Talk:Red Sea–Dead Sea Water Conveyance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unwarranted editorial assertion[edit]

This quote in the article is an expression of opinion only. It is in my opinion POV: 

"Some of these characteristics, especially in the Dead Sea area, are unique on a global perspective, and therefore crucially important for conservation."

The logic here is unsound:

  • A thing is unique.
  • Therefore it is 'crucial' to preserve it.

The conclusion may be true in the case of the Dead Sea, but it certainly does not follow from the premise that it is unique.

Everything is unique in its own way. We live in an ever changing world and it is literally (not figuratively) impossible to keep everything the same. If we are going to pick and chose what we fight to keep the same, who decides: 

(a) what we will preserve
(b) what we will spend
(c) What collateral damage we will accept
(d) What other projects we defund (to pay for it)

An extra hundred thousand pink ribbons to raise awareness is swell, but not if that cost enough money to develop a cure instead.

It is too much to go into here, but perhaps some reading this will realize that indiscriminate preserving of things 'as-is' is may well be harmful to the environment.

Regardless of whether or not the conclusion is true I have no idea what the percentage is, but I know for a fact that some readers will read that original sentence and believe it is air tight logic and correct.

It would take too much to unravel the bias in the article, so I left it unchanged. Perhaps some intrepid adventurer can at least fix that sentence? DeepNorth (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

no need for merge (how long was this here?), just for a prominent "see also". Amoruso 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I say this should be merged with Dead Sea Canal. At least explain the difference.

I would like to hear some good reasons not to merge. Revising both articles should be part of it, since neither article gives a reason not to.

71.212.17.191 (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the Dead Sea Canal article to Mediterranean-Dead Sea Canal to make clear that the two articles each cover a different canal. Perhaps this article should be renamed Read Sea-Dead Sea Canal.--Mschiffler (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be merged, it would provide a logical timeline of the development of the idea to new agreement. I would like to see, in particular, emergence of two separate ideas coming together: 1. The development of a desalination plant to deal with drinking water resource in Jordon. 2. Linking that to the feasibility of the canal project and providing a value effective solution.

It is also important to draw the environmental factors under consideration such as the brine treatment from the desalination plant and environmental affects of Red and Dead sea ecosystems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.90.122 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

See Talk:Mediterranean–Dead_Sea_Canal#Merger_proposal Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine vs Palestinian Authority[edit]

The Palestinian Authority is no longer the official designation of the authority that represents the Palestinian people. It has been renamed to the "State of Palestine" and this has been officially recognized by the United Nations. From the wikipedia page titled "State of Palestine":

Palestine has instructed its diplomats to officially represent 'The State of Palestine', and no longer the 'Palestine National Authority.' On 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon declared that 'the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents', thus recognising the title 'State of Palestine' as the nation's official name.

As such all references to the Palestinian authority should now be replaced with "State of Palestine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.171.119 (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed at Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Abbas changes PNA name to State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map / illustration[edit]

This page could use some kind of map/illustration. Some simplier variant of this? --PLNR (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

So the project would be a net user of power? This is not very clear in the article and when I went to source 4 the page was not found. If anyone has any information on how much power it would use and produce please share.

I found where it says the project will produce 180 megawatts, still looking on how much power the pumps will need.

Canal[edit]

Using the term canal is misleading. [1] The Jordanian government and the World Bank use the term Water Conveyance, this project is identical to the Disi Water Conveyance project. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Google using Canal I see 1.1m results [2] and using Conveyance I see 36k results [3]. Here is a summary of what I found on different RS:
I dont seem to find anyone other than the WP:FIRST you mention above called the project conveyance. - GalatzTalk 14:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A canal is an open stream, calling this article canal is greatly misleading. Jordanian government source and World Bank source, who are actually involved in the project, official name. If there;s a certain Wiki policy that prevents us from naming it Water Conveyance, then it should at least be named "Red Sea–Dead Sea Project". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same issues would apply to calling it project. Do you have any RS that call it that? - GalatzTalk 03:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave two RS for the term "water conveyance"... Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are WP:PRIMARY. - GalatzTalk 14:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that these sources are primary for us to describe the project as a pipeline rather than an open canal or these sources are primary for us to name the project? If its the former, all of the sources you quoted, have explained that this is a pipeline project. If its the latter, then these sources aren't primary and are RS. [4], [5], [6], [7]. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:PRIMARY. We aren't interpreting anything here, we are just quoting the official name. So using primary sources should not be contentious. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact section[edit]

A number of cases provided in this section talk about the downsides of an actual canal, rather than the project in its current form, and its form for the past 3 years, which is a pipeline. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, WP:SOFIXIT. You can leave it as historical and show how changes were made to address those concerns and what it is now. - GalatzTalk 14:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will fix it. Just placing this here in case anyone wanted to revert me in the meantime. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 December 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sea–Dead Sea Canal → Red Sea–Dead Sea Water Conveyance – the project is a water conveyance through pipelines, in its initial phases the project was commonly called canal because it had an unclear nature. But now the main elements of the project have been identified, and to name this project "canal" just because the majority of sources do, is unacceptable. The current naming is misleading and should not remain. Here's a few reliable sources calling the project "water conveyance" Jordanian government source and World Bank source [8], [9], [10], [11]. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Red Sea–Dead Sea Water Conveyance. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Red Sea–Dead Sea Water Conveyance. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy water[edit]

Whether the reactors use heavy or light water internally is irrelevant. The heat is extracted via a heat exchanger. Keith McClary (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence - it was unsupported by a source, and the rather irrelevant mention of the reactor (which, is located on a plateau some 450 above sea level - or some 850 meters above the -423m dead sea - and quite a bit away) - the sole source bringing the reactor up was a very fringey Golan heights activist organization. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Sea–Dead_Sea_Water_Conveyance&oldid=1209911655"