Talk:Suez Canal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia CD Selection Suez Canal is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. 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 Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


On Template:November 15 selected anniversaries and Template:November 17 selected anniversaries.

--

Contents

[edit] STOCK ISSUE

Didnt the egyptian govt (viveroy Pasha) hold 44% of the stock? So if GB bought it, they still didnt have control of the company? Ksenon 02:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


May be I am having a bad day, but I still couldn't tell who currently own the canal? Is it mentioned in the article?

[edit] Questions

--

Shouldn't the "C" in canal be capitalized in the title? It is in the first sentence. Tuf-Kat

Yes it should. I'll fix it. --mav

--

It would probably be a good idea for someone to note (and maybe write an article on?) the Constantinople Convention of 1888. This convention basically said that the Suez Canal couldn't be closed by anybody, and I remember reading that it precipitated one of the major causes of the 1956 Suez Crisis/War/Incident/Massively-Violent-Activity (just to cover all of the opinion bases...:-)). Even better if someone could find the text of it, and whether or not it's still in force (legally, if not practically).

Oh yeah. How much does passage through the Canal cost? -Penta 19:48, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Found the text, added it as an external link. -Itai 12:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm having the hardest time finding out whether the French company called Suez (NYSE: SZE) (See [1] for details) really is the present-day embodiment of the original Compagnie Universelle du canal maritime de Suez - Suez Canal Company. It claims ([2]) that it is, although not in so many words. Any thoughts? -Itai 12:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It probably is the present-day embodiment, but it would not have anything to do with the current management of the canal: as the whole issue about the Suez Crisis in 1956 was that Egypt nationalised the canal and now controls it. --mgream 22:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The canal has no locks because there is no sea level difference. The canal allows ships with up to 15 meters (50 feet) of draft to pass, and improvements are planned to increase this to 22 m (72 feet) by 2010 to allow supertanker passage. Presently supertankers can offload part of their load onto a canal-owned boat and reload at the other end of the canal. There is one shipping lane with several passing areas.

Would that be enough for a French or US aircraft carrier to use the canal?

  • That doesn't sound right....no locks? That can't be right. Is it? Kingturtle 03:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There are no locks, numerous references will tell you this. --mgream 22:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • US aircraft carriers can already fit through the Suez Canal, and do so. The USS George Washington exited the canal on the Red Sea side this week. Cyrius 07:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Said?

The link to "Said" goes to a page that doesn't seem to be the right one.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:27, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Please clarify:

This is a direct quote from the Encyclopaedia of the Orient:

13th century BCE: A canal is constructed between the delta of the Nile and the Red Sea. For the following centuries, the canal was only partially maintained.

8th century CE: The canal is no longer maintained, and soon becomes unnavigable.

1854: By a French initiative, the viceroy of Egypt, Said Pasha, decides for the project of building a canal that would connect the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.

1858: La Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez is formed to construct the canal. The company, which was owned by both French and Egyptian interests, should both build the canal, and administer it for the following 99 years. After this time, the ownership would pass over to the Egyptian government.

1859 April 25: Constructions begin.

Why hasn't Wikipedia mentioned this? Anti-Egyptian (and I really dislike saying this, but... ) prejudice??? Please refer to Origins of chess and Great Pyramid of Giza: Labor for more information.

Wikipedia certainly cannot claim that the ancient Egyptians were incapable of such a engineering feat, given a monument as extraordinary as the Great Pyramid of Giza, constructed more than one thousand years prior to a mere canal!


[edit] Ancient "Suez Canal"

It's my understanding that the ancient "Suez Canal" connected the Nile with the Red Sea. The Persians on orders from Emperor Darius the conqueror built the Suez Canal giving access to the Persian navy to the Mediterranean.

logologist 14:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't feel embarrassed by the following. (I am fortunate to having had contact with some very bright and exceedingly experienced historians in my lifetime who informed me of the following. Yes, you may declare the above, and it is a very common mistake.)
Ancient manuscripts refer to the "Mediterranean Sea" as the "Red Sea." Exactly why this is so is uncertain. For some reason or another, ancient references to both seas in many instances carried the same name. Even the Gulf of Suez is referred to as the "Red Sea" in some instances! However, I'm not an historian, and my memory fails at recollecting precise references for you. Sorry.
It was Necho II (610 - 595 BC) who dug the canal from the Nile to the Gulf of Suez.
The use of the term "Red Sea" in the article, Suez Canal, is only to appease those who want to claim this technicality in the ancient documents discovered (from the 13th century BC) of the canal's origin. They prefer to state that some other canal was constructed. However, try as energetically as we may, we always fail at locating any evidence of any other canal which these ancient documents must be referring to. Nevertheless, they prefer to argue that such evidence may show up some time in the future. So, we publicly leave the term as it is, yes probably in error, but maybe not actually so. [Note that the original article text has been changed to reflect this.]
If you'd like a good map to reference, here is a really good one I have located on the internet, but it takes a few minutes to download. So be patient! [3] -- Roylee
The Egyptians wouldn't have needed to dig a canal to get to the Mediterranean Sea. All they needed to do was sail downstream. logologist 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Egyptians to Mediterranean Sea? Yes. West African Saharans to eastern "states?" No.
The West African Saharans were the major shipbuilders of the era, not the ancient Egyptians. But, both populations were African. Perhaps the initial motivation to dig a Suez canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Suez was of West African origin??? Perhaps the actual dig was a joint effort???
Perhaps the Phoenicians were West Saharan Africans??? According to Phoenicia: Phoenician Merchantry, Egyptian pharoah Necho II sent a Phoenician expedition out to circumnavigate Africa. Why would the Phoenicians oblige to an Egyptian pharoah? Maybe because Egypt dug the canal for them? Seems reasonable, but we'll never know. -- Roylee

Roylee (talk • contribs) has made a number of contentious edits into articles such as Mende language and Shipbuilding that have since been reverted. Someone more knowledgeable in this area may want to verify the information about the 1st Suez Canal. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facts?

I'm rather surprised that there isn't a simple Facts section containing information such as length, width, depth of water, etc. Perhaps someone familiar with these values can put such a section together? -Ayeroxor 17:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panamax

The article says "The Panama Canal has a current draft of 12 metres as set out in the Panamax specifications." Aren't we talking about the Suez Canal here? Does the Suez meet the Panamax specifications? Clarkbhm 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Someone removed it. Clarkbhm 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammar clarification

The modern suez canal, paragraph 4, sentence 5. " . . . British troops had moved in to protect it while they newly settled on civil war torn Egypt in 1882." I'm not sure what is intended here, so I can't make a specific suggestion, but this sentence should be fixed. Actually, I think this whole section could use an edit. I found it to be one of the most confusing Wikipedia articles I've read. Again, however, I don't have the expertise on this topic to try tackling it myself, so this is just a suggestion.

[edit] Nile / Suez Canal article merge

I do not agree that the articles should be merged: both of the canals have distinct and detailed histories in themselves, and although some relationship exists between them, it is not sufficient to join them under a single banner. For example, this would be like saying that since the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney Harbour Tunnel are both transits across the harbour, that they should be joined into a single article about Sydney Harbour crossing, which would not make sense - although it does make sense that each individual article describes something about its relationship to the other. It's also slightly annoying that the user who proposed this merge did so without providing any justification. I call upon the user to provide a justification, otherwise I suggest that the merge proposal be reverted within 7 days. mgream 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no feelings on the matter. My motivation was that there is no current link to Nile Canal, and someone who is not an expert on the subject might not find the information included in that article. --Grocer 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

Are you sure the length of the canal is 163 miles? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica it's 101 miles (163 km ) [4]67.67.230.161 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC claims that it is 192 km long: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5195068.stm . Can anyone explain this discrepancy? -Pgan002 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental issues

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

Are there any environmental issues raised by the connection of the two different seas? -- Beland 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

From the page on the Mediterranean Sea:
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 created the first salt-water passage between the Mediterranean and Red seas. The Red Sea is higher than the Eastern Mediterranean, so the canal serves as a salt-water river that pours Red Sea water into the Mediterranean. The Bitter Lakes, which are hypersaline natural lakes that form part of the canal, blocked the migration of Red Sea species into the Mediterranean for many decades, but as the salinity of the lakes gradually equalized with that of the Red Sea, the barrier to migration was removed, and plants and animals from the Red Sea have begun to colonize the eastern Mediterranean. The Red Sea is generally saltier and more nutrient-poor than the Atlantic, so the Red Sea species have advantages over Atlantic species in the salty and nutrient-poor Eastern Mediterranean. The construction of the Aswan High Dam across the Nile River in the 1960s reduced the inflow of freshwater and nutrient-rich silt from the Nile into the eastern Mediterranean, which has made conditions there even more like the Red Sea. This species exchange is known as the Lessepsian Migration, after Ferdinand de Lesseps, the engineer who oversaw the canal's construction.
--Yuje 12:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Take sea-level difference out

The texts says that the Suez Canals has no locks because there are no hills to climb (that's the right argumentation) and because there is no sea-level difference (wrong reasoning!). Since when is the sea-level at the other side of a continent, island, etc. lower or higher? So the Panama Canal has locks because there is a sea-level difference? Of course not, the Atlantic Ocean is not lower or higher than the Pacific Ocean, or vice versa. The same is valid for the Suez Canal the Red Sea can't be lower or higher than the Mediterraenean Sea. Water-level difference is only possible in inland waters. Janno 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Water-level difference is only possible in inland waters. Not true -- this is from the Wikipedia article on sea level: Mean sea level does not remain constant over the surface of the entire earth. For instance, mean sea level at the Pacific end of the Panama Canal stands 20 cm higher than at the Atlantic end. unfutz 05:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You can theoretically have different seal levels at different ends of the canal, if the high tides are at different times. This is precisely what happens in the English Channel. High tides arriving from the west are at different times to those arriving via the North Sea, resulting in a tidal race.

The Mediterranean has virtually no tides, it is “nearly” a land-locked lake, the only outlet is the straits of Gibraltar and they are relatively narrow.
The Red Sea is long and thin, and so probably has minimal tides.

Can anybody comment on how big the tides are at either end, and whether there is a flow? It may be so low that it is overwhelmed by the currents caused by passing ships. TiffaF 16:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scale of cost overruns

The article states:

the final cost was more than double the original estimate.

On the other hand Cost overrun states:

Spectacular examples of cost overrun are the Suez Canal with 1,900 percent.

So what were cost overruns - x2 or x20 ? This is pretty big difference. Taw 10:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] impossible facts

deleted: "Egyptians were also forced to work on the canal, 125,000 [citation needed] of whom perished due to malnutrition, fatigue and disease, especially cholera."

if 30,000 egyptians were forced to work on the canal, it's impossible that 125,000 died; in any case a figure this high seems extremely unlikely. Benwing 05:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See #120000 died and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5195068.stm -Pgan002 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 120000 died

BBC claims that 120000 people died in constructing the canal - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5195068.stm -Pgan002 03:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/e/Talk%7ESuez_Canal_2fc5.html"