Talk:Great Lakes/Archive 1

Content lacking
Extraordinary that an article of this length cannot seem to be bothered writing about the main subjects: the hydrology and biology of the lakes. Who cares how many tons of cargo were shipped last year? Let's deal with important stuff: What lives in the lakes? Which of the lakes are healthy and which are not? What is their likely future? Do they freeze over in winter? What effect have the lampreys had? How important a natural resource are they in terms of fishing and related activities? Are they used for irrigation? Is the water still drinkable? Is there friction between Canada and the US over the management of the lakes? And so on. Lots of important stuff to do here.

I was looking forward to an interesting read about an area I know very little about. Very dissapointed. A surprisingly poor effort from the often excellent Wikipedia team. Tannin 14:48, 13 March 2004 (UTC)


 * I find this response very odd. What "team"?  This page, like all Wikipedia pages, was written in this fashion: first somebody wrote a page, then somebody else updated it, and then somebody else fixed some typos, etc.  It's fair for you to list the topics that the page should also cover, but calling it a "poor effort" seems rude to me.  It's not like anyone got paid to work on this page. -- Walt Pohl 16:07, 13 March 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you feel that way, Walt. What team? You, me, and everybody else here, of course. A poor quality page is a poor quality page. If it needs to be fixed, it needs to be fixed. And this page is way below the standard that a reader familiar other parts of the 'pedia might expect. (And as for getting paid .... well, I don't know about you but, like most people, if I'm getting paid for a job I feel obliged to create a solid, workmanlike result. If I'm doing it because I want to do it, then it gets my entire attention and I give it my very best shot. That's human nature, I think.)


 * The fact remains that this is a page about a really significant part of North America (a continent which has a huge number of 'pedia contributors, many of them very capable indeed) and although it has a fair bit of text already, it fails fairy comprehensively in the task of dealing with its subject. At a pinch, I could have a go at it myself, but I've never been within 5,000 miles of the Great Lakes and I have a different continent as my priority, one that I know a good deal more about and which doesn't have so many other 'pedia contributors in it. My hope is that one or another of our North American members will take this page on and fix up the glaring holes in it. Something as famous as the Great Lakes deserves better. Tannin 23:36, 13 March 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this article suffers from a phenomenon I've noticed in Wikipedia, that the larger a geographical entity is, the poorer the article on it tends to be. Perhaps that's because large subjects seem intimidating for one person to approach, and they sometimes become mish-mashes of attempts by many contributors without a common theme (there are exceptions of course). I love creating little articles about seas and inlets, but I think Atlantic Ocean is an abysmal article for example, full of strange statements like that the Black Sea is a "tributary" of the Atlantic and listing Istanbul as an Atlantic Ocean port city. Huh? By contrast take a look at Georgian Bay, one part of one of the Great Lakes. By the way, the lakes do often freeze over in winter. -- Decumanus 23:42, 13 March 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I went back and checked and someone has thankfully cleaned up the Atlantic Ocean a little bit since I last checked. It's not quite as bad as it was. :) -- Decumanus 23:47, 13 March 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you are right about the "Oh Lord, this is a huge topic, I'll edit something a bit easier" thing, Decumanus. (And Georgian Bay is a very clear illustration of your point.) I've long feel a bit guilty about my patch, the Geography of Australia. It really needs attention, but it's such a huge task. Just these last few days I've been working on Australian geography and .... sure enough ... I too avoided the main article and added things with a smaller compass. But I'm working my way around to it. Tannin


 * I guess if you're intended tone, Tannin, was "we suck", rather than "you suck", then it bothers me less. But philosophically I object to the idea that it's right for someone else to demand that you do work for them.  I find it a morally outrageous notion that I owe it to you to write about the Great Lakes simply because you have unanswered questions about it.  I already spend a considerable amount of time researching and updating pages that I have no particular expertise in, simply because I think it's a shame that we don't have any coverage of them.  You think this page is bad?  Try Geography of Africa.  The page is just a lightly-edited cut-and-paste job from the 1911 Encyclopedia; about 0% of the place names are the same as they were in 1911.  I've spent a bunch of my free time this week educating myself about the geography just so I can rewrite the page.  And what's my total reward so far for this activity?  Being told how I've failed humanity because I haven't updated the Great Lakes page too. -- Walt Pohl 01:28, 14 March 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, make no mistake, ths is very much a "we suck" comment, Walt. I too have failed humanity because I have not improved the Great Lakes page either. (I don't know anything about the Great Lakes, but I could find out.) I too have spent some time working on geography pages recently (well, hydrology, which is a subset of the same thing) and no-one has presented me with a prize either. Like you, my priority at present is the geography of another area. (Hell, I'm a bird man at heart, with a sideline in mammals, but I've grown tired of linking to pages that don't exist yet every time I say the Greater Spotted Whasaname is common in the wetlands of the Gulf of Carpentaria.) You are working on Africa, I'm working on Australasia. These are both areas with relatively few Wikipedia contributors (Africa in particular) and it isn't surprising that they are weak. We both probably ought to keep on working on those areas, as they are the ones that need the most help. But I remain very surprised at the state of this page - the US, after all, supplies ... oh ... probably more than 50% of the english language Wikipedia contributors. I'd have thought that someone would have done something more substantial about it by now. Tannin 03:18, 14 March 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should start a WikiProject to keep track of what's missing, and what needs work? There's an inviting red link ready waiting at WikiProject Geography. -- Walt Pohl 07:34, 14 March 2004 (UTC)

Ecological problems
As there was little to nothing on the ecological-problems dimension of the Great Lakes topic, I added some paragraphs on "ecological challenges" just to start the ball rolling. I do not claim to be any sort of expert. I based my additions on Dave Dempsey's fairly recent book, On the Brink.

As somebody noted (first paragraph of this discussion,up top), the lack of article content on biology and hydrology is ludicrous. (I made absolutely no attempt to add anything on hydrology.) In light of thisprevious lack, I would rather that what I have started here not be removed - amended, amplified, clarified, re-named, corrected, yes. But if the section is taken out, we're back to the way an article on "The Great Lakes" might have been written in 1962: devoid of ecological content at all. That would be a 'happy-face' gloss.

Media coverage of problems in the Great Lakes was part of what kicked off the "green awareness" that swelled up in North America and the world 35 years ago. To leave this dimension out of this article would be a travesty... etc, etc.

J.R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Russ (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 January 2005 (UTC)

Zebra mussels
It is imperative that we mention the devasting impact of zebra mussels on the Great Lakes ecosystem. They were accidentally brought over less than 20 years ago and have multiplied like crazy, causing all kinds of problems on North American waterways (including the Mississippi River and others that aren't directly part of the GL ecosystem). -- Funnyhat 07:56, 23 March 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, someone mentioned it. When you think something needs to be added, look at the Talk page and then add material to the article.  Just take a breath and omit words like "imperative".  There is guidance through the Help link. (SEWilco 19:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

Great Bear and Great Slave Lake
These lakes should be included as well. They are considered Great Lakes at least in Canada and I see no discussion of them. They are found the North West Territories. --129.97.84.62 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is about the lakes in the water system known as the Great Lakes, not about any lake that happens to have "Great" in their name. See Great Lakes (disambiguation) for such other lakes. older≠wiser 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Major cities
I won't for the moment argue against adding the three Canadian towns that just got in the list, but I'd really like to know why Windsor and Mackinac Island were removed. They are better known and more economically important than a few of the others on the list... /blahedo (t) 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Great lakes History
Would any one be intrested in starting an article on the History of the Great Lakes? (i.e. human history on the lakes) I've searched for an article but I havent found much on the 'pedia. I've though about starting one myself, but there SO MUCH! and i don't know where to start! I mean, there's the importance to native history and cultures, european exploration and the fir trade, military conflicts, and then theres the shipping and the economy thats grown up around the lakes (and so much information related to it!) Thousands of shipwrecks. Maybe from that there could be a series of articles or even a Great Lakes WikiProject that could cover everything from the ecology of the lakes, the geological history, human history, economy etc,... Jeeze, I'm getting excited! Mike McGregor (Can) 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Lake St. Clair
I just added a section on Lake St. Clair's bid to be an official (North American) Great Lake, under the "Political issues" heading. The source for that tidbit is a Cleveland Plain Dealer article: "Great Lakes panel wants monster fish to stay away", 16 October 2002, Page B1. Mapsax 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Add: The article "Does size matter? Lake St. Clair advocates believe that it deserves to be called 'great'" (14 October 2002, Page B1) also makes reference to the bid. Mapsax 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Laurentian Great Lakes
I am a little mystified that a piece on the Laurentian Great Lakes doesn't actually call them by that name, and that the term does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia's subject listings. There is a great deal of back and forth on what "Great Lakes" means, but it doesn't bear much resemblance to anything you would hear at a meeting of people who do actual work on the lakes themselves.

An encyclopedia should be an arbiter of opinion, not a shrine to popular usage. The term Great Lakes is not specific, and is used to refer to different systems in different parts of the world by a very large number of people. Technical specialists are careful to use language which reduces ambiguity. It seems reasonable to me that an encyclopedia should do no less. If you Google the term "Laurentian Great Lakes" you find a long list of uses by groups such as the International Association for Great Lakes Research. If the parochial assumptions of its users are what define Wikipedia's definitions and structure, then its usefulness is much reduced. The term "Great Lakes" is ambiguous. Clarity is good. I think that a page that summarizes the different systems refered to globally as Great Lakes would be useful, and that links could very easily redirect users to the relevant specific subjects (Laurentian Great Lakes, African Great Lakes, whatever) so easily that it seems pointless to be arguing this.--Peter3 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Name
Shouldn't this be at North American Great Lakes or Great Lakes (North America)? It seems to me very western-centric to have "Great Lakes" direct here instead of being a redirect to Great Lakes (disambiguation). The term is used very frequently to refer to both this region and the African Great Lakes, so it seems to me that both should be disambiguated. &mdash; ዮም  | (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you scroll up the page, you'll find a discussion on the subject. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I would just like to point out that Lake Baikal has a volumn of 5,521 mi³ (23,600 cubic kilometers)and thus would be considered to contain more volumn of freshwater than the great lakes combined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal. I think it would be both prudent and interesting to include that fact in the article for sake of comparison and refrence. Just a minor suggestion to add to the cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.227.235 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Important cities along the lakes
The lakes seem to be listed in no particular order. Superior comes first, then Michigan and then Erie. Shouldn't it be alphabetical, or in some other order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.190.218 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fractal Coastline
I'm removing the sentence "Stretched end to end, their shorelines would reach nearly halfway around the equator." because it is not only ridiculous, but also uncited. Coastlines are pseudo-fractal in nature, and the length of a coastline depends extremely heavily on the length of the ruler you use to measure it. See How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension. If there were a citation, or an indication that some standard ruler were used, then I'd be ok with it. As it stands, it needs to go. --Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 00:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of the second satellite image
"The Great Lakes are clearly visible in this satellite image of North America" No they aren't.  It's too dark over that area of the image. The image is kind of redundant anyway -- there's a perfectly good photo at the top. What do you guys think? P.S a good way to remember all the Great Lakes is the mnemonic HOMES --ScarletSpiderDave 15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - get rid of it, it serves no purpose. (What kind of satellite image covers that much area without any cloud cover?) — Mmathu 07:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary
Okay, I've read over the entire discussion, and for clarity's sake, I've made the following table to tally the opinions:

Question: Which Great Lakes should the Great Lakes article cover?

Note: I was unsure of a couple users' comments, which never explicitly stated their authors' opinions. I've put them under "neutral" for the time being &mdash; if you are one of those users, feel free to clarify your position and move your name to the appropriate heading.

Additional opinions from other users are welcome. Simply add your name to the appropriate heading, but please keep all comments to the discussion section, below. • Benc • 23:17, 15 September 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Below moved from User talk:Bkonrad, User talk:SimonP, and User talk:Jengod


 * Why did you revert my move of the Great Lakes to Great Lakes (North America)? - SimonP 14:45, 11 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Because the Great Lakes are by far the most well known of any of the things known as great lakes. It is absolutely silly to place them at a disambiguated name simply because a few relatively obscure places share the same name. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 11 September 2004 (UTC)


 * How do you figure? Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?  Perhaps in North America, but the Great Lakes of Africa are just as important as those of North America. I think the hundred million people of the Great Lakes region of Africa would find it somewhat  insulting to consider their great lakes "obscure" just because the per capita GDP of their region is far lower.  - SimonP 19:07, 11 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Do a Google search. Despite Africa having a vastly smaller web presence than North America "Great Lakes" Africa gets more hits than "Great Lakes" "North America". - SimonP 19:14, 11 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Comparing Google hits for "Great Lakes" Africa and "Great Lakes" "North America" is an mistaken comparison because people very rarely actually use the terms "Great Lakes" and "North America" together -- most people assume Great Lakes is in North America and no qualification is necessary. There are 3,540,000 Google hits for "Great Lakes" alone and only 394,000 for "Great Lakes" and Africa. There are more hits than that (569,000) for "Great Lakes" and Ohio or "Great Lakes" and Ontario (409,000) or "Great Lakes" and Michiagn (1,150,000) or "Great Lakes" and Wisconsin (486,000) or "Great Lakes" and Minnesota (403,000) or "Great Lakes" and Illinois (530,000) or "Great Lakes" and "United States" (708,000).

No matter which one's more or less notable, look at the actual Great Lakes page: it's a disambiguation page, and should be avoided. Pyrop 21:17, 11 September 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a disambiguation page only b/c SimonP made it one. SimonP, in English, which this encyclopedia covers, the overwhelming majority of Great Lakes references are going to refer to the Great Lakes of North America. We have a standard at Wikipedia to use the simplest possible common name in English for any article, and to let items with overwhelming precedence keep a primary URL. Therefore President of the United States refers to the executive head of the U.S. government, Ottawa refers to the Canadian locale, rather than both being disambiguation pages for the exec office and the band and the Canadian locale and the number of other Ottawa-named things. jengod 21:50, 11 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Provide evidence for this assertion that the Great Lakes are far less often cited in English rather than just asserting it. - SimonP 15:52, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * If we factor out the bias of North America having a greater Internet presence they are almost equal. Canada and Kenya are both English speaking countries with a bit more than 30 million people.  Canada get fifteen times as many Google hits as Kenya. If we say that every page that does not mention Africa refers to North America (which is not the case as "Great Lakes" Congo -Africa gets over 50,000 hits) that gives NA a 10 to 1 advantage.  This does not nearly make up for the 15 to 1 predominance of North America on the Internet. - SimonP 18:01, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean here. older ≠ wiser 18:11, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * My point is that if he thinks the Great Lakes of Africa aren't as notable as the American ones, he should change the Great Lakes page also. Pyrop 02:42, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * I did but this was reverted. - SimonP 15:52, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, in English, which this encyclopedia covers, the overwhelming majority of Great Lakes references are going to refer to the Great Lakes of North America. We have a standard at Wikipedia to use the simplest possible common name in English for any article, and to let items with overwhelming precedence keep a primary URL. Therefore President of the United States refers to the executive head of the U.S. government, Ottawa refers to the Canadian locale, rather than both being disambiguation pages for the exec office and the band and the Canadian locale and the number of other Ottawa-named things. jengod 21:55, 11 September 2004 (UTC)
 * Because the vast majority of English speakers live outside of Africa, and probably rarely if ever have occassion to consider the great lakes of Africa, whereas there are tens millions of English speakers living around the North American Great Lakes who have daily occasion to describe them and mention them as such, and, in deed, refer to them on Wikipedia. Plus, take a look at [|What links here:Great Lakes]--there are at least 100 direct links to the Great Lakes pages. There are about 20 links to the Great Lakes (Africa). I see what you're trying to do, and in general it's a good idea, but in many cases, common sense overwhelms the need to make everything even-stevens for, well, everything. jengod 05:45, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

Why do you believe an overwhelming majority of English speakers refer to the North American Great Lakes when they say Great Lakes? - SimonP 03:17, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Jengod, thanks for your words of support. I completely agree with you that in general it is a good thing to try to balance US-centric tendencies, but where there are so many casual references to the Great Lakes, it just seems to make more sense to leave the article where people expect it to be. older ≠ wiser 11:33, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * There are tens of millions of English speakers living around the African Great Lakes. Uganda, Kenya, and Malawi are all English speaking countries with some sixty million people. Again provide some evidence, that takes into account the greatly differing access to the Internet, that shows that the African Great Lakes are much less cited in English than the North American ones. It is certainly true that on the Internet, because of financial barriers to entry, the Great Lakes of North America are the most referenced.  But as Jimbo has repeatedly mentioned Wikipedia is not an Internet encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet.  Currently Wikipedia has many thousands of editors from North America and, according to Wikipedians, twelve from Sub-Saharan Africa, so it is not a great surprise that we have far more links to the North American Great Lakes.  But this should not be taken as proof that English speakers in general are similarly biased. - SimonP 15:50, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Tens of millions vs. hundreds of millions. Hmmm. Also, you have not provided any clear evidence that the unqualified term "Great Lakes" is commonly used to refer to what I generally see referred to as the "Great Lakes of Africa" or the "African Great Lakes" -- i.e., the people writing recognize that the term "Great Lakes" needs to be qualified because the unqualified term is most commonly used to refer to the North American lakes. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * The unqualified term Great Lakes frequently refers to the African group. The UN does so, so does the BBC , as does the WHO , even the US government does sometimes . Also what do you mean by tens of millions vs hundreds of millions.  There are not hundreds of millions of people living around either Great Lakes. - SimonP 16:27, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * I was not referring to only people living around the Great Lakes, but to the entire populations of the U.S. and Canada plus very significant numbers of english-speakers elsewhere in the world who are likely to think of the North American Great Lakes when encountering the unqualified and uncontextualized term "Great Lakes". The links you provided are good, thanks. Although, to quibble a bit, the context of the references makes it pretty clear that they are in Africa, but I suppose the same could be said of many of the articles about the North American Great Lakes. My main concern is that there are so many casual references to the Great Lakes -- and given the demographic bias of wikipedia contributors, there will continue to be many more casual references to the Great Lakes added. That is one of the main reasons for the naming convention: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". There are relatively few articles that link to the African Great Lakes (and I'd argue that most people doing such linking would be well aware of the ambiguity with the NA Great Lakes, while there is a much greater likelihood that people linking to the NA Great Lakes would not expect the Great Lakes link to be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:54, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Here we go again, having to fight tooth and nail for Internationalism against this insular Americo-centrism, it is extremely tiresome. Mintguy (T) 17:12, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

Along with User:Simonp and Mintguy I believe that neutrality and internationalism would be best served by Great Lakes being a disambig page. –Hajor 18:13, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * *sigh* Look. We're not trying to conquer the world. And the Great Lakes aren't just USian, they're along Canada's border too. Frankly, I was thinking that the standard *should* take into account the limited Internet access in Africa, not to mention lower educational standards overall, therefore dramatically fewer printed references to the African Great Lakes. I didn't think those were racist assumptions, but rather pragmatic ones. I *hate* these fights--they drive me apeshit. If nothing else, SimonP, next time you're thinking of making a big page move, and changing hundreds of links, could you maybe bring it up on the talk page first. Half of peoples' angry reaction is just from surprise--if you at least attempt to build consensus first you'll have a heck of a lot less trouble imposing your will. But hey, I give up. All hail internationalism. Because that's the important thing, countering the total Amerocentrism every American shows in every situation because that is her or his primary agenda in every discussion or debate. jengod 19:18, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * While everyone is squabbling over perceived Americentrism, I actually took a look at the content of the articles. The American Great Lakes are described thus: "They are the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world, and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system is the largest fresh-water system in the world." (emphasis added)  Taking a look at Great Lakes (Africa) we see: "There is no set definition of the Great Lakes".  I think this is a slam dunk.  Great Lakes should point to the American Great Lakes and Great Lakes (disambiguation) should point to the disambiguation page. &mdash;Mike 20:38, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * While the African Great Lakes and their outlet, the Nile River, may not be the largest fresh water system in the world, being in second place does not mean they are insignificant enough to not need disambiguation. Both systems have three of the world' ten largest lakes and the Africain Great Lakes have more people living around them. - SimonP 01:52, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the African Great Lakes are insignificant However, we need to keep in mind that this is a "Wiki"pedia--significance here is largely determined by the people who edit the WP. Unfortunately, sometimes that results in situations where the the most ideally fair solution is not practical. I counted 301 pages that link to the North American Great Lakes (not counting talk pages, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, or obvious disambiguation pages). I counted 12 pages that link to the African Great Lakes pages. I think it is rather arrogant to dictate to so many users of such a commonly linked article how they should use the term. My main objection is that there is a far greater likelihood that casual users of wikipedia will create links to Great Lakes and expect that the link will go to the NA lakes. On the other hand, I rather suspect that people editing articles linking to the African Great Lakes will be far more likely to be aware of the ambiguity with the NA lakes and edit accordingly. older ≠ wiser 02:22, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * That is all very true. It is certainly the case that Wikipedia has a great and understandable bias towards those areas that have money and Internet access.  It would make some sense to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia geared towards the online and wealthy as they are the current readers and editors; however, I think this goes against the founding vision of Wikipedia.  One of Jimbo's, and Wikipedia's, main goals has long been to make information available to the world?s poorest.  Jimbo has even discussed using foundation money to "distribute cheaply-printed paperback copies of Wikipedia to every school in every country in Africa."  While today 90% of readers may automatically think of Lake Superior and company when they here the term Great Lakes, that might not be true in the future. - SimonP 03:28, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * OK then, fine, let's just decide that this is no longer a Wiki and will instead be a vehicle for instructing rich, dumb, Americans just how ignorant they are about the world outside the U.S. More seriously, I do not think the term "Great Lakes" is the single most common term used to refer to that area of Africa. Looking at various external sources, the area is variously termed as "Great Lakes of Africa", "African Great Lakes", "Great African Lakes", "Great Lakes of East Africa", "Great Rift Valley Lakes", and "Rift Valley Lakes". I don't think it is necessary to insist that both Great Lakes regions should equally require disambiguation when there are natual language alternatives that are already commonly in use. Yes, of course there is a bit of cultural hegemony in this, but as I understand it, Wikipedia is to report the state of the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. older ≠ wiser 13:01, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * None of the alternate names gets more than two percent of the Google hits of "Great Lakes" Africa. - SimonP 15:12, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * That's well and good, but of course, a search for ["Great Lakes" Africa] also subsumes most of the other terms, as well as including a fair amount of unrelated content (e.g., the Great Lakes Chemical corporation operations in Africa, the Minnesota Great Lakes Aquarium's exhibit on Lake Victoria, as well as multiple copies of various Wikipedia articles from Freedictionary.com due to how they optimize for Google) Of course there is likely some similar noise in search results that exclude Africa. Even while recognizing such limitations on Google results, there are 467,000 hits for ["Great Lakes" Africa] vs. 3,040,000 for ["Great Lakes" -Africa] (a quick perusal of the first hundred shows that nearly all are related to the NA lakes), which IMO demonstrates a strong preference for using the term "Great Lakes" to apply to the North American lakes, especially considering that there are quite reasonable, natural language alternatives for disambiguating the African lakes. Even the venerable Encyclopedia Britanica article on Great Lakes is exclusively about the NA lakes, as is Columbia's. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents - I absolutely hate americo-centrism on Wikipedia. I am all for giving different places with the same name equal coverage.  I live near a Great Lake.  However I believe Great Lakes should go to the North American Great Lakes - it is clearly what most people searching for Great Lakes would be searching for, and it is what most people writing Great Lakes in articles would be intending to link to.  With the disambig block at the very top of that article, I don't think it should be a problem at all. -- Chuq 13:16, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has always been an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet, not an Internet encyclopedia. While today it might be the "encyclopedia that Slashdot built" I don't see any reason to encourage that tendency. - SimonP 15:12, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * I was much leaning the way of having the digambig on the front and let users choose which great lakes they wanted. However, this changed my mind around 2pi rads: We have a standard at Wikipedia to use the simplest possible common name in English for any article, and to let items with overwhelming precedence keep a primary URL. Therefore President of the United States refers to the executive head of the U.S. government, Ottawa refers to the Canadian locale, rather than both being disambiguation pages for the exec office and the band and the Canadian locale and the number of other Ottawa-named things. This explains why the great lakes page points to the North American variety. I hope this will be settled soon with the current setup. --metta, T he  S unborn  ☸  19:53, 13 September 2004 (UTC)

As I refactored this discussion, I recuse myself from voting. Which is just as well, because I'm ambivalent about this issue (along the same reasoning as Chuq and Sunborn's, above). • Benc • 23:21, 15 September 2004 (UTC)

Are there any other pages on Wikipedia where there are two items of relatively similar size and importance, but which are not disambiged because one usage is far more common among Wikipedia's current audience? I have looked through Links to (disambiguation) pages and the closest I have been able to find are Maine and Frankfurt these pages are both disambigs in other languages but are not in English. While these are the closest examples I could find, it is arguable a defunct province and a city of one tenth the size of the other meet my criteria of "relatively similar size and importance." With these arguable exceptions I can find no other pages where we relegate something of near equivalent size and importance to a disambig page because of the English Wikipedia's readership.

On the contrary we have several examples that disregard the Google and incoming article counts. For instance Syracuse is an article on the ancient city. Syracuse, New York has a great deal more incoming articles and a few more Google hits, but is relegated to a line at the bottom. Other examples include Democratic Party and Republican Party, America, Albany, and House of Representatives. An interesting case is Georgia. Not only are the greater number of Google hits, greater size and population, and more references in Wikipedia ignored by the decision to have it be a disambig page rather than one about the state, but there is also long running effort to relegate the state to a disambiguation bar. Not moving Great Lakes based on what our audience current Internet audience is looking for will thus establish a new precedent. A precedent whereby Republican Party, for example, should redirect to the GOP because of the vastly more Google hits and incoming links referring to the American one. -SimonP 00:42, 16 September 2004 (UTC)
 * There are many Republican Party's in many countries around the world. Most people refer to the one closest to them when they say it; most would also expect that Republican Party, Democratic Party are common names around the world, even if they don't know anything about them.  Up until this discussion I thought the North American Great Lakes were the only one, and I'm vaguely more into geography than the average person. -- Chuq 05:36, 16 September 2004 (UTC)
 * Are there any other pages on Wikipedia where there are two items of relatively similar size and importance, but which are not disambiged because one usage is far more common among Wikipedia's current audience? The example that suggests itself is "New England". And what that case and the Great Lakes have in common is the precision of one definition vs. the vague hand-waving in a general direction of the other: the USA (five lakes, six states, no vacilation) wins by a landslide. Maybe that's what tips it. –Hajor 16:28, 16 September 2004 (UTC)

Compromise
Would it be possible to have Great Lakes redirect to Great Lakes (North America). And then have the page show a disambiguous warning if you were redirected from Great Lakes but not show it if you went to Great Lakes (North America) directly? This would keep Great Lakes pointing to the North-American article. At the same time it would promote authors to use the more precise term Great Lakes (North America). Also, the redirect from Great Lakes to Great Lakes (North America) will give people a small nudge that there are more great lakes out there. --Alf 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
While I accept that there is controversy on moving the Great Lakes page, changing the links to Great Lakes (North America) hurts no one and there is no use in reverting them while this is still under discussion. - SimonP 15:54, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree there is not much point to ongoing reverts and have not been changing back these since your last reverts yesterday. {subst:{User:Bkonrad/sig|nested=yes}} 16:04, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Hold on here -- I do not expect you to continue with changing these links that have nor already been changed. I very much object to going through a redirect when it is not necessary. Please stop making these changes until this is settled. if you persist, then I will feel obligated take back my agreement above and revert all of the redirects. older ≠ wiser 16:07, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright, I shall stop. - SimonP 16:10, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, no more reverts until this is settled. How do you propose settling this? An RfC or a poll on the talk page? 16:13, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to settle this. My hope is I can convince you that the African Great Lakes are somewhat similar in notability to the North American ones. If that fails I am very hesitant to use a poll as Wikipedia is overwhelmingly biased towards a North American viewpoint. - SimonP 16:33, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a bit insulting to insinuate that we aren't educated, reasonable people who can be persuaded with good arguments. &mdash;Mike 20:46, 12 September 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize, absolutely no offence was intended. - SimonP 01:52, 13 September 2004 (UTC)


 * You weren't wrong. My first reaction to "Great Lakes" isn't to think "Africa". Trekphiler🇨🇦08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Googling

 * Just FYI, Google finds the following:
 * "Great Lakes of Africa" search gets 2,060 hits
 * "Great Lakes" - Africa search gets 417,000 hits
 * BCorr | Брайен 17:32, 16 September 2004 (UTC)


 * How does that find in favour of North America? It seems to be comparing two ways of referencing the African lakes. - SimonP 17:45, 16 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- it should have been the following -- I cut and pasted the wrong search for the second one ("- Africa" instead of "-Africa")


 * "Great Lakes of Africa" search gets 2,060 hits
 * "Great Lakes" -Africa search gets 3,090,000 hits
 * I think this now makes the point well if you check the links that each one returns -- the one with "-Africa" turns up links referring to the Great Lakes in North America
 * -- BCorr | Брайен 19:17, 16 September 2004 (UTC)


 * A minor tweak to the "Great Lakes of Africa" search (which, with 2060 hits, is a bit too low): looking for "great-lakes" africa OR african -"african-american" returns 457,000 hits. Slightly more respectable. –Hajor 19:50, 16 September 2004 (UTC)


 * If we factor in that the Internet and Google are biased against Africa by at least a factor of ten it is a very respectable number indeed. Also note that African Great Lakes is, like North American Great Lakes, a term only used by outsiders. - SimonP 20:00, 16 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Now I'm just being a geek and possibly muddying the waters (heh), but if you modify Hajor's search to include the province and a few states neighbouring the North American Great Lakes "great lakes" africa OR african -african-american (Michigan OR Ontario OR "New York") you get 179,000 of those 457,000 that are approximately 1/3 about Africa, 1/3 about North America, and 1/3 about both or neither. BCorr | Брайен 21:13, 16 September 2004 (UTC)


 * Concur with SimonP that the Internet and Google are biased against Africa. For the time being, Africa is on the wrong side of the Digital Divide. The gap is gradually closing, and eventually the Wikipedia will get much more African traffic, so the Wikipedia should be ready for it. Instead of trying to find a fudge factor to balance African hits, I personally reject Google hits entirely as a fair metric in this decision. • Benc • 21:46, 16 September 2004 (UTC)
 * Google is an unfair metric. All it shows is that there are more articles on the internet about the Great Lakes of America rather than the Great Lakes of Africa. This is hardly surprsing, as the vast majority of internet users are in the developed West rather than Africa. The point is that Google measurements do not demonstrate that the American lakes are more important or significant than African lakes. It is well established that Wikipedia has a geographic bias towards certain areas. I suggest the users on the Great Lakes=North America side of this argument go and take a look at the rationale behind the countering systemic bias Wikiproject.TreveXtalk 18:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Steamboat Walker, Great Lakes Ranger
I've heard the first steamer on the Lakes was Walk in the Water, operating Detroit-Buffalo. Can anybody confirm? Steamboat Willie 09:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Foot to meter
In the section on shipping there is: 1,000 by 305-foot (105 by 32-m) At 3.3 feet / meter at least one set of figures is wrong. Would someone who knows the correct figures please correct this. 75.68.245.172 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Jim Lillie @ comcast dot net
 * Actually both were wrong! The correct figures are 1,000 by 105-foot (305 by 32-m).  Thanks for pointing it out.  Have you thought of creating a Wikipedia account?  You can do it here.  --Pesco 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

References needed
There are a lot of statistics and figures listed in this article, and almost none have references. I'll try to help in my areas of interest, but everybody should try to help justify some of the stats listed in this article. With a little work we can remove the "references" tag and improve the reliability of this article. --Pesco 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

photos
we have 6 photos in the article, with ismap attribute to img element, actually, we can combine 6 photos into one. can someone spend some effort to do this? actually, most pictures in wiki have such problems: no neighbourhood information. a photo can provide much more information, and we don't need so many separated ones. Jackzhp 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No snow out of a clear sky
I live in Eastern Michigan, and while you hear a lot about lake effect, I have never heard of it making snow out of a clear sky. :P


 * My understanding in Western Michigan is that the lake effect occurs up to maybe 10 miles inland. No source is specifically cited concerning lake effect in the article, however. -Agyle 13:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Invasive species
a few were not mentioned like the Spiny water flea among others could have been added... i could do it eventually... but its just requires a little work --Preceding unsigned comment added by Huzzahmaster018 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Big edit
I just reverted a really big edit that hid a lot of unrelated changes behind a comment about adjusting coordinates. Some of the stuff in it was useful (grammar fixes and such), but a lot of useful information was deleted (particularly in the invasive species section), and it introduced at least one genuine error (the Rochester ferry actually did run for two seasons). Perhaps some of the grammar cleanup can be done as smaller edits? Susan Davis 06:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

List of cities along the Great Lakes
I'm guessing that someone merged that article with this one, and then deleted the cities, anyone care to restart the list, as it is still linked to this page. 99.232.0.207 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sea Lampreys - Vandalism?
The introductory paragraph says sea lamprey were introduced by Thomas Edison. This is not true. As the Lamprey article says, they entered the Great Lakes via the construction of artificial canals such as the Erie and Welland Canals.143.236.35.204 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing the entry, which has been there since 28 Oct. I removed it. Not sure if that was a nonsense edit or what. --Pat 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Lake Effect - capitalization
Someone has capitalized The Lake Effect, changing it from The lake effect. This seems incorrect to me. Any debate on reverting this edit?--Pat (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Major edits
I've made a lot of major edits to this page, but I'll be adding them incrementally so any potential problems with my edits won't cause them all to be reverted together. If you have any comments or criticisms, please feel free to post them below. Mr. Absurd 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Laurentian?
The article began "The Laurentian Great Lakes are..." Since the meaning of "Laurentian" is not obvious, I went to linkify it; but it seems that Laurentian can mean of or related to (1) the St. Lawrence River or (2) Laurentia, the North American Craton, a large geographical area. Which of the two meanings is intended is not clear, since both apply. Without knowing which one is meant, I cannot linkify it, therefore I removed the ambiguous term "Laurentian". If anyone knows which meaning applies, please restore and linkify. If both meanings are intended, the term is ambiguous and should not be restored. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the Keweenaw_Peninsula be listed as an island of the Great Lakes?
"It is separated from the rest of the peninsula by the Keweenaw Waterway, a natural waterway which was dredged and expanded in the 1860s[1] across the peninsula between the cities of Houghton on the south side and Hancock on the north." --Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.222 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812
A line regarding the War of 1812 was added to the Historical Economy section. Does such a note belong in this section, or should there be a new section added? Also, the War of 1812 is discussed in its own article; would a summary of the Great Lakes theater of war (with a link to the War of 1812 article) be sufficient?68.72.250.165 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Coast or Fourth Coast?
The introduction has referred to the Great Lakes as being "Canada and the United States' fourth coast" but was recently altered to read " Canada and the United States' third coast". From a U.S. perspective there are three ocean coasts (Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico); because of this the Great Lakes coastline is sometimes referred to in the United States as the Fourth Coast or North Coast. However, Canadians may view this differently; anyone from Canada care to weigh in with an opinion?69.14.180.255 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has now slipped in a new link at the bottom of this article, referencing Third Coast. While this linked Wikipedia article has no supporting references, a quick Google does reveal that people in Chicago and parts of Wisconsin do use the term to refer to their Great Lakes coastline.68.72.250.165 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Lakes
Seems to me, this list is just a temptation for others to add their "favorite smaller lake that drains into the Great Lakes". Lake Winnebago is there, why not Lake Butte des Morts? How about Lake of the Woods, and all of those other lakes in the Boundary Waters of Minnesota/Ontario? Basically, what are the requirements to be in the list? 69.95.237.66 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I removed the section.  The article is on the Great Lakes, which are a well-defined list of specific lakes.  This article is not on the "Great Lakes Basin and smaller lakes that are located within it."  Similar sections should also be removed. will381796 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was Lake Champlain listed as part of the Great Lakes Hydrological System?
No water from the Great Lakes flows into Lake Champlain; no water from Lake Champlain flows into the Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes Basin map included in this article clearly does not include Lake Champlain. I have not found any maps from the US Geological Survey that includes Lake Champlain as part of the Great Lakes basin.

The only physical connection between the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain is that they both empty into the St. Lawrence River, via Lake Ontario and the Richelieu River respectively. If this qualifies Lake Champlain to be part of the Great Lakes, then the Ottawa River should be listed as part of the system as well (in the Rivers section) as it empties into the St. Lawrence upstream of where the Richelieu River empties into the St. Lawrence.

The only supporting evidence that can be shown for including Lake Champlain is described in the Modern History section of the Lake Champlain Wikipedia article, which details how, through a political sleight-of-hand, Lake Champlain was temporarily declared to be a Great Lake. 68.72.250.165 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By that argument, Lakes Erie and Ontario weren't Great Lakes during the Nipissing Stage, because their connection was similar to that of Champlain today. Lakes Algonquin, Duluth, and Chippewa were also not Great Lakes, but they're always presented as such. Champlain was formed with the Great Lakes, there were times when the melt-water level was such that it formed a single lake with them, and it is part of the same drainage basin today. What exactly is a "hydrological system"? It doesn't seem to be a well defined term. kwami (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am assuming that by Nipissing Stage you are referring to the last panel in the article's 'Great Lakes Formation' graphic, illustrating the Great Lakes area as of approximately 4000 years ago. From the graphic, it appears that Lakes Erie and Huron are connected via the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair (actually a flooded river delta), and the Detroit River, much as Lakes Erie and Ontario are shown on the same graphic as being connected via the Niagara river.68.72.250.165 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting question: 'What exactly is a hydrological system?' (hydrological system is not my term, it was in the article prior to my edits). I originally thought it to refer to a system of bodies of water that shared common interaction (i.e. flow of water or sharing of water). Following through the Wikipedia links it seems to imply that a 'hydrological system' can mean 'drainage basin', 'watershed', or even 'drains into a specific ocean'. By either a narrow or broad interpretation of 'hydrological system', both Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are part of the St. Lawrence watershed; however, this is a Wikipedia article about the Great Lakes, not about the St. Lawrence River.68.72.250.165 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the 'Other Lakes' section of the article seems to list only lakes that currently exist within the Great Lakes basin, not lakes that have had a similar geological origin or prehistoric connection. You use the term 'was formed with the Great Lakes' - I take this to mean 'was formed at the same time, by the same geological process (melting glacial ice sheets), and in the same general geographic location'. Then by this standard Lake Winnipeg (formed from the prehistoric Lake Agassiz) would also qualify as part of the Great Lakes Hydrological System.68.72.250.165 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to kwami, Lakes Algonquin, Duluth, and Chippewa are never presented as Great Lakes. Check through any geography book. In fact, I've never heard of any of those, but, as a young child, I was taught in school to name all 5 Great Lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, Ontario) from largest to smallest, or any other possible order asked of me (I live in the Great Lakes region, so it's been engraved in my knowledge). I'm not sure how you came to think that way, but I can assure you that it must simply be your small area that calls them this. I wonder why, as it is very peculiar. Hmm...  нмŵוτн  τ  22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are prior incarnations of the Great Lakes. kwami (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I interpreted your comment as that they are current lakes that are referred to as Great Lakes, currently. Misunderstanding!  нмŵוτн  τ  00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There was in fact a dozen or so years ago in the Congress an attempt to recharacterize Lake Champlain as a "Great Lake" so that it would get federal aid that was slated for the Great Lakes. I remember that it was written up in many papers and Time Magazine at the time.7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

Great Lakes Water Compact
This seems to be moving forward and might deserve its own page.

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1211617990162900.xml&coll=2 swain (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How many coasts
That one of our esteemed contributors opines that "a gulf is an extension of an ocean" does not answer the question of whether the Great Lakes should be denominated as the "third coast" or "fourth coast." Indeed, the links that I had clearly delineated the problem and the parameters. They were not meant to disparage the Gulf Coast, but to highlight the problem of the 'two coast' proponents ignoring both the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes. 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
 * I think the entire argument is rather silly. East coast.  West Coast.  Gulf coast.  I wouldn't classify the great lake shore as a coast.  Remove the entire mention of "third coast, fourth coast" etc.  Problem solved. will381796 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ==How many coasts==

That one of our esteemed contributors, opines that "a gulf is an extension of an ocean" does not answer the question of whether the Great Lakes should be denominated as the "third coast" or "fourth coast." Indeed, the links that I had clearly delineated the problem and the parameters. They were not meant to disparage the Gulf Coast, but to highlight the problem of the 'two coast' proponents ignoring both the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes. I note that this has been part of the earlier discussion, and Hmwith has simply decided the issue for us all.
 * I don't think the blithe "problem solved" issue is rightly solved by getting rid of the mention of coasts. There are 650 (or more) lighthouses on this third (or fourth) coast, which you now say is 'not a coast.' This ignores a lot of coastline, water, and facts. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Stan
 * I would say that coasts are related to the large, navigable water bodies that make up continental boundaries. Lakes and rivers by definition are internal and have shorelines, not coasts. I checked Dictionary.com and it makes the distinction that coasts are more narrowly defined to seashores while shores can be on the sea, lakes, rivers, etc. We could talk about the Arctic coast, but not on this page. I respect the editor's right to argue to include the section but I vote against. I am opposed to having a section dedicated to such an argument; frankly I agree it would make us look silly. --Pat (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible to discuss the lighthouses, water, shore and facts without having to give the shoreline the silly nickname of "third" or "fourth" coast. I completely agree with the removal of such terms just as I would support the removal of "first" or "second" coast from any description of the Atlantic or Pacific coastline.  Such an unformal naming of the shore does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedic article. will381796 (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the "Coast" issue: I live in Detroit and have never heard of the Great Lakes being referred to as the Third Coast. However, a quick Google of 'third coast' reveals there is antedotal evidence on the web of people in the region (from Canada, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.) using this term. I have heard people from Ohio refer to the Great Lakes as the North Coast. This "Coast" description probably doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the article; it might belong in it's own section (i.e. Other Names Used by the Locals for Referring to the Great Lakes). 68.72.250.165 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the notion of a third vs fourth or whatever coast is problematic at best. Even if you look at the Third coast article, it says it refers to the Great Lakes, except when it refers to the Gulf Coast or even Nashville.  Guess it's all based on perspective, in which case it doesn't belong in this article.  Not being a "coast" in no way belittles the greatness of the Great Lakes. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 18:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Grands Lacs"
The use of a French translation of the English term "Great Lakes" seems a little strained to me in this context. If the argument for its use is being made from historical precedence, by extension most of the articles dealing with geographical subjects in eastern North America should also have a French language equivalent appearing in their opening sentence as well. In my opinion, although charming, it is not appropriate in an English language encyclopedia.cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, stating the French name in the opening sentence may not be the best idea, but what surprises me in this article is that there is nothing about the discovery of the Lakes by the European explorers and about the origin of their name. I know this can be can be found out in the articles about each Lake individually but I think we should add something about it in this article too and especially the origin of the name "Great Lakes" which I assume is probably a translation of the French name Grands Lacs. Anyway, I'm glad you give your opinion about this because you certainly know the history of North America better than me. Eventually, I've made some searches to support a potential writing about the names: on michigan.gov and  on great-lakes.net (this one is already present in the External Links section) 16@r (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside, some really good sources about place names are listed in List of Michigan county name etymologies. Some are on line, and some are in print.  I recognize this isn't about Michigan counties, but these scholarly sources are still relevant.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Stan
 * The official US website of the Great Lakes Commission (glc.org) features in big letters the French name along the English one. I think it's a good reason for us to also mention the French name in the introduction, no? 16@r (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. While the agency describes itself as a "binational" organization, this article is part of an English language wiki, not a "binational" wiki. Two different animals. Also, take a look at the French language wiki's version of this page; it doesn't have the English phrase "Great Lakes" in its title. --68.72.250.165 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Also, take a look at the French language wiki's version of this page; it doesn't have the English phrase "Great Lakes" in its title."
 * It definitively should, I'm gonna fix that right now. Meanwhile, take a look at La Nouvelle-Orléans, of course there is the English name, many other language editions also give the French name (for example New Orleans, Nueva Orleans, ニューオーリンズ, New Orleans, New Orleans, etc.). Another geographically-closer interesting example is the Saint Lawrence River. So again, I'm not saying the name should necessarily be mentioned in the introduction but that it should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article. 16@r (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, while you're over there on the French wiki article, could you also put the rest of the English content there too? I took a look at the French version of the article and it's a LOT shorter than the English version. --68.72.250.165 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion : on formation of the Great Lakes
Current text: "The foundation of the Great Lakes was laid approximately two billion years ago,[3][7] when two tectonic plates fused and created the Midcontinent Rift, forming a valley that was the basis of Lake Superior."

two tectonic plates fused - doesn't fit with Rifting and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Rift_System Where reference is to an incomplete rifting "It formed when the continent's core, the North American craton, began to split apart during the Mesoproterozoic era of the Precambrian, about 1.1 billion years ago. The rift failed, leaving behind thick layers of rock that are exposed in its northern reaches, but buried beneath later formations along most of its western and eastern arms."

Just suggesting a clean up for clarity.

JTH --Preceding unsigned comment added by JTH (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Access
can the great lakes be reached from oceans? are their any canals etc? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.250.122 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please read Great Lakes and the section below that. Asher196 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest Group of Freshwater Lakes
Manesh has a point. Calling the North American Great Lakes the "largest group of freshwater lakes" kind of weasels by the fact that Lake Baikal dwarfs the Great Lakes in total fresh water volume (23,000 cubic miles versus 5,438 cubic miles). Add in the fact that there's no reference for the claim and it's even more weasily.--68.72.250.165 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please get your facts straight before making accusations. Lake Baikal has a volume of 23,600 km3 compared to the total volume of the Great Lakes of 22,470 km3. You mixed up km3 and mi3 as well as taking the volme of Lake Superior alone. Also, as pointed out by the editor who reverted the edit in question, Baikal is a single lake not a group, and the sentence clearly referred to the "largest group of freshwater lakes". Silverchemist (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That was an "accusation"? I thought it was more of an observation. OK, I mixed up the units in comparison, but it still stands that: (1) there's no citation for the statement(original thought), and (2) Lake Baikal still contains more water. It's like noting that the Mackinac Bridge is "the longest bridge between anchorages" when the actual yardstick for suspension bridges is the length of the main span. Can you point to a published list of "groups of lakes", with the Great Lakes being at the top of the list?--68.72.250.165 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, according to the chart in the Great Lakes article, the volume of water in Lake Superior is 12,000 km3 or 2,900 cu miles, which isn't the 5,438 cubic miles I originally cited as the water volume of the Great Lakes. But hey, I guess we all can make mistakes.--68.72.250.165 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Added reference. This book is available online through Google Books. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Now if you would be so kind as to provide references for the second thru tenth largest groups of freshwater lakes I'll be more than happy to retract my "weasel" comment"! --68.72.250.165 (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, the rest of us will learn to live with it.cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This might actually be inaccurate, as Lake Tanganyika in the African Great Lakes has a volume of 18,900 km3 alone. Toss in Lake Malawi and you get another 8,400 km3, which blows the North American great lakes AND Lake Baikal out of the water. The total volume of the entire system is somewhere around 30,900 km3. While the African great lakes are not a single hydrological system, they are related geologically, and an argument could be made that they are in fact the largest grouping of freshwater lakes. I'm unable to check the reference and confirm this, but just from the name of the paper it appears to be talking about either the largest hydrologically connected group of lakes, or the group of lakes with the largest surface area (245,200 km2 for the North American lakes versus 145,700 km2 for the African lakes). Either way, the claim doesn't specify the measurement or standard being used to judge that claim, and seems to need clarification in any case. shaggy (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Superlatives are a strange thing sometimes, it all depends on how you want to define the parameters of what you're talking about. In the case of the Great Lakes, if we factored in the literally tens of thousands (+) of tiny lakes that are hydrologically connected to the system, who knows what the totals would be. My main interest here is seeing a proper reference connected to a claim, I'm willing to look at anything, provided it's reputably sourced. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the line in question should be edited to remove any ambiguity, so as to prevent conversations like this where we all get to quibble about exactly what it means. I assume that it means "largest by area", but without specifying it's vague and misleading at best. The easiest way I can see to solve this problem is for someone to check the source and add the necessary information. I can't check the source you cited (the relevant section is not freely available on google books), and I am unable to find an alternative source that has any degree of credibility. shaggy (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But your comment regarding the possibility of ending "quibbling" and "ambiguity" on issues like these are exactly what I'm suggesting is the heart of the difficulty. It all depends on how you wish to draw the parameters. If I extend a single hand and say "how many fingers am I holding up?" The 'usual' response (barring a disability) is five. But at the same time, it is possible to argue that in actuality, the common (and quite proper) label for one of those digits is a "thumb", which of course leads to a 'correct' answer of "four" to the question posed. Here's the quote from the reference you requested on pg. 264:

"There are about two million lakes in Canada, covering approximately 7.6 percent of the Canadian landmass (Statistics Canada, 2000, p.27). The Great Lakes (Table 12.2) are the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world. Approximately 36 percent of their total surface area is in Canada. Lake Superior is the largest and deepest of the five lakes."

By inference, I'm supposing that they're talking about surface area here, but only by inference. As I mentioned above, if we include the total surface area of the myriad number of small lakes draining directly into the main Great Lakes within the basin into the equation, the sky is the limit, their number should not be underestimated. If, as some would argue, we should also add in the St. Lawrence River and its associated waters, the overall "size" figures would leap again. It depends on where you draw the lines. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to make this a bigger deal than it is. The original poster raised a good point, mainly that the claim was misleading and needed greater clarification. I think it's vague and non-encyclopedic to simply claim that the north american great lakes are the largest group of lakes without a specific source. If your source can't support it, the claim should be removed. Either way, the amount of water AND the surface area increase towards a limit that IS possible to calculate. Per WP:NOR, I won't attempt it or justify my argument based on such a calculation. All I'll say, is just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it's impossible. Please cite a source and make a reasonable claim. If your source says the largest by surface area, then edit the article accordingly. The current wording is vague, and the source does not support it. I don't think we can accept an off-the-cuff claim that the great lakes are the largest group of lakes on earth without a good, verifiable source. It's widely accepted, but that doesn't mean it's supported or correct. I want to see some good analysis here. shaggy (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My analysis is: the statement "the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world" is vague by definition. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it should be removed. shaggy (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's entirely your decision as an editor, personally I'd look for consensus first, but it's your call. Wikipedia contains other claims of theoretically debatable superlatives in different categories, usually it's dealt with by editing in counterpoints from comparable reputable sources to provide context and qualifications on the original claim. You've stated a couple of "alternative" theoretical positions above; why not try and dig up support from the mainstream literature to try and demonstrate that at least one of those positions has some merit in the eyes of an exiting authority on the subject? The current claim is supported by what appears to be a standard text on the subject as far as I can tell and there's the rub. Unless you can convince other editors that somehow that reference is non-authoritative, simply removing it and its associated claim seems somewhat arbitrary to me, at the moment it's a position that appears to be solely based on your personal opinion alone. Obviously you can disagree with any stated position in the encyclopedia, but removing an apparently well referenced claim without justification seems rash to me. The counterpoints you've outlined above are interesting, as I've said above I think a lot of this is how we frame a given situation, but at the moment in my opinion your points remain in the realm of "original research" and without the benefit of someone providing a reputably sourced alternative, in my mind, they're probably going to stay that way. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to care a whole lot about an arbitrary, non-encyclopedic distinction here. The claim is not "well referenced" because I am unable to check the source, and I can't find another source that supports it, only a billion other "it's the largest" claims that provide no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on you here. shaggy (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? You think every reference in Wikipedia needs to be a web based source so you can check it?  From WP:CITE   "The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material, such as by external link to the source website. If the material is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unfindable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably findable (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context."Asher196 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you run the title of that book on Google, there are other sources for it online, that's where I retrieved the direct quote from when it was requested. Shaggy, I notice that you've changed your opinion on this matter in midstream. In your earlier comments you appeared to view the claim as at least not necessarily "arbitrary" and "non-encyclopedic", in the sense that you looked for references that would disprove it in order to replace the Great Lakes claim with another one. Why is it that you didn't consider it an "arbitrary" and "non-encyclopedic" claim when you felt that it was possible to replace and substantiate it with data for any other location and yet suddenly it becomes so when, for apparently intuitive reasons, you reject it and are unable to provide a viable alternative? Your opinion that the reference that I provided is not "well referenced because I am unable to check the source", is somewhat odd and kind of amusing in my opinion. I don't think that anyone truly expects that every editor has direct access to every substantiating reference provided, it requires good faith, like many other things in Wikipedia. Rejecting an authoritative citation based on a purely intuitive basis doesnt seem like good "science" to me. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume that since you cited the source, you had access to the material, and asking you to clarify a vague statement doesn't seem unreasonable. And it isn't unreasonable to remove something where you can't find other sources to support it, even if it is "well sourced". The quoted passage seems like an off-the-cuff generalization, especially the way the statement is worded. Here's something to check - does your source support the claim at all? I'm not rejecting the conclusion, I'm just saying it's vague and needs to be clarified. What constitutes a group of lakes? What makes the great lakes the largest group? These are the issues that were raised; they are valid and should be addressed. Simply dismissing them won't make them go away. Adding that kind of information makes the article more complete. shaggy (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't "Largest group of freshwater lakes" misleading? The word "largest" is wide open for interpretation and is very likely to make a reader think about volume measure rather than surface area measure. Whereas List of lakes by volume clearly puts Lake Baikal above the Great Lakes combined. Strict distinguishing "group of lakes" from single lake makes the figure far less indicative, since it becomes related only to a subcategory (a group of two or more lakes), excluding other lakes. For instance, I'm sure this statement is more specific and clear, and is not misleading: "The group of Great Lakes has the second-largest volume of freshwater on Earth after Lake Baikal". Svmich (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, the ongoing debate regarding this claim has been about proper referencing (or the lack thereof) more than anything else. The currently cited sources support the phrase "largest group of freshwater lakes on earth", that doesn't mean that it's written in stone, but it does mean that until another reputable source that conflicts with or contradicts those two is cited, in my opinion, we're "stuck" with them. Pointing to another article in Wikipedia as a source may be indicative, but without a proper citation from a reputable authority apart from the encyclopedia itself, what we currently have, in my opinion should stand. The opening paragraph of List of lakes by volume indicates that its base statistics were obtained from "The Water Encyclopedia", a publication that might prove useful here. I think it's relevant to pay close attention to the "warnings" regarding the difficulties inherent in researching these sorts of claims that appears in that first paragraph as well. If a proper full citation from a solid source is provided, I would support the inclusion of a version of your claim, but not as a replacement for the current referenced statement, but rather as either a footnote, or another sentence following the existing one cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I couldn't reach the second source, nor find it online, and the first source isn't clear on the issue ("the largest accumulation of freshwater lakes in the world"). What meaning of the word "largest" do you think these sources support? It is ambiguous and may mean "largest by the total volume", or "largest by the total surface area", or "largest by the number of lakes in the group (accumulation)"... I'm sure we should be more specific here, rather than keep this ambiguous claim in the article just because we cited sources that may support one of possible meanings of this ambiguous phrase. Svmich (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates
How did we arrive at a set of coordinates to use in this article? Asher196 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

State vs. federal control
From the reference desk:


 * Michigan claims all bottomlands in its waters of the Great Lakes, which in some places, are more than 50 miles offshore. Both state and federal laws restrict oil exploration on the Great Lakes. Rmhermen (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to expand this into a description of state/provincial vs. federal ownership or control over the Great Lakes. Compare to tidelands, where there's a state-federal boundary at 3 or 10.5 miles, depending on the state. -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would also be good to see maps depicting the state and international boundaries of the Lakes. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.202.26 (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can see the state and international boundaries here:
 * [[Image:Great-Lakes-Basin.svg‎|thumb|400px|left]]
 * Phizzy (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Police jurisdiction
Who has police jurisdiction over the lakes? The Coast Guard on the U.S. side, or state and local police? -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a practical matter both the US Coast Guard and the County Sheriff's Department patrol the near-shore waters here on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. The Sheriff's Department seems to handle most law enforcement issues (alcohol violations, speeding, equipment violations, etc.), while the Coast Guard seems to also handle security-related activities (enforcing marine exclusion zones, escorting cargo ships into port, etc.).  Both the Coast Guard and the Sheriff's Department respond to emergencies on the water. Sagsaw (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lake Nipigon
I don't know too much about the Great Lakes, but should this lake be included in the article somehow? It is sometimes understood to be the sixth Great Lake. Black Tusk (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Surfing the Great Lakes
This is just advertisement for the mentioned surf club. The section does not add to the content of this article and should be deleted. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mndwll (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I think the need for a completely separate section in the article on this subject is a little dubious. That being said, I do think there might be room for a separate section on recreational opportunities in general on the lakes, in which a sentence or two might be devoted to this topic. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We could add boating, power boating, sailing, paddling, sea kayak, windsurfing, canoeing), and diving, just to name a few. 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Stan

Geology section suggestion
Would it be reasonable to reword the opening statement of the "Geology" section? My suggestion is the following:
 * It has been estimated that the foundation of the Great Lakes was laid approximately two billion years ago, by two tectonic plates fusing together and creating the Midcontinent Rift, forming a valley that was the basis of Lake Superior.

I believe this rewording is more reasonable because the current wording implies a known historical fact, whereas the exact origin and timing of the formation of the Great Lakes basin are not historical facts but have instead been calculated ("estimated", if you will) through scientific methods. While those methods are generally considered reliable, they truly offer estimations only, not facts.

Do any of the current editors of this article have a concern/question/comment regarding this rewording suggestion? If no response is offered, I will assume my suggestion is acceptable and will make the edit.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As no objections were offered, I have updated the "Geological history" section. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "approximately" was already being used in the article. Scientific estimation of dates can be assumed to contain a margin of error, based on the evidence at hand and the method of testing being utilized. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, the term "approximately" is referring solely to the date, not to the method with which the date was derived nor to the method with which the Great Lakes were formed. The term "estimated" acknowledges that the approximated date has been derived through scientific means, that the method of development has been theorized, and that neither is an historic fact.


 * The formation of the Great Lakes, of course, may be assumed to be an historic fact, insomuch that the Great Lakes exist, but the timing and exact method of their formation are not historic facts. Both timing and method have been estimated (not "approximated").  Do you still disagree?  Please explain why.


 * Also, would it not be more reasonable to obtain some kind of consensus before reverting an edit? I had given the editing community more than a fortnight, after having submitted my original suggestion and prior to its implementation, and then you immediately reverted it.  I have no wish to force anything upon this article, particularly if the body of editors are against it, but please allow for discussion prior to reverting an edit I have made.  Thank you.


 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise for any misunderstanding that my edit may have caused, but please be aware that any edit that you make in Wikipedia is subject to alteration by another editor, regardless of whether or not you have provided prior "notification" beforehand of your intention to make that edit at some future time. That obviously does not apply in regard to situations where a consensus has already been arrived at, which did not occur in this case. The truth of the matter is that I simply came across your edit in the body of the Great Lakes article, thought it to be unnecessary under the circumstances and simply reverted it. I have since had the opportunity to review your personal user page, on which you are quite open in terms of your own personal beliefs and would like to remind you that Wikipedia policy indicates that the encyclopedia should not be utilized as a soapbox. I would like to also point out that the talk pages for individual articles should not be used in that way as well. If you are so inclined, I'd like to invite you to carry on this discussion on my own talk page, where it is more appropriate. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My beliefs are irrelevant to this article, as I am sure you would agree. Please be so kind as to respond to the questions and comments I raised above, which are relevant to this article.  I am more than willing to be convinced that I should not undo your revert, but so far I am not convinced. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deconstructhis, you have demonstrated my point with the recent alterations you have made. Before making my original edit, the article stated that the foundation "was laid approximately two billion years ago" (emphasis mine). Now the article says "was laid from 1.1 to 1.2 billion years ago" (again, emphasis mine). What will it say tomorrow or next week? "Was laid ten billion years ago"? The use of the word "was" by itself is clearly inaccurate, as it implies an observed and accurately recorded historical fact. If the event had been both observed and recorded accurately, why does this article keep changing? Obviously, we can not know exactly when the foundations of the Great Lakes were laid, as the event has not been recorded in history. Therefore, scientists have estimated (without universal consensus) when this historic event did indeed occur. This lack of empirical data is exactly why I am asserting that this article requires terminology that adds to its accuracy and logic, specifically stating that the timing and presumed methods of formation have been estimated.

Is it your intent to insist upon removing my edits in this matter? Are you refusing to admit that acknowledging that the timing and methods have been estimated adds to the article's accuracy? Please advise. Thank you.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my edit summary, if you review the original references, the editor who initially added the material to the article misinterpreted the source they chose to use and thus created the discrepancies that existed before I made my edits. Of course, anyone is welcome to review the sources for themselves and determine whether or not I too have made a mistake. Again, after reviewing the great number of details on your user page related to your own personal religious beliefs, I'm surmising that your current objections consist of what you see as general epistemological problems within the scientific method itself. I'd like to suggest to you (for the second time) that debating those sorts of issues is not appropriate on a Wikipedia article talk page, however if you wish to, I'm prepared to discuss them with you on my own talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not want to become a disruption, but I am going to renew my effort at making this article more accurate and logical with regards to the origin of the Great Lakes. I would ask that anyone (particularly Deconstructhis) who desires to revert my edits to please stick to disputing the reasoning I have used for making my edits and avoid using ad hominem arguments which inherently fail to refute the substance of the issues, to the discredit of the article and to the detriment of the effort being made herein. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're shooting for logic and accuracy here, I'm still curious as to why you find it necessary to accentuate, by your choice of wording, the idea that the geological claims being made here are "estimated". As was mentioned in our discussion last autumn, the majority of claims made in the geological sciences and other scientific disciplines as well, are evidentially based on the extrapolation of observed evidence and then in turn vetted by other recognized experts in a given field. No responsible scientist speaks in absolutes, it's a given that all claims are subject to possible revision or even rejection based on newly arrived at evidence. My point here is that the conclusions drawn in hundreds of well referenced "scientific" articles in this encyclopedia are similarly lacking words like "estimated", are you suggesting that they should all be revised based on a philosophical argument that no knowledge is certain? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One further point. What about cases when the subject of an article deals with inherently unobservable entities like sub-atomic particles and the like; in your opinion should each of those articles repeatedly remind the reader that all claims being made are "estimated" or "approximated"? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Deconstructhis, thank you for addressing the issue. Maybe, after all, our disagreement is indeed philosophical in nature: you say "accentuate"; I say "acknowledge."  We are certainly perceiving the same evidence from two very different perspectives.  (Ah, the beauty of Wikipedia!) :)  When looking at an article, I imagine the average reader to be a high school student attempting to construct a term paper.  I loathe the idea that he is making the false assumption that what he is reading is indeed "absolute."
 * You insist "No responsible scientist speaks in absolutes," but when you remove terms such as "estimated," you are, in fact, speaking in absolute terms. There is a distinct difference between saying (1) "The Great Lakes were formed..." and saying (2) "The Great Lakes are estimated to have been formed..."  Statement (1) declares that something happened a certain way and at a certain time, while statement (2) suggests possible methods and timing.  Do I believe that the reader needs to be constantly reminded that the information before him has been constructed from estimations and theories?  No, but I do believe that readers should be informed consistently: where estimations are being made, they should be declared as such.  One acknowledgment within an article could possibly be sufficient.
 * The theoretical nature of some statements may be self-evident, particularly if the corresponding article is inherently theoretical in nature, but in other articles, such as those dealing mainly with the presently observable world (as is the case with this article), it is not. In those cases where an article is switching between historical or observable facts and calculated possibilities, the switch should be clearly labeled to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and false assumptions.
 * -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

With phrases like the "presently observable world",you seem to be addressing this as an epistemological problem,looking at base philosophical assumptions about human knowledge in general. Why somewhat arbitrarily draw the line at an introductory article to the "Great Lakes" in pointing out the relativeness of human knowledge to a general readership? Why not all articles in all contexts? I'm also confused as to why you choose to lump "historical" and "observable facts" together in one category, as opposed to "calculated possibilities". Isn't that what all "history" is; the best "estimation" of the sum total of "calculated possibilities" of the past, drawn from textual evidence? I'm especially curious about knowing whether or not you consider *all* human belief systems as "approximations" or not. I'm not saying that as a jibe, I'm personally curious. For me, this has as much as anything else to do with conventional writing styles, and a personal attempt at conforming to the stated aims of Wikipedia. It's easy to lose track of the fact that we are "editors" only here, we are specifically instructed not be innovators in any sense. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deconstructhis, again, I would like to thank you for addressing the issue at hand and for abandoning ad hominem arguments. I realize that you have additional questions, but I believe my responses above should be sufficient. Please allow me to move this discussion in a slightly different direction. Have you considered the information provided at the following website, which refutes the glacial theory? See the site here: http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/gtlakes.html. The articles within cite the work of Sir J. W. Dawson, as well as that of other geologists. In your opinion, is it acceptable to add those details to this section of this article as an opposing position on the origin of the Great Lakes? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed Dawson's theories in the past and I'm afraid I'm not in agreement with his conclusions in the face of all the evidence available within the mainstream of geology, to each their own. I would strongly contest their addition to an article like this consisting of a general introduction to the Great Lakes, as an attempt to skirt the encyclopedia's policies regarding "neutrality", specifically . I can see their relevance in articles related to Creation science or a related topic, but I see them as so far outside the realm of current mainstream geological thought that adding them to a general article like this one, would be confusing to the average Wiki user because of "undue weight". In fact further, I'd suggest that their addition here would constitute a violation of Wikipedia policy against utilizing the encyclopedia as a "soapbox" simply by adding them, again, especially in this context, because of the general nature of the article. I'll tell you what though, (deconstructhis said only half jokingly) if you can make that material "stick" in the main geology article for one week (7 days), I'll seriously consider staying out of the way if you want to place it here as well. Good luck. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am certain that I have no business even attempting to edit the main geology article. I am wondering, though, how we can call the geology section of this article "neutral."  It appears (to me) to have a clear bias toward a single theory on the formation of the Great Lakes.  Why not include multiple theories, thereby encouraging readers to decide which theory it is with which they are willing to agree?  Otherwise, aren't we inherently making this article non-neutral (and a "soapbox") by withholding alternative information?  Why should you or I be the judge of what others are allowed to see here? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use "neutral" in the way that you appear to be using it. See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE for instance. I'm confused by the fact that you're introducing accusations of "soapboxing" and "non-neutrality" when it pertains to restricting article content to mainstream views; in order to do so, you're presumably factoring in the personal beliefs held by the mainstream scientists who develop these positions. Why do "personal beliefs" and "biases" only appear to be relevant when they are held by mainstream scientists and apparently irrelevant when discussing the position that you are putting forward? I'd suggest that your position also has a problem when you hold that you have "no business even attempting to edit the main geology article" and yet you're expressing a desire to edit a section in a general article about the Great Lakes that ideally is simply an extension and application of the mainstream theoretical positions being offered in the main geology article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't the Great Lakes salty?
I am just wondering why the Great Lakes aren't salty, at least brackish? They look alot like other seas in alot of ways but there is no salinity. I wonder how it would change the climate of North America (or even globally) if they were salt or at least brackish. Can they ever become salt-water or brackish in the future? Thanks. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.183 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Answering this year old question just in case someone is reading the talk and wonders.


 * Any body of water becomes salty through a process where rain falls on rocks containing salt, which slightly dissolves the salt. This water then runs into a river and then into the lake. Imagine if this lake is like the Dead Sea, with no outlets. In this case the water will evaporate and the salt will be left behind, and the concentration of the salt will increase and increase, until we get salt water. However, the great lakes do have an outlet, the water flows through them and out through the Saint Lawrence Seaway into the Oceans. This washes the salt out, and the concentration can never rise.


 * There isn't a reasonable way that they could become salt-water lakes. They can't become Dead Sea type lakes, because you wouldn't have the evaporation rate required, and the other way would necessitate them being at sea level, which would mean so many changes that they really wouldn't be the great lakes any more.


 * It wouldn't make much difference to the climate if they were salty, you'd have some differences because they're harder to freeze than fresh water lakes, but that's a local effect rather than a long distance effect.

Gorillatheape (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was REFERENCED Bull Shark in Invasive sectioned removed?
[] and there are other sources out there, why was this removed? Obviously not common, and was mentioned as such, but still a reality. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) [] [] --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The shape
Has no-one noticed they look like a palm tree?!? Seriously, I'd think someone would have noticed it before... --Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.48 (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I don't see a palm tree shape and never heard anyone else suggest that. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.160.49 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why part of the US Wiki?
The Great Lakes are much more significant to Canada than they are to the US, and the majority of the lakes are IN Canada. Why is this article part of the US Wiki? It should be part of the Canadian one. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.228.94 (talk)
 * ...and the majority of the lakes are IN Canada.
 * There are five Great Lakes. Four of which have Canada on one side and the United States on the other and one Great Lake (I'll let you figure out which one) is 100 percent, completely, totally withIN U.S. waters.  Therefore, your logic is a little backward on this one.  Sorry to hurt your Canadian pride but facts are facts.  &mdash;MJCdetroit 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are four large lakes, all of which are divided between the two countries. Michigan is a bay of Lake Michigan-Huron. It's no more a separate lake that St. George's Bay, which BTW lies entirely within Canada. kwami (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to refer to Lake Michigan as a bay of Lake Michigan-Huron, as Lake Michigan contains nearly the same surface area as Lake Huron and 40% more total water than Lake Huron. I wonder if there is another example elsewhere in the world of a bay being 50% or more of the total body of water.68.72.250.165 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't it also be part of WikiProject Canada? I'd be in favor of it.  Both countries exert sovereignty over parts of it.  --Pesco (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes perfect sense. Silverchemist (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a bizarre statement, considering about 64.2% of the surface area of the Great Lakes lies within the United States, with the remaining 35.8% lying in Canada. In fact, about 40.1% lies within Michigan alone, which is greater than all of Canada's portion. Also, the United States has a lot more major cities on the Great Lakes than Canada does, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Cleveland. How the Great Lakes are much more significant to Canada is beyond me. Phizzy (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And in fact they are involved in several bilateral treaties concerning them, and also have a hand in the pending Great Lakes Compact. I don't know if the issue is resolved, but if I had a vote, I would vote that there be concurrent jurisdiction over the articles, as it fairly reflects sovereignty, facts, shared interests and regional politics. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Stan
 * Actually Canada has quite a few more "Great Lakes" both in size and name. They are just not shared by the border with the US. There's the Great Bear Lake, the Great Slave Lake, Reindeer lake, Lake Athabasca, and Lake Winnipeg. AND the US has another "Great Lake" of its own -- the Great Salt Lake in Utah. If you would properly include all of those "Great Lakes" in your discussion thread, it would be more accurate........
 * Canada may have great lakes, but this article is about the "Great Lakes", and if you don't know the difference, then I can't help much.Asher196 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lake St. Clair
Minor point, but I don't think the "if ever" should be included in the following:

"Lake St. Clair is the smallest lake in the Great Lake system but due to its relatively small size (compared to the five "Great Lakes"), it is rarely, if ever, considered a Great Lake."

Correctly or not, many people in Michigan, particularly the Detroit area, do consider Lake St. Clair to be one of the Great Lakes. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewmenn (talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lake Superior Size
This article currently says:

"Lake Superior--the largest by volume, area, and depth; larger than both Scotland and South Carolina"

While the comparison with Scotland seems unchallenged, looking at the figures in Wikipedia given for Lake Superior and SC it seems that this statement does not hold.

Moreover, the sq.mi. and sq.km. figures do not seem to match. Can someone clarify this pls? Thanks!

JRaue 17:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * South Carolina's total area is 32,020 square miles and land area is 30,109 square miles. Lake Superior's total area is 31,820 square miles. So, I guess it isn't bigger (but nearly the same size), but it is bigger if you count just South Carolina's land area. Phizzy (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

5,000 kl --Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.192.54 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are some major settlements in bold?
Under the geography section, in the Bathymetry table, there is a short list of major settlements for each lake. Why is it that one of the settlements is in bold? From the looks of it, it is the largest city (by population at least) for all the lakes except for Lake Superior. Duluth, MN is in bold, but by population, Thunder Bay, ON is much larger (84,284 vs. 109,140) for city population, which I think is the important figure since we're talking about settlements, and not metropolitan areas. Is it being based on Metro population? I will change it to Thunder Bay, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Can we also add something that indicates WHY these cities are in bold? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.118.188 (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for any of those to be in bold. Please see MOS:BOLD. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
dot know if this ahs been said or not, but WP:Consensus can change why does "Great lakes redirect here instead of to a disambiguation page? Granted it would be biased either case, thus a disamb. page should be made as it would not be Globalized hence a .(Lihaas (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)).

Watershed map is incorrect
I have just finished an extensive project for a master plan of a 63000 acre park in the southern tier of New York State. The area is not in the great lakes watershed but rather drains to the Allegheny River which is in the Ohio River watershed which drains into the Gulf of Mexico through the Mississippi River and not into the Great Lakes. Actually in New York State the dividing line for the Great Lakes watershed is much further north than is depicted in the map in the article. Furthermore the map shows the watershed crossing over the Allegheny River and into Pennsylvania which is impossible for a watershed to do.

Another mistake is that the map shows the eastern end of the watershed extending beyond the outlet of Lake Ontario. By definition a watershed includes lands that drain into a lake or other water body. The lands east of the Lake Ontario outlet drain into the St. Lawrence but not into Lake Ontario. Unless the intent is to depict the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence watershed (which would be a viable way of looking at the system) together then this also is incorrect.161.11.130.249 (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Salim

Good article on Great Lakes levels
[http://detnews.com/article/20101108/METRO/11080360/Low-Great-Lakes-levels-prompt-new-call-for-action#ixzz14jknHuGQ Lynch, Jim, November 08. 2010 Low Great Lakes levels prompt new call for action: U.S., Canada look at options to slow flow out of Lake Huron] Detroit News. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act
There are House and Senate versions.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3073

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4755

Might be worth a section in the article... swain (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seas or Lakes? Both?
I've often been puzzled by the classification of "freshwater seas"...also by the fact that they're on the list of "Earth's Oceans and Seas" here on Wikipedia. From what I understand, the definition of sea refers to a large body of SALT water. Thus, saying "freshwater sea" feels like an oxymoron. That plus, I live in the region and have never heard anybody refer to them as seas. I guess what I'm getting at is what specifically qualifies them to be classified as seas? I would personally consider something like the Great Salt Lake to be a sea, but not any of the great lakes as they are all freshwater bodies with natural outlets. 69.57.34.69 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't understand why the term "sea" is being applied to the Great Lakes.  It doesn't just feel like an oxymoron; it is, since the definition of sea is a large body of salt water. Asher196 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too, and just changed the lead to say they are lakes instead of seas. Their inclusion in the navbox is arguably alright, as they are listed under "Inland seaways and landlocked seas", and they are part of a sea "way". Pfly (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There need to be fewer 'editors' at Wikipedia.
"However, only 2% of this volume is replaced each year, causing water levels to fall in recent years as the water undergoes heavy human use[citation needed]."

Which word in this sentence did someone feel needed challenged? The amount of water that naturally leaves the system, and the amount of water that naturally enters the system, are easily quantifiable. A simple comparison of water in/water out will yield the ratio between the two. Given this, the 2% cannot be in question.

So why is there 'citation needed' at the end of this sentence? Are we questioning whether humans exist? Are we questioning whether humans use water? Does any of this water that these alleged humans use come from the Great Lakes? Perhaps someone pulled the plug from one or more of the lakes. Are there a lot more coyotes than there were before, and are these coyotes very thirsty? Listen, just because I do not cite astronomy and chemistry texts when I say the sky is blue is not reason enough to question the fact that the sky actually is blue. JUST. BECAUSE. YOU. CAN.

Perhaps it's too easy to be an 'editor' at Wikipedia. Some things are not for everyone. And while I recognize that this is a worldwide endeavor, I am sure (no citation needed) that many of you are from the 'States', as am I. And while many people here really do 'Love America!!!', the name of this country is actually the United States. It says that on our missiles and military aircraft. I love the United States so much I use its actual name when referring to it. If you do not know that the name of this country is NOT America, or you are equally unenlightened, would you please, please, PLEASE stop putting 'citation needed' after every mundane fact, just because you 'didn't know that'.

I realize this post is not up to the usual standards of Wikipedia, and for this I apologize. But I have had it up to here (my hand is above my head) with there being dozens upon dozens of unnecessary 'citation needed's per article. If the article says that "The 747 is a four engined intercontinental passenger aircraft designed and manufactured by the Boeing Corporation", and there is a photograph of a 747 and it has, yep, four engines, do NOT put a 'citation needed' after the four engine part. Just stop. The rest of us get it, and you are in our way. ThomasGuyLindenmuth (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.
 * Sorry, I can't help noticing that your message provided a clear example of your lemma (in the title of this section). I would immediately guess the tag is about 2% (actually this thread should be deleted). Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ecology
The ecology section starts with "Ecological Challenges" without any discussion of the ecology of the lakes themselves. Maybe we could add in the basic ecology of the system, then go into its current stressors Bkmertz (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also interested in knowing the ecologic & economic effects of the invasive waterfleas mentioned. Are they a significant stressor to the environment or fishery? Bkmertz (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lake Michigan-Huron: An outsider's perspective
Hi all. I've wandered over here thanks to a plea put out on the WP:Geology page, and wanted to add a fresh and unbiased perspective to what appears to have become a overly aggressive and bad tempered dispute on this. This in particular does not reflect well on anybody involved, imho. I appreciate there has been some reporting of people involved, but frankly, that doesn't have any bearing on the actual issue in hand. So, with that said, here's my perspective, on the actual question at the root. Please WP:AGF, as I hope I have done here.

Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are clearly separate (cultural) geographical and historical entities. No one in their right mind would argue they do not deserve coverage as their own separate things. However, previous editors do have a legitimate point that hydrologically and ecologically, these two lakes are tightly bound together at the Straits of Mackinac, and yes, can be - and have been - considered as a single lake, Lake Michigan-Huron. I do not think this viewpoint is legitimately WP:FRINGE. I note that there is abundant peer reviewed scientific literature that uses the combined terminology, which is normally enough for me to remove a topic from WP:FRINGE. But equally, note the weight of usage for each lake individually as well.

I fundamentally do not see the rationale for refusing Lake Michigan-Huron its own article. This topic is somewhat contentious (see those previous discussions!) but to me that just adds to the need for the article, where the points of contention can be explained clearly. A condensed version, with link to full article, needs to remain on this page also, but can be condensed (though as it stands at the moment, it's already quite condensed). I think the disctinction between one-lake-or-two is pretty technical, and probably not of interest to most of the people on the Great Lakes pages, but should definitely be mentioned, and the alternative page provides somewhere for the interested reader to go.

In summary, I just don't see why everyone is so het up about this. Let the Lake Michigan-Huron article stand, where the difficulties and benefits of this terminology can be addressed properly, and just have a couple of sentences somewhere in each of the Great Lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron articles saying these two lakes are intimately connected at the Straits, and thus are sometimes referred to as a single lake, Lake Michigan-Huron.

Again, please assume good faith on my part. I hope this helps some.DanHobley (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to emphasise, I'm happy to try to make some of these changes happen, but want some level of consensus first. I promise to use my best WP:NPOV prose. :) DanHobley (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice summary, DanHobley. A Looking at the last revision before deletion, I see that it did fail WP:NPOV. It is fairly dismissive of the view that they are separate lakes, which is probably why some editors were annoyed. Also, an article published in Canadian Geographic is not equivalent to a statement by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * YES HI!. Thank you! I wish you would.  I agree with you, that there should be an article.  I don't see why people are all het up about it.  You can see my thoughts and references/sources at Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron.  I don't think people would be thrilled at me transporting the whole list/analysis over here. But you seem to have greater expertise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is getting complicated. I think that the discussion on this is scatterred into at least 7 places. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is scattered into at least 7 different places
The discussion on this is scattered into about 7 different places. In (roughly) descending order of amount of material they are:
 * 1) WP:ANI
 * 2) Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron
 * 3) Talk:Great Lakes
 * 4) User_talk:kwamikagami
 * 5) User_talk:North8000
 * 6) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology
 * 7) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography

So each of these locations is MISSING least 3/4 of the important material and discussions North8000 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list. I know there are issues with the conduct of User:Kwami, but those really need to be separated from the substantive issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually wasn't thinking of conduct issues as much as substantive discussion issues which seem to have gotten lost. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the human history prior to European settlement?
I actually came to this page for an overview that included some basic information, at least, about the native tribes that lived in the region prior to the arrival of Europeans. The "History" section of this article, which suddenly starts off in the 17th century, might lead readers to think that the Europeans were the original peoples who "settled" this region, when in fact I am sure that First Peoples inhabited the area for *thousands* of years prior. This is not an area of my personal expertise or knowledge, and therefore I am in no position to fix this omission myself. I am only pointing out as a reader that the History section of is article is not only terribly incomplete, it is Eurocentric, and it is misleading. Ilyse Kazar (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's one of the problems with wikipedia; until someone with expertise in the area or the willingness to research it shows up to contribute, the article will remain limited. I'm sure it's not deliberately eurocentric or misleading.  GeeZee (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a WP:RS for their presence? Just kidding. It is a gigantic issue, and the land certainly wasn't vacant before Columbus. I agree with GeeZee; its lack of having someone with knowledge on the subject interested in the article, not some kind of conspiracy. And we should probably try to recruit someone who has been contributing regularly on related subject matter to take a look. We could start with Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Indigenous peoples of the Americas. That might not include such groups as Hopewell culture. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There was once a rather active one or two working especially on Potawatomi and related tribes, see Anishinaabe. I don't know if they can be found and coaxed over here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * With one lake as an example, and from someone who devours any info I can find with respect to pre-european human history on Lake Superior, the other big challenge is a lack of information. These are folks with no written or recorded history.  Available oral history is not that useful in this respect, the reverence that folks have for it non-withstanding.  So then we have writing and studies by anthropologist and archeologist folks. But I think that this area can be built.   And post-european history on non-european folks is available.  While such doesn't help on the pre-european front, it does help on the Eurocentric front.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Council of Three Fires but the article like others is in a sad state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just added an excellent book on this topic to "Further Reading", the Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History (no preview on GBooks, but libraries often have it). The Native American history of the Great Lakes region is vast and complex. Even a quick overview of the major tribes in the region around the time of European contact would take a bit of work. I don't have the time right now, so I just added that book. It's worth checking out, if nothing else. Nice maps. Amazing detail. Lots of text. Pfly (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks wonderful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Alpha/beta-script publishing template
Is that really worth having on this page? All that publisher does is republish Wikipedia contents. See VDM_Publishing or. These are a dime a dozen these days. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia-republished works should generally be removed, as should external links to Wikipedia mirrors. Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC).