Talk:Great Man-Made River

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Libya Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Mid-importance). Water Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rivers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WTF is NEJH and EJH? Is the thing called GMR, GMRP or GMMR? Guinness man 00:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, too many acronyms, or at least ones that aren't explained. The project is known as the Great Manmade River Project, hence the project name is usually shortened to GMRP, with a number added to denote the phase of construction. For example GMRP-2 was the construction of three wellfields near the Jabal Hasuna mountain range and a transfer pipeline north to Tripoli.

The three wellfields in the GMRP-2 project were located to the East and Northeast of the Jabal Hasuna mountains about 650km south of Tripoli. The two wellfields to the east of Jabal Hasuna are called East Jabal Hasuna (West) and East Jabal Hasuna (East), also known as EJHW and EJHE, with the third, Northeast Jabal Hasuna wellfield also known as NEJH.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjboese (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 August 2006

Was the East Jabal Hasouna field ever devided (in west and east)? Not as far as I know.

The acronyme galore is not only the problem of the article, it comes from the project itself. I don't know weather it's the love of libyan authorities for acronyms, or the difficulty of translating from arabic (is it Hasuna? Hasouna? Hassawnah?). --

Qyd 10:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The official title, as reflected in the text, is Great Man-Made River. I don't know how to change a title, but it should be changed as it is confusing, and many people use Wikipedia to check this sort of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedah Eulalia (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I marked this for cleanup as the word "extraordinary" was used to describe the session of congress that started this. Such a word is subjective and not meant for a Wiki, and I think this whole article could use a bit of tiding.

Signed by Scryer_360, the man to lazy to sign in

"Extraordinary" in this sense means unscheduled, not remarkable or magnificent.

How long until the resource will be exhausted? Geo Swan (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over 60,000 years. I wouldn't worry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim within the article that the aquifers won't run out of water for another 63,000 years is insane. It's just barking nonsense. 97.122.250.215 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60,000 years? That certainly sounds like nonsense. How long should this unreferenced claim be allowed to remain in the article? Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unfererenced claim is allowed to remain forever if no one corrects it! Quickly found to good refs for lasting 1000 years if... and changed the article. 172.130.46.104 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was it an unreferenced claim? Simple math gives us that number, see Talk:Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The engineering of this project took in account more than math, and is not simple. At the time the project was designed, estimates for project life ranged between 50 and 100 years. The figure you calculated is just a meaningless number. --

Qyd (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You can take into account anything you like, but it doesn't make the math meaningless. Sure it assumes that the estimates are ACCURATE, but so do any calculations for how long the water will last. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs a map of the pipelines as the main image. There's one in the BBC article. Maybe there's a public domain version on a Lybian governmental site somewhere? Esn (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article definitely needs a map. It's talking about lots of places and lists at which time which place has been connected etc., but pretty much no one knows where all those places are. :-/ --MarsmanRom (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a schematic map, but there are some parts, based mostly on [1], but also some other sources. Do anyone know if the extension to Kufra has been built yet or not? I'm also confused about the different phases. Some sources list four and some list five, and what is included in phase III, IV and V varies from source to source… There is for instance this figure, but its from 1998. Comments and corrections to the map are very much appreciated! – Danmichaelo (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions five stages, but only two of these are named. What are the other 3 stages ? What are the estimated completion dates for the unfinished stages ? The article mentions the lawsuit with Brasoil. What was the outcome of the lawsuit ? 189.81.153.222 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why delete my correction? PS. I again added--Ramir12 (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the Great Man Made River has been dealt structural damage by NATO forces.

http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/07/liby-great-man-made-river-reason-for.html

212.64.106.232 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has any independent source confirmed this story? -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source you got that from looks like a very bias blog and will claim the rebels and NATO are guilty of everything. Like claming it was in fact rebels who used foreign mercenaries and that the goverment did not threaten a massacre in Benghazi but the rebels did somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.139.244 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just cited an independent NGO as a source for the destruction of the pipe making factory for the GMR by NATO. Essential civilian infrastructure attacked again just like in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.133.8.226 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pipe-making factory is not the same thing as the GMR... -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable nonetheless. Is wikipedia an online encyclopedia, or is it a western propaganda mechanism? 212.64.106.232 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NATO has admitted to bombing the factory, so I have no problem with it being added to the article. -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead then, if you like. I don't have the wikipedia know-how to make such edits. I do however strongly believe it is relevant to this article. 212.64.106.232 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTM1gLu4Vkc 212.64.106.232 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current source is just a copy of a blog post from [2], and it's not at all clear where the author has the information from. Is it the Brega plant that was bombed? If NATO has admitted the bombing, there must be some better source for this? – Danmichaelo (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like NATO bombed the Brega plant on July 22th,[3] but it's not clear if they cut off the water supply or not. Do anyone have more info on this? – Danmichaelo (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source for the Brega plant bombing: Reuters – Danmichaelo (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does this affect current construction? This article seems pretty present tense about being built by the now-former government. I'd love to see the wording retooled to fit current political situations. Geoff (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "A large, recently-settled lawsuit between the Libyan government and Brasoil, a subsidiary of the Brazilian national oil company, arose from the project. Brasoil was contracted to drill many of the wells in the early stages of the project." I removed this sentence, because it is pretty useless without any background information. If anybody knows more about the case, please extend making clear why it is relevant. --130.83.244.131 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the death of Muammar Gaddafi, the project is now known as The Man-Made River Authority (MRA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neitzen (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he will remain great forever... Idiots who killed him are just that - idiots... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.94.234 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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/gmr/

  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.—

I digress. Is the website still considered official? It was made to represent the project (which is still going on), but I don't imagine it's really a top priority for the country right now. Silenceisgod (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, the fact that there is still a Japanese marriage blog (or whatever it is) on it, I doubt much attention is being paid.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to it being hacked too, which was

WP:OR anyway.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified one external link on Great Man-Made River. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315153835/http://www.tekfeninsaat.com.tr/TR/haber/article2.html to http://www.tekfeninsaat.com.tr/TR/haber/article2.html

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.

• 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) 17:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know he could do that. 2A00:23C7:D084:1901:4C2A:9EC4:F265:E19A (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]