Talk:River Wear

Source.
This article gives the source of the river as Wearhead in County Durham.

Despite what the name 'Wearhead' might imply, this is definitely not the source of the River Wear.

The source of the Wear is actually about 4.5 miles further to the northwest (approx. 54°45'47.50"N 2°19'19.35"W).

I believe that the claim that the Wear is contained exclusively within County Durham is also erroneous. Some points which could be considered the 'true' source of the river are in fact located in the neighboring counties of Cumbria (formerly Cumberland) and Northumberland.

--JoeyofScotia (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Joey, Google Maps shows two burns converging at Wearhead, one being Killhope Burn (from the north), and the other (smaller, from the west) burn being unnamed. The way I would interpret that would be that the Wear starts at the confluence of those two burns. I don't know the area well. Do you have more information? AWhiteC (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Burnhope Reservoir, the "unnamed" burn coming in from the east is the Burnhope Burn. AWhiteC (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I know the area rather well. The area around Kilhope & Lanehead is generally referred to as 'North Weardale'. I have on a number of occasions heard of the Kilhope Burn being referred to directly as the River Wear, as I have the other nameless burn (sometimes called, as you say, Burnhope Burn). There are a number of burns (most of them nameless) in that area, it's hard to say which one is the 'real' Wear.

JoeyofScotia (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Joey,
 * The section River Wear covers the source of the Wear in a way that makes allowance for uncertainty as to the origin. Myself, I think you should follow the river upstream taking the greater stream at each confluence. If that were done, I reckon the Killhope Burn would be the upstream part of the Wear. But if that were the case, why is Wearhead called Wearhead? I would just leave it for now. AWhiteC (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Length of river
The length of the river is currently given in the article as 60 miles (reckoned as 96km in one place and 97km in another!). It presumably relates to the length of the watercourse from Wearhead which does appear to be traditional source of the Wear down to its entry into the North Sea. This figure is not referenced. As a piece of original research I have painstakingly measured the length using the tool on the wheresthepath website and the point at which the river enters the harbour entrance is 110.4km (or 68.5 miles) from the confluence at Wearhead. It is a further 0.7km to the exit into the open sea between Roker and New South piers. I am confident of the accuracy within 1km but the figure cannot of itself be used in the article. It can however be used as a guide in searching for a suitably referenced figure published elsewhere in accordance with WP guidelines. The two main headwater streams of the Wear are the Killhope Beck which by the same token comes in at 8.6km (or 5.3 miles) and the Scraith Burn/Burnhope Burn which attains 8.1km (or 5 miles) at the same point (taking a mid-line through Burnhope Reservoir). Thus the longest path that a raindrop falling at Killhope Head (furthest point of any headwater) might reasonably be described as taking to the sea is 119km or 73.8 miles. None of these figures should make their way into the article itself unless (forgive me!) 'sourced' elsewhere. Geopersona (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)