Talk:Dead Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Dead Sea was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
May 25, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Sources for this article:


can anyone put (a rough idea) of the density of water at the dead sea. in gm/cc or kg per meter cube as you wish i think it would be useful to put a rough figure even if it is not exact.

nids 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is the lower point?[edit]

This article claims the Dead Sea is the lowest point on the surface of the Earth, but the Bentley Subglacial Trench article makes the same claim. I think the claim here should be removed, unless there is some technicality at work, in which case that technicality needs to be mentioned. Danorris 00:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the Bentley Subglacial Trench before you asked this question, but the trench must be under ice. The Dead Sea is always given as the lowest spot on the Earth's (exposed) surface. The Trench can be mentioned as an aside at the end of a paragraph. Dinopup 01:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the Bentley Subglacial Trench article is simply wrong. The trench is not the "lowest point on the surface of the earth" -- that would be the Mariana Trench. It's certainly not the lowest exposed point, either, as it is covered with ice. I think the description of the Dead Sea as "lowest exposed point" is accurate and sufficient, and am changing it. -Dcfleck 18:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Claims about health benefits[edit]

Quite a bit of the claims about theraputic effects of the Dead Sea in this article seem like they've been copied directly out of some sort of Dead Sea health spa brochure. Particularly the claims about lowered UV content in the sunlight seems pretty suspect (frankly: unscientific nonsense). If nobody steps forward to provide credible references I will edit most of that stuff out. There's also a lot of redundant (sometimes contradictory) content about the chemical makeup of the water which needs to be addressed. --Bk0 16:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; I've removed this worst offending paragaph - MPF 11:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC):
Sunlight at the Dead Sea is high in therapeutic UVA rays and low in burning UVB, so extended exposure is safe and low-risk. The filtering effect comes from a thick atmosphere: the Dead Sea is over 400 m below sea level and the ozone layer above it is minimally depleted. The Dead Sea is the only place on Earth where you can sunbathe for extended periods with little or no sunburn because harmful ultraviolet rays are filtered through three natural layers: an extra atmospheric layer, an evaporation layer that exists above the Dead Sea, and a rather thick ozone layer-even though CFCs are gradually eating it away elsewhere. The light at the Dead Sea is said to be especially good for people suffering from psoriasis.
I'm also removing the following 2 sentances:
The water of the Dead Sea contains 21 minerals including magnesium, calcium, bromine and potassium. Twelve of these are found in no other sea or ocean, and some are recognized for imparting a relaxed feeling, nourishing the skin, activating the circulatory system and for easing rheumatic discomfort and metabolic disorders.
If somebody can provide a verifiable source for them, please feel free to provide it an replace the lines. --Dcfleck 14:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

the Sea of Lot[edit]

The Arabic name for the Dead Sea translates directly as The Dead Sea. The arabic written in the opening portion (البحر الميت) is translated as The Dead Sea. I'm not sure if I've ever heard it referred to as the Sea of Lot (which would be written as بحر لوط), but I don't dispute that could also be referenced to in that way. Soviak

That's interesting that the Arabic says "Dead Sea." The Sea of Lot bit came from a book I read about the Dead Sea by Barbara Krieger. This website refers to the DS as "Bahr Lut." Could you add "Bahr Lut"? So does this one. Dinopup 00:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a translator by occupation but not a native speaker. I'm also new to editing content on Wikipedia and want to provide something useful in an area I have some expertise at. The DS is called "Al Bahr Al Mayyit" in arabic in news broadcasts, on the arabic Wikipedia, and on this website . It's the way i've found it most commonly used. I've ran through my dictionaries and the most reliable one says that "Bahr Lut" is used as well. How about the following as a proposed way of wording it:

In Arabic the Dead Sea, "Al Bahr Al Mayyit", is also called "Bahr Lut" meaning "the Sea of Lot." In past times Arabs called it the "Sea of Zoar," after a nearby town. To the Greeks, the Dead Sea was "Lake Asphaltites." (see below)

Kudos and Wikilove on the flora/fauna edit. I would have just posted this change in the first place on my own, but I'm still lacking confidence. Soviak

Are you sure it's Bahr al-mayyit? I've never heard death as "mayyit" (but then, I'm just an arabic student, not a translator), but only as mawt. Are they both used, or is mayyit coloquial (it seems to just be a different form w/ w->y as often happens). - Yom 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not coloquial. Mawt is the noun while mayyit is the adjective. - Cybjorg 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've discovered another name for it from an old map.Lake Al-Motanah; see . Also mentioned here: . I am not a regular editor and don't know the full etiquette of editing the article. Subhi (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


So is the NaCl conc. 8% or 12-18%?!

Authoritative mineral concentrations are difficult to come by. I got my numbers from a commercial Dead Sea salt supplier's product analysis (adjusted to percentage minus water of crystallization), that's the origin of the 8% NaCl. I don't know where the figures in the next paragraph come from. --Bk0 23:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I found a research paper by Ilana Steinhorn of the Weizmann Institute of Science published in Limnol. Oceanogr. 28(3),1983, 580-583. The first of data set is from the paper giving the concentration of ionic species in g/kg of Dead Sea surface water:
Cl 181.4, Br 4.2, SO4 0.4, HCO3 0.2, Ca 14.1, Na 32.5, K 6.2, Mg 35.2
The second is my calculation of the composition of the salts, as anhydrous chlorides:
CaCl2 14.4%, NaCl 30.4%, KCl 4.4%, MgCl2 50.8%
Total salinity measured at 276 g/kg
This puts the amount of NaCl much higher than either of the previous two values, but the source of the data is impeccable. Silverchemist 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oren Shatz's links[edit]

Anon, what is the problem with Oren Shatz's external link? I found some of the photos on that site fascinating (and relevant). --Yath 22:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saving the Red Sea[edit]

The last section of the article is titled "Saving the Red Sea", but the threat is not well explained. It is touched upon early in the article in this sentence:

"Beginning in the 1960s water inflow to the Dead Sea from the Jordan River was reduced as a result of large-scale irrigation and generally low rainfall."
That raises my Q: is the Jordan R the only 1 flow into Dead Sea? It isn't clr from the article (as far as I could tell). Trekphiler 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Some info here on the threat and possible countermeasures: -- SpareSimian (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Faith & Sodom[edit]

The article puts it & Gomorrah on the shore of the Dead Sea; I've seen a doc that suggests they are both under it now... Can anybody cite a source? Trekphiler 23:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Try searching the Jordan River then, it might not work though

Structures south of Dead Seas[edit]

What are those aquatic structures south of the Dead Sea, extending 13 x 30 km² in size, around 31°08′N 35°27′E / 31.13°N 35.45°E / 31.13; 35.45? --Abdull 12:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but given that the Dead Sea is slowly shrinking, perhaps they are a series of dams or lochs designed to control the amount of water. - Cybjorg 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
They look like evaporation basins, possibly for salt harvesting. --Dcfleck 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


The article states that the Dead Sea has "an elevation of 394 m (1291 ft) below sea level". Wikipedia definition for Elevation: "The elevation of a geographic location is its height above a fixed reference point." So wouldn't the depth of the valley/whatever be 394m, not its elevation. The elevation would be -394m (negative 394 meters' elevation), right? --HJV 16:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically, yes. It is a bit confusing, but the phrase does state that it is "below sea level". However, I would prefer it your way. - Cybjorg 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Salinity %?[edit]

This state of Utah site claims water cannot go beyond 27%, but the article here says the Dead Sea is 31.5% salinity?

Who is incorrect?

Both are correct. You have to consider that the composition of Dead Sea water is different from common seawater.
The chemical composition of its mineral content is 53% MgCl2, 37% KCl, and very little NaCl (only 8%).
The solubility of NaCl at 25°C is 35.9g/100ml of water (representing therefore 26.4% of the weight of a saturated solution).
Compare that to the solubility of MgCl2 of 54.2 g/100ml of water [at 20°C], which corresponds to 35.1% of mineral weight in a saturated solution.
--HYC 11:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Are there any cities around the Dead Sea? I really want to know that the name of cities around by Dead Sea from both sides(Israel, Palestine, Jordan).. I think that there is no city name next to Dead Sea. Do you know the city's name next to Dead Sea? Is dead sea nearby mountain from Israel, Palestine Sides? Daniel5127, 02:04, 30 April 2006(UTC)

Jordan River[edit]

Wasn't the Jordan River diverted for agriculture and not flowing into the Dead Sea?

Ascend 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Salinity: Dead Sea vs. Don Juan Pond[edit]

The beginning of the article states that the Dead Sea has the highest Salinity of any body of water, but at the bottom it states that West Antarctica's Don Juan Pond has a greater salinity. Which is it? Bored 3779 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don Juan pond is just a small pond, I suppose anyone could create artificially a saturated pond with higher salinity. I don't know, does a small pond count as a "body of water"?--Doron 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Salton Sea in California is listed at 40% salinity, which would seem to contradict the claims here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


Wikipedia Articles state that the Dead Sea is the most saline body of water...however the Red Sea (in it's wikipedia article) has "Salinity ranges between 36 and 38 ‰" Compared to the Dead Sea's "salinity of about 30%" These two seem incompable, so someone should look into this...

Well, Bakerbri (pls sign your msgs), the difference is in the '%' and '‰'. The first is percent, or hundredths, and the second is per-thousands (note the extra zero under the slash mark.) So, the Red Sea at 36 to 38 ‰ is equal to 3.6 to 3.8% (percent), not unusual for ocean water, and much less saline than Dead Sea. Hope this helps. PBarak 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Salton Sea in California is listed at 40% salinity, which would seem to contradict the claims here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

No, the Salton Sea has a salinity of 40‰, not 40%.--Doron 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Epoch era (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)The Salton Sea is a man made lake created to collect water including salt waterEpoch era (talk)

Natural history[edit]

The natural history is very unclear to me... Too confusing.SkyScrapers 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Epoch era (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)10,000 B.C. ((video)) is a pivotal point in ancient natural history especially climate change and human adaptation during the last mini-ice ageEpoch era (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Epoch era (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Climate changes during the previous Ice Ages occurred in and affected the Northern Hemisphere rather than the Southern Hemisphere therefore The Dead Sea hasn't seen a lot of climate changes and probably never willEpoch era (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Epoch era (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)beesEpoch era (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


Why is there no such thing as Category:Dead Sea? --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lead sentence[edit]

I have introduced a point of disagreement in the lead sentence, so rather start an edit war over it, I would like to ask for other opinions. Reading a lead sentence about a body of water that says it is the lowest point on Earth not covered by water is confusing to the reader, is it not? I have tried to edit this twice, in two different ways, and these edits have been reverted. There are other ways to clarify this besides how I have done it, but I thought I would ask for other opinions first. --Sfmammamia 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Dead Sea contains water, but it isn't covered by water, is it?--Doron 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is technically correct, but I maintain that something can be technically correct and still be confusing to the lay reader. In this case, the reader's attention is focused on the thing itself, the Dead Sea, a body of water, not by what it is covered with, presumably air. We are concerned with the thing itself, which has a surface of water. To say it isn't covered by water diverts attention from the thing we are trying to address. --Sfmammamia 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree, I'm just not sure what is a better phrasing. The clearest way of stating this is probably to say that the Dead Sea shore is the lowest ... not covered by water, which is technically correct and not confusing, but I'm even less comfortable with it than the current version. "Not covered by ocean" is simply incorrect (see Lake Baikal).--Doron 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Lake Baikal; that clarifies where my earlier edits went wrong. Here's a suggested edit of the lead paragraph that I think is less confusing and still correct, posted here rather than as a bold edit to see if it causes any further objections:

The Dead Sea ((Arabic: البحر الميت‎‎), Hebrew: ים המלח‎‎, translated as Sea of Salt), is a salt lake between Israel and Jordan. Commonly known as the Earth's lowest point, it occurs at 418 m (1,371 feet) below sea level and falling,[1] so its shores are at the Earth's lowest point not under water or ice. It is the deepest hypersaline lake in the world, at 330 m (1,083 feet) deep. It is also the second saltiest body of water on Earth, with a salinity of about 30 percent.[2] Only Lake Asal (Djibouti) has a higher salinity. This is about 8.6 times greater than average ocean salinity. It measures 67 km (42 miles) long, 18 km (11 miles) wide at its widest point. The Dead Sea lies in the Jordan Rift Valley. The main tributary is the Jordan River.

--Sfmammamia 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

much better, regards sbandrews (t) 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
okay, I've made the edit. -- Sfmammamia 07:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What is this "commonly known" business? This is gibberish. The Dead Sea is the lowest point on earth except for some unknown place "under water" or "under ice?" Come on, guys. Gimme a break.--Gilabrand 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GA comment[edit]

Either remove the statements that have "citation needed" after them or add the inline citation, or a reviewer may quick-fail the article solely for this reason. --Nehrams2020 07:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA Review[edit]

  • Review: I have not promoted this article for the following reasons:
    • The notice about {{fact}} was left here, and nothing was done about it.
    • There are a couple external links in the prose, which should be converted to refs. The refs should use {{cite web}} templates or similar, and overall the article needs more citation; several sections have one to none.
    • The structure is unappealing. So many sections break up the flow of reading, so it should be organized more like "Characteristics", and then under that have "Flora" "Chemical properties" etc. Also, avoid restating the article title in headings ("Therapies popular at Dead Sea" -> "Popular therapies"). Remove the red links.
    • This statement "because evaporation slows down as surface area decreases and salinity increases" should be linked to the property or law this pertains to.
    • The Chemistry section, is probably the most important, since people will want to know why the Sea is so strange, so it could be expanded a little.
    • Units must be preceded by non-breaking space: 14km -> 14 km
    • The writing should flow more like natural speaking English. This:

It is the second saltiest body of water on Earth, with a salinity of about 30 percent. Only Lake Asal (Djibouti) has a higher salinity. This is about 8.6 times greater than average ocean salinity.

Is choppy. Try something like "It is second to Lake Asal at most salty body of water on Earth, with 30 percent salinity, which is about 8.6 times greater than the average."
  • It's getting there, but unfortunately not quite a Good Article. However, it covers a wide variety of relavent information, and is very interesting to read. I commend those who work on this, but the main detriments are too few references and the many, but minor, technical formatting errors. ALTON .ıl 00:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Data on the salt composition is outdated (from the early 1980's.) A more modern value should be obtained and the latter discarded or the modern value and the old value could be combined in a chart. Template:Marsu, 14.09 25. October 2009 (UTC)

language order in lead sentence[edit]

There appears to be an ongoing dispute about the order in which the languages are displayed in the lead sentence. I can see justifications for two lines of thought: 1) display them alphabetically, in which case Arabic should appear first. 2) display them in agreement with the geography that appears in the sentence, i.e., Israel and Jordan (Hebrew, then Arabic). If the order is changed to alphabetical (Arabic first), then perhaps we should change the order of the country names as well? Any other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, since the Dead Sea is shared by both Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking countries, the order is not important.--Doron 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As there seems to be no established policy right now, we should probably use Wikipedia:Language_order as our guide. The two options with by far the most agreement would both put Arabic before Hebrew in this case. Editing to reflect this.-- (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Salinity relatively to Mediterranean[edit]

This article claims "Israeli experts say it is nine times saltier than the Mediterranean Sea (31.5% salt versus 3.5% for the Mediterranean)." but the Sea water article figure seems to show the Mediterranean to be around 3.8/3.9%. 3.5% seems to be the mean salinity of all ocean water, the Mediterranean is saltier. Also, a reference to the "Israeli experts" is missing. The inconsistency should be corrected; I don't know what's correct. —Preceding [[Wikipe dia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The opening picture "Sunset" has no encyclopedic value. please consider changing it something which can be directly attributed to Dead Sea. - A lay user

Hebrew Translation[edit]

The Hebrew Translation is wrong. It's either "Sea of the Salt" or "The Salt Sea". "Yam HaMelakh" Literally translated is "Sea the Salt", but the of can be implied, as in "Yom Huledet" which is day of birth (i.e. birthday). Here "Hamelakh" means the salt, as the Hebrew prexid ha means the, with melakh meaning salt. However, it could also mean "The Salt Sea". However, this is unlikely, as this type of language is uncommon in modern Hebrew. . Just as "Yam Suf" means "Sea of Reeds", the Red Sea, Yam Hamelakh would mean Sea of the Salt, not just Sea of Salt. Smartyllama (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


The article claims that the Dead Sea is the world's second saltiest body of water, after Lake Asal in Djibouti. It also claims that the Dead Sea's salinity is 31.5%. According to the Wikipedia Garabogazkol article, the Garabogazkol bay has a salinity of 35%. This would make the Dead Sea the third saltiest body of water. Not sure which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dead Sea figures would be correct, isnt this widely regarded to be second most saline?--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Don Juan Pond has the highest salinity of all (40.2 % weight). And I think there's a lake of 38 % in China – I found it while doing a little research on the topic, but since I've forgotten its name, I've had a hard time finding it again. If the 35 % figure is indeed correct, Garabogazköl's omission could owe to a technicality: it's a part of a larger body of water, namely the Caspian Sea. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the wording that "only <list> have higher salinities". Salar de Atacama is reported to be 40% salinity, and I see no reason to believe that we haven't missed any others, especially if you count something like Don Juan Pond. Secondly, I don't feel that ranking the "most saline" lakes is meaningful. For one, I believe they are subject to fluctuate quite a bit: the Great Salt Lake's salinity is given as 5-27% depending on the water level (and I believe it is saturated at 27%, or that would be higher). The saltiest lakes at any given time will likely be saturated, so it doesn't matter how much salt is available at all, just what it is composed of. If my change is reverted, please provide a citation that those lakes and no others are saltier. Kjsharke (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Boats cannot sail"[edit]

"This salinity makes for a harsh environment where animals cannot flourish and boats cannot sail." - why does high salinity mean boats can't sail? AKM (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC) the Dead sea is a lake actally —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Added link to book with same name[edit]

On the top of the page, I added this as per Template:Otheruses:

For the Brian Keene book of the same name, see Dead Sea (novel)

thanks, Ikip (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In Judaism and Islam[edit]

The story of Lot is shared by all Judaic faiths, which includes Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Thus, it does not make sense to repeat it in separate sections "In Judaism" and "In Islam": there should be one section entitled "In Judaism, Christianity and Islam". -Pgan002 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Kuran has an advanced story, based on the original biblical story, and Midrashim - Jewish tales surrounding the biblical phrases developed during approximately 1000 years before, on ancient Arabic traditions, and on the words of the Prophet Mohammed. Thus the Islamic tale has different participants. Lot is a prophet hearing God's words.
The biblical tale, on the other hand, has an "anti neighboring country" national ending for the Israelites, portraying the Moavites and Adomites as children of incest, a possible reason for being forever forbidden for Jews to intermarry with their men. (King David was a Moavite decendent from Ruth).
Even the story of her looking back is changed in the Kuran to some of the Midrashim[1] and she is mentioned just as "the old lady". פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not history. Like the wiki article on the North Pole and Santa Claus, this should be called cultural association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Geology and Vulcanism[edit]

The Dead Sea lies in the Jordan Rift Zone, therefore, vulcanism should be expected. Are signs of vulcanism found in the geology of the Dead Sea or the region round about? It's interesting that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah described in Genesis Ch. 19 was accomplished with fire and brimstone, which are usually associated with vulcanism. More on the geology of the region would be appropriate to the article. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder why the Jews thought that the dead sea was formerly a valley full of natural tar pits. Wouldn't it be possible that the Biblical tale - of course only in geological respect - has a true core?-- (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think that the article is missing data on the frequent earthquakes of the area.
Also somewhere near the entrance to the Dead Sea, I was told you could actually see the rift of the tectonic plates, moving centimeters a year, by putting a stick in the ground.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dead Sea Elephant[edit]

I have read of a "monster" elephant that tourists had come to seek, for 250 years before WWI, in the Dead Sea area. Does anybody have information? It was a type of Loch Ness thing. I read about it in a booklet by the Society for Protection of Nature on the 1912 survey of the Dead Sea area. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Palestinians: Dead Sea won't be a 'world wonder'[edit]

This site: [Ynet] is about recent religious conflict between Islamics and Jews about the DeadSea.Agre22 (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

When was the Dead Sea divided in two?[edit]

Wikipedia should give as much facts as possible. So when was the Dead sea divided in two? State year please.

Bjarnulf, Oslo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tar pits[edit]

Before the destruction, the Dead Sea was a valley full of natural tar pits, which was called the vale of Siddim.

Might "tar pits" be a mistranslation? How could the Hebrews have known about tar pits? In historical times there were no such things in the Old World.-- (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


The article currently[2] has this line in the lead section:

The sea has a density of 1.24kg/L, making swimming difficult.

Could this be explained better? I have always read how hypersalinity makes drowning nearly impossible (because everyone floats without trying), and while that does not necessarily preclude making swimming difficult, it does seem nearly at odds. Perhaps a discussion of the mechanics of swimming in hypersaline waters? (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because you swim by moving the water with your arms and legs, which is difficult in the Dead Sea because you can hardly keep your extremities under water due to the buoyancy. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

West Bank[edit]

A part of the dead sea's short is in the West Bank. This territory is not part of Israel (nor of Jordan) so it should be added independently; This territory is controlled by the Israeli army in part, and by the Palestinian national authority. Anyway - it is not considered an Israeli territory by any country in the world, including Israel itself. Only East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were declared Israeli by Israel after the 1967 war. The areas to the Dead Sea's shore weren't. Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by בן גרשון (talkcontribs)

Nice, I see you undid my version without answering my discussion thread. That's a good Wikipedian behaviour. Anyway, the West Bank is not a country, but that's the most accurate information we can give right now - since this is the name of this territory. You can see it reffered to as a pseudo-country in other places in Wikipedia (like in articles about Palestinian cities, etc.). I hope next time someones changes something and opens a discussion, you will discuss it with him and not just undo him violently. At least in the wikipedia I come from (Hebrew Wikipedia), this kind of behaviour is not acceptable. And it shouldn't be acceptable here either. Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 13:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by בן גרשון (talkcontribs)
Violently? Please let's not exaggerate. I thought you might regard my edit summary as sufficient response. The infobox category is "countries". Your posted comments invited a more abstract discussion, which may still ensue. However, please note that the West Bank is already mentioned in the article's lead sentence. That would seem to cover it, without the equivocation of listing it as a country. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyway I'm not really here to debate politics, or 'what makes a state' but the State of Palestine is recognized, based on the wikipedia article, but a vast majority of states (Almost all of Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia as well as parts of latin america). I've included Palestine once again under 'countries.' Forgive me from 'violently' reverting it, but if Israel was removed from the countries (it is also not universally recognized as a state) I would do the same. Anyway perhaps a comprimise and just change it from 'countries' to 'territories' would be better? Grant bud (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You clearly are debating politics. A would-be state is not a sovereign country. "West Bank" is already a compromise. Let's not overpoliticize this article. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dead Sea borders mainly the West bank to the west, see this map:[3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, West banks border to the Dead Sea is about double the length then Israels, so West Bank should be before Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you've missed the lower part of the Dead Sea. Please take a look. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Those are salt pools. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, this is ecological disaster AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
These are considered a part of Dead Sea water area, as far as I know. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Swimming is the same as floating?[edit]

"The sea has a density of 1.24 kg/L,[citation needed] which makes swimming similar to floating.[5]" This reads like a nonsense statement and delivers a very confused message. The bouyancy concept is stated elsewhere in the article and the reference article reads like non-native English speaking children wrote it. I propose the whole statement be removed. Please adhere to WP:NPOV. (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the source article has been paraphrased and words removed to make the statement less clear. From the source article:
"Humans can swim in Dead Sea waters, but because of the extraordinarily high salt concentration and density of the water, the experience is more like floating" (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got no choice but to float. You need to keep your face away from the water for safety reasons. So the easiest thing to do is float on your back, and you can them swim on your back very much like swimming on your back normally but of course you are floating. It's also possible to 'walk', to stand upright while floating and move around. This is my personal experience though and I don't have a source. Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

What Bible?[edit]

I have attempted to clarify references to a Bible but it was reverted stating it ws clear it was the "Hebrew Bible". My addition was "Christian Bible". I don't know if there is a difference. Since there are many Bibles and many religions based upon these "holy lands" assumption of this identifier is not satisfactory for clarity. Conceit of religious beliefs does not make it clear to the whole world which Bible is being referred to. I suggest a clarification adjective be added to all occurrences where the type of bible is not identified by a section title or previous clarification in the same paragragh. (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


Who was the first to discover that its surface is below sea level, and when was it discovered? -- (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Epoch era (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)beesEpoch era (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Epoch era (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)The Dead Sea was a prehistoric flood plain, tidal pool or beach?Epoch era (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Potash production.[edit]

The data on potash production here: doesn't match the equivalent data here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Excessive images[edit]

I removed a number of images from this article, including the gallery. Availability is not sufficient reason to add an image; WP style cautions against overwhelming an article with images. Anyway, there's a large Commons gallery, for which a link is provided. Some images did not relate clearly to the text they were placed beside, maybe due to poor captioning, or gradual migration after numerous edits. If I could not relocate an image to an appropriate section, I removed it. Also, I removed 3 out of 4 panoramic images from the Health effects section; they gave the section too much weight. Richigi (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Other salty lakes[edit]

I think the list of saltiest lakes is unnecessary in the first paragraph.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that the Dead Sea is so salty?[edit]

Did you know that the the Dead Sea is to salty that you can't sink? Try it! 12KaiJie333 Growtopia (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This article currently displays extremist Arab propaganda.[edit]

This article currently violates WP:NPOV. It is neutral to say it borders the West Bank, not "State of Palestine." Saying "State of Palestine" is extremely POV because such a place does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How are you using a proxy to edit still? AcidSnow (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015[edit]

Liorbm (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Benefits Of Dead Sea Products

X mark.svg Not done Fails Wikipedia:External links criteria. -- haminoon (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Palestine in the Lead Sentence[edit]

I think the lead sentence should refer in some way to the fact that the West Bank/Palestinian territories/State of Palestine borders the Dead Sea. I favour the current wording, which uses "Palestine" and pipes to the "State of Palestine" article (the "Palestine" article is about the historical region). The State of Palestine is recognised by the UN and has defined borders, and I prefer the word "Palestine" without the "State of" as more neutral. I do recognise that subtleties of language are involved, so I think that discussing the wording here, and trying to find a consensus, would be a good idea. Tenthweb (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


ESSENTIAL facts missing or relegated to the bottom of the article. The LEAD at least should be rewritten.
- The DS is fast disappearing - by over 1 m of depth per year! Shoreline on less steep Israeli shore is fast retreating, Jordan less affected (very steep shore).
- The DS consists of TWO BASINS, the shallow S one is by now fully artificial, consisting of evaporation ponds only kept alive by the Dead Sea Works pumping water from N basin. Is a "suspended pond" kept from emptying by man-made dams. Most Israeli hotels are located there and benefit from constant water level.
- The sinkholes are not a footnote, but a huge phenomenon.
- ALL dimensions from the INFOBOX, lead, and article proper should be re-checked. They seem to refer to the N basin only - whatever the case, this should be MENTIONED, since the S basin, artificial as it is today, adds another good third to the length, shore length, and surface of the DS.
- Wadi Mujib, the biblical River Arnon, is an important tributary, but doesn't get a single mention.
No time, sorry. Who picks up the challenge?Arminden (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Mentions of Dead Sea in Holy Quran[edit]

According to Islamic and Biblical traditions, the Dead Sea is the site of the ancient city of Sodom, home of the Prophet Lut (Lot), peace be upon him.

The Quran describes the people of Sodom as ignorant, wicked, evildoers who rejected God's call to righteousness. The people were murderers, thiefs, and openly practiced immoral sexual behavior. Lut perservered in preaching God's message, but found that even his own wife was one of the disbelievers. God severely punished the people of this region for their wickedness. According to the Quran, the punishment was to "turn the cities upside down, and rain down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread layer on layer, marked from your Lord" (Quran 11:82-83). The site of this punishment is now the Dead Sea, standing as a symbol of destruction.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, reportedly tried to dissuade people from visiting the sites of God's punishment: "Do not enter the place of those who were unjust to themselves, unless you are weeping, lest you should suffer the same punishment as was inflicted upon them."

The Quran describes that the site of this punishment has been left as a sign for those who follow: "Surely! In this are signs for those who understand. And verily, they (the cities) are right on the highroad. Surely! Therein is indeed a sign for the believers." (Quran 15:75-77)

If one does visit the Dead Sea, it is recommended to spend time recalling the story of Lut, and how he stood for righteousness among his people. The Quran says, "And to Lut, too, We gave wisdom and knowledge; We saved him from the town which practiced abominations. Truly they were a people given to evil, a rebellious people. And We admitted him to Our mercy; for he was one of the righteous" (Qur'an 21:74-75).

Imrank88 (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Elevation: where does the data come from?[edit]

The indicated ISRAMAR website URL ([4]) is long outdated, leads automatically to [5], where it only covers 1992-2010. The source indicated in the Infobox under "reference" ([6]), "Dead Sea Data Summary 2015" on Ein Gedi station website, is more up-to-date, all the way to Dec. 2015, but that's also almost 1 year old.Arminden (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Brine shrimp[edit]

Apparently there's a thriving Brine shrimp population living in the Dead Sea. The first site I checked is blacklisted on Wikipedia ( Can someone verify this link to be a proper source? Here's a link to a photo. This should be added to the flora and fauna section. Thx. Karel Adriaan (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dead Sea. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Monitoring of the Dead Sea. Israel Marine Data Center (ISRAMAR).
  2. ^ Goetz, P.W. (ed.) The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed.). Vol. 3, p. 937. Chicago, 1986.