Talk:Panama Canal expansion project

Cleanup
This article, due to political efforts to slant the article (more than one direction) and numerous hasty edits resulting from that, has acquired bad grammar and style problems. --Improv 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
I understand many pro and against groups will change the article, i just expect that the article remains neutral and with points of view from both sides, with verifiable contents. Some say that the whole proyect is a political propaganda of the government, but the purpose of the article is to try to explain the original project, which is a very long document. It is very important for every panamanian that is going to vote on the referendum to know the facts of the proposal. It is an important issue to the people from other countries too, because the Panama Canal is a major trading route. It is also important to know the point of view of the people against this project, and to know their facts, thats why a very important part of the article is the "critics to the project" section which has been enriched by some wikipedians. However, i had to make some edits to this section due to style and grammar problems that caused the article to get tagged for cleanup.
 * The links embeded in the text were eliminated and moved to the references section to maintain the same style as the rest of the article.
 * an entire paragraph of this section was eliminated, the paragraph stated
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"


 * The International Monetary Fund wrote in its latest annual report that the Panamanian government will have to guarantee the project because the Panama Canal Authority is not sufficiently independent to secure financing by itself. A government guarantee will increase the risk of debt.
 * The International Monetary Fund wrote in its latest annual report that the Panamanian government will have to guarantee the project because the Panama Canal Authority is not sufficiently independent to secure financing by itself. A government guarantee will increase the risk of debt.


 * }

The actual report, states on its first page that its ''based on the information available at the time it was completed on March 8, 2005. The views expressed in this document are those of the staff team and do not necessarily reflect the views of the government of Panama or the Executive Board of the IMF''. This report says on page 49:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"


 * If the canal expansion project proceeds, future assessments of public debt sustainability will partly depend upon the extent of explicit or implicit government guarantees for the financing of the project. There is no firm evidence at this stage to judge whether markets would be willing to finance the PCA without an explicit government guarantee. Given the canal’s macroeconomic importance, an implicit government guarantee, to be assessed in light of the financing plan for expansion of the canal, may not be ruled out in a hypothetical worst-case scenario, such as a natural catastrophe.
 * If the canal expansion project proceeds, future assessments of public debt sustainability will partly depend upon the extent of explicit or implicit government guarantees for the financing of the project. There is no firm evidence at this stage to judge whether markets would be willing to finance the PCA without an explicit government guarantee. Given the canal’s macroeconomic importance, an implicit government guarantee, to be assessed in light of the financing plan for expansion of the canal, may not be ruled out in a hypothetical worst-case scenario, such as a natural catastrophe.


 * }


 * I hope wikipedians from both sides contribute to get the article better, with citations from verifiable sources on their arguments.

Radioheadhst 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Slanted views
At the moment this article is split into little sections which appear to give the neutral view and others which appear to give the opposing view. Nowhere are there sections that appear to give the supporting view. I suspect that what has been done is that the sections which appear to give the neutral view actually contain a mixture of neutral and supporting views, thus giving a spurious air of authority to the supporting viewpoint. This is unacceptable for Wikipedia as it "ghettoises" the opposing view. We need to identify the supporting views and either move them to their own sections counterbalancing the opposing views or merge corresponding opposing and "neutral" sections to put all of the viewpoints together in an NPOV fashion. The latter is what I would prefer. And since the referendum is in October we need to do it as a matter of urgency. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Slanted views
I totally agree with you Derek Ross, I was the one that moved the opossing views to a subsection, because changes from previous users (only IP recorded), just removed all the information from the section and just added the No opinion.

The information in the normal section is as close as I think it is written in the ACP proposal. Although some extra cleaning may be required. The critics of the project just added that to the normal section and erasing all other point of view. They did not put a reference to where they found that information.

Hhofuentes 15:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the article is slanted against. Building the expansion makes economic sense on a large scale for Panama, would employ mostly Panamanian workers, and makes environmental sense as well because of the fuel savings vs shipping around the tip of S.A. or using other routes. You'd have to be an extreeeeeeme environmentalist (i.e. NO GROWTH acceptable at all) to oppose this project. The people who oppose the expansion would have opposed the building of the original canal as well - that's how far off the edge they are. 107.37.243.119 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Balance
I agree too with you guys that this way into subsections inside the article of the in favor (mosly the original proposal by the ACP) and the against views helps to balance the article. I just hope that this new additions have verifiable sources. To make things easier, I changed the citation style to a footnote style, so people can verify sources easily. I looked up some citations and added them to the paragraphs and put some "citation needed" tags to the ones i couldn't find because i had no time. I hope the people that wrote them can add them soon.

Also the same words were repeated on the pro and con parts, with added commentary on the critics part, so I erased the repeated words. I think since the article has been noted by some popular panamanian websites, we should expect many edits in the following days, also the referendum date is getting closer so interest will be growing in Panama and abroad. This is not bad, unless they erase the other point of view or fill the article with many unsourced claims.

I also created a Panama Canal expansion referendum, 2006 article to write about the actual referendum and update it as the referendum date gets closer and of course to put the results once counting is done. Radioheadhst 15:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Please review the meaning of "NPOV". These anti-expansion contributions conformed, by and large, to the NPOV. They attributed views to the people who held them and included references to studies which were published elsewhere. Wholesale reversion of this type of material is not appropriate without a discussion on this page. It is appropriate to bring up individual points and explain why they are being removed or -- much better -- to discuss how they could be changed to conform to the NPOV. It is not appropriate to remove all contributed material whether it conforms to the Neutral Point of View of not. Particularly when that material appears to be contributed in good faith. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

new cleanup needed
The article needs again cleanup for repeated information and embeded links not consistent with the rest of the article. The article has become very large, prompting warnings about its lenght on the edit window. I think the Environmental section needs a considerable clean up since its too long, its 7 to 8 paragraphs about the quality of water that can be resumed in a better way. A new section was added for the principal critics, if that is going to be, then another section for the ones approving the proposal should be added. I really wonder if this could be practical since on "La Prensa" the news on September 9 says that there are 53 groups inscribed for "yes" and 22 for the "no" and that they have until September 15 to get officially inscribed on the list with the Electoral Tribunal. Maybe create separate pages to list these groups? I really still don't think its practical, but discussion is open.Radioheadhst 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a wikitable for the polls. There are some earlier polls, but they are from before the proposal was known, i think the opinions are more significant now that the public has had some time to read the proposal and see the pros and cons. Someone thinks these older polls have to be added? . I also edited some long paragraphs and fixed some links with the citation style of the rest of the article. Still needs some more editing.Radioheadhst 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for some changes
Some edits were done to the latest changes:


 * the added references as embeded links and comments about the references were moved to endnotes to keep with the style of the rest of the article.

Many of Panama's leading professionals also oppose the expansion project. These include the president of the Panamanian Society of Engineers and Architects, Humberto Reynolds [4], the president of Panama's National Association of CPAs, Luis Chen [5], the president of the attorney discipline board of Panama's Colegio de Abogados bar association, Miguel Antonio Bernal (see above references), and retired neurosurgeon and former legislator Keith Holder[6].
 * The following paragraph was erased:

Makes references to Keith Holder, Miguel A. Bernal and Humberto Reynolds as critics to the project. Their comments against the project are included above in the article, there's no need to repeat that they are oposing the project. The reference to Keith Holder was added as a reference to the Holder comments above in the article.


 * The following paragraph inserted in the polls section was erased because it is completely false and has no verifiable sources, it is the opinion of the person that wrote it. This lines try to cast a shadow on the veracity of the polls included (all of the ones published that i'm aware of):

Note the media who commissioned these polls are aligned with the ruling Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), and that the Dichter & Neira polls exclude the rural areas of Panama, including the indigenous comarcas. Note also that '''Dichter & Neira predicted an easy win for the "yes" side in the 1998 referendum on presidential election, which ended up being soundly defeated. PSM Sigma Dos is primarily a marketing research firm and has never been particularly reliable about Panamanian elections.

As stated on this article, Dichter & Neira did say on its first polls before the referendum of August 1998 that the YES was ahead, however this tendency changed and on the last poll before the referendum the NO was ahead by a 55.7 vs 33% with 7% undecided. This undecided ultimately chose the NO and the results were 62% for the NO (55.7+7.3%) and the YES had 34%. Dichter and Neira has been right on the winners of all elections in Panama since it started to make political polls in La Prensa Newspaper. --Radioheadhst 00:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the claim of PSM Sigma Dos being a market research firm that has never been reliable about Panamian elections (prior to this referendum since it appears to have been reliable in this referendum)? (In any case, the result predicted by the polls was fairly accurate so this is more out of interest then anything else) Nil Einne 11:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph added to poll section erased, again
This paragraph was added again, similar to the previus one (see above) just shorter, but also not entirely truth, just to try to cast doubt in the polls results The Dichter & Neira polls excluded Panama's rural areas and indigenous comarcas. Both the Dichter & Neira and POS Sigma Dos polls were commissioned by media aligned with the ruling Democratic Revolutionary Party.

Dichter & Neira does exclude Darién and the rural indigenous comarcas. This has no statistical significance since population is very small. In this article it is explained that rural inaccesible areas are compensated with other rural areas in the same provinces, and that rural areas are diminishing. The population in Darien province is characterized for being sparse, disperse and heterogeneous and its localized in various small population centers close to rivers. Aproximately 60% of this population is in 523 towns of less than 500 habitants each. For 2004 the population was 43 828 habitants. (This info is from the wikipedia in spanish).

La Prensa is an independent newspaper with 1200 shareholders, none of which own more than 1% of shares. It was closed during the dictatorship of the PRD for being critical of the government and frequently has articles critical to this government and the ones before it. The Crítica (Critic) newspaper that commisioned the PSM Sigma Dos poll is also independent. --Radioheadhst 00:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Needs NPOV and Cleanup
At the moment, the article largely focuses on paraphrasing and renumerating A.C.P.'s "Master Plan," in which the proposal for widening, expanding and installing the third set of locks appear.

Most sections in this article are clearly in favor of the expansion without offering equal time to the opposition camp. Also notable is the slanderous tone used in this article against SUNTRACS, whose members remain divided and have come under pressure for not supporting the expansion.

I see that several people have made efforts to add balancing views to the article, but it still falls short of presenting the reasons and in-depth background.

I realize this is a complicated topic, but perhaps both sides can come together to help make the world better understand the differing views and their quoted "facts" that exist in Panama.

Can somebody fix the link to the ACP Proposal in footnote 1?
The link to "Panama Canal Expansion Proposal by the Panama Canal Authority" in Footnote 1 has gone bad. I believe the link should be to: http://www.acp.gob.pa/eng/plan/documentos/propuesta/acp-expansion-proposal.pdf I am not sure how to fix this. Could someone do that? Thanks, Nkennington 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Could someone explain to me why this isn't at Panama Canal expansion proposal? It doesn't really seem to be a proper noun to me... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Panamax
I've only glanced through it quickly but the article doesn't really appear to discuss whether this proposal is going to increase the size of Panamax. Also the Panamax article looks in need of updating as it doesn't really mention the latest proposal or the fact that the expansion it's very likely going ahead. I would guess that in reality even if it does increase the size of Panamax it's not going to make much difference at first since the larger size is probably not going to be that much but I would assume most post-Panamax ships are significantly larger then Panamax (otherwise why bother?) Nil Einne 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Panamax dimensions are: Length: 294.1 metres (965 ft), Beam (width): 32.3 metres (106 ft), Draft: 12.0 metres (39.5 ft) and Height: 57.91 metres (190 ft). The new lock chambers will be 427 meters (1,400 feet) long, by 55 meters (180 feet) wide, and 18.3 meters (60 feet) deep, so bigger ships will pass and this can be a big difference because more cargo can be transported in the same trip, making it cheaper. The new Panamax dimensions would have to be a little smaller than the new locks, since on the current locks ship pass inches away from the walls. Of course we don't know what name this ships built to the maximum dimensions of the new locks will be called (Panamax2, Panamax, New Panamax?), remember the old locks will still be used so they will be Panamax ships for the old locks and Panamax ships for the new locks. -Radioheadhst 01:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Suez canal a competitor?
How isthe Suez canal a competitor to the Panama canal? I'm removing it for now, but feel free to reinstate it if I've missed something obvious here. Rawling 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just ignore me, read about it in the main article. Rawling 17:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a canal
It is claimed the modification of Panama Canal will result in some kind of a very venomous sea snake migrating from one ocean to the other and kill most americans living by the seaside in just 25 years. Supposedly the sea snakes are now unable to cross the canal because they die in sweetwater, but modifications will alow enough saltwater in the canal to let the snakes pass. They are so venomous a single bite kills a grown man in 5 minutes and there is no antidote to their fangs. They are easy to spot, because these 3ft snakes have zebra-stripes. 195.70.48.242 08:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very very funny :)--Sheeo 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Honduras' plan
I heard Honduras is planning canal itself. Should it be included here in the competitor subsection? __earth (Talk) 10:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of it and by briefly looking at the map of Honduras, a canal there doesn't seem to be feasible. Can you elaborate on this canal plan?--Revth 07:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. It's not Honduras. It's Nicaragua instead. __earth (Talk) 15:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Trusty Wikipedia has an article one it: Nicaragua Canal __earth (Talk) 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Revth, the Canal was almost made on Nicaragua, there was competition between the two routes, eventually the Panama route won, I'm sure you can read all about it on wikipedia. It has been a plan for some time, of course it would be very very expensive (some 18 billion US dollars), and now with a project to expand the Panama Canal, it doesn't seem too feasible.-Radioheadhst 01:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming/moving the article?
Now that the proposal has been approved on a referendum, is the term proposal right for it? Or should we just call it Panama Canal expansion. Other options could be Panama Canal expansion project or Panama Canal expansion megaproject. I would favor Panama Canal expansion, its simpler and the term project/megaproject would be included in the text.

According to this a proposal is a formal written document that provides detailed information to a funder on the components and cost of a proposed project in response to some substantiated need or problem; represents a plan for change rather than a request for money.

A project means (i) the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes, (ii) other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources.

Megaproject are "initiatives that are physical, very expensive, and public." typically costing in excess of US$1 billion and attracting high levels of public attention because of substantial impacts on communities, environment, and budgets.

So, I hope some of you could give your opinion to this. It's going to take some years of construction, but we can't always call it Panama Canal expansion proposal. Radioheadhst 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At first I thought that Panama Canal expansion was perfect, encompassing the project throughout its various stages. However, it seems too broad a title, and not specific to this contemporary plan. It could refer to the possibilities of an expansion to the canal in the past, present or future."'A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service. Temporary means that the project has an end date. Unique means that the project's end result is different than the results of other functions of the organization.' (defined here and here)."I feel the title Panama Canal expansion project incorporates successfully every stage of the process, from proposal to construction and evaluation. —anskas 23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I am now going through with this. —anskas 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Health measures during the construction of the Panama Canal
Should this article have a link to health measures during the construction of the Panama Canal? -- Wavelength 20:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that as part of a series of Panama Canal articles in Wikipedia is appropiate that this project is included in the Panama Canal articles template and hence that the health measures article is linked to this one Radiohead hst talk? 09:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the water-saving basin?
I don't find the article explains how the basins will save water. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright compliance?
I found several a couple of paragraphs that look like a word for word copy of the reference they cite. Is this reference in the public domain? Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Third set of locks"?
This title is ambiguous. Already there are 3 sets of locks: gatun, pedro miguel and miraflores. The expansion adds 2 more sets.

Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.33.150 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

well, third set of lock is meaned as "third shiping line". 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:C0FE:B67C:3CBA:20AB (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1.1: Cargo volume (OR & POV issues)
Original Research template added because:

The fact that the trade _imbalance_ might change in the future is the only part of the paragraph that has a source cited...and as such the rest of the paragraph might, at best, be considered a synthesis form of OR. Whether a reduction in trade _imbalance_ will reduce the volume of _trade_ (and thus reduce the profitability of the Canal expansion), is OR.

Someone cited an article about "trade imbalance" which does not even mention Panama or the Canal, then, on their own (without citations), spun an intricate tale about how this US-China situation would (supposedly) affect the Canal's profitability <--and this italicized text is where they added completely unsupported original research.

Is trade _imbalance_ even relevant to the amount of traffic-volume through the Canal, or that traffic's profitability for Panama? No source is cited which would make the answer a "yes". (and thus why it's an obvious case of WP:OR)

As a side-note, let me add that it's not only lacking a citation that merits including it in a WP article, but as the following paragraph will explain, it's also a claim which is even lacking basic common sense that I think even people who aren't experts in logistics will see: The paragraph that I'm complaining about only gives a one-sided argument (POV) which suggests only that any changes to the trade-imbalance could be detrimental, but for example, if USA exports more to China as a way to address the trade-imbalance, and China keeps up its export volume to the USA, then the expansion project can even benefit from a change to the trade-imbalance. Other examples (and these are only examples) are that worldwide growth of wealth (post-recession) and worldwide population-growth need to be considered, as they are factors that can affect Canal traffic-volumes (at least as much as the other factor, trade-imbalances, can affect it)... so this paragraph of the article is not merely original research, but also very myopic and overly-simplistic original research. (and noteworthy professional researchers likely wouldn't make such glaring omissions, thus such an uncited analysis caught my attention -- but the fact that it was so amateurish-appearing & unimpressive/short-sighted analysis was what caught my attention even more.)

In addition to it being WP:OR, it's also an attempt to advance an anti-expansion POV without any citation to support that POV. (I could mark it POV as well as OR, but didn't want to clutter up the article.)

24.155.49.116 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal versus project
The article seems out of date as written. There are numerous references to the canal expansion "proposal". In fact, the expansion of the canal long ago went beyond a proposal and is now in fact an actual project. The proposal was approved years ago, and work on the project is underway. The article should be tweaked to indicate that work is moving along and that this project is going to be reality in a few years.

Expansion progress report: http://www.pancanal.com/eng/expansion/informes-de-avance/avance.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Zimmerlin (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping you. Go right ahead. Ng.j (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just did a bit, but this needs major work... I may do it because I'm currently living right at the canal --DeVerm (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

large panorama
The excessively large panorama (PNG format) should be converted to JPEG, which would make it about 1/10 the 24 MB it now is.

189.151.83.104 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC) baden k.