Talk:Lake Maracaibo

Oil Companies Operating on and around Lake Maracaibo
Following are the names, as I recall, of some of the oil companies with active concessions on Lake Maracaibo during the 1960’s and 70’s. It would be very interesting to hear from readers what additions and corrections could be.

Creole Petroleum ( ESSO / EXXON) Shell de Venezuela Mene Grande (Gulf Oil Co.) Texaco Sun Oil Company Atlantic Refining San Jacinto Phillips Petroleum Chevron (Richmond Exploration) Mobile Petroleum CVP (Corporacion Venezolana de Petroleo) now PDVSA

Inefectivness In the Duckweed Removal
It must be noted that most of the removal procedures have been focusing on removing that is in sight of from the land, eventough the lakes currents move in a spiral manner making the duckweed travel to the center of the lake, disappearing from sight and then reapearinggiving it more that plenty of time to grow

Cleanup needed
The Lake Maracaibo

Lake Maracaibo is a large body of water in northwestern Venezuela. It is the largest lake in South America. Although some people considered it a sea because it is connected by way of a 54-km (34-mile) strait to the Gulf of Venezuela, and thence to the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, is a lake because is full of fresh water, the only case in planet Earth. Its main tributary is the Catatumbo River, but several other rivers flow from the nearly surrounding Andes mountain ranges.

What is the source for it being the largest lake? What people consider it a sea? Who considers it a lake? The only case of what on planet Earth? --Lethargy 04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The only case of what on planet Earth?
 * R) all others lake are "trapped water" that connects to the sea through tiny flow of water, this one connects directly. 88.20.47.94 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

duckweed infestation appeared strangely after the 2002/2003 oil spills.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=15292

brought in by foreign ships? growth provoked after oil cleanup?

Lake of Venezuela?
Why does the talk page redirect to Lake of Venezuela? There are at least 2 major lakes in Venezuela, and google hits are much greater for Maricabo than for "lake of venezuela" wgh 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) -dialectric


 * Fixed. I moved the page to Talk:Lake Maracaibo. -- User:Docu

V0.7 nomination fails for now
I really wish I could pass this, but it really needs much more general content. I agree that this is an important lake, and when I put together the list of lakes to include in Version 0.5 this was one I wanted to include. Take a look at Great Salt Lake as an example - an article on a lake should cover things like the geology/geography, the wildlife, commerce/transportation/fishing, any human settlements nearby, etc. Most of these topics still need to be added. If some of these things can get added, leave me a message and I'd be delighted to switch this from fail to pass. Thanks, Walkerma 05:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Everlasting Lightining storms?
Is it true that there are many lightning storms here? I read that this lake is considered the greatest single generator of ozone in the planet because of the lightning storms.

See http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/06/catatumbo-everlasting-storm.html

“Relámpago del Catatumbo”


 * I read once somewhere that it is the most-lightning struck place on Earth. Historian932 (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Everlasting Lightining storms?
I found a webpage which mentions these lightning storms: http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/02/lightning-up.html The Dutch edition of the National Geographic of februari 2010 also has that article (Dutch translation) in it. —Preceding Peter Swinkels comment added by 62.234.137.38 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lake or bay
According the definition of lake can't be Maracaibo bay regarded as a lake (due to its sea connection). All the references are at least 50 years old and conditions have changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marturius (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's called a "lake", but I agree it's really a bay, just as the Salton "Sea" is really a lake. We discuss this. — kwami (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article says, "It is 'commonly considered a lake rather than a bay or lagoon, and at 13,210 km² it would be the largest lake in South America". "Commonly considered" are ambiguous words that have no relevant meaning, as the above discussion notes, the use of lake is rong. Maracaibo must surely be a bay because it not is connected directly to the sea by a strait not a river. Otherwise the Black Sea must surely be the largest "lake" in the world!?109.158.255.82 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Black sea is part of the sea AKA salty water, this one is sweet water/fresh water, according definition a bay is part of the ocean, ocean -> salty water. 88.20.47.94 (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lake Maracaibo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929095627/http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/image_1924.html to http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/image_1924.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring to change the description of Lake Maracaibo
Edit-warring has been ongoing changing the description of Lake Maracaibo to a bay, estuary etc. However, there are many extremely reliable sources describing Maracaibo as a lake. Therefore, one should not suppress that RS-supported description based on their own conclusions. Also, edit-warring is never a solution and it has to stop. Dr.  K.  17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No edit warring. I've made two edits over the past months, adding in the top two geographic authorities in the world as sources... Times Atlas of the World and the Merriam-Webster Geographic Dictionary, both of which quite clearly (see refs) classify L. Maracaibo not as a lake, but as a tidal estuary.  There was actually a ruling (see the 3rd source that I added and that you deleted, Dr. K., where in an national US academic competition, the authority (a geologist) declared that L. Maracaibo was not a lake.  Times Atlas, other reputable sources list Lake Titicaca as the largest lake on the continent.  Sure, anyone can find dozens of sources using the name "lake", just as with other bodies of water called "lakes" that are tidal.  They are, by definition of a lake, not lakes... Lakes cannot be tidal.DLinth (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You just reverted me and you call that no edit-warring? No, it is the textbook definition of edit-warring. On more substantive matters, I have provided nine reliable sources all of which call it a lake. The reliable sources include peer-reviewed journals from the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, and NASA, among other top sources. You cannot simply ignore them and go by your own beliefs. You pointedly added to the lead that Maracaibo is not a lake. Yes, it is if reliable sources define it as such. If you have other sources calling it something else, then that can be added too. But you cannot exclude the RS that call it a lake. Also the source I deleted the first time I reverted your edits does not qualify as reliable. It is some informal note about the background of a competition. It does not have the status of an RS. If you have any doubts you can go to WP:RSN to ask about it. Dr.   K.  18:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dr. K., you need to understand what reliable sources are regarding the definition of a lake, vs. your practice of finding an infinite number of so-called "sources" that simply use the term "lake". You also need to actually look at other editors' edits before deleting them and new sources added.... Rather than "going by my own beliefs", my two edits over the past month have added in three reputable sources (from the highest regarded world geography dictionary which specifies that L. Maracaibo is not a true lake, and from the highest regarded world atlas which does the same.)
 * You deleted these sources with no cause....In fact, the "competition" source, which you question above, actually uses a quote and a ruling from expert geologist and author Thomas McGuire. You deleted all three reliable sources because, it appears, they don't fit your POV which is summed up as, "if it's called a lake, then it's a lake."  That doesn't fly.  Plenty of bodies of water are called "lakes" but are not true lakes but are bays, estuaries, or inlets, all tidal, such as L. Maracaibo.
 * This is a no-brainer, actually. You don't get to install your POV in the lede here until you can (good luck!) change the universally-accepted definition of a lake, including as found on the lake WP page:  "A lake is an area of variable size filled with water, localized in a basin, that is surrounded by land, apart from any river or other outlet that serves to feed or drain the lake.[1] Lakes lie on land and are not part of the ocean,..."
 * BTW, I added sources on 6 Dec to a WP article you last edited on 13 Nov., then you immediately delete my edit and new sources with no explanation, then send me all sorts of warnings about the 24 hour revert rule on my talk page... You love deleting other editors reliable sources, it seems, and then threaten them. Really? DLinth (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You love deleting other editors reliable sources, it seems, and then threaten them. Really? Please note WP:CIV and WP:NPA before proceeding any further. You are exhibiting the fundamental characteristics of POV-pushing. Namely: Edit-warring, Failure to get the point and personal attacks. I trust you will modify this behaviour asap. As far as This is a no-brainer, actually. You don't get to install your POV in the lede here until you can (good luck!) change the universally-accepted definition of a lake, read the quotes from the reliable sources, such as journals and NASA, that I supplied:
 * You simply cannot ignore these sources on the basis that you don't like their definition of the term "lake". That's not how Wikipedia works. As I told you before, I am open to other views on the status of this lake as a lake. But you will not erase the definition of this lake as lake at the lead because you cannot ignore the extremely reliable sources which call Maracaibo a lake. Dr.   K.  19:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A compromise, perhaps, Dr. K. Rather than my effort which, I admit, did leave out the "often considered to be a lake" part, and rather than your effort to revert the consensus from 2008 until last month, I've added in the phrasing that was used here from 2008 until Nov. 2016 which, agreed?, should stand if and until consensus can be reached on this page to change it to "it's a lake".
 * A revert to "it is a lake" of the 2008-Nov. 2016 "tidal estuary....sometimes called a lake" phraseology would be against the Encyl. Britannica definition of L. Maracaibo, against the Websters Geogr. Dictionary for L. Maracaibo, against the most respected world atlas. I'm sure no editors (nor you in your 2010 edits here) want to do that without due deliberation....You yourself did 2010 era edits with the lede which I just re-installed as it was from 2008 to Nov. 2016... "a tidal bay or estuary"... "sometimes considered a lake".  No matter how many "sources" one finds using the word "lake" (there are many...you have about 10 it seems already!..nice research!), one cannot override 8 years of consensus from other WP editors and the most reliable sources.  The relevant RS in this case are those I just cited, world-recognized geographic authorities, since what you have been trying to overturn since your Nov. 13 edit is a geographic definition issue...no more, no less... what is a lake.  Lake Maracaibo is not a lake, and the relevant sources and WP editors from 2008 until your involvement last month agree.DLinth (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You simply cannot ignore these sources on the basis that you don't like their definition of the term "lake". That's not how Wikipedia works. As I told you before, I am open to other views on the status of this lake as a lake. But you will not erase the definition of this lake as lake at the lead because you cannot ignore the extremely reliable sources which call Maracaibo a lake. Dr.   K.  19:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A compromise, perhaps, Dr. K. Rather than my effort which, I admit, did leave out the "often considered to be a lake" part, and rather than your effort to revert the consensus from 2008 until last month, I've added in the phrasing that was used here from 2008 until Nov. 2016 which, agreed?, should stand if and until consensus can be reached on this page to change it to "it's a lake".
 * A revert to "it is a lake" of the 2008-Nov. 2016 "tidal estuary....sometimes called a lake" phraseology would be against the Encyl. Britannica definition of L. Maracaibo, against the Websters Geogr. Dictionary for L. Maracaibo, against the most respected world atlas. I'm sure no editors (nor you in your 2010 edits here) want to do that without due deliberation....You yourself did 2010 era edits with the lede which I just re-installed as it was from 2008 to Nov. 2016... "a tidal bay or estuary"... "sometimes considered a lake".  No matter how many "sources" one finds using the word "lake" (there are many...you have about 10 it seems already!..nice research!), one cannot override 8 years of consensus from other WP editors and the most reliable sources.  The relevant RS in this case are those I just cited, world-recognized geographic authorities, since what you have been trying to overturn since your Nov. 13 edit is a geographic definition issue...no more, no less... what is a lake.  Lake Maracaibo is not a lake, and the relevant sources and WP editors from 2008 until your involvement last month agree.DLinth (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A revert to "it is a lake" of the 2008-Nov. 2016 "tidal estuary....sometimes called a lake" phraseology would be against the Encyl. Britannica definition of L. Maracaibo, against the Websters Geogr. Dictionary for L. Maracaibo, against the most respected world atlas. I'm sure no editors (nor you in your 2010 edits here) want to do that without due deliberation....You yourself did 2010 era edits with the lede which I just re-installed as it was from 2008 to Nov. 2016... "a tidal bay or estuary"... "sometimes considered a lake".  No matter how many "sources" one finds using the word "lake" (there are many...you have about 10 it seems already!..nice research!), one cannot override 8 years of consensus from other WP editors and the most reliable sources.  The relevant RS in this case are those I just cited, world-recognized geographic authorities, since what you have been trying to overturn since your Nov. 13 edit is a geographic definition issue...no more, no less... what is a lake.  Lake Maracaibo is not a lake, and the relevant sources and WP editors from 2008 until your involvement last month agree.DLinth (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion
Since I see little prospect of agreement any time soon, I have asked for a third opinion at WP:3O. A volunteer is going to offer their opinion, hopefully soon. Dr.  K.  19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. Thanks.  See my last compromise comment above....I recommend the (geographically correct) lede paragraph as in my last edit, as it was phrased from 2008 to Nov. 2016 in this article.  True consensus, which you seek to overturn here, as established in the lede sentence from 2008 to your Nov. 2016 edits on this WP article overturning that eight year consensus, will take both more time and more than one volunteer or editor, yes?DLinth (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus, by definition, requires more than one person, yes. However, if you can come up with a compromise that will get the other side on board, you will have achieved a new consensus. Simply stating that it has been that way for 8 years does not necessarily mean it had consensus - sometimes Wikipedia is simply wrong, and the error went unnoticed. (I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it has been known to happen.) Bradv  19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At the same time, there should be a consensus to change that which had been established for a while, especially if it is controversial. WP:BRD may be a useful editing pattern for this article. Bradv  19:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dr. K, you are obviously an MVE(Most valuable editor) here who makes more good edits in a day than I do in a month!... I'm just a professional geographer who has been dabbling in WP geography edits for 10 years. But, really, the definition of a lake (in WP and in all top notch, reliable geographic sources) is that a lake is never, never tidal.  Tidal Lake Maracaibo is a problem, as many less reliable sources, and even some normally reliable academic ones in the non-geography realm, call it a lake because, well, it's "Lake Maracaibo."  But the Chesapeake, other estuaries around the world have dozens of water bodies that are "Lake X" or "Lake Y" and yet, geographically, they are not lakes. We cant' change all of them, nor change the lake definition in WP, nor remove Caspian and Aral Seas from all the largest lakes lists on WP, etc., etc.
 * And so, Brady, Brad... this really is not something that defies categorization... and it is not "controversial" in the narrow geographic definition sense....it is definitively not a lake in the physical geography sense. There must be some reason it was labeled a "tidal estuary"/"tidal bay" for eight years here, right!?  It didn't go unnoticed for 8 years... there were hundreds of edits by many fine editors over those eight years....all leaving (correctly) the main lede as "tidal estuary / tidal bay."
 * Compromise?...as last comment above.... With such widespread usage of the term "lake" for Maracaibo, while "tidal estuary" / "tidal bay" needs to stay in the lede sentence as it has been from 2008 to last month, adding right after that as many "often referenced as a lake", "often termed a lake", "if so, would be the largest lake..." bits as we like would be suitable, yes?DLinth (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you DLinth for your kind comments. MVE was an inventive and kind  term/acronym, although I disagree with this classification, since I consider you, and in fact any good-faith editor, an MVE. In any case, I am against this edit which is not part of the consensus, as it existed in the longer term in the past, because it specifically states that Maracaibo is not a lake. However, I am not against this consensus lead from 2015 which is similar to what appears now. If the curent lead stays the way it is now I am ok with it. I agree fully with, especially when he states At the same time, there should be a consensus to change that which had been established for a while, especially if it is controversial., which I find to be excellent advice, that I am already following. I also thank him for taking the time to render his considered 3O.  Dr.   K.  20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you and agreed, Dr. K... I was in awe when I took 2 seconds to see your voluminous output of edits! Keep up the valuable work.  Also, as you point out immediately above, my initial "not a lake" edit was overstated and poorly worded...I didn't give the wording, etc. much thought there, so thanks for "jumping on it"!DLinth (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you again DLinth. I never thought of my work that way, but your kindness is appreciated. I would also add that I value your expert opnion and your honesty. It was very nice meeting you. All the best. Dr.   K.  20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Maracaibo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102235146/http://www.deme.be/projects/venezuela_maracaibo.html to http://www.deme.be/projects/venezuela_maracaibo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Maximum depth
The language versions of Wikipedia have very different values for the maximum depth of Lake Maracaibo. In German it is 35 m, in English and Frensh it is 60 m, in Russian and Swedish it is 250 m. 216Kleopatra (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Maracaibo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061221215258/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/MaracaibL.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/MaracaibL.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001043109/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16605 to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16605

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved citation
An edit on 30 January 2018 inserted some new text in front of a citation. The following citation: was originally given for term's original sense would have been that of a "little Venice". I have verified that the book does support this statement, though Google Books did not allow me to see the page number. I have moved the citation to the full stop behind the statement supported.2A00:23C6:812A:6A00:D884:DC37:7861:BADC (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Islands?
The article says there are 467 islands, and has a whole section on islands, but you can look at satellite images, and there are no islands in lake maracaibo. There are no citations for the islands. I suggest the islands section should be removed.

'Anu' Name 'Coquivacoa'
I cannot find any information regarding the language 'Anu' as is listed. There are a number of citations in this article which are in Chinese and Spanish, which I cannot check for information as I do not speak either language. Preliminary research has shown it to possibly be an alternate name for Paraujano, but I could not find any definitive English-language proof of this. Multilingual user support requested.

Also cannot find any definitive proof that Coquivacoa is the name for Lake Maracaibo in Anu (or in Paraujano, if they are the same language). Wikipedia has an article for the term, but lists two different languages as potential origins, and also states that the term's usage as a word for the lake is debated. I cannot read the sources, though, as they are in Spanish, so if anyone can and is willing to verify the authenticity of these claims as they pertain to this article, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. NintendoRevolutionNR (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)