Talk:Aral Sea

message: On June 19, 2007, seems everything between "Ecological Problems" to "Bioweapons" is verbatim from http://www.aralseainfo.com/
HighFlyer12 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page lists this one as the source.Kmusser 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello.
This article deals almost completely with the environmental disaster of Aral Sea. Basic facts such as surface area (as of 199x or 200x, for example), geography, climate and economy issues are almost completely missing. Given the fact that pre-1960 Aral was the 4th largest lake in the world, I could describe this article as stub.
However, at the moment I cannot spend time in making the text better.
:Oh yes. Especially the original depth is missing. Some extrapolation from given figures indicates that the average depth of the dried area was only about 2 meters? --Ikar.us (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts Missing

message: This article has been tagged because it needs to have spelling and grammar corrected, be rearranged, wikified, and in fact almost completely rewritten. If possible, help from a more advanced Wikipedian or Cleanup Task Force member would be appreciated, as I am only a lowly Wikimite. Vanderdecken ℘ζξ 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you visited the page just a couple of hours after a huge messy anon rewrite. I've reverted to the old version, which is of decent quality. Staecker 13:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: I can't find the link to put this on my watchlist.  I know.  I suck.  I have a lot of stubs on there, but this one, though not a stub, I feel is a rather important article.  I want it on my list.  Could anyone help me?
Oh, I forgot to sign in...Sorry!
CommKing 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist 

message: Hi i'm called Phil and i think that what they are doing to the aral sea is wrong. I dont think that they should take all the water but only take it to one cotten plantation.
This is not a genral talk page but now you mention it I read that some fields that are been used to grow cotton are floodedmattypc 20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aral Sea 

message: In the current situation area, it lists near the top of the paragraph that the sea had lost 60% of its surface area, thus leaving 40%. Later, however, it states that only 25% is left. Which is it?
The article says that the Soviet Union decided in 1918. The Soviet Union did not exists until 1922 and Wikipidia itself has an article on Soviet Union "The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 as the union of the Russian (colloquially known as Bolshevist Russia), Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Transcaucasian Soviet republics ruled by Bolshevik parties.
". Please, correct the contradiction.
Ruslan Moskalenko
:I made the change, but anyone can edit Wikipedia, you could have made the correction yourself.  Kmusser 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Is there any particular reason why this image has been flipped so that the foreground is at the top of the frame? -- MacAddct1984 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably done so that north would be at the top of the picture, I agree that it looks odd that way though.  Kmusser 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Aral sea 1985 from STS.jpg 

message: "On 9th/10th June 2007 BBC World broadcast a documentary called 'Back From The Brink?' made by Borna Alikhani and Guy Creasey that showed some of the changes in the region since the introduction of the Aklak Dam. His prediction is that within ten years Lake Superior in the United States will contain 15% less fresh water than it currently holds."
The second sentence needs to be made relevant to the topic, or it will soon be deleted I suppose, by me or someone else, as an archetypical non-sequitur.Mare Nostrum 11:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sequitur about Lake Superior 

message: The first sentence in the intro para talks about the Aral Sea in the past tense.  As far as I can tell, it's still there and isn't gone yet.  Is that just a typo or some previous vandalism? Bigheadjer 01:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Paragraph Tense 

message: Is "Karalpakstan" a misspelling? Because there's no use of that name in any other part of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.229.213 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Karalpakstan"? 

message: OK, so what the hell does it have anything to do with the Aral Sea? wikipedia is not an outlet for a separatist group's marketing campaign. >:( i'm gonna delete it in a few days if not one objects.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Completesentence (talk • contribs) 06:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that kind of info belongs in the Karakalpakstan article (and is in fact already there), I removed it from here. Otebig (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karalpakstan 

message: The image captioned "Aral sea seen by SPOT satellite" is hard to decipher. Is it a close-up of a small part of the shoreline? It certainly doesn't look like the whole sea. I think the caption needs to be clarified, and also needs a date.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.242.135 (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like the image is copyrighted and shouldn't be on wikipedia anyway. Its description page says it comes from here: http://gallery.spotimage.com/product_info.php?products_id=1319 ..and that website's "Terms of Use" page, here: http://gallery.spotimage.com/pages.php?pID=14 says in part "The contents of this site are intended solely as information for visitors to the site. Its contents may not be extracted, modified, distributed or circulated either wholly or in part, for any other purpose than the personal information of visitors, without prior written permission from Spot Image." Sounds pretty clear, no? Pfly (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vozrozhdeniya Island - image would be better there ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing image 

message: There do not appear to be any maps showing where in the world this sea is. Might want to fix that. 193.63.128.55 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeahh but all the maps which are not a close-up of the Aral sea use outdated 1960-ish contours, probably being ignorant of the water loss. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

text: That's still better than nothing. The article definately needs a pic showing where in the world it is at. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where?

message: What is the altitude of the Aral Sea? And of the Caspian Sea? That would help understand the feasibility of transferring water from Caspina to Aral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.159.118.174 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surface elevation of the water north of the dam is about 125 ft above normalnull, whereas the Caspian sea is about 92 ft. below. However the Caspian sea is also drying up, only at a much slower rate which (should it ever become a problem) the Russians can solve by pushing a few buttons up in Volgograd. They were planning to build some much longer canals to refill the Aral sea, but as of the early 1990s it's not their problem anymore. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altitude? 

message: The eastern Aral hasn´t dried up yet, the evidence I have for this is that the photo used on the German web page to show that the aral had dried up clearly shows water. Have a look on the website ´flashearth´ (type ´flashearth in on google) and you will see that the area that the website calls dust etc. has receeded further. Dust doesn´t receed, but water does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.133.180 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim has been in there since 3 March 2008, never sourced, and obviously contradicted by Wikipedia's own stats, as the above poster noted 4 years ago. I'm taking it out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.178.110 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Aral hasn´t dried up yet 

message: Shouldn't the fact that this is a salt-water lake be mentioned somewhere in the opening paragraphs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elron (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just added a link to saline endorheic basin. But note the article talks about the Aral Sea in the past tense. It is now three lakes: the North Aral Sea and the eastern and western basins of the former South Aral Sea. The salinity of each of the three lakes differs, with the southern lakes being super-saline and the North Aral Sea apparently undergoing a reduction in salinity. Still, all three are salty, if I understand right, so I make a link saying so in the lead. Pfly (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salt-water 

message: Hi. I was just noticing that there was some wiki "programming" language remnants or whatever you really call it in the History section as of April 7th, 2010. I don't know how it is fixed, but I thought I'd point it out so that someone who has more experience could take care of it. I hope that made sense. Thanks, 24.10.181.254 (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again. It might make a little more sense if I paste what it said: Cite error: Closing </ref>  missing for < ref > tag. The "<>" brackets were moved in the second instance of "ref" so that it didn't turn into a citation, so that you have the general idea of what to look for in the "History" section. Wow. That might not have made sense either. Good luck fixing and much obliged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.181.254 (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi one more time. I think I figured it out. I guess someone tried to tag this article to say there was a citation error, but didn't format properly. I erased the tag that said {{citation (note no closing brackets), and then made sure there was a </ref> to end the citation. I don't think it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove a "tag" if it wasn't formatted properly in the first place and I ended up fixed it to look right, but just in case it was, I wasn't intending to break policy, I was just trying in Good Faith to make it look right. Hope I didn't step on any toes. Regards, 24.10.181.254 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. Don't worry about "policy". Be bold!. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey thanks. Isn't the "Show Preview" button awesome? I would never dare to edit articles without it! 24.10.181.254 (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some wiki editing jargon trapped in the History section 

message: I learned from a youtube Aral Sea video comment that Turkmenistan is spending billions to create a new lake, with the water to be diverted from Amu Darya through the desert by a 100-mile(?) canal. Google yielded the following: 
From the Radio Free Europe website:
"Turkmenistan: Ashgabat Has Grand Plans To Create Man-Made Lake, River (Part 1)" http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1054572.html 
"Turkmenistan: Projects Sounding Alarm Bells In Region (Part 2)" http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1054573.html
"Analysis: A River Runs Through It" http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1054577.html
From the Institute for War and Peace Reporting:
"Turkmen “Golden Lake” May Prove Green Disaster" http://www.iwpr.net/report-news/turkmen-%E2%80%9Cgolden-lake%E2%80%9D-may-prove-green-disaster
Then there's this, which suffers from translation problems, but has the whiff of official documentation and also maps and photos, including one of the already-excavated "Karashor" lake-bed depression: "The « Golden age lake » of Turkmenistan"  http://91.121.162.160/aral/Golden_age_lake.pdf
I see (belatedly) that the lake-building project has a stub, but the topic seems pertinent to this Wikipedia article, too. "Further reading", if nothing else. 24.128.188.152 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkmenistan building man-made "Golden Age Lake"  

message: It would look like the Amu Darya sometimes still flows into the Southern Aral (filling it considerably): http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=CentralAsia1.2010163.aqua.1km 81.154.104.54 (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amu Darya Flowing into Southern Aral  

message: The Aral Sea is or WAS?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.188.35 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I would say "was", but the article is currently worded otherwise.  --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IS 

message: I had always heard the it was the fault of the Soviets for the Aral Sea's shrinkage because they put dams along major waterways that flowed into it. is this not one of the reasons?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.36.179 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very clearly explained in the article, see section "Irrigation canals". Not exactly dams, but the Sea's shrinkage was directly caused by the Soviet Union's decisions, and later by the independent Central Asian nations' continuing those same policies. Staecker (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it not the Soviets fault for the shrinkage of the Aral Sea? 

message: Hey, if someone could clarify the link between a sea drying up and tuberculosis, not only would you improve this article, but you could probably get a PhD in Biology as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.234.226 (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But Willbat, tuberculosis is not caused by weapons detritus or pesticides, it is caused by a bacterium: Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The paragraph does not (now) actually say that tuberculosis is caused by pesticides or weapons detritus. But the comment by 99.40.234.226 has some point - why mention tuberculosis? Hundovir (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Health Effects

message: I removed the {ref} tag and gave references for each of the "citation needed" tags. It took me about 30 minutes to find the 5 of them. If anyone has any better ones please list them. I was surprised to see how difficult it was to find certain bits of info. Coinmanj (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Didn't want to add this to the article without some verification, but a The World Pictorial Gazetteer from 1933 claims that the Aral Sea, at the time, had seals. I can't find any other reference to this online, but then again a lot of earlier information on the Aral Sea is sparse. Maybe this was confusion with Lake Baikal seals?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.193.228 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seals? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aral Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071213020010/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/5218248.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/5218248.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a paragraph that someone modified on 8 October 2015.  It used to say the following, but this edit changed the amount to "70-80 billion roubles (£800 million)".
:The overall cost of the damage to the region has been estimated at 35–40 billion roubles (£800 million).
I checked the source - there is a problem - it does give an overall cost of damage to the region.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit that placed this statement in the article was dated 12:24, 15 September 2011, by 84.92.57.83.  Note that the access date in the citation was November 2010, for an edit made in September 2011.  This appears to be a case of someone harvesting citations from one place, and placing them in other places to give the illusion of provenance for information which they have no source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation does not back statement 

message: Substituted at 08:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: under the formation heading it currently reads
"The Aral Sea formed about 5.5 million years ago due to a fall in fat people " 118.149.185.117 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalisim report 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aral Sea. 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/20131005091550/http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/EarthObservatory/Dust_Storm,_Aral_Sea.htm to http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/EarthObservatory/Dust_Storm,_Aral_Sea.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The main body of the article starts by saying that the USSR decided to divert the rivers in the 1960s. Three paragraphs or so down it then goes on to say 'By 1960 X amount of water was being diverted from the Sea'.
So they decided to divert the water in the 60s, and then somehow had already started in a major way?
I'm reading that the plans came about in 1918, and in the 30s as well. Checked sources, can't find anything that seems to lock it down  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.101.126 (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline Mistake

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Aral Sea. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/EarthObservatory/Dust_Storm%2C_Aral_Sea.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727223036/http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=10748305&PageNum=0 to http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=10748305&PageNum=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611212939/http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/06/09/aral-gas/ to http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/06/09/aral-gas/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214062216/http://www1.unine.ch/chyn/php/publica_detail.php?id=560 to http://www1.unine.ch/chyn/php/publica_detail.php?id=560
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wondering if this is an article where British English is/should be used as opposed to American English.  The edit in question is shown in this Diff. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 'center' to 'centre' 

message: This April 2021 initiative seems worth mentioning: https://events.globallandscapesforum.org/disruptive-technology/challenge-week-live-stream/ and https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/04/09/innovative-restoration-plans-for-aral-sea-region-announced-at-global-disruptive-tech-challenge-2021Kdammers (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Disruptive Tech Challenge: Restoring Landscapes in the Aral Sea Region 

message: The map at the top of the article is out of date, as it still shows the full previous extent of the sea. Needs to be updated. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have a look at Commons and see if you can find a more up to date map. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map still shows the old sea 

message: "The Aral Sea (/ˈærəl/ ARR-əl;[4] Kazakh: Арал теңізі, romanized: Aral teñızı; Uzbek: Орол денгизи, romanized: Orol dengizi; Karakalpak: Арал теңизи, romanized: Aral teńizi; Russian: Аральское море, romanized: Aral'skoye more) was an endorheic lake lying between Kazakhstan (Aktobe and Kyzylorda Regions) in the north and Uzbekistan (Karakalpakstan autonomous region)"
I understand the rationale behind including various Central Asian translations for the Aral Sea. However, it shouldn't take four lines at the beginning of the entry before one reads the first intelligible sentence. Can this be condensed or cut-down? It doesn't add a whole lot, especially not at the start.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.96.92 (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The start of this entry is too busy 

message: Are men immune to pollution? Are they able to drink saltwater? Are they not affected by the less employment? All the arguments are directed at the compromise of children's health and development, adult women are as affected as adult men, a clear example of Misuse of statistics.
"Women and children are the most vulnerable populations in this environmental health crisis due to the highly polluted and salinated water used for drinking and the dried seabed"
2800:A4:2706:C900:CD3C:D3C3:D36B:DB36 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vulnerable populations 

message: The new movie on the after-2000 shrinking is very nice, but writing the years on the bottom bar would make it better (if there is a click to show this, excuse my INTERNET ignorance and tell me how to do). thanks. 151.29.137.229 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  very nice, but ... 

message: The glowing description of the success of restoration effects seems mostly to date from the Noughties. Has there been progress since then? If so, why does the 2021 aerial image in the article show virtually no bodies of water? Chrismorey (talk) Chrismorey (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topicality + 

message: In the Irrigation canals section (currently) the term "anti-infiltration linings" is used, but the point seems intended to be about a lack of efforts to keep water from LEAVING the canal (by seepage OUT through the walls of the canals), which would be 'anti-exfiltratin'. Infiltration means coming IN, exfiltration means going OUT. The word usage should fit the intended meaning. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrigation canals: infiltration should be EXfiltration