Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron/Archive 1

One lake or two
And in other news, it turns out that there's only one ocean on Earth (the Arctic-Atlantic-Indian-Pacific-Southern), the various "seas" are just a myth, and Michigan is itself actually two states, because there's a lake separating the two parts of it. OK, I'm being difficult; there's enough real-world usage of this term (e.g. NOAA, the US Amry, U of Wisconsin) to dispel the "original research" accusation I was going to make. But they'll always be two separate lakes to most people. And I appreciate that the article here doesn't take the tone ("historical inaccuracy in the naming", "mistakenly given two names", "incorrectly believed") of the referenced web page. Tverbeek 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, um...hopefully I've addressed that concern. :-p Tom e rtalk 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, then why was Lake Michigan deleted; it doesn't even exist as a redirect?Skookum1 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Move
To Lake Michuron, an easier-to-say portmanteau. 74.234.19.73 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

lakes
not 1 lake, they are both seprate lakes and need thir own articles.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They have their own articles: Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Pfly (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Largest lake in the world
According to List of lakes by area, the Caspian sea is in fact more than four times larger than Michigan-Huron, and Caspian Sea also reinforces its classification as lake (not a sea). Should this be revised? 24.208.253.57 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It could also be changed to 'largest freshwater lake.'24.208.253.57 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Caspian Sea is an ocean, not a lake. The Caspian lies over oceanic crust between continental plates; the Great Lakes are gouged out of continental crust. kwami (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so. A lake's definition is not connected to where it lies. Simply whether it's enclosed. The Caspian Sea is generally regarded as a saline lake. Macgroover (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?
I think that this page might be best deleted. It hasn't added any sources beyond one infoplease article, and a Google search for "lake michigan-huron" only turns up that one infoplease article along with a number of WP and WP-sourced hits. Since there doesn't appear to be such a thing as "Lake Michigan-Huron," I'm informally suggesting that this page be considered for deletion. Almondwine (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Geologically, there is no Lake Michigan, which is a bay of Huron-Michigan. We can fix refs, but should keep accurate material where possible. kwami (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers think that there is such a thing as "Lake Michigan-Huron."


 * The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: "Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered to be one lake hydraulically because of their connection through the deep Straits of Mackinac." http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/glscf/hydrology.html


 * The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: "Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered to be one lake, as they rise and fall together due to their union at the Straits of Mackinac." http://www.edisonsault.com/CustServ/USACOE%20LS%20WATER%208%2007.pdf Phizzy (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

3 articles for 2 lakes?
Why is there a Lake Michigan, Lake Huron AND a Lake Michigan-Huron article? --Mezaco (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a compromise. The water in question is almost always thought of as two lakes and and treated as two lakes, so merging those articles into a single one would be pushing a minority POV... and a mess.  But that POV is a credible scientific one, so the facts about it are documented in this article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

This article should probably get deleted/merged
This article seems constructed to promote the viewpoint that Lake Huron and Lake Michigan should be commonly referred to as a single lake because they have a hydrologic connection. (Lets see, by that reasoning, the earth has only one ocean) and the wording pretends that such has happened, despite immense sourcing and evidence to the contrary. Next, 90%-100% of the article consists of promotion of that naming point of view rather than coverage of the "topic" of this posited two part lake. I think that that speaks volumes.

The article gives no evidence of wp:notability of the term (e.g. coverage/sources per wp:notability) which is a requirement for existence of the article. The only ones given in essence say that that hydrologically they can be usually considered a single lake, which is about 1% of the "what is the name that is used" question. If the article were kept, it would need substantial rewording and probably renaming to comply with wp:npov. Or just cover this hydrological angle and naming viewpoint in the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan articles. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is common knowledge in intellectual collegiate level geographic, geologic and hydrologic circles that they are indeed one singular body of water. I am a geographer and the shared name comes up quite frequently in classroom discussion. As far as the argument about the ocean names...well lakes are not oceans and we typically name a singular freshwater body of water with one singular name.


 * Also when people hear the terms Atlantic, Pacific, Indian Oceans the prevailing thought is they are named areas of a singular body of water and commonly known to be part of the same system. However when your common man hears the term Lake Michigan or Lake Huron the average person is going to think those are two distinct and separate bodies of water.  So it is possibly misleading at best.


 * I do not believe this page should be deleted, I believe scientific facts should prevail over historical or common naming. In reality there is nothing else to call the system unless (other than Michigan-Huron) it receives a name because by definition it is an unnamed body of water.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.255.237 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Even the very short list of (presumably selected to promote the single-name idea) sources in this article refutes the assertion that the actual name is Michigan-Huron. The two real sources say that they are hydraulically one lake, and combine them when presenting hydrological data, but even those articles use "Michigan" and "Huron" when referring to simply the names of the lakes.  And the only other source is a web page putting forth the "single lake" opinion. An alternate to deleting would be to cover that they are hydraulically one lake.   And if there is a significant group that is promoting the single-name as being the name, we could cover that, but so far the sources fail to show that that exists as even a significant minority viewpoint.  Only one source, which is a statement of opinion on a web site. North8000 (talk)16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

People do use the name, though Keddy (2010) Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation uses "Lake Huron–Michigan". The Canadian Hydrographic Service uses "Lake Michigan-Huron" in English and Lac Michigan-Huron in French. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality makes a parenthetical mention that "Lake Huron-Michigan, at 45,300 mi2 / 117,400 km2, is technically the world's largest freshwater lake." As far back as 1910, the Congressional edition speaks of "Lake Michigan-Huron"; they hardly mention the two separately unless discussing one basin specifically. There have been plenty of sources to use the name since. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like a POV promotion for the alternative (not mainstream) view that this is the largest "lake" in the world: first by arguing that Michigan-Huron is one lake, then by arguing that the Caspian sea is not a lake. That's not really acceptable. This article should focus, if anything, on the hydrologic view that this body of water operates as one lake, not arguing rankings. Ryoung 122 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. I've said similar things (with supporting analysis/arguments) for some time.  We should edit it. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the name "Lake Michigan-Huron" does argue that they are a single lake, so of course an article on Lake Michigan-Huron would indicate that. Saying the two lakes are sometimes called one lake misses the point: hydrologically they are not two lakes. Statements like they were once "more separated" do not make any sense here, since they are not separate now. And while I agree that the Caspian question is unrelated, the recent edits did nothing to avoid arguing about rankings. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did some edits to partially resolve the problems that have been noted for 6 years in talk.  You reverted them all.  If you are saying that existence of the Michigan-Huron title obligates the article to argue for the unsourced fringe opinion that they are not just hydraulically a single lake but flatly a single lake, then you have just made a strong argument for deletion of the article, especially on the basis of being a POV fork. Is that what you really meant? North8000 (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly fringe, and I'm not going to rewrite the article for you. Take the Royal Canadian Geographical Society: "Contrary to popular belief, the largest lake in the world is not Lake Superior but mighty Lake Michigan-Huron, which is a single hydrological unit linked at the Straits of Mackinac. Of all the Great Lakes, Michigan-Huron is the least regulated..." (Canadian Geographic, 2004, 124:96.) Note that they make a flat pronouncement: HM *is* the world's largest lake. Not within hydrology: hydrology is merely the justification for the pronouncement. (Note the Army Corps of Engineers also makes a flat statement, though NOAA qualifies theirs as hydrologically.) And within hydrology, this has been considered a single lake since at least 1900 (the earliest data I can find on GBooks). Yes, outside hydrology it's generally considered two lakes, and so the bulk of our material is in separate articles on Lakes Huron and Michigan, which is as it should be. But whenever you speak of the water in the lake, rather than the shoreline or national borders (water flow, elevation, evaporation, etc.), "Michigan-Huron" is the norm. It is therefore incorrect to flatly state that they are two separate lakes, as you did. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood what I said; it was a bit much. To say it shorter but less precisely, if you are saying that the title or the article obligates (or empowers) it to push one particular POV, then you are giving a reason why it should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that. The subject reflects a certain POV, and so the article should reflect that POV. Basically, you're saying that the article should be deleted because you don't like the subject, which is not a valid argument. It would be like saying we should delete the article Lepidoptera because you disagree that butterflies are moths. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I took out all the Caspian Sea stuff, though, and qualified the ordering as (freshwater). — kwami (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You completely missed/mis-stated my point. My core point is that if that this article gets repaired into being a more neutrally worded article, then it would be OK.  Then you essentially said that the title dictates that the article not be neutral, it dictates that it should push a particular point of view. My following comment was that that statement of yours would be an argument for deletion of the article, at least by that title. If that were to happen, the only actually-sourced info on the duo (e.g. that they operate hydraulically as a single lake) could be covered elsewhere.  North8000 (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand. — kwami (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverted your recent changes. The edit summary for every one I checked was a misstatement; we also don't tag the lead. — kwami (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your revert undid 9 different edits, each edit gave a reason, most with policy-based reasons, including tagging of uncited (and as a sidebar, highly questionable) material. Just sayng overalll "The edit summary for every one I checked was a misstatement" misses by a mile. Do not remove tagging for sourcing without resolving. Or discuss here if you think that sourcing of challenged material is not required.    North8000 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The real solution (other that AFD of article) is to cover the concept that in some ways they can considered to be one lake or in some respects (level etc.) they can be treated as one lake.   We could  end up with a nice, sourced article on that topic with no need for tags, and I'd be happy to work with you on that.  Trying to war in unsourced and unsourcable material which implicitly or explicitly says that they are flatly one lake is only going to make a mess out of the situation. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your tags were spurious. One said the source needed to be verified because there was no page number, but there was a page number. Others were for citations in the lead, when the lead summarized cited statements in the body. You claimed that a note was not an adequate reference when it wasn't a reference, it was a note. You claimed that another ref did not say what was claimed, when AFAICT that is OR on the intention of the author, since it clearly said what was claimed. You haven't made a cogent argument that I can see. Spuriously tagging an article just because you object to the topic is not acceptable behaviour. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See note on your talk page. Please self-revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You're being disruptive. Raise a cogent point here and we can address it. — kwami (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The points are the entire list in the edit summaries. And the majority of those are that questioned material is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the edit summaries were spurious, I take it you have no legitimate point then. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Tagging the volume, area, etc. as "citation needed" is not constructive; those figures are not disputed, and can be pulled from any decent reference work (even one that presents the subject as two lakes). As I look at the bickering over whether it's one lake or two, it seems to me that it's an unnecessary question to settle. It's both. Culturally there are two lakes, and we have articles about them as such. Geologically there is one lake, and this article is about it as such. Might I suggest the following lede:
 * Lake Michigan–Huron is a body of water that consists of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, which join at the Straits of Mackinac. Considered as a whole, it is the largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest of the North American Great Lakes.  Hydrologically it is a single body of water and it is studied as such, but mainly because of the narrowness of the straits connecting its two parts, it is popularly regarded as two individual lakes. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems good. "Considered as a whole" is redundant, though. Maybe "As such" for the desired contrast from the two lakes? And the "parts" are normally called "basins". — kwami (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sourcing I disagree, the sources give names & data for Lake Huron and Lake Michigan and you would need to synthesize data and the name for the two put together. That IS the point. But some compromise on the article such as you are working towards would be fine.  A few other problems remain but they are sidebar. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. Calling that SYNTH would be like saying that our claim that M-H is culturally two lakes is SYNTH if we can't cite the number "two", because we're not allowed to count ourselves. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said/meant. Sourcing for naming aside, my "synthesizing" comment was on data.  I was saying that the "readily available" sourcing would inevitably be data on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and then synthesizing data for the "lake" Michigan-Huron from that.  For surface areas, adding them together, for volumes adding them together, and for depth taking the deeper number of the two lakes, for average depth add the volumes of the two lakes, divide by the sum of the areas of the two lakes and reconcile units,  and invent some plan for length (just adding the lengths two lakes would be wrong for any single "lake") and then declaring that those synthesized numbers are values for the Michigan-Huron.  The alternative would be to find a source that gives all of those numbers for Michigan-Huron, which is the sourcing I tagged it for which you removed the tags on.
 * The tagging / asking for sourcing was a policy-related approach to start working on the underlying content dispute across the two articles which is the correct naming: Lake Michigan & Lake Huron vs. Lake Michigan-Huron.  The, I felt it was not right to revert 9 edits, each with an edit summary with justification with one mass deletion with summery that was vague and dismissive at best. That's where I'm coming from if things got a little heated.   Hopefully we can back away from any "heat".  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've illustrated specifically how the edit summaries were spurious, and you haven't responded. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did you write those specifics? I don't see it.  North8000 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned them several times: page number, note ≠ ref, citing the lead, etc.
 * I see two of those three, and they are all small sidebar items to the main reverts which there is nothing specific on. The page # tag was appropriate at the time but the situation has now been fixed.  And I'd give in on your comment on the one tag in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Performing arithmetic is not SYNTH. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. And I think that I've shown that in this case is once or twice over a case of "is". Once is that the creative math and judgements calls needed for some of the combinations is far beyond the allowed simple calculations  (e.g. averaged depth and length.)   The other is presenting editor-created data as if it had come from a source, which is a misleading implicit statement that the source acknowledged the non-existent name and provided data for that name. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Credit us with a little common sense. Of course you can't add to lengths - that's basic geometry. But then this is a red herring, because no-one added lengths! As with your other arguments, this one is spurious.
 * You can, however, add areas. However, if you want a source, there's this:
 * Lake Huron-Michigan, at 45,300 mi2 / 117,400 km2 is technically the world's largest freshwater lake. This is because what have traditionally been called Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are really giant lobes of a single lake connected by the five mile wide Strait of Mackinac. 
 * (Dept. of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan.)
 * — kwami (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the above quote provides a misleading use of the reference just as the article did. The overall article listed the lakes as Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.  And, underneath the the Lake Michigan data, there was a parenthetical note which is what you quoted.  Out of context it makes it appear that the source was saying that the naming is Michigan-Huron when in fact overall it says the opposite.  Regarding calculations, you are repeating, not refuting what I said.  Some are simple enough where the math would not be considered wp:synth, but even those have an issue.  For example, if I went to source XYZ and it said that the population of the State of Nevada is 2,000,000 and for the State of California it's 20,000,000, even though the math is simple, that isn't a source for the statment "The Population of the State of NevadaCalifornia is 22,000,000, because that appears to say (and that statemetn asserts) that source XYZ said that the state name is NevadaCalifornia, which it didn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you're being obtuse again. That would be valid if we had a source that "NevadaCalifornia" were a state. Yes, the source discusses the five traditional Great Lakes, but then says that Michigan and Huron are "really" one lake. That's basically what we're saying. What you're arguing is in effect that we can't use them as a source in an article on any lake, because they don't have separate pages for each lake. Irrelevant. Your personal POV is clouding your ability to read the sources objectively. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are just firing volleys, parries and insults that don't make sense and ignore the core point of my dialog items. So there isn't a real conversation going on here. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you aren't raising cogent objections. Your whole argument is basically IDON'TLIKEIT, and if the sources disagree, they don't say what they say. — kwami (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's BS and you know it. If you ever want to have a real dialog, let me know. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bold move [re merge to Great Lakes]
I've boldly moved all the material from this article into the already existing section in the Great Lakes article, tagged them both with the "copied" template, and converted the former into a redirect to the section of the latter. Any claim that the teo lakes are actually one lake is totally WP:FRINGEy, and the specific circumstance supported by the references, that they can be considerd as one body of water hydrologically or hydraulically, is not notable enough for a separate article. The sourced information that was here is still extant on Great Lakes, so there's been no loss of inofrmation, just a change of venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has already been put up for AfD, and failed. Reverted per BOLD. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When was it put up for AfD? I just see a recent Prod by Bushranger. In any case, it appears that there is strong consensus for redirecting the article, with Beyond my Ken, North, Baseball Buggs and, now, me in support, and presumably Bushranger, too, as he recently prodded the article. I see only you objecting. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We've had other objections recently (read above). Don't remember when it was up for AfD, but it wasn't that long ago. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article history that I can find about an AFD and there is no Articles for deletion/Lake Michigan–Huron. Can you point to the AFD discussion?  GB fan 04:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a hearty FUCK YOU to constructive discussion and consensus. And people wonder why Wikipedia participation is declining. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some searching in Jstor and Google Scholar finds lots of references to "Lake Michigan-Huron", particularly in geology and hydrology articles but also some in botany, entomology, climatology, etc. I think some of the material can be used to expand the article, enough that a merge to the overview Great Lakes article doesn't seem appropriate. This seems like another situation where scientific and popular terminology don't quite coincide. It happens often enough (cookbooks say tomatoes are vegetables but botanists apparently consider them to be fruits; astronomers outraged Walt Disney fans by demoting Pluto from a planet to an escaped asteroid; engineers study the Dirac delta function but mathematicians say there is no such function, etc.) Wikipedia is a place for precision so it should reflect the scientific perspective on this issue as well as the popular one. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Those sources do not say that the naming is "Michigan-Huron".   They are ones where they might, for example, provide lake level data and combine (rather than repeat) the data for Lake Michigan and Lake Huron into a a single set of data labeling that chart "Michigan-Huron"  and then when they discuss the actual names of the lakes they use "Lake Michigan" and Lake Huron".    That was the way that the main references were misused in this article.   My previous effort was totry to tweak it to middle ground, whee we could discuss the ways that they behave as a single lake without making the claim on the naming.  But Kwamikagami reverted me on all of those.  So then I moved on to tagging the unsourced information and fixing the mis-use of references, and Kwamikagami reverted me on all of that en masse as well.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course they say that. Try reading them.
 * The Royal Canadian Geographical Society: "Contrary to popular belief, the largest lake in the world is not Lake Superior but mighty Lake Michigan–Huron"
 * There are signs along the trails on Lake Huron that say the same thing. (Never took a pic, unfortunately.)
 * This is of course minority usage. But minority usage in RS's is not the same as fringe.
 * — kwami (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This article should be redirected to Great Lakes. Far too many reliable sources discuss this topic as two lakes; far too few take them as one unit. The main point is that a lake is "a considerable body of inland water", according to Webster. The obvious fact that Huron is a "body" and Michigan is a "body" contributes to the popular mainstream concept that both bodies are individual lakes. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the popular conception. I don't think anyone disputes that. In hydrology, however, it is important to treat a single body of water as a body of water, which is why they don't follow popular conception. The lakes are normally only combined in hydrology, or in disciplines which depend on hydrology, with the occasional spill-over into popular accounts, such as the Canadian Geographic and InfoPlease articles. Europe and Asia are separate continents in the popular conception as well, but that doesn't mean that Eurasia should be a redirect to continent. And yes, a source may speak of M-H for lake levels, and then speak of M or H individually; but a source may also speak of Eurasia where that is appropriate and of Europe and Asia where those are appropriate, and that doesn't mean that Eurasia "doesn't exist". Yours is an excellent argument against merging the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan articles. However, it is not a good argument against having a third article.


 * A couple more sources:
 * "The response of Lake Superior was the smallest of the Great Lakes, while lakes Michigan-Huron, Erie, and Ontario were similar in their response over time and between emission scenarios. For Lake Michigan-Huron, the median changes in lake levels ..."
 * ('The response of Great Lakes water levels to future climate scenarios with an emphasis on Lake Michigan-Huron', Angela & Kunkel, Journal of Great Lakes Research, vol. 36, Supp. 2, 2010, pp. 51–58)
 * "Recent research indicates a shift in the timing and range of the seasonal lake-level cycle of Lake Michigan-Huron since 1860. The largest changes occur during the winter-spring transition. The objectives of this study are to (1) quantitatively assess seasonal variations in precipitation, runoff, and evaporation, (2) evaluate long-term trends in seasonal water supply to Lake Michigan-Huron, and (3) understand how variations in net basin supply at a seasonal timescale contributed to development of extreme lake levels recorded in Lake Michigan-Huron between 1920 and 1995."
 * ('Lake Level Response to Seasonal Climatic Variability in the Lake Michigan-Huron System from 1920 to 1995', Argyilan & Forman, Journal of Great Lakes Research, vol. 29, no. 3, 2003, pp 488–500)
 * (These are primarily directed to North8000's new argument that the name does not exist.)— kwami (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a straw-man misstatement of my argument. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. You said that sources do not use "Michigan-Huron" as the name of the lake. I provided a couple more which do. There's also Historical Variation of Water Levels in Lakes Erie and Michigan-Huron; another which speaks of 'the outlet water level gauge for Lake Michigan-Huron at Harbor Beach, Michigan'; Prehistorical Levels of Lake Michigan-Huron: Their Potential in Shoreland Planning; 'Thus Lake Michigan-Huron is the least sensitive of the [Great] lakes, while Lake St. Clair is the most sensitive'; etc. etc. Here's one which states that explicitly:


 * "The connection between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron through the Straits of Mackinac is so broad and deep that there is no flow between the two lakes and they are, in effect, one body of water, usually referred to hydraulically as Lake Michigan-Huron."
 * (Pierce & Vogt, 1953, 'Method for predicting Michigan-Huron lake level fluctuations', Journal (American Water Works Association))
 * — kwami (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Those all have qualifiers that basically say that they combined what they acknowledge to be Lake Michigan and Lake Huron for the purposes of and only in the context of a particular presentation or discussion such as level data. North8000 (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And who ever said anything different? They all acknowledge that 'Huron' and 'Michigan' are the popular names. They go on to say that for a scientific treatment they need to be treated as a single body of water. For any discipline where the physical body of water is relevant, it's M-H. Whenever it isn't relevant, people use the common names M and H. What you're claiming is that only the popular conception is notable, and that the scientific conception should be ignored. I disagree: both should be presented. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No what I'm saying is that the scientists are not saying that it is a name. If you superglue Dick and Jane together and shoot them out of a canon, a scientist studying the trajectory might say that they can be treated like one heavy person, and call it Dick-Jane in the graphs. That does not mean that they are saying the Dick-Jane is the name of a person or that they are one person or that the scientific view is that they are one person.   That is what I meant.  North8000 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether there needs to be a stand-alone article or not, but it certainly looks as though the articles Kwami cites are indeed using the term as a name for the naturally-existing entity (unlike your weak analogy to a wholely artificial construct). older ≠ wiser 03:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole "it's not a name" argument is bizarre. Even if it were true, we have many many articles with titles that are not names: that's not reason to delete them. We use whichever name, phrase, or descriptor best conveys the topic. In this case, that would be M-H regardless. — kwami (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We use whichever name, phrase, or descriptor best conveys the topic. Which, in this case, is to mention the wildly minority and specialised viewpoint that they are one lake briefly in Great Lakes, and that's it. We certainly don't edit-war to remove Lake Michigan and Lake Huron from lake lists. When 9001 people say X, and three people say Y, Y clearly doesn't "best convey the topic". - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we do: we use X for X, and Y for Y. Minority ≠ fringe, which you'd know if you were to read WP:FRINGE. Michigan and Huron are listed as separate lakes in both versions of the list; the edit war is to remove M-H without proper discussion, because several editors here want to present one POV exclusively. And here they want to delete an article which failed AfD just because they don't like it. That's not adequate reason. Beyond said he deleted the article per BOLD, but then he refuses to abide by it. Go through proper channels. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My analogy was to make the distinction.  A scientist can lump any two entities together for a particular moment for a particular purpose.  That does not mean that they are declaring that pair to be an entity overall.  Every of the the few references that I checked was this type of a situation....an editor mis-used the reference by listing that "moment" out of context and in reverse to what the source overall said on the topic. North8000 (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I read only one of the old refs that way. It appears to be OR on your part. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Recheck
Shall this be left as a re-direct to the Great Lakes article?


 * Support Per the immense amount of reasons and supporting material that has been given here, at List of lakes by area and wp:ani. There are particular aspects where they behave as a single lake (e.g. in discussions on levels) but those should be covered at the Great Lakes article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The material discussing the hydrology is so miniscule that a section of Great Lakes is sufficient. Otherwise, this "topic" is far outweighed by tens of thousands of references which could be brought to bear, the mass of them asserting two lakes. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As it is a specialized area of knowledge, I think a decent article could be written. It's both an interesting area of research, and a definitional exploration.  One which I was not aware of until I read it for the first time in Wikipedia, years ago.  The reference above to fringe seem bizarre, for this topic.  The one sense lake fact (not even theory) would logically seem to have so many implications in geologic history, ecology, international relations,  water use, etc. that it seems a useful perspective to explore in depth.  In my view, redirect is for topics which cannot be expanded upon, and which are not definitionally unique, but here the pedia can explore Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan Huron and the Great Lakes in separate articles. I wish it would. At any rate, it is vital to avoid copyright licensing violations that where text has been merged, the steps taken in WP:MERGETEXT be followed, so in that sense it would have to be a redirect, if it is not allowed to be recreated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a lake in the lit, and according to the Royal Canadian Geographic Society it's the largest lake in the world. No reason we shouldn't have an article for it. At the very least it needs to go through AfD. — kwami (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you refer to is an article in Canadian Geographic which is published by the Royal Canadian Geographic Society. It is not an expression of official policy of the Society, and you need to stop representing it as if it is. All the sources you provided are specifically concerned with how the two lakes can be dealt hydrologically, and are not statements that there is one lake and not two. Your continued miscitation of what these sources says is starting to verge on intellectual dishonesty.  Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I looked into the other two references and they were also creatively abused to push this idea. So badly abused that they were made to appear to say the opposite of what they actually said regarding the naming of the lakes...which they both said are Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.  I explained this in detail in my previous posts. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * God this is idiotic. Michigan-Huron is clearly the name of the lake in the larger sense. The fact that people normally use Michigan or Huron is also obvious, but does not negate the equally obvious scientific view. — kwami (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, are quire correct, your continued campign to overturn common understanding is indeed idiotic. There are, for everyone but you, two lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, and "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a construct only used when the two lakes are considered as a hydrological unit. What you can't seem to understand, is that hydrology is not the only factor that is considered when determining the identity of lakes. You're way out of your expertise here, and you're making a fool of yourself. 08:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The other aspects (such as how they are at the same level) can all be covered in the right place where people can find it, not hidden at an article titled by a wrong name for the lakes. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, of course, in the belief that the encyclopedia should reflect reality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean your reality, not the reality of our sources. — kwami (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I mean reality, the kind that happens when you stub your toe on a rock. As has been shown quite definitively, your sources do not support your contention in any way, shape or form, they merely support the contention that the two lakes can be considered as one hydrologically, and no amount of insistence on your part is going to change that, because anyone who wants to can actually read the sources and verify what they say.  I really have to wonder why you continue on this obviously doomed campaign, why you insist on pushing a POV which is neither supported by the sources nor by the consensus of editors.  I'm not going to speculate on your psychology, but I'm going to suggest that you try to step back and take a look at what you're doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What Kwamikagami said about sources is not correct. I checked the two used ones that were checkable and they also support that the names are Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.   They were mis-used to make it appear that they said the opposite of what they actually said regarding the names of the lakes. My previous posts provided the details on this.  North8000 (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - There is no evidence that this is one lake in sources beyond such a minority that they can be considered nothing but a fringe theory. Claiming that because sources say the lakes are hydrologically one unit means they are one unit in reality is WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Convenience break

 * Comment I take it this all arose in some unrelated dispute about a record list article; for record list articles, we should follow the conventions of published record lists. But that does not mean we should redirect long-standing substantive articles. There are multiple scholarly references to Lake Michigan—Huron in multiple scholarly contexts.  Subtantive articles are based around these --bringing the sources together.  Thus we have articles on Lake Huron but also Georgian Bay; Lake Michigan but also, Green Bay (Lake Michigan) (all waters that are the same, but also different).  The job of our articles is not to confirm or debunk popular conception, it is to inform on multiple scholarly conceptions.  We gather these together in coherent arrangements also used by scholars (not scattered all over the Pedia).  Here is just one list of references for "Lake Michigan—Huron" (it is terminology that has been used for a century, at least):
 * Precipitation and the levels of Lake Michigan-Huron. Journal Geophysical Research, 64, 1591-1595. BURG, J. P (1959)
 * Seed Banks in Diked and Undiked Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. Bradley M. Herrick, Michael D. Morgan, Amy T. Wolf American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 158, No. 1 (Jul., 2007), pp. 191-205
 * On Grouping for Maximum Homogeneity. Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 53, No. 284 (Dec., 1958), pp. 789-798
 * Lake Breezes and Summer Rainfall. Jay R. Harman, John G. Hehr Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 375-387
 * The Establishment of Michigan's Boundaries: A Study in Historical Geography. George J. Miller Bulletin of the American    Geographical Society, Vol. 43, No. 5 (1911), pp. 339-351
 * Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 281, 1-61 (1976) Printed in Great Britain FREE SURFACE OSCILLATIONS AND TIDES [] BY C. H. MORTIMER, F.R.S. AND E.J. FEEt Center for Great Lakes Studies, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, U.S.A.% WITH A SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE AND FIGURE BY C. H. MORTIMER, D. B. RAO AND D.J. SCHWAB (Received 17 September 1973Revised 14 March 1975) - THE LAKE MICHIGAN-HURON SPECTRA (captailzation in original)
 * Postglacial Landscape Evolution of Northeastern Lower Michigan, Interpreted from Soils and Sediments. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 443-466
 * Variation in Lake Huron Levels and the Chicago Drainage Canal. Mark Jefferson Geographical Review, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1930), pp. 133-137
 * Measurement, Correlation, and Mapping of Glacial Lake Algonquin Shorelines in Northern Michigan. Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 92, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 399-415
 * The American Manufacturing Belt. Geografiska Annaler, Vol. 9, (1927), pp. 233-359
 * The Lakes-to-the-Gulf Deep Waterway: I Journal of Political Economy Vol. 20, No. 6 (Jun., 1912), pp. 541-573
 * Recent Water Declines in the Lake Michigan—Huron System, Enviro. Sci. Technol. (2008) 42, 367-373

Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is doubting the existence of the hydrological concept called "Lake Michigan-Huron", what is being fought over is two contentions. The first is whether this conceit is significant enough to warrant its own article, and the second, more important one, is the claim that for other non-hydrological purposes - such as measuring volume and area - "Lake Michigan-Huron" should usurp the individual identities of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.  There has been not a single reference presented in the Lake Michigan-Huron article (before it was converted to a redirect) to support this view, all the references are specifically about hydrology.  If any of the references above supports the notion that Lakes Michigan and Huron are not separate lakes, but are in actuality for all purposes one entity called "Lake Michigan-Huron", would you please point it out, I would like to try and track it down and read it.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Beyond My Ken, and emphasizing one point. The core question is the NAMING to be used to these lakes. North8000 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one doubts that there is the concept of Lake Michigan—Huron, than that suggests an article on it is warrented given the extensive scholarly sourceing on the concept. Lake Michigan-Huron is a concept for all purposes that scholarship warrents it for (eg. geologic history, ecology, international relations,  water use, transport, etc.) I know of nothing that suggests it does not also exsist along side the concept of Lake Michigan and the concept of Lake Huron. For volumns and surface area, to the extent they have "non-hydrologigical purposes", I don't know why it would matter to the exitence of this article. For other articles, one would use the sourceing apprpopate for those articles (but that should be discussed on those articles, not here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, whether or not there should be a separate article is one dispute. "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a relatively minor concept, basically in one field, and is covered now in an appropriate place, the Greal Lakes article, to the extent that the sourcing provided allows.  If you or anyone else wish to access any of the above references to expand what's in the current section, that would lend weight to the argument that it needs a separate article. As it stands now, though, a section in an omnibus article is all that's called for. You say "I know of nothing that suggests [Lake Michigan-Huron] does not also exsist along side the concept of Lake Michigan and the concept of Lake Huron", but that is essentially the argument being made, that, for instance, lists of lake volumes and areas should not include Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, but should include Lake Michigan-Huron. That's what Kwamikagami is pushing for, and he's done so by misquoting references to say what they don't, misrepesenting references so that, for instance, a magazine article in Canadian Geographic becomes the official policy of the Royal Canadian Geographic Society, and replacing Lakes Michigan and Huron with Lake Michigan-Huron in lists. His focus on the single-lake construct basically turns reality on its head: instead of two lakes which can be considered as one for specific purposes, he intends that we speak of only one lake with two lobes.  That's terribly WP:FRINGEy, and not supported by the references he provided or, I gather from your last comment, from the ones on your list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever the editors bad acts, we don't take it out on content, and if he is doing those things he shouldn't. (To use a water analogy, it seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water) The scholarship in different areas supports the two bay analysis or the two lake analysis, (or you can just look at almost any map and see the two lakes labeled there). I haven't looked for lake ranking lists.   I haven't found it particularly relevant to this topic (and it seems somewhat trivial). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite relevant, since it's part of a pattern that goes well beyond this article. And I believe you are incorrect in giving both concepts equal weight.  One is the generally accepted viewpoint, the other is significant only in very limited circumstances.  The information in the current section is what can be substantiated by the current references.  As I said, if you want to expand it using new references, that would be great, but nothing is being "taken out" on the content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by equal weight. They are useful for different things, or for thinking about variuos things, according to scholarship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly true. The single-lake concept is used for a very limited number of things, and the two-lake concept is used for everything else.   That's why they don't have equal weight, because they're not equally useful.  But even if you and I diagree on that, there's certainly nothing in the scholarship which says that the single-lake concept should have hegemony over the two-lake concept, which is what Kwami appears to be trying to bring about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If he claims hegemony, he has to produce reliable sources that state that directly; just as in any topic on the pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem. To adduce a quite analogous situation on a larger scale, mentioned already under – all the world's oceans are, technically speaking, really a single ocean, for which we have a separate article: World Ocean. So why should we not have an additional, separate article Lake Michigan–Huron? Nobody is proposing to delete the articles on the individual oceans and seas – nor the opposite. They can peacefully exist side by side, as different perspectives on a single topic, all equally valid but used in different situations (hence, no POV forks), so why can't the lakes? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We should. FYI,  There is also a discussion at:Talk:Great Lakes in which a user is proposing recreation.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Since some people have in the past accepted Beyond My Ken's misstatements, I figure I should debunk him yet again. I have never claimed that Lakes Huron and Michigan "don't exist", only that they are technically a single body of water, which as others have shown is supported by the lit. I've been surprised by the number of otherwise rational editors who insist that MH doesn't exist. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Then, perhaps, we can get some work done.  -- No  unique  names  04:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to comment at Talk:Great Lakes where the merge discussion is occurring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Florian Blaschke. I see no reason that this article shouldn't exist in addition to the individual lake articles . Mojoworker (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied from user talk page
From my talk page, when I asked North8000 to demonstrate rather than simply assert his argument. — kwami (talk)


 * OK, looking at the 4 references given, one had so little info that it was uncheckable. Now with more info that has been upgraded from "uncheckable" to "very hard to check" being a 7 year old issue of a magazine.   Here is the story on the other three:
 * NOAA: Used "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" as the names of the lakes. Used "Michigan-Huron" only as an adjective to specify the combined basin area.
 * Army Corp Article Used "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" as the names of the lakes. It presented a lot of level data, and since Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are at the same level, rather than duplicating they combined it and labelled the data in the chart as "Michigan-Huron.
 * "One lake or two?" article. Used "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" as the names of the lakes.  Said that they should have been name the combined lake M-H but aren't.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In each case somebody took "not a statement of name" use out of context and made it falsely appear to be a statement of name by that article. In fact all three articles gave :Lake Huron and Lake Michigan as the names of the lakes.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You do admit that the lake exists, correct? Then the question is what to call it. These [M-H and H-M] are the only two labels for it in the lit that I can see. Arguing that we should delete [merge] an article because the title is not its true name would mean deleting thousands of WP articles that have phrasal titles. And accepting it as a section under the same name in the Great Lakes article is irrational: You're contradicting yourself. None of this makes any sense.
 * That is not a NOAA quote. It's been misattributed. I corrected it (it's actually the EPA), but of course was reverted. In any case, it's not being used as support for the name, only for the existence of the lake, so your argument here is spurious.
 * Army Corps: Again, this is being used to support the existence of the lake, not a particular name.
 * "One Lake or Two?" is only being used as a cite for the size of the straits, though they're clear H and M are "lobes" of a single lake.
 * The full Royal Canadian Geographic al Society quote runs,
 * ''Contrary to popular belief, the largest lake in the world is not Lake Superior but mighty Lake Michigan-Huron, which is a single hydrological unit linked at the Straits of Mackinac. Of all the Great Lakes, Michigan-Huron is the least regulated; water levels in lakes Superior and Ontario are controlled by locks and dams, and even Lake Erie levels are influenced by retention structures on the Niagara River. So Michigan-Huron, the default lake for the system, experiences some of the most extreme fluctuations in water levels and is, accordingly, the most telling barometer of the state of the water supply in the entire system. In July 1997, Michigan-Huron's mean water level was 177.19 metres above sea level, not far off the lake's all-time high, set in 1986, according to the Canadian Hydrographic Service, an agency of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Then it began to fall, which wasn't unusual in itself, since the level of all the Great Lakes fluctuates seasonally and from year to year. But this time, the speed of the decline was unprecedented. By January 2000, the lake was at the 175.92-metre mark, a fall of 127 centimetres in 2½ years. It rebounded slightly, but over the winter of 2002–03, it fell 60 centimetres, twice the usual seasonal fall. And by March, it was 175.73 metres, just 15 centimetres above the record low set in 1964. It has been low ever since.
 * They then switch topics with new paragraph. They are clearly speaking of it as a single lake, and calling that lake 'Michigan-Huron'. It's available on GBooks if you don't believe me.
 * The State of Michigan DEQ says,
 * Michigan is the third largest Great Lake (although Lake Huron-Michigan, at 45,300 mi2 / 117,400 km2 is technically the world's largest freshwater lake. This is because what have traditionally been called Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are really giant lobes of a single lake connected by the five mile wide Strait of Mackinac.)
 * and then repeat themselves at Lake Huron. Here they use the name, and note that even though they follow the popular conception, it's technically incorrect.
 * So how, given that, can you argue that Michigan-Huron / Huron-Michigan is not the name? And even if it's not the name, how is that an argument for merging the article under that same name? What is your point, because I'm not following. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

[end of copied material — kwami (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)]


 * That, 99.999999% or 100% sources which make a statement of what the name is say that it is two lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, including the sources that you are mis-using. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On your other question my "Plan A" was repair, not merger of the article. Your aggressive reversions made that impossible. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 14 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) 22:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This should obviously be the primary discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on CLOSING: This discussion should be closed, in favor of the discussion at Talk:Great Lakes. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the history?
The current history shows a move in Febuary 2012 but no history before that (ie creation, etc.) -- for Five years. Why is that and it should be corrected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a complete history of the article from creation in June 2005 through September 2012. GB fan 17:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then that link is what needs to be in the Merge box above then what is there currently there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)  Maybe, it has something to do with the m-dash? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was and n-dash -- fixed nowAlanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"System" Google hits

 * "Lake Michigan-Huron" system -wikipedia &mdash; 973,000 Google hits
 * "Lake Michigan-Huron" -system -wikipedia &*mdash; 61,800

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And this suggests what conclusion? older ≠ wiser 19:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That "Lake Michigan-Huron" is not a "lake" as we generally consider it, but a hydrological system of two lakes, as is supported by the references in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Great Lakes are a system. (Try a Gsearch.) Per our refs, M-H is technically a lake. What you're arguing is that popular conception trumps science if they conflict, a POV more often seen on the astrology and homeopathic articles. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course the Great Lakes are a system, Lake Michigan-Huron is a system within the system. And you may repeat it as often as you like, but your references do not suppor the contention that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a lake in anything other than a very limited sense, for specific purposes. Anyone reading the sources will see that clearly, and no new sources have been provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Among the sources for the "popular conception" are most, if not all, atlases and history books. I have added a reference to a book, "Lake Michigan in Motion", that probably represents the proper balance between the terms. It discusses "Michigan-Huron" in two places - a chapter on water levels and flows, and a three-page section in the context of seiches and tides. The rest of its 310 pages discusses Michigan as a separate entity. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * this source also points out that the separate names are "legally institutionalized since Lake Michigan is treated as American and Lake Huron is bisected by the international boundary between the United States and Canada." RockMagnetist (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just on that last bit, it should be approached with some caution. It is true that the Great Lakes are bisected by the boarder (Michigan being the sole exception).  However, international commission, treaties and law still have certain governance over Michigan, unlike, for example, Great Salt Lake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to find more authoritative sources on this issue than the link I provided. Do you know how to find them? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was mostly thinking of this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Beyond My Ken, and we have an article at Great Lakes not Great Lakes system. So what? I really don't understand why people object so strongly to this article. No one is suggesting that this article displace the articles on Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. I really, really, don't understand how North8000 (and others) read the same sources as I and reach such diametrically opposite conclusions. It seems quite obvious that Lake Michigan-Huron (or Huron-Michigan) is a real concept, granted in a specialized context, but verifiable nonetheless and far from a fringe theory. This whole discussion (and the kangaroo court at ANI) is really rather bizarre. older ≠ wiser 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my position. I have no "strong objection" to a separate article, it's simply my judgment that it's not really necessary, and a section in Great Lakes is sufficient -- but if having a separate article makes people happy, I'm not fighting it.  I also have no objection to the content of this article as it stands (which is the same as the latest version of the content that was in Great Lakes), which is quite different from what it once was.  The article before the FRINGE/POV material was removed was not focused on the specific circumstances under which Lake Michigan-Huron is a valid concept in, as you say, a "specialized context" (i.e. hydrology), instead promoting the position that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron were merely lobes of Lake Michigan-Huron.  No reference that has been provided has supported that contention, and not a single reference justifies the inclusion of the "specialized context" Lake Michigan-Huron in lists of lakes, as has been promoted as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)No one IMHO is debating the hydrological connection between the two lakes. No one is debating that there is information of merit in this article. The entire problem arose when one editor decided to enter this article as a Wikilink in the List of lakes by area here, entirely ignoring the fact that such a lake does not exist. Bodies of water are named largly as a matter of political convenience and have long historic connotations. Hydrology is but one factor. Lake Michigan-Huron does not exist! It isn't on any map, it isn't recognized in any treaty between the two countries that it lies in. Hence, I would suggest the best solution to this problem is to rename this article Hydrology of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. That way it cannot be entered as a Wikilink in such lists as above and its title actually reflects what it is about. I don't even think the editor who is making all the waves here would contend that we will ever see a map with "Lake Michigan-Huron" on it. The article here is about geology (Hydrology); geography is the discipline that draws maps and has many concerns other than geology. Lake names come from maps! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gtwfan52, you have your facts wrong, again. Huron-Michigan has been in the article for years, and I'm not the one who put it there: — kwami (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LONGTIME Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply correcting the record, Ken. Like when you falsely accused me of disrupting redirects, and it got me blocked because an admin took you at your word without bothering to fact check. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwami, you need to take the mote out of your eye. You were changing the redirect well before this article was re-created, and each time you did a bot had to come along and fix it because you created a double redirect. It got you blocked, and rightfully so, but you managed to talk your way out of it.  Fine, that's life on Wikipedia.  All that is of no matter now, the problem now (and, indeed, the problem for quite some time) is that you cannot recognize a consensus when you see it.  How you ever survived so long as an admin before you were defrocked, I'll never know -- but, after all, that's life on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have come up with a better way of handling the list problem - see Talk:List_of_lakes_by_area and the text just above it. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job. Discuss sources. Who knew? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed resolution from the guy who started all of this

 * If Kwamikagami agrees not to use existence of a Michigan-Huron article to try to wedge "Michigan-Huron" into the List of lakes by area and List of lakes by volume articles and
 * If Kwamikagami agrees that uses of the term "Michigan-Huron" be limited (as they currently are in the body of the article) to "in context" uses and not explicit or implicit assertions that that is the name of that water such as were in the article 10 days ago.
 * Then I would support the idea of a separate article.
 * That combined with other input would just sort of let this RFC and it's twin go on hold and eventually fade out if all goes well.
 * See how it goes, including seeing if the above can become a sort of de facto road map. More folks please watch these articles to keep crazy stuff from happening.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I for one am now watching. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We already have a formal merge discussion, which seems destined to end in (near-)consensus for a separate article. This proposal of yours is not likely to change the outcome and seems better suited to Kwamikagami's talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) Can't go there. Kwamikagami said I can't post there because I "have nothing intelligent to say" and deleted my last post. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know which one of the two you are talking about. Certainly neither gets to claim to be THE discussion, doubly so for the one not on the article page. I've not weighed in on the one on the Great Lakes talk page. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I claim that the one on the Great Lakes page is the main discussion because it is the one the merge tags are pointing at, and because it is where Help:Merging recommends the discussion should be. It is also where notices on the relevant Wikiprojects are pointing. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * North, I am confused by your reference to RfC? Are you using that in an informal sense?  Or can you just point to the noticed RfC(s)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant that in an informal sense. The overall discussion is going on in 7 places, and there are at least 2 places that I know of where there is a "merge vs. separate?" discussion with various people weighing in.  And. to make things more complicated, "merge vs. separate" is actually a secondary question / tangent which would leave the main stuff  yet to be resolved.    I was attempting to propose something that would settle it all in one fell swoop.   North8000 (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although, the two merge/separate discussions do have overlapping participation and others who have since indicated they are not opposed to having separate articles (including the user who performed the merge). Also, in the merge discussion, Dan, who is said to have some expertise had offered to work on content for this article. Conduct issues should probably be separated out. The lists are being worked out on those pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my fault if it appeared so, but I am NOT discussing conduct issues. I think that it is my fault/oversight that it appeared that way in my proposal above, and my apologies to Kwamikagami for that.  My goal is only to avoid the articles slipping back to the problematic state where they were two weeks ago.  I think that the only person who has ever made changes towards those types of issues was Kwamikagami, and so rather than trying to through get the complex situation of a muli-person development & agreement to a roadmap, I went with the short cut of asking that if Kwamikagami would agree with it, and, if so, figure that we're set.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no indication that you understand the issues. Last time I asked if you could explain the basic concept here, you answered with "??", which suggests you didn't even understand the question. If you don't know what you're talking about, how is your input relevant? — kwami (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The question marks were on your question which at best wasn't clear. It appeared to challenge me to support a position that is opposite mine in order to justify my actual position. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Facts aren't "positions". I asked to see if you understood the issues. It appears that your position is at odds with the facts, which are amply demonstrated in the merge discussion. If you do not understand that they are physically one body of water, then you cannot understand the discussion and cannot contribute meaningfully. — kwami (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Lake Michigan–Huron–Georgian Bay
Thought this was relevant. At NOAA, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Georgian Bay are treated as three lobes of one body of water. (Schematic here.) And on another page, all three are listed separately, though if you go into the hydrology of any of them you'll find they're recombined into Michigan–Huron. This is in line with other scientific sources: physically one lake, but when not considering the physics/hydrology, treated as two lakes (or in this case three). — kwami (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The logical core of the lake debate
(This what I posted on Kwamikagami's talk page. They responded saying essentially that my post shows how dumb I am (which they subsequently reworded)   The deleted my response to that and said I'm not to post there because I "have nothing intelligent to say" and so I'm putting it here.)

(this concerns the "lake" question, NOT the "separate article" question)

Kwamikagami, "Lake" is a word in the English language, not fundamental nature of the universe. This whole debate comes down to and logically hinges on "what is a lake?":


 * Our definition is, in short, if the world & society (e.g. map makers, writers, historians, books, the newspapers, the media, the human race) has defined it as a lake or considers it to be a lake, it's a lake, and vica versa. Same with continents and oceans. How the world decides can be based on an agglomeration of factors; high on that list would be to what extent it is surrounded by land, and, within that, whether the nature of the inevitable inlet(s) and usual outlet is such as to not prevent it from being called "surrounded". Other factors doubtless include definitions in dictionaries, historical, the sizes of inlets and outlets in proportion to the lake, how it appears on a map, whether it caught on when a king said it was a lake 800 years ago  etc. etc. . The world has decided that North America and South America are continents, even though they are joined by land. They have words to describe the combination of the two (e.g. "the americas" in context when it is useful) but even then there is not the assertion that "the Americas" is a named continent. An extreme version of this is Europe and Asia and the combined word "Eurasia".   By the natural geographical definition applied to the other continents, "Eurasia" would be a continent, but the world has decided that it is not, (even though they use the word "Eurasia" when it is useful.) and that Europe and Asia are continents.


 * Your definition is apparently one or both of these:
 * If water has a sufficiently strong connection to keep them both at essentially the same level, it is a single "lake"
 * If you can find a source or writer that uses the words hyphenated together in some context or asserts that they are a single lake or combines them for the purposes of a particular discussion or graph then it is all one "lake". Or possibly your actual definition is #1 and you use #2 to support that in a wiki-debate.

So regarding the meaning of the word "Lake" with regard to the water in question, it comes down to the world vs. Kwamikagami. Even the sources which you are trying to use to support you actually refute you when you read them fully (vs. pulling bytes out of context) They all acknowledge and use "Lake Huron" and "Lake Michigan" as the actual names and entities. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Notice to other editors: Apparently, everyone here who acknowledges Lake Michigan–Huron, and all the sources which speak of it, are socks of me. Sorry, but you don't actually exist. — kwami (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? Who said anything about socks? North8000 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Refocus
Might I ask for a refocus for this page? The issues here are much narrower then "what is a lake" and will not be usefully approached by users saying to each other 'it exists!';'it does not exist';'You don't know what your talking about; no, you don't know what your about' (By definition, "The 'Platonic' Lake" does NOT EXIST -- but HERE, whatever it is, it does exist). Everyone agrees and no one can deny that no one on Wikipedia made it up. That being the case, we just need to reflect the literature's definition (or definitions) of it, and the literature's implications from it.

Merge proposals have no minimum time limit but a week seems like a good time to leave it open (to see if consensus is reached). Someone could start an AfD (but I doubt there is any basis for that). Which means all we have to do is focus on content on this page based on the literature. There is no requirement or need that anyone persuade anyone else to see everything the way they do about lakes, continents, or other things. If intractable content issues should arise, we have other forums to work that out but remember there is no time limit and the focus is the sources and reflecting those in the article, not whether we totally like each other's ways of thought about 'what is a lake' (at least, for this article, see lake). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The core problem is that Kwami is obsessed with pushing ths fringe viewpoint, and the admins refuse to take any action. Until that problem goes away, there is no chance for improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have invoked the snowball clause to close the debate as no consensus. Really, the debate has been going on for much longer than a week and, if anything, there is a near-consensus not to turn it into a redirect. I agree with Alanscottwalker – there is plenty to say about the lakes that does not fall on either side of this tedious and fruitless debate. So let's get off the talk page and start adding content! RockMagnetist (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations - You have just handed today's Edit War Victory trophy to this Kwami guy who's been blocked for edit-warring several times, and will continue to do so now that he's gotten the green light. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, I had to undo the close. First off "snow" doesn't apply.  Second, there was never a question about a "move" the entire discussion was about a merge.  Finally, the close was premature.  Please let the discussion run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to reopen a debate, you should open the one at talk:Great Lakes. This debate doesn't have a clear rationale and frequently wanders off topic. In the absence of any contributions by supporters of a merge at talk:Great Lakes, I did my best to paraphrase your only relevant argument - that there isn't enough material to warrant a separate article. The result on that page is so far 10 votes in opposition and no votes in favor.


 * I don't think you understand the snowball clause. To quote: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." Note that there needs to be a consensus to merge, but a lack of consensus will result in no merge. In other words, you should reopen the debate only if you think that you have a killer argument that will persuade all those people to change their votes.


 * Baseball Bugs – a closed merge discussion doesn't hand a victory to anyone. Merging and NPOV are entirely distinct issues. There are now more eyes on this page and I have started to add citations and content. If everyone else did that they would do more for this article than all this argument.RockMagnetist (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand WP:BRD. You made a Bold close, that's fine.  I disagreed and Reverted, that's fine.  The next step is to Discuss, but not to revert back hile discussion is going on. Please do not revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, by closing inappropriately, you did precisely the opposite of what you intended to do. You attracted attention to the previous discussion at the expense of what was requested, to "refocus" on the content.  Your error was in thinking that closing a debate which is not settled shuts down the issues -- it does not.  Only a close recognized by all or most of the parties involved as appropriate does that -- so if you want to refocus on the content, just do that, and let other discussions continue.  There's nothing that says they cannot go on at the same time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I hope was clear, I see no necessity for a close today. Just let it run down and then be closed. It did still seem to be getting some participation (even if in one direction) and there was not disruption involved in it.  It was opened in response to an arguably hasty merge, so why even seem to be arguably hasty the other way?  (Also, for whatever reason, weekend closes seem to draw objection from week-dayers). So, if someone objects in good faith, leave it open for now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I was doing everyone a favor, given that a lot of people feel obliged to talk on both pages. People are just too emotionally invested in this issue. I can't believe how much time I have wasted on this - I'm going to go away for a while and do something useful. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you are trying to do the right thing, all the way around (and I don't understand the emotions, either.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The apparent emotional investment (and I believe it's probably somewhat less than it appears to be) is most likely engendered by the belief (on both sides of the issue) that editors on the other side have misbehaved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Like when you made a Bold edit, were reverted, and then instead of discussing re-reverted, the exact thing you just condemned RockMagnetist for? — kwami (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm near-neutral on the merge/ separate discussion. While a discussion on that should occur in order to have a resolution, I think that it is a sidebar/distraction to the main issues. At the moment the main issues are already (temporarily) solved, but I believe that, based on their behavior, Kwamikagami is going to hammer the articles long term to re-introduce the problems. A separate article would make the problem worse, but reducing one editor's ability to do damage should not drive such decisions. Long story short, I think that the main issues will remain solved if lots of the people involved here put the 2-3 involved articles on their watchlist permanently and participate as they deem fit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This whole thing seems to be more about settling scores with Kwami (no, North8000, I'm not referring to you) than dealing with the merits of the issue. I'm perfectly happy to keep this article on my watchlist, especially if the alternative is to delete an article about a useful viewpoint, salt it against re-creation, and bury mention of the topic in Great lakes where it can be subsequently deleted by someone who doesn't like it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW I have no emotions towards Kwami and no past experience with them other than at articles over this issue. Their whole approach in conversations has been to continuously fire volleys, and to seemingly avoid listening to anything that people say except as needed to formulate a dismissive volley/parry  . Those assessments affected what I developed as a proposed solution.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

An attempt at a synthesis
I have now read and ruminated on most of the pertinent material across all the various relevant places. I want to have a go at laying out some hopefully uncontroversial thoughts on where the various pages associated with LM-H might be going in an ideal world.

1. Lake Michigan-Huron. Looking at the merge discussion on Talk: Great Lakes, I think this i pretty solidly recognised as notable and worth having an article on. Article needs to describe why it is recognisably "a thing" prominently up-front. The aim here should be to explain clearly and very NPOV why this usage is restricted, i.e., why the separate lake terminology is preferred in many cases. Body text talks about the interesting hydrology. I think an uncontroversial statement like "Some sources [ref to e.g., that Canadian Geographic article, and probably some others that have showed up] have recognised the single body of Lake Michigan-Huron as the largest lake in the world, but due to the relative narrowness and shallowness of the connecting straits, and historical naming conventions, most authors compiling lists of large lakes describe the two lakes of Michigan and Huron separately," would be warranted somewhere in the article (and actually a factually accurate summary of the situation, I think!?). The wording of that needs work, but I think everyone understands the tenor of what I'm trying to say.

2. Great Lakes. A small section remains, essentially as a highly condensed version of the LM-H article (-> it's lead paragraph, used verbatim?). "See main article" link probably appropriate. Essentially no other reference to LM-H anywhere else.

3. Lists of lake areas by area/volume. User:RockMagnetist has this right. Use referenced lists only. If someone can find a full list which incorporates LM-H, then the lead paragraph needs to be altered to explain the conflict. Assuming this can't be found, I think there may be a case for reference to occasional sources citing LM-H as the largest lake in the notes only, but that this is not widely recognised. Even if someone does turn up a reference list with LM-H in place, it seems already apparent that the balance of evidence favors the "conventional" positioning of the two lakes separately; the only real difference is probably a formal couple of sentences up top explaining the problem, rather than just a note in the table.

...and I'm sure I've forgotten an article or two. Someone remind me. It's worth noting for me that this kind of thing happens all the time on "List of XXX-est things" articles, and we really ought to be able to find a sensible way to sort this out, as my feeling is this is where the root of the bad blood is in this dispute. And we should all be really glad that this is relatively esoteric, and doesn't involve any actual geopolitical or ethno-social wrangling. Because life is waaaay to short for that stuff.

Thoughts on this? DanHobley (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much the status quo right now, except that your suggestion re: this specific article would, I believe, weaken it, since it opens up the completely unsouced contention that Lake "M-H" is a lake in the same sense as Lake M and Lake H, which it is not -- that's a classic case of a category error. (The David Lees article is aimed at a popular audience, and "guess what, you're wrong about what the largest lake in the world is" is basically a hook for the reader, and not something to take seriously fr our purposes.) The article as it is now has the right balance of perspective.  More hydrological info is fine, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree in part here. It's not our business to go weighing some arbitrary measure of "lake-ness", this is what got us into this mess in the first place. To my mind the facts are: a. Plenty of solid sources (see the peer-reviewed literature, e.g., here) have described LM-H as a lake, with no elaborate hedging on the term, but b. it's very reasonable to say that this usage, while not actually WP:FRINGE, is less common and less well recognised. This isn't a category error as such, as there's no implied "rightness" or "wrongness". "Less widely recognised" is not the same as "wrongly classified", as common geographical features are very seldom crisply or uniformly defined. This is the root problem - we don't agree on what our definition for "lake" actually is (i.e., which of the various options is the one we should be using). So category errors can't be defined adequately.
 * BUT... I actually agree the current article is actually at about the right balance of perspective (Now I look back at my pt 1, and compare to the text as of right now, I'd say this version does what I've outlined). I find something clunky in the way the first sentence is phrased, but that's just semantics; the intent and meaning is totally correct. Where I'm saying we should recognise some dispute, we already do at the right levels.
 * OK, so having typed all that, I've concluded we differ a bit on our definitions of "lake", but the current text is actually doing a pretty good job of making us both happy regardless. Are we getting somewhere? :-) DanHobley (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful to think in terms of the terminology that some scientists utilize, which is "Lake Michigan-Huron system" -- I think that, even if it's not actually said, that is what "Lake Michigan-Huron" actually means in the hydrologocal sense. Certainly, that the sense that the references support. (Whoever was the first to call it "Lake" Michigan-Huron didn't know what a can of worms they were opening up! If only they'd have said "Michigan-Huron system"!) In some ways, I think of this category error as eqivalent to the "theory" problem. In real life, a "theory" is a mere idea, tentative, unsupported or poorly supported by evidence, perhaps even speculation. "Why is Lola such a pain in the neck?" "My theory is she was spoiled as a child."  So people bring this everyday definition with them when they run into something like the Theory of Evolution, not realizing that in the sciences, a "theory" is something radically different, it's an overarching structure which explains many things, is supported by much evidence, and generates new ideas which can be tested.  Yes, it's still tentative, but only in the sense that all science is tentative and must be overthrown if it cannot explain new data.  To use the everyday sense of "theory" and apply it to a scientific theory is a category error: both senses are "true", but only in their own domain. Here, the same thing is true of "lake". That "Lake Michigan-Huron" exists is true, but only in the specific domain of hydrology.  (Perhaps in other scientific domains as well, but we've seen no citations to support that yet.) In the more general world of geography, politics and so on, one can certainly say that the system of Lake M. and Lake H. exists, just as we can say that the system of the Greal Lakes exists, but the only "lakes" that are recognized are Michigan and Huron, to try to shoehorn "Lake Michigan-Huron" in there is another category error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It simply depends on what you consider a lake: whatever happens to be called a "lake" for historical reasons, or whatever is a physical body of water. When dealing with the physical body of water, it is of course the latter that is important; for most other situations, it's the former. But it's not just a system: The Great Lakes are a system; the whole point here is that this is more than that, that it is hydrologically one body of water. What you think they might have meant by what they said is moot: what we go on is what they said. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I have no trouble considering Michigan-Huron as a "lake" and think some of the sources describe it a a simple lake, albeit usually with some explanation since it's not a widely known thing. That said, I also have no trouble calling it a "system". Both terms, lake and system, are rather broad and can be understood variously. Puget Sound is often called a "system" (of inlets, estuaries, etc), but its also a single geographic thingie/feature (although not actually a "sound" if you go by the most common meaning of a sound). One could argue that Lake Huron is a system, with Georgian Bay and the North Channel each connected only by narrow straits. But if people want to avoid calling Lake Michigan-Huron a "lake" and say "system" instead, whatever, I don't see that it makes much difference. One thing I might like to see pointed out is that lakes Michigan and Huron are the only two Great Lakes that are "directly" connected—that is, all the others are connected by rivers, all of which involve elevation changes large enough to hamper navigation (except the Detroit River). I mean, my sense is that many people think the Great Lakes are all connected by rivers. Currently the page mentions the Straits of Mackinac and their size, and points out how their size is "small in comparison to the body of water as a whole". Sure, that's true, but the straits are also far larger and non-river-like than any other connection between the Great Lakes. Personally, I grew up on the Great Lakes (Buffalo, NY), and was surprised when, as an adult, I finally realized how large the connection between Michigan and Huron is—and I immediately thought "well, they are a single lake!" Anyway, just an idea.
 * On the other points here, I mainly agree with DanHobley. Due to the very rare usage of the term, I don't think Michigan-Huron belongs on lists of largest lakes, except perhaps as a footnote or something similar. Even if a referenced list is found that does include Michigan-Huron, the vast majority of lists do not. That argues for some kind of "footnote status" at best. Pfly (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dan that we need to clarify why they are generally considered two lakes, and we currently don't do enough of that. I agree with you, Pfly, that we should clarify that the Strait really is quite large. And I think a footnote would be an acceptable solution to the list. "System", though (I copy edited my previous response after you answered here): the Great Lakes are a "system", and as you note, so is Lake Huron, so calling MH a "system" misses the whole point of the article.
 * The responses of several editors suggest that they still don't understand that it is a lake, in the physical/hydrological sense. I suspect much of the opposition to that fact—with wording such as 'imaginary', 'fantasy', and 'made-up', or hedged wording such as 'is considered to be'—is due to that misunderstanding. If our own editors don't get it, then that tells us that we need to be especially clear to our readers that they are factually a single body of water, regardless of one's opinion as to whether that body should be called a 'lake' or not. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried adding Dan and Pfly's positions to the earlier consensus lead. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwami, here is why people get emotional. You say that you are going to restore "the earlier consensus lead", but, in fact, you restored the earlier non-consensus POV lead, throwing in some of Dan's wording.  This is not only against the consensus of the discussion here, and the earlier one on AN/I but it is downright intellectually dishonest and, frankly, it makes the entire corpus of your editing on Wikipedia suspect.  Because of your dishonesty, and disruptiveness, and highhandedness, and obvious disdain for other editors here, I have once again made a report on AN/I -- not about the content dispute, that seems well on its way to being resolved in all its facets here, but on your behavior, which has been totally reprehensible. I have asked for you to be topic banned from this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, you violate BOLD while quoting it, and condemn others for violating it, but I'm the one who should be ashamed of intellectual dishonesty.
 * The lead is the proposal by Jason A. Quest which everyone accepted but you. That's what I modified with Dan's suggested wording.
 * For the Lake Huron and Michigan articles, you made a change to the long-standing consensus in the lead, and I reverted you. Oh, I forgot: BOLD only applies to other people! Forgive me: you should do whatever you like, and we'll all accept it as 'consensus'. — kwami (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Dan and Pfly: Do you think it would be productive to work with the live article, or should we set it up in a sandbox? — kwami (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the issue is far more clear and important for the wording of the article than it's the separateness /merge status. I am very much against what Kwamikagami is trying to put in.   Beyond My Ken has it right.    On the core items (the treatment  and context given ot the term "Michigan-Huron"  this is Kwamikagamiand their fringe view vs. everybody and an immense preponderance and probably unanimity of sources. Kwamikagami, please STOP.      North8000 (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Just a note: North8000 has demonstrated on my talk page that he does not understand the concepts involved; he apparently opposes the scientific view because he believes the sources are false. — kwami (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC))
 * That is an insulting complete misrepresentation. Please STOP! The sources are right, you are misusing them to claim that that they say the opposite (on this) than they actually do.  I'm pretty sure I could talk circles around you on the scientific side but me writing fluid dynamics equations would be irrelevant in a discussion which, at the core of it, is about the NAMING of of the lakes.    North8000 (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can write the dynamics equations, then you should understand why they are a single body of water. From my talk page, it appears that you don't understand that. And no, you have not been arguing about the name, but about the physical facts, calling them "positions" as if they were opinions. All that suggests that you don't know what you're talking about. If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong: show me that you understand the facts of the case. Then maybe we can figure out what your actual objection is. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes that you have been trying to war in are implicit assertions that the NAME of the lakes is "Mighigan-Huron". And everybody and every source says you are wrong on that; you just won't listen and keep warring, flinging and insulting. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But the name *IS* Lake M-H (or H-M), and most editors here agree with that! I don't understand why that is difficult for you. It's like you're arguing that the name of Eurasia isn't really Eurasia, or that America isn't really America. Not all sources use 'M-H', but then not all geography sources use the name 'Eurasia' either. That's not evidence that the name doesn't exist! — kwami (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, the equations would show that, while the difference would be immeasurably small, that Lake Michigan on average would need to be at a slightly higher level than Lake Huron in order for the net flow to be from Lake Michigan to Lake Huron (as it is)   But such is not appropriate or relevant here.) North8000 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Yes, and the same is true of Georgian Bay. Though I don't know about immeasurably small: a couple inches, maybe?)
 * Good. I'm glad that there isn't a dispute over the facts after all. From your comments here and on my talk page, it seemed you thought it was just by coincidence that the levels happened to be the same. Now that I know you understand the physics, we can work on the actual disagreement. — kwami (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The IS a dispute over the core issue which is the NAMING of the lakes. While you are talking other things here, the changes that you are trying to war in relate only to the name and implicit and explicit about the NAMING of the lakes.  12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (BTW, for Georgian Bay it would be orders of magnitude smaller; that would be "zero for all practical purposes" vs. "immeasurably small". ) North8000 (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I asked this before, and don't think I ever got an answer. If Michigan–Huron is not the most common name, what is? For "America", you could argue that "The Americas" is more common. For the ocean, there's the "World Ocean", "World Sea", and just "Ocean". The only names I've seen here are M-H, H-M (less common, but acceptable by me: It's the name I know from the signs on the lake-front nature trails in Michigan), and rarely historical names such as Lake Algonquin.
 * No, it's not about naming for me. Ken and Bugs aren't arguing that the name is wrong, they're claiming that the lake doesn't exist, as if I wrote all the sources which say it does.
 * And if "Lake Michigan–Huron" isn't the name, why aren't you arguing for the article to be moved? — kwami (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet said it quite clearly and succinctly: The two lakes are a system; they are not a single lake. One lake is a body of water. Two lakes are two bodies of water. Lake Michigan–Huron is two bodies of water but one system of water. It's unfortunate that the name "Lake Michigan-Huron" was chosen to describe the system, because it opened the door for people to come along and make an egregious category error and mistake the system of two lakes for a lake as normally defined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In |this your edit described it as "one body of water," despite the fact that the source says "one lake." The source shows it's not a category error, it is rather a definitional attribute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find a source saying Dan Quayle was one of the dumbest vice presidents, but we don't write that in his biography, let alone in the first sentence. What we do with sources is balance them. The source saying the two lakes are one is a source that is vanishingly small when placed against every map and every book about the Great Lakes. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I don't even think we should say that the M-H system is a "body" of water. A body of inland freshwater is a lake. A body is defined by its size and the places that it narrows to inlet and outlet. There are two bodies involved in the M-H system. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone but DanHobley should be topic-banned for a while. --Curtis Clark (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it, here is the wall we are all butting our heads against. When we call something "Lake whaatever" we are actually evoking a geographic constraint.  Very simply there is no such thing as "Lake Michigan-Huron" in a geographic sense.  Why?  It isn't on any maps and maps are where Wikipedia (and pretty much the entire world) sources geographic names.  The information in this article is valid and neutral, or at least heading that way.  To hold to the NAME of this article, we are trying to create knowledge here and that is just not what we do.  Someone earlier was going on about "just because it's not what we learned in school".  Well, yes, that IS exactly why.  What we learned in school is the names of the Great Lakes as they have been historically assigned and remain to this present day and will remain into the foreseeable future.  So, as we are coming to an agreement on what the content of this article should be, shouldn't we be looking for a title that more accurately expresses what the article is talking about?  I dare say that there would be very little to argue about if we were working on an article titled "Hydrology of Lakes Michigan and Huron". Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Article titles are based on what the subject is called in the literature, and they are short enough to disambiguate, so I can't see the case for a made-up title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, we're talking about certain concepts and contexts where it is useful to view the two lakes together, and maybe a few ideas by people promoting that or saying that they should have been named one lake and making up a name for that hypothetical lake.  From what I can see nobody (except an editor here) is trying to say that THE name is M-H.  So it would probably be best covered as a section in the Great Lakes article. But between canvassing, hidden discussions at the canvassing locations, split RFC, discussion split into 7 places, possible reaction against the possibly too-quick initial merge, folks that are superficially involved weighing in  and folks like me who consider the "split/separate" issue to be secondary  (I never weighed in at the larger RFC) it sort of looks like it's going separate articles. We're probably screwing up by letting this happen, with me being one of the culprits.  Not sure what to say beyond that.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't know what you mean by secret discussions. (Also, in your first sentence, if you change "two lakes" to 'two Lakes' (capital "L") we might see eye to eye on that but it looks like we are thankfully passed all that) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I find this whole argument very confusing. Both the stuff about whether Lake Michigan-Huron really is (or really isn't) a "lake", "system", "body of water", etc, and also the stuff about whether the name of the system, lake, whatever-it-is, is "Michigan-Huron" or not. Some quotes from above that seem weird to me:


 * "nobody (except an editor here) is trying to say that THE name is M-H."
 * "Very simply there is no such thing as "Lake Michigan-Huron" in a geographic sense."
 * "I don't even think we should say that the M-H system is a "body" of water."
 * "you have been trying to [assert] that the NAME of the lakes is "Mighigan-Huron". And everybody and every source says you are wrong on that"

I don't care about the issues of kwami's behavior. If that's a problem, as it seems to be, fine. There's discussions at ANI and such. I'm more interested in the topic of Lake Michigan-Huron and on that topic I really do not understand the above quotes. There are numerous sources that use the term "Lake Michigan-Huron, some without any additional comment or qualification (such as and ). And there are many more that say the two lakes are "hydrologically" or "hydraulically" one lake ( and ). It sounds like some people above are arguing that the use of the words "hydrology" and "hydraulic" in these sources somehow mean Lake Michigan-Huron is not really one lake or body of water or even one system. What do you all think "hydrology" and "hydraulic" mean? To me the use of these terms seems obvious—the sources are pointing out that despite the lakes being "one lake" in a simple, physical sense, they are normally thought of as two separate lakes.

Also, the argument over the name seems really weird to me. "Lake Michigan-Huron" is the name for this lake/system/body/whatever used in every source I have seen and found. The only thing I can think of for why people are arguing over this is that perhaps some are thinking that the existence of Lake Michigan-Huron somehow negates the existence of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, as if you can't both have names for the two together and separate. Maybe I am missing something obvious, but as it stands it feels like many of you are missing something obvious. Finally, it seems that the bad feelings toward kwami are strongly coloring the content issue. I have not closely examined kwami's behavior and don't care to, but it seems likely that he's has been and may still be disruptive. Nonetheless, I agree with most of his points on the content issues. Pfly (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)