarding EWYB, please read WP:RS. What you're saying is at odds with Wikipedia policy.

Re: what qualifies: That is precisely why we don't want editors applying their idea of what constitutes a beach, as above. That's precisely why we use reliable sources, and summarize what they say, rather than have editors like you argue about it. And yes, if you've made any edits, including to talk pages, you are an editor.

Re: supporting Wikipedia financially: good for you, it doesn't buy you anything here. WP:GONNADONATE is about threatening to stop, but the principle holds.

If you have no intention of changing anything, or no intention of learning how Wikipedia operates, then I believe there's nothing more for us to say to each other. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)