Talk:Aswan Dam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Benefits vs. Problems

Having one section listing benefits and another listing problems is probably a poor way to present this information. There are a lot of reasons for this. For one, a benefit today might be considered a problem tomorrow, and vice versa. Also, not everyone is necesarily going to consider something in the 'problem' section a problem, and not everyone is going to consider something in the 'benefit' section a benefit. Better would be to organize the information around common characteristics that are less dependent on value judgements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NATO

"Actual NATO allies in the Middle East, like Turkey and Iraq, were irritated..." This quote appears in para 4 of the 'Aswan Dam in International Perspective' section. So, can somebody tell me when Iraq joined NATO ? RASAM (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

He's refering to Iraq as an ally of NATO. 91.106.179.80 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Aswan Low Dam

I suggest splitting the article to "Aswan High Dam" and "Aswan Low Dam". Any comments? I would carry out this task if no one objects this by about a week. Regards. Rehman 11:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion, the proposed splitting is not necessary. Rather, the editorial set-up of the article needed improvement. I have tried to make the development section clearer, tried to improve the subdivision into sections, improve the section headings. Further, I introduced a section on the great Unesco rescue operation. If this article would be split, as the High Dam is nowadays by far the most important one, I would rather have the High Dam on the page for "Aswan Dam", with a reference to a separate "Aswan Low Dam" page. We don't need a disambiguation page for this. Kind regards. WikiTraube (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your second option; we could redirect Aswan High Dam to Aswan Dam, with a disambiguation link to the low dam. Kind regards. Rehman 08:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with a split, it wouldn't take much text out of the article and would lessen the intro a bit. They are also two different dams. I would leave some info, like the first paragraph in the low dam section. They are different but definitely associated in flow regulations/environmental effects, etc. If you need help, let me know.--NortyNort (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am ambivalent about the split; in any case, the two should remain rather closely linked, because they represent two distinct periods in man's engineering and development history for water resources in an arid climate. The designers of the Old Dam were pushing the state of the art as to what they could really do successfully, and this caused a more balanced understanding of a project's impacts on nature and natural processes. The High Dam was far less concerned about that, they knew what could be done successfully, and were most concerned about the developmentally positive possibilities; the project impacts are also a classic study area later environmental changes, when that concern became more widely accepted. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I notice that there has been a discussion, but no action taken although it seems that there is some sort of emerging consensus. I agree with Rehman and WikiTraube to have the High Dam on the page for "Aswan Dam", with a reference to a separate "Aswan Low Dam" page to which the content of the current article that relates to the Low Dam would be moved. If Rehman is still watching the page and agrees and no other comments are made, I would suggest that he implements the change.--Mschiffler (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Still watching :) But please give me some time to make the change, a bit busy in reality. Kind regards. Rehman 14:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing the long over-due split. If I missed anything, please add it. Also, please feel free to look it over.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! And you're back! :) Rehman 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I made the split and how have the Low Dam article in my userspace. I am just waiting for an admin to delete the old redirect someone made before moving it. I am back after some time off for the holidays and a recessed work schedule. Feels good! I want to get back into a bunch of things before I spend most of February away. I know you're busy, maybe by March we can get things humming again.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. “Aswan Dam” itself should be a disambiguation page. ―cobaltcigs 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag, as the Benefits vs. Problems approach is problematic, as explained in a section above, especially when the problems section overwhelms the benefits section. GA articles need more of an integrated approach. Johnfos (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

the POV tag is a Wiki technical issue that means that other interpretations from other RS are ignored. The editor who adds the tag has to demonstrate that indeed there are such RS that support his position and that has not been done. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:POV says "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other". This is what I meant when I said that a more "integrated approach" is needed, especially at the GA level. Johnfos (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

yes but what is the other side of the debate that is underrepresented??? Please cite some sources that will demonstrate the existence of POV. Rjensen (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Goodness me, please stop removing the tag and listen to what people are saying. Re-read the "Benefits vs. Problems" section at the top of this page which says "Having one section listing benefits and another listing problems is probably a poor way to present this information". Read again what I have said about using an "integrated approach", and what WP:Structure says about "folding debates into the narrative" rather than isolating them into separate sections. So the main issue here is not sourcing, but article structure! -- Johnfos (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think that this article has some structural problems. The main issue with respect to WP:NPOV seems to be undue weight. I haven't had a chance to read all of the sources to see if they are indeed fairly represented. However, the way it is written seems to be a laundry list of problems (which, in itself, seems to be problematic). I've started to make some changes to the way it is presented. It seems to me we need to determine what the appropriate weight is, and then either add to, or delete, as appropriate. I suggest that we leave the tag on the article for now. Sunray (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been busy IRL lately but will read over this article soon. I think some of the negative impact sub-sections can be combined such as "Loss of sediments..." and "Coastal erosion". In a lot of the big dam project articles like this one, big or small negative effects often become a longer list than the big positive benefits which aren't always extensively quantified.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I read through the article and don't believe there is a POV problem now. I try hard to remain neutral on dam articles and although this one needs a lot of citations, it is one of the best representations on good dam vs. evil dam I have read. A cost-benefit ratio is given and a nice amount of data which gives due weight to both sides. The big benefits are detailed well. Some of the negative impacts are seemingly refuted or remedied in the same paragraph. The idea I got from reading the article is that this dam has had an enormous positive impact on the country but has several problems that need to be addressed or have been addressed.

What may draw concern is the table of contents which at first glance gives the impression that article is full of negative impacts. I combined two sub-sections but given the complexity of the dam's impacts, the other sections are due and in some cases in need of expansion. The Historical monuments sub-section could have a great deal more information about the rescue of the ancient sites. Regarding the paragraph on sediment accumulation in the reservoir, the dead storage "fill[ing] up after 300–500 years" doesn't seem to be too extravagant. A reservoir's entire storage filling with sediment within 100 years is. It would be nice to compare that figure with other dams. After all, most dams are constructed with a 'shelf life'. 500 or 900 years is pretty good in my opinion. Plenty of time for dredging.

I noticed someone failed the GA nomination. I agree with it and will post some comments there as well. I will work on this article in the future if anybody would like to help out. If anyone disagrees with my edits or comments, please let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Norty. I have remove some unsourced material, previously cn tagged, and removed the POV tag. Johnfos (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the POV tag. However, I think that POV is unrelated to the question whether unsourced material is included in the article or not. In my view, much of the information contained in the sections that have been removed is valuable. In my view, editors should check whether the information is accurate before removing it, or preferably keep it and add a source. This is what I have done for one of the sections that has been removed (drainage). Tagging information as unsourced should be sufficient, and removing it goes too far.

A substantial rewrite along the lines suggested above is a good idea, but the minor changes done so far have fallen short of that objective and have actually in my view - unintentionally - deteriorated the article. For example, the lead section of the "Impacts" section, previously entitled "Benefits", only mentions benefits. This actually could lead readers to conclude that there now is a positive bias.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.water-technology.net/projects/aswan-high-dam-nile-sudan-egypt/

  Triggered by \bwater-technology\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance

Maintenance 2600:8805:3609:4300:D58B:2C8D:5D5C:B147 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)