Talk:Panama Canal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panama Canal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Panama Canal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2006.

WikiProject Echo has identified Panama Canal as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French or Swedish language Wikipedias.

Panama Canal has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Panama Canal is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 15 selected anniversary.

Archived reviews

[edit] World Record Hydro Electricity Production Potential

The Panama Canal is one of the few places in the world that connects two large bodies of water with a differentiating sea level. The difference in those sea levels means that a passage alowing water to pass through from the higher to the lover level can be used to generate electricity. Because of the immense amount of water in the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, a scalable hydroecetricity project could be constructed with energy production capability that is indefenite.

Currently the canal is above sea level for both of the ocean. Because the water will not flow upsteram, a tunel will have to be dug underneath. An immense, hunderen mile plus project will establish a passage of water from the sea level difference. Hydroelectricity generators can be built at either end to generate electricity without ever requiting the construction of a dam. Later on the tunner can be widened for increased water flow with very large potential. See Channel Tunnel for a similar project already completed.

[edit] More balanced links needed

The links at the end of this entry consist of:

--The webpage of the canal authority itself

--An (apparently historical, unbiased) webpage in Spanish

--Two links to JudicialWatch, an archconservative, moral majority organization so far out of the mainstream it's not even funny.

Seem a little...um...unbalanced to anyone else?

I recently wrote a paper on the canal and I will add some information to this page very soon. (July 8th, 2005)

I did the edit regarding the reference sections and return of the canal to Panama; sorry to edit anonymously---Raskolnikov The Penguin. 69.114.78.83 00:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole "Return of the Canal" section had a very "Oh my God the reds are coming" tone, backed up by numerous links to far-right web sites. Also several "sinister" statements were made without citations; eg. "... a Chinese Hong Kong corporation named Hutchison Whampoa, operating under the name Hutchison Port Holdings and headed by Li Ka Shing, the wealthiest Chinese individual". Without source citations, I don't think this is appropriate. (In contrast, "... the U.S. State Department says it has found no evidence of connections between Hutchison Whampoa and Beijing" [1] is a factual statement ("the U.S. State Department says ...") backed up by a good source (CNN).) I've therefore had a go at balancing this section. I've also added some links on efficiency, which I think has generally improved drastically. — Johantheghost 20:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Something should be said about the workers: I think that they were brought from across the world: Chinese, West Indian,... Some death rates would be very illustrative as well.

Please see History of the Panama Canal's talk page -- this is still an open issue, but for that article. Johantheghost 11:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There were very few if any Chinese workers who constrcuted the Panama Canal from 1870-1914. Most of the labor force was either French, American or West Indian.

The canal is sometimes considered to be the world's largest machine. Discuss...

there should be more said about the united states, the expenditures, the mortality rates, etc.

I think this is now covered in History of the Panama Canal. Johantheghost 11:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Panama has since managed the Canal, breaking all previous traffic, revenue and safety records year after year."

Is that right? What exactly is meant be that. --Clngre 00:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now covered in this article. Johantheghost 11:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn´t a MAP of the canal be useful? This is tremendously silly, but if I didn´t know where the canal is the only map I could check would be a german antique.

Done. Johantheghost 11:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

the picture below is very nice, isn´t it?

Image:500px-Panama Canal PIA03368 lrg.jpg

[edit] Units of power

What is this supposed to mean: The canal system produces more than 500 gigawatts of electricity per year in hydroelectric power? Watt is already a measure of power, and power over time makes no sense. Wh per year would make sense, but would also be redundant. Ehn 02:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A Kilowatt-hour, a watt-second (ie joule), or a watt-year would all be units of energy. There are 8760 hours in a year. So, if I have done my arithmetic correctly, 500 gigawatt-years would be about 57,000 kilowatt-hours -- Geo Swan 03:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

However, "500 gigawatts of elecricity per year" would be power / time, not power * time. Power * time is a measure of energy; power / time is gibberish. In fact, power sources (like hydroelectric power plants) generate a constant wattage independent of time; so, if the canal produces 500 gigawatts of elecricity in a year, it produces 500 gigawatts in a second, too. As Ehn points out, Wh per year would be redundant; it would be a measure of power, which is already precisely expressed as 500 gigawatts. --70.121.26.115 22:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

I've added a rough diagram of the canal to the Description section. Now, I'd be the first to admit that it's pretty naff-looking. But I added it because:

I think it clearly illustrates the key parts of the canal
I made it and donated it under GFDL, so no copyright issues
it's better than nothing

So feel free to criticise, delete, or — best of all — improve it. I can send you the Gimp (.xcf) master file if you want to hack on it. — Johantheghost 14:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Issues

I've re-organised the History section and put it in chronological order; however, it's still in need of a good clean-up. — Johantheghost 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The article overall is getting too big and will need a split soon. Ideas? I'm thinking all the History stuff could come out into a separate article, since it's an epic in its own right. — Johantheghost 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've done it — History of the Panama Canal is now an article.

I've still got "Return of the Canal" in the main article, because as I see it this is really a current issue, not historical — it's more about where the canal is going, rather than how it got made. Comments? Maybe I should split it between "History" and the "Future" section. — Johantheghost 15:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Done that too! Seems to work quite well. — Johantheghost 20:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archived Further Reading

I removed the following "references" because:

they're not actually linked from the text;
they generally don't contain enough information to find them easily (eg. Hammond & Lewin. The Panama Canal. 1966: is it a book, journal, ...?)
they don't contain enough information on what they contain, so a reader can't decide whether it's worth the effort to hunt them down (and therefore won't bother).

Feel free to fix these problems and put them back in the article.

Hammond & Lewin. The Panama Canal. 1966.
Leach,Peter. Journal of Commerce. New York: Jul 4, 2005. pg. 1
Panama Canal rates deter trade Traffic World Newark:May 11, 2005. p. 1
Panamaxed out Project Finance London:Mar 2005. p. 1
Tight Squeeze Michael A Levans. Logistics Management (2002) Highland Ranch:Jan 2005. Vol. 44,
Competition for the Panama Canal? Anonymous. World Trade Troy:Mar 2004. Vol. 17, Iss. 3, p. 10,12 (2 pp.)
Leach, Peter.Killing the golden goose? Journal of Commerce New York:Apr 4, 2005. p. 1
Panama economy: Panama Canal's expansion strategies hold water EIU ViewsWire New York:Dec 23, 2004. p. n/a
Panama looks to revitalize its biggest asset
Rainbow Nelson. Euromoney London:Nov 2004. p. 26-28
Industry: Expand Panama Canal :[The Journal Of Commerce Online Edition] Journal of Commerce New York:Mar 3, 2005. p. 1

Johantheghost 22:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] State of Play

Things that I would like to see addressed more:

We've got virtually nothing on the hydro power schemes — I just can't find any good info on these. I'm pretty sure there's generation at both Gatun and Madden dams — or is Madden just used as a reservoir?

I'd like some more info on the minor bridges; it seems to be very hard to find anything. Specifically:
- Is the small road bridge at Miraflores still used? Open to the public?
- Is the large swinging bridge at Miraflores still used? Am I right that it's a rail bridge? I seem to remember being told that it was built to service a U.S. military base — true?
- The Gatún road bridge is certainly in use, and I think it's open to the public. More info? Is it 2-lane?
- Is there one at Pedro Miguel?

Contributions welcome, of course! — Johantheghost 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Currently, all the articles in the Panama Canal series (except the title article) have a standard layout with the navigation box at the top-right. This seems to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Article series and see eg. History of the United States. This also makes the nav box obvious.

However, it doesn't look too nice, and robs us of a top picture. Would it be better to make the nav box horizontal, and put it at the end, and put a top pic at the head of each article? See eg. the end of Languedoc-Roussillon. -- Johantheghost 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Concernaning the article Bridge of the Americas I tried putting the NavBox bellow the pic but it didn't look good (the box crossed the section lines) so I put them beside each other. I agree 100% with the suggestion of making the NavBox horizontal so it would fit at the bottom, there is no need for it to be at the top! --DelftUser 20:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, I'll get on it. Johantheghost 21:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Design

The article said:

"An all-water route between the oceans was still seen as the ideal solution, and so the idea of a canal was revived at various times, and for various routes; a route through Nicaragua was investigated several times. Finally, enthused by the success of the Suez Canal, the French under Ferdinand de Lesseps began construction on a sea-level canal (ie. without locks) through Panama on January 1, 1880. After a great deal of work, this scheme was defeated by disease and the sheer difficulty of a sea-level canal, and the French effort collapsed in 1893."

I rewrote that to include de Lépinay's competing (successful) proposal. I rely on David McCullough's book, & the PBS doc based on it. Trekphiler 06:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of tidying up the grammar and correcting some mistakes. Eg. de Lesseps wasn't an engineer — a major reason for the French failure. Was the final French high-level proposal really based on a dam at Gatun? Also, please cite your references in the article — otherwise this just looks like cheering for de Lépinay. — Johantheghost 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've moved the addition to the history article, where this level of detail belongs. — Johantheghost 11:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French canal — what if...

Glad to help. I've been intrigued by the early lock system idea, & what would have happened if they'd built it to start with. Seems like the French project ignored the mosquitoes & malaria entire. Suppose there's something to add on that? Or a link to/page on disease control on projects like the Canal? Trekphiler 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As for the locks, I think if the French had built a lock canal, the locks would have been tiny, and would have needed replacing pretty early (like the US third locks scheme). But with the canal running and bringing in money, and with the infrastructure sorted out once it was open, that could well have been a real possibility -- so the French could have succeeded on that basis. I don't think so, though, as they still had radically under-estimated the job; see eg. the totally inadequate provision for spoil removal.

As for the disease issue, it was really just bad luck; at the time the French were working, nobody knew how the diseases were spread. They actually did make fairly decent provisions for medical care, but without that knowledge it was doomed to failure (eg. the pans of water around the bed legs, to keep bugs off, which provided breeding grounds for the mozzies). The Americans had the huge good luck that the causes of both diseases were discovered just before they moved in; in fact, they were still controversial when the US started work. But still, that saved the project for them, in my opinion.

Have you seen Health measures during the construction of the Panama Canal? I think that covers it. History of the Panama Canal covers the French effort more. Feel free to make comments on the talk pages of those articles; I'm watching them. Check out the nav bar at the bottom of each page for a topic list. (It was at the top, and hence more obvious, but was also too intrusive; see the Layout discussion above.) — Johantheghost 16:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You've anticipated me. I was just about to do something on the disease issues, the Fr effort predating the work of Finlay, Reed et al. on the mosquito vector. I don't know enough about it to judge how large deLépinay's locks would/might have been; I've N actually read McCullough. (I relied on the TV doc & a quick look at the book.) Guess I am a bit of a deL cheeleader, & maybe DM was, too; it sounded like he thought (& I, too) deL got it right. Timing, sometimes, is crucial. It's EZ to forget how interconnected things can be. Most histories will say the Fr project foundered on malaria & Gorgas cleaned it out, but omit the science needed before Gorgas knew to do it, forgetting we know, but they didn't. Trekphiler 12:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thinking of links, have you seen James Burke's Connections & The Day the Universe Changed? They're quite remarkable for showing how things you'd never expect tie together. (They've both been made into shows for Discovery; write & demand they rebroadcast!) Trekphiler 13:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Health measures during the construction of the Panama Canal article was here ages ago; so I can't take credit! I'm assuming that with a planned bottom width for the French canal of 72 feet, the French locks would have been certainly no larger than that, and probably 50 feet wide. I agree that de Lepinay got it right; I hope that the history article covers this properly. The only reason for keeping it out of the main article is to try to keep it to a reasonable size, and with an entire article dedicated to history, there's no need to get too detailed. (Similarly I just hacked my "Locks" blurb down to size.) I've seen a lot of Connections; very cool, but here in Scotland I don't get Discovery! Cheers! — Johantheghost 13:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Found some info; the French locks were to be in duplicate, 738.22 feet long, 82.02 feet wide, with a normal depth of 29.5 feet. Not so far from the present-day locks after all, and they would have served pretty well for a few decades. — Johantheghost 12:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random & Unimportant Aesthetic question

As a clear reflection of my over-abundance of free time (hey, I just finished my thesis!) I've been wondering quietly to myself why all the pics in this article are aligned on the left... Following the example of, say, saffron, won't it look nicer with a left/right mix?? Mikkerpikker 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

On the right, I think you mean. This same issue came up in U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, see User talk:MC MasterChef/Archive1 and User talk:Johantheghost. My point — which I have no strong feelings for — was that an all-right alignment doesn't disrupt the text, so a reader's eye can follow the para starts down the left edge of the page. I have previously used left-right style, and liked it for the reason you mention; but here, I opted for what I think makes the text read less like a slalom. — Johantheghost 11:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

oh, yes... I did mean right... :). Well, tis not a big deal so leave it be... Mikkerpikker 12:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about going round the other way

e.g. round the northern end of canda? or are those seas too treacherous? Plugwash 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the seas being treacherous, as there not being any way through — it's basically solid ice. (Or at least it was.) The north Pacific pilot charts show sea ice right down to the north coast of Alaska, typically, in September. Small boats, or one-off expeditions, have got through, but that's a long way from making a shipping route. There is, however, speculation that the ice is melting so fast that a route may become possible. — Johan the Ghost _seance 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I thought about adding this, but then thought to let the "regular" editors decide. The canal is the subject of a famous palindrome: "A man, a plan, a canal: Panama" Yes, I realize it's trivial, but it might work as part of a "trivia" section. Kaisershatner 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is where to put it — we don't have a "Trivia" or "Pop culture" section where it could go, and this one thing by itself doesn't really seem enough to make one. — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a trivia section (before I found this discussion) because I know two pieces of info: the palindrome, and Richard Halliburton's swim. BrainyBabe 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. And it got reverted straight back. Johantheghost suggests we collect trivia here until it achieves momentum, then move it over. Here is what I originally wrote:

- The American adventurer Richard Halliburton swam through the Canal in the 1920s, and persuaded the management to operate the locks for him, claiming to be a boat of the tonnage of 150 lbs.

- One of the most famous palindromes in the English language is: "A man, a plan, a canal -- Panama."

I will look for sources. BrainyBabe 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggested upgrade and ref:

The American adventurer Richard Halliburton swam through the Canal in 1928, and persuaded the management to operate the locks for him, becoming the first swimmer to be locked through the canal. He was treated as a boat with a tonnage of 150 lbs., and was charged a toll of 36 cents on that basis. Halliburton completed his swim in around 50 hours of swimming time over a period of about 10 days.

Panama Canal Stunt Swims Began Early, from The Panama Canal Review, August 1966. Retrieved 23 February, 2006.

— Johan the Ghost _seance 17:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple errors in spelling

There are multiple errors in spelling in this article (for example, "tonnes" and "harbour"). However, the Panama Canal is an example of American ingenuity and therefore this article should use the Modern English spellings. Isn't that consistent with Wikipedia policy, since the article is about an American subject? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.221.230 (talk • contribs).

The canal isn't US-American (even though it was). The article is written in international english. Tonne isn't an error; it's a metric unit. And please sign your posts. — Johan the Ghost _seance 09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The canal was made by and for America, so I don't understand how it doesn't qualify to be written in Modern English. No country anywhere near the Panama Canal uses the Old English spellings. 65.162.115.2 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The canal was not made for the US. It is in soveriegn Panama territory. Please don't confuse the issue with blatant untruths, SqueakBox 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is written in Modern English. You obviously aren't familiar with Old English; if you look at a sample, you'll see that it's quite different to Modern English. I guess that you are referring to American English.

To answer your question, the canal is owned by Panama and operated for the world, so why shouldn't the article be written in International English? Your argument is that "No country anywhere near the Panama Canal uses the Old English spellings"... well, no, they speak Spanish, so I guess we should write the article in Spanish? Except that this is the English Wikipedia. Anyhow, as regard unit names, it seems logical to me to use the SI unit names.

Then again, the article was most recently edited by a Scot, so why not write it in Scots? Except that I don't actually speak that language... — Johan the Ghost _seance 13:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be in international English. I would argue the same for all Latin American articles. This is an international encyclopedia that suffers from Americans thinking it is an American encyclopedia. Well these Americans are wrong, SqueakBox 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"The canal was not made for the US"

erm at least according to our artichle it was made by the US government (admittedly using an abandoned french project as a starting point) and it would be perfectly reasonable to assume they had thier own interests at heart. They did hand it over to panama eventually but it doesn't seem like it was built for thier benifit. Plugwash 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this argument and I think we should extend it to other articles. I propose that we write all articles relating to Boston, New York and any other city in the USA founded before 1775 in Commonwealth English. They were founded by British (and other) colonists who were acting in interests of the British Empire, not that of any future American State. Leith p 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN!!!!!! Sorry, that's too funny. - Jersyko·talk 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you flatter me. Sadly this is what happens after I drink a bottle of wine before editing Wikipedia, I leave facetious comments on talk pages. It's just that I've seen so many Commonwealth (or International) English vs American English arguments on Wikipedia that I've stopped taking them seriously. If you want a truly pathetic example take a look at Cat flap. Leith p 08:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is wrong with the pics?

Why is there a pic of a girl with a bull and how is this related to the Panama Canal?

It was a test/vandalism. --Golbez 04:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up second section

At the end of the second section (Description) someone attached the line "and when they get to heaven to st.peter they will tell "another soldier reporting sir ive spent my time in hell"

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Panamax limits

Some of my edits have been undone.. The capacity of the canal as a whole is surely limited by or dictated by the capacity of the locks or some point in the canal. If Panamax state that 12 metres is the maximum draft then in my book the length and width of the lock do not matter if the draft limit needs to be exceeded. What point in the Panama Canal dictates the 12 metre draft limit? The capacity in terms of tons per year etc is a function of how well the traffic is managed through the canal and the locks. Gregorydavid 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The limiting draft of the canal is less than the limiting draft of the locks; hence stating the limiting draft of the canal in the locks section was misleading. I unfortunately don't have detailed info on where exactly the draft limit arises, but I'll look into it — I think it's Lake Gatún. Meanwhile, the "Description" section states that the size limit of the canal as a whole is panamax, which is correct. The capacity limit — tons per year — is dictated mainly by the width of the Gaillard Cut, and hence the ability of ships to pass there. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you were right — the limit is in the locks, specifically the south sill of Pedro Miguel. I've stated this in the article. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I got confused is that the lock chambers are supposed to have a depth of 45 feet,[2] which would make Lake Gatún the draft limit (I'm pretty sure). However, that sill at Pedro Miguel is the shallow point at 41.2 feet; I don't know what the reason is for that. — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the feedback. I went to your user page and came back here.. I see that you keep a good eye on this article and that you have a source of facts.. Sometime I may do a good article too.. Gregorydavid 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with it! And yes, I'm certainly keeping an eye on the article today... being on the front page attracts hordes of vandals, unfortunately. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of pacific / atlantic flora and fauna mix

I'd heard somewhere that there were ecological issues with the canal as ships were taking flora and fauna from one ocean to the other. Some of these were causing problems to the indigenous wildlife. seemywebpage 21:47, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

See [3] for some info on this. But that's a pretty widespread problem, with eg. zebra mussels being transported around the world in ballast tanks. — Johan the Ghost _seance 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

To everyone who has contributed to this article — I think this is one of the best featured articles I've read in a while. The whole Panama Canal series, in fact, is fascinating and well-put-together. Bravo! —Cleared as filed. 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commas

Tomyumgoong has been relentlessly purging commas from this article, in a way which I consider to be contrary to good style. He has also refused several invitations to discuss this in a constructive manner. Since he is still at it, I've decided to bring the discussion to this talk page.

You will find his changes, and my responses, together with my rationale for disputing his changes, in the discussion below (copied from my talk page).

first comma-hunt by User:Tomyumgoong

first message to User:Tomyumgoong

second comma-hunt by User:Tomyumgoong

second message to User:Tomyumgoong

Excessive commas do not make that line more readable. Look forward to my rectification of your overpunctuation shortly. Tomyumgoong 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

third message to User:Tomyumgoong

third comma-hunt by User:Tomyumgoong

The purpose of taking this here is to allow others to comment. If you have reasoned, constructive comments, preferably backed up with outside sources (as with my messages referenced above), this is the place. — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The spelling has also been changed so that some words are US English, making the article a mix of the two styles. Can you please discuss these changes Tomyumgoong? The article should be consistent in style. Leith p 09:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, I must ask him to stop it. The following:

Although the concept of a canal in Panama dates back to the early 16th century, the first attempt to construct a canal began in 1880, under French leadership. Although this attempt collapsed, the work was finally completed by the United States; the canal opened in 1914. The building of the 77 kilometre (48 mi) canal was plagued by problems, including disease (particularly malaria and yellow fever) and massive landslides. As many as 27,500 workers are estimated to have died during construction of the canal.

Was changed to:

Although the concept of a canal in Panama dates back to the early 16th century, the first attempt to construct a canal began in 1880 under French leadership. Although this attempt collapsed the work was finally completed by the United States; the canal opened in 1914. The building of the 77 kilometre (48 mi) canal was plagued by problems, including disease (particularly malaria and yellow fever) and massive landslides. As many as 27,500 workers are estimated to have died during construction of the canal.

This completely changes the meaning of the paragraph. The first meaning states that the first attempt to construct a canal began in 1880 under French leadership. The second is an aside that states that the first attempt to construct a canal was made in 1880, it doesn't imply the French did this. The second commas shouldn't be there though. Actaully, Tomyumgoong was correct in the following paragraphs:

The Panama Canal connects the Gulf of Panama in the Pacific Ocean with the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Because of the S-shape of the Isthmus of Panama, the canal runs from south-east at the Pacific end to north-west at the Atlantic; to avoid confusion, the canal authorities classify transits of the canal as northbound (Pacific to Atlantic) and southbound (Atlantic to Pacific).

Comma should be removed after "to avoid confusion" and "Isthmus of Panaman". They are not asides.

"A canal tug, making its way down to the Caribbean end of the canal, waits to be joined by a ship in the uppermost chamber of the Gatun Locks."

The commas should be there, this is an aside.

Can't comment on the rest, that is a debate for comma Nazis. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this, and for contributing to the discussion in such a constructive way. I've removed those commas in "The Panama Canal connects ..." as per your suggestion. Thanks, — Johan the Ghost _seance 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date inaccuracies

My gut has informed me that the canal was finished in 1941.

Your gut is wrong. Raul654 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politically-charged language

This is ridiculous and should be removed, as there is no citation:

Some right-wing conservative American critics have charged that this opens the possibility of a People's Liberation Army occupation and takeover of the canal, or even staging an attack on the United States mainland from the Chinese-controlled facilities.

I think you might be talking about the same section I just moved. It's surely US-centric and possibly racist to suggest that Chineese control of the ports is an "issue" in the same league as water shortages and capacity limits. The day that the PLA marches from those ports into the Americas is the day that this becomes an "issue". Disregarding the military unfeasability of such an operation, there is no indication that it's even possible, let alone likely. It's a good piece of prose so it deserves to be included, but I just moved it to its (IMHO) rightful place in the History section.

[edit] Something to Change

I think that you need to say how many ships pass through each year!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/n/Talk%7EPanama_Canal_e935.html"