Talk:Great Lakes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Great Lakes has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as B-Class.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Lakes (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Great Lakes is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Geography (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Canada.svg Canada portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
Flag of Ontario.svg Ontario portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
Canada flag map.svg Geography of Canada portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon
Flag of the United States.svg United States portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Michigan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Michigan.svg Michigan portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. State of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
 This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 7, 2004.

Archives
/Archive 2004, 2005, 2006
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers except Internet Explorer

Links from this article with broken #section links (check):
[[Tornadoes of 2007#May 15|frontal system in 2007]]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem
News This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:

Contents

[edit] Why was REFERENCED Bull Shark in Invasive sectioned removed?

[[1]] and there are other sources out there, why was this removed? Obviously not common, and was mentioned as such, but still a reality. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) [[2]] [[3]] --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why aren't the Great Lakes salty?

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

Answering this year old question just in case someone is reading the talk and wonders.
Any body of water becomes salty through a process where rain falls on rocks containing salt, which slightly dissolves the salt. This water then runs into a river and then into the lake. Imagine if this lake is like the Dead Sea, with no outlets. In this case the water will evaporate and the salt will be left behind, and the concentration of the salt will increase and increase, until we get salt water. However, the great lakes do have an outlet, the water flows through them and out through the Saint Lawrence Seaway into the Oceans. This washes the salt out, and the concentration can never rise.
There isn't a reasonable way that they could become salt-water lakes. They can't become Dead Sea type lakes, because you wouldn't have the evaporation rate required, and the other way would necessitate them being at sea level, which would mean so many changes that they really wouldn't be the great lakes any more.
It wouldn't make much difference to the climate if they were salty, you'd have some differences because they're harder to freeze than fresh water lakes, but that's a local effect rather than a long distance effect.

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

[edit] Great Lakes Water Compact

This seems to be moving forward and might deserve its own page.

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

[edit] Why part of the US Wiki?

The Great Lakes are much more significant to Canada than they are to the US, and the majority of the lakes are IN Canada. Why is this article part of the US Wiki? It should be part of the Canadian one.--Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.228.94 (talk)

...and the majority of the lakes are IN Canada.
There are five Great Lakes. Four of which have Canada on one side and the United States on the other and one Great Lake (I'll let you figure out which one) is 100 percent, completely, totally withIN U.S. waters. Therefore, your logic is a little backward on this one. Sorry to hurt your Canadian pride but facts are facts. —MJCdetroit 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are four large lakes, all of which are divided between the two countries. Michigan is a bay of Lake Michigan-Huron. It's no more a separate lake that St. George's Bay, which BTW lies entirely within Canada. kwami (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting to refer to Lake Michigan as a bay of Lake Michigan-Huron, as Lake Michigan contains nearly the same surface area as Lake Huron and 40% more total water than Lake Huron. I wonder if there is another example elsewhere in the world of a bay being 50% or more of the total body of water.68.72.250.165 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't it also be part of WikiProject Canada? I'd be in favor of it. Both countries exert sovereignty over parts of it. --Pesco (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense. Silverchemist (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a bizarre statement, considering about 64.2% of the surface area of the Great Lakes lies within the United States, with the remaining 35.8% lying in Canada. In fact, about 40.1% lies within Michigan alone, which is greater than all of Canada's portion. Also, the United States has a lot more major cities on the Great Lakes than Canada does, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Cleveland. How the Great Lakes are much more significant to Canada is beyond me. Phizzy (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And in fact they are involved in several bilateral treaties concerning them, and also have a hand in the pending Great Lakes Compact. I don't know if the issue is resolved, but if I had a vote, I would vote that there be concurrent jurisdiction over the articles, as it fairly reflects sovereignty, facts, shared interests and regional politics. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

Actually Canada has quite a few more "Great Lakes" both in size and name. They are just not shared by the border with the US. There's the Great Bear Lake, the Great Slave Lake, Reindeer lake, Lake Athabasca, and Lake Winnipeg. AND the US has another "Great Lake" of its own -- the Great Salt Lake in Utah. If you would properly include all of those "Great Lakes" in your discussion thread, it would be more accurate........
Canada may have great lakes, but this article is about the "Great Lakes", and if you don't know the difference, then I can't help much.Asher196 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Foot to meter

In the section on shipping there is:

  1,000 by 305-foot (105 by 32-m)

At 3.3 feet / meter at least one set of figures is wrong. Would someone who knows the correct figures please correct this. 75.68.245.172 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Jim Lillie @ comcast dot net

Actually both were wrong! The correct figures are 1,000 by 105-foot (305 by 32-m). Thanks for pointing it out. Have you thought of creating a Wikipedia account? You can do it here. --Pesco 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References needed

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

[edit] No snow out of a clear sky

I live in Eastern Michigan, and while you hear a lot about lake effect, I have never heard of it making snow out of a clear sky. :P

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

[edit] photos

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


[edit] Invasive species

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

[edit] Big edit

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

[edit] List of cities along the Great Lakes

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

[edit] Lake Superior Size

This article currently says:

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

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

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

JRaue 17:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Sea Lampreys - Vandalism?

The introductory paragraph says sea lamprey were introduced by Thomas Edison. This is not true. As the Lamprey article says, they entered the Great Lakes via the construction of artificial canals such as the Erie and Welland Canals.143.236.35.204 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the entry, which has been there since Oct 28. I removed it. Not sure if that was a nonsense edit or what. --Pat 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lake Effect - capitalization

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

[edit] Major edits

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

[edit] Laurentian?

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

[edit] Why was Lake Champlain listed as part of the Great Lakes Hydrological System?

No water from the Great Lakes flows into Lake Champlain; no water from Lake Champlain flows into the Great Lakes.

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

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

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

By that argument, Lakes Erie and Ontario weren't Great Lakes during the Nipissing Stage, because their connection was similar to that of Champlain today. Lakes Algonquin, Duluth, and Chippewa were also not Great Lakes, but they're always presented as such. Champlain was formed with the Great Lakes, there were times when the melt-water level was such that it formed a single lake with them, and it is part of the same drainage basin today. What exactly is a "hydrological system"? It doesn't seem to be a well defined term. kwami (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming that by Nipissing Stage you are referring to the last panel in the article's 'Great Lakes Formation' graphic, illustrating the Great Lakes area as of approximately 4000 years ago. From the graphic, it appears that Lakes Erie and Huron are connected via the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair (actually a flooded river delta), and the Detroit River, much as Lakes Erie and Ontario are shown on the same graphic as being connected via the Niagara river.68.72.250.165 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question: 'What exactly is a hydrological system?' (hydrological system is not my term, it was in the article prior to my edits). I originally thought it to refer to a system of bodies of water that shared common interaction (i.e. flow of water or sharing of water). Following through the Wikipedia links it seems to imply that a 'hydrological system' can mean 'drainage basin', 'watershed', or even 'drains into a specific ocean'. By either a narrow or broad interpretation of 'hydrological system', both Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes are part of the St. Lawrence watershed; however, this is a Wikipedia article about the Great Lakes, not about the St. Lawrence River.68.72.250.165 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the 'Other Lakes' section of the article seems to list only lakes that currently exist within the Great Lakes basin, not lakes that have had a similar geological origin or prehistoric connection. You use the term 'was formed with the Great Lakes' - I take this to mean 'was formed at the same time, by the same geological process (melting glacial ice sheets), and in the same general geographic location'. Then by this standard Lake Winnipeg (formed from the prehistoric Lake Agassiz) would also qualify as part of the Great Lakes Hydrological System.68.72.250.165 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

They are prior incarnations of the Great Lakes. kwami (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I interpreted your comment as that they are current lakes that are referred to as Great Lakes, currently. Misunderstanding! нмŵוτнτ 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There was in fact a dozen or so years ago in the Congress an attempt to recharacterize Lake Champlain as a "Great Lake" so that it would get federal aid that was slated for the Great Lakes. I remember that it was written up in many papers and Time Magazine at the time.7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

[edit] Third Coast or Fourth Coast?

The introduction has referred to the Great Lakes as being "Canada and the United States' fourth coast" but was recently altered to read " Canada and the United States' third coast". From a U.S. perspective there are three ocean coasts (Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico); because of this the Great Lakes coastline is sometimes referred to in the United States as the Fourth Coast or North Coast. However, Canadians may view this differently; anyone from Canada care to weigh in with an opinion?69.14.180.255 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone has now slipped in a new link at the bottom of this article, referencing Third Coast. While this linked Wikipedia article has no supporting references, a quick Google does reveal that people in Chicago and parts of Wisconsin do use the term to refer to their Great Lakes coastline.68.72.250.165 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should the Keweenaw_Peninsula be listed as an island of the Great Lakes?

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

[edit] War of 1812

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

[edit] Other Lakes

Seems to me, this list is just a temptation for others to add their "favorite smaller lake that drains into the Great Lakes". Lake Winnebago is there, why not Lake Butte des Morts? How about Lake of the Woods, and all of those other lakes in the Boundary Waters of Minnesota/Ontario? Basically, what are the requirements to be in the list? 69.95.237.66 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many coasts

That one of our esteemed contributors opines that "a gulf is an extension of an ocean" does not answer the question of whether the Great Lakes should be denominated as the "third coast" or "fourth coast." Indeed, the links that I had clearly delineated the problem and the parameters. They were not meant to disparage the Gulf Coast, but to highlight the problem of the 'two coast' proponents ignoring both the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes. 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

I think the entire argument is rather silly. East coast. West Coast. Gulf coast. I wouldn't classify the great lake shore as a coast. Remove the entire mention of "third coast, fourth coast" etc. Problem solved. will381796 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
==How many coasts==

That one of our esteemed contributors, opines that "a gulf is an extension of an ocean" does not answer the question of whether the Great Lakes should be denominated as the "third coast" or "fourth coast." Indeed, the links that I had clearly delineated the problem and the parameters. They were not meant to disparage the Gulf Coast, but to highlight the problem of the 'two coast' proponents ignoring both the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes. I note that this has been part of the earlier discussion, and Hmwith has simply decided the issue for us all.

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

[edit] "Grands Lacs"

The use of a French translation of the English term "Great Lakes" seems a little strained to me in this context. If the argument for its use is being made from historical precedence, by extension most of the articles dealing with geographical subjects in eastern North America should also have a French language equivalent appearing in their opening sentence as well. In my opinion, although charming, it is not appropriate in an English language encyclopedia.cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, stating the French name in the opening sentence may not be the best idea, but what surprises me in this article is that there is nothing about the discovery of the Lakes by the European explorers and about the origin of their name. I know this can be can be found out in the articles about each Lake individually but I think we should add something about it in this article too and especially the origin of the name "Great Lakes" which I assume is probably a translation of the French name Grands Lacs. Anyway, I'm glad you give your opinion about this because you certainly know the history of North America better than me. Eventually, I've made some searches to support a potential writing about the names: [4] on michigan.gov and [5] on great-lakes.net (this one is already present in the External Links section) 16@r (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, some really good sources about place names are listed in List of Michigan county name etymologies. Some are on line, and some are in print. I recognize this isn't about Michigan counties, but these scholarly sources are still relevant. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Stan
The official US website of the Great Lakes Commission (glc.org) features in big letters the French name along the English one. I think it's a good reason for us to also mention the French name in the introduction, no? 16@r (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. While the agency describes itself as a "binational" organization, this article is part of an English language wiki, not a "binational" wiki. Two different animals. Also, take a look at the French language wiki's version of this page; it doesn't have the English phrase "Great Lakes" in its title. --68.72.250.165 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Also, take a look at the French language wiki's version of this page; it doesn't have the English phrase "Great Lakes" in its title."

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

[edit] Largest Group of Freshwater Lakes

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

Please get your facts straight before making accusations. Lake Baikal has a volume of 23,600 km3 compared to the total volume of the Great Lakes of 22,470 km3. You mixed up km3 and mi3 as well as taking the volme of Lake Superior alone. Also, as pointed out by the editor who reverted the edit in question, Baikal is a single lake not a group, and the sentence clearly referred to the "largest group of freshwater lakes". Silverchemist (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That was an "accusation"? I thought it was more of an observation. OK, I mixed up the units in comparison, but it still stands that: (1) there's no citation for the statement(original thought), and (2) Lake Baikal still contains more water. It's like noting that the Mackinac Bridge is "the longest bridge between anchorages" when the actual yardstick for suspension bridges is the length of the main span. Can you point to a published list of "groups of lakes", with the Great Lakes being at the top of the list?--68.72.250.165 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, according to the chart in the Great Lakes article, the volume of water in Lake Superior is 12,000 km3 or 2,900 cu miles, which isn't the 5,438 cubic miles I originally cited as the water volume of the Great Lakes. But hey, I guess we all can make mistakes.--68.72.250.165 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Added reference. This book is available online through Google Books. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Now if you would be so kind as to provide references for the second thru tenth largest groups of freshwater lakes I'll be more than happy to retract my "weasel" comment"! --68.72.250.165 (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This might actually be inaccurate, as Lake Tanganyika in the African Great Lakes has a volume of 18,900 km3 alone. Toss in Lake Malawi and you get another 8,400 km3, which blows the North American great lakes AND Lake Baikal out of the water. The total volume of the entire system is somewhere around 30,900 km3. While the African great lakes are not a single hydrological system, they are related geologically, and an argument could be made that they are in fact the largest grouping of freshwater lakes. I'm unable to check the reference and confirm this, but just from the name of the paper it appears to be talking about either the largest hydrologically connected group of lakes, or the group of lakes with the largest surface area (245,200 km2 for the North American lakes versus 145,700 km2 for the African lakes). Either way, the claim doesn't specify the measurement or standard being used to judge that claim, and seems to need clarification in any case. shaggy (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Superlatives are a strange thing sometimes, it all depends on how you want to define the parameters of what you're talking about. In the case of the Great Lakes, if we factored in the literally tens of thousands (+) of tiny lakes that are hydrologically connected to the system, who knows what the totals would be. My main interest here is seeing a proper reference connected to a claim, I'm willing to look at anything, provided it's reputably sourced. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, the line in question should be edited to remove any ambiguity, so as to prevent conversations like this where we all get to quibble about exactly what it means. I assume that it means "largest by area", but without specifying it's vague and misleading at best. The easiest way I can see to solve this problem is for someone to check the source and add the necessary information. I can't check the source you cited (the relevant section is not freely available on google books), and I am unable to find an alternative source that has any degree of credibility. shaggy (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
But your comment regarding the possibility of ending "quibbling" and "ambiguity" on issues like these are exactly what I'm suggesting is the heart of the difficulty. It all depends on how you wish to draw the parameters. If I extend a single hand and say "how many fingers am I holding up?" The 'usual' response (barring a disability) is five. But at the same time, it is possible to argue that in actuality, the common (and quite proper) label for one of those digits is a "thumb", which of course leads to a 'correct' answer of "four" to the question posed. Here's the quote from the reference you requested on pg. 264:

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

By inference, I'm supposing that they're talking about surface area here, but only by inference. As I mentioned above, if we include the total surface area of the myriad number of small lakes draining directly into the main Great Lakes within the basin into the equation, the sky is the limit, their number should not be underestimated. If, as some would argue, we should also add in the St. Lawrence River and its associated waters, the overall "size" figures would leap again. It depends on where you draw the lines. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to make this a bigger deal than it is. The original poster raised a good point, mainly that the claim was misleading and needed greater clarification. I think it's vague and non-encyclopedic to simply claim that the north american great lakes are the largest group of lakes without a specific source. If your source can't support it, the claim should be removed. Either way, the amount of water AND the surface area increase towards a limit that IS possible to calculate. Per WP:NOR, I won't attempt it or justify my argument based on such a calculation. All I'll say, is just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it's impossible. Please cite a source and make a reasonable claim. If your source says the largest by surface area, then edit the article accordingly. The current wording is vague, and the source does not support it. I don't think we can accept an off-the-cuff claim that the great lakes are the largest group of lakes on earth without a good, verifiable source. It's widely accepted, but that doesn't mean it's supported or correct. I want to see some good analysis here. shaggy (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
My analysis is: the statement "the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world" is vague by definition. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Then it should be removed. shaggy (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's entirely your decision as an editor, personally I'd look for consensus first, but it's your call. Wikipedia contains other claims of theoretically debatable superlatives in different categories, usually it's dealt with by editing in counterpoints from comparable reputable sources to provide context and qualifications on the original claim. You've stated a couple of "alternative" theoretical positions above; why not try and dig up support from the mainstream literature to try and demonstrate that at least one of those positions has some merit in the eyes of an exiting authority on the subject? The current claim is supported by what appears to be a standard text on the subject as far as I can tell and there's the rub. Unless you can convince other editors that somehow that reference is non-authoritative, simply removing it and its associated claim seems somewhat arbitrary to me, at the moment it's a position that appears to be solely based on your personal opinion alone. Obviously you can disagree with any stated position in the encyclopedia, but removing an apparently well referenced claim without justification seems rash to me. The counterpoints you've outlined above are interesting, as I've said above I think a lot of this is how we frame a given situation, but at the moment in my opinion your points remain in the realm of "original research" and without the benefit of someone providing a reputably sourced alternative, in my mind, they're probably going to stay that way. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to care a whole lot about an arbitrary, non-encyclopedic distinction here. The claim is not "well referenced" because I am unable to check the source, and I can't find another source that supports it, only a billion other "it's the largest" claims that provide no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on you here. shaggy (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You're kidding right? You think every reference in Wikipedia needs to be a web based source so you can check it? From WP:CITE "The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material, such as by external link to the source website. If the material is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unfindable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably findable (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context."Asher196 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you run the title of that book on Google, there are other sources for it online, that's where I retrieved the direct quote from when it was requested. Shaggy, I notice that you've changed your opinion on this matter in midstream. In your earlier comments you appeared to view the claim as at least not necessarily "arbitrary" and "non-encyclopedic", in the sense that you looked for references that would disprove it in order to replace the Great Lakes claim with another one. Why is it that you didn't consider it an "arbitrary" and "non-encyclopedic" claim when you felt that it was possible to replace and substantiate it with data for any other location and yet suddenly it becomes so when, for apparently intuitive reasons, you reject it and are unable to provide a viable alternative? Your opinion that the reference that I provided is not "well referenced because I am unable to check the source", is somewhat odd and kind of amusing in my opinion. I don't think that anyone truly expects that every editor has direct access to every substantiating reference provided, it requires good faith, like many other things in Wikipedia. Rejecting an authoritative citation based on a purely intuitive basis doesnt seem like good "science" to me. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that since you cited the source, you had access to the material, and asking you to clarify a vague statement doesn't seem unreasonable. And it isn't unreasonable to remove something where you can't find other sources to support it, even if it is "well sourced". The quoted passage seems like an off-the-cuff generalization, especially the way the statement is worded. Here's something to check - does your source support the claim at all? I'm not rejecting the conclusion, I'm just saying it's vague and needs to be clarified. What constitutes a group of lakes? What makes the great lakes the largest group? These are the issues that were raised; they are valid and should be addressed. Simply dismissing them won't make them go away. Adding that kind of information makes the article more complete. shaggy (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't "Largest group of freshwater lakes" misleading? The word "largest" is wide open for interpretation and is very likely to make a reader think about volume measure rather than surface area measure. Whereas List of lakes by volume clearly puts Lake Baikal above the Great Lakes combined. Strict distinguishing "group of lakes" from single lake makes the figure far less indicative, since it becomes related only to a subcategory (a group of two or more lakes), excluding other lakes. For instance, I'm sure this statement is more specific and clear, and is not misleading: "The group of Great Lakes has the second-largest volume of freshwater on Earth after Lake Baikal". Svmich (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Suggestion : on formation of the Great Lakes

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

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

Just suggesting a clean up for clarity.

JTH

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

[edit] Access

can the great lakes be reached from oceans? are their any canals etc? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.250.122 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please read Great Lakes#Rivers and the section below that. Asher196 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Geology section suggestion

Would it be reasonable to reword the opening statement of the "Geology" section? My suggestion is the following:

It has been estimated that the foundation of the Great Lakes was laid approximately two billion years ago,[1][2] by two tectonic plates fusing together and creating the Midcontinent Rift, forming a valley that was the basis of Lake Superior.

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

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

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

As no objections were offered, I have updated the "Geological history" section. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The term "approximately" was already being used in the article. Scientific estimation of dates can be assumed to contain a margin of error, based on the evidence at hand and the method of testing being utilized. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet, the term "approximately" is referring solely to the date, not to the method with which the date was derived nor to the method with which the Great Lakes were formed. The term "estimated" acknowledges that the approximated date has been derived through scientific means, that the method of development has been theorized, and that neither is an historic fact.
The formation of the Great Lakes, of course, may be assumed to be an historic fact, insomuch that the Great Lakes exist, but the timing and exact method of their formation are not historic facts. Both timing and method have been estimated (not "approximated"). Do you still disagree? Please explain why.
Also, would it not be more reasonable to obtain some kind of consensus before reverting an edit? I had given the editing community more than a fortnight, after having submitted my original suggestion and prior to its implementation, and then you immediately reverted it. I have no wish to force anything upon this article, particularly if the body of editors are against it, but please allow for discussion prior to reverting an edit I have made. Thank you.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for any misunderstanding that my edit may have caused, but please be aware that any edit that you make in Wikipedia is subject to alteration by another editor, regardless of whether or not you have provided prior "notification" beforehand of your intention to make that edit at some future time. That obviously does not apply in regard to situations where a consensus has already been arrived at, which did not occur in this case. The truth of the matter is that I simply came across your edit in the body of the Great Lakes article, thought it to be unnecessary under the circumstances and simply reverted it. I have since had the opportunity to review your personal user page, on which you are quite open in terms of your own personal beliefs and would like to remind you that Wikipedia policy indicates that the encyclopedia should not be utilized as a soapbox. I would like to also point out that the talk pages for individual articles should not be used in that way as well. If you are so inclined, I'd like to invite you to carry on this discussion on my own talk page, where it is more appropriate. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My beliefs are irrelevant to this article, as I am sure you would agree. Please be so kind as to respond to the questions and comments I raised above, which are relevant to this article. I am more than willing to be convinced that I should not undo your revert, but so far I am not convinced. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

If we're shooting for logic and accuracy here, I'm still curious as to why you find it necessary to accentuate, by your choice of wording, the idea that the geological claims being made here are "estimated". As was mentioned in our discussion last autumn, the majority of claims made in the geological sciences and other scientific disciplines as well, are evidentially based on the extrapolation of observed evidence and then in turn vetted by other recognized experts in a given field. No responsible scientist speaks in absolutes, it's a given that all claims are subject to possible revision or even rejection based on newly arrived at evidence. My point here is that the conclusions drawn in hundreds of well referenced "scientific" articles in this encyclopedia are similarly lacking words like "estimated", are you suggesting that they should all be revised based on a philosophical argument that no knowledge is certain? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One further point. What about cases when the subject of an article deals with inherently unobservable entities like sub-atomic particles and the like; in your opinion should each of those articles repeatedly remind the reader that all claims being made are "estimated" or "approximated"? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Deconstructhis, thank you for addressing the issue. Maybe, after all, our disagreement is indeed philosophical in nature: you say "accentuate"; I say "acknowledge." We are certainly perceiving the same evidence from two very different perspectives. (Ah, the beauty of Wikipedia!) :) When looking at an article, I imagine the average reader to be a high school student attempting to construct a term paper. I loathe the idea that he is making the false assumption that what he is reading is indeed "absolute."
You insist "No responsible scientist speaks in absolutes," but when you remove terms such as "estimated," you are, in fact, speaking in absolute terms. There is a distinct difference between saying (1) "The Great Lakes were formed..." and saying (2) "The Great Lakes are estimated to have been formed..." Statement (1) declares that something happened a certain way and at a certain time, while statement (2) suggests possible methods and timing. Do I believe that the reader needs to be constantly reminded that the information before him has been constructed from estimations and theories? No, but I do believe that readers should be informed consistently: where estimations are being made, they should be declared as such. One acknowledgment within an article could possibly be sufficient.
The theoretical nature of some statements may be self-evident, particularly if the corresponding article is inherently theoretical in nature, but in other articles, such as those dealing mainly with the presently observable world (as is the case with this article), it is not. In those cases where an article is switching between historical or observable facts and calculated possibilities, the switch should be clearly labeled to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and false assumptions.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Deconstructhis, again, I would like to thank you for addressing the issue at hand and for abandoning ad hominem arguments. I realize that you have additional questions, but I believe my responses above should be sufficient. Please allow me to move this discussion in a slightly different direction. Have you considered the information provided at the following website, which refutes the glacial theory? See the site here: http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/gtlakes.html. The articles within cite the work of Sir J. W. Dawson, as well as that of other geologists. In your opinion, is it acceptable to add those details to this section of this article as an opposing position on the origin of the Great Lakes? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed Dawson's theories in the past and I'm afraid I'm not in agreement with his conclusions in the face of all the evidence available within the mainstream of geology, to each their own. I would strongly contest their addition to an article like this consisting of a general introduction to the Great Lakes, as an attempt to skirt the encyclopedia's policies regarding "neutrality", specifically [6]. I can see their relevance in articles related to Creation science or a related topic, but I see them as so far outside the realm of current mainstream geological thought that adding them to a general article like this one, would be confusing to the average Wiki user because of "undue weight". In fact further, I'd suggest that their addition here would constitute a violation of Wikipedia policy against utilizing the encyclopedia as a "soapbox" [7] simply by adding them, again, especially in this context, because of the general nature of the article. I'll tell you what though, (deconstructhis said only half jokingly) if you can make that material "stick" in the main geology article for one week (7 days), I'll seriously consider staying out of the way if you want to place it here as well. Good luck. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am certain that I have no business even attempting to edit the main geology article. I am wondering, though, how we can call the geology section of this article "neutral." It appears (to me) to have a clear bias toward a single theory on the formation of the Great Lakes. Why not include multiple theories, thereby encouraging readers to decide which theory it is with which they are willing to agree? Otherwise, aren't we inherently making this article non-neutral (and a "soapbox") by withholding alternative information? Why should you or I be the judge of what others are allowed to see here? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Coordinates

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

[edit] State vs. federal control

From the reference desk:

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

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

It would also be good to see maps depicting the state and international boundaries of the Lakes. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.202.26 (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You can see the state and international boundaries here:
Great-Lakes-Basin.svg
Phizzy (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Police jurisdiction

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

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

[edit] The shape

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

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

[edit] Lake Nipigon

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

[edit] Surfing the Great Lakes

This is just advertisement for the mentioned surf club. The section does not add to the content of this article and should be deleted. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mndwll (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the need for a completely separate section in the article on this subject is a little dubious. That being said, I do think there might be room for a separate section on recreational opportunities in general on the lakes, in which a sentence or two might be devoted to this topic. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We could add boating, power boating, sailing, paddling, sea kayak, windsurfing, canoeing), and diving, just to name a few. 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Stan

[edit] Lake St. Clair

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

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

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

[edit] Why are some major settlements in bold?

Under the geography section, in the Bathymetry table, there is a short list of major settlements for each lake. Why is it that one of the settlements is in bold? From the looks of it, it is the largest city (by population at least) for all the lakes except for Lake Superior. Duluth, MN is in bold, but by population, Thunder Bay, ON is much larger (84,284 vs. 109,140) for city population, which I think is the important figure since we're talking about settlements, and not metropolitan areas. Is it being based on Metro population? I will change it to Thunder Bay, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Can we also add something that indicates WHY these cities are in bold? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.118.188 (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason for any of those to be in bold. Please see MOS:BOLD. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

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

[edit] Watershed map is incorrect

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

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

[edit] Good article on Great Lakes levels

Lynch, Jim, November 08. 2010 Low Great Lakes levels prompt new call for action: U.S., Canada look at options to slow flow out of Lake Huron Detroit News. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

[edit] Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act

There are House and Senate versions.

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

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

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

[edit] Seas or Lakes? Both?

I've often been puzzled by the classification of "freshwater seas"...also by the fact that they're on the list of "Earth's Oceans and Seas" here on Wikipedia. From what I understand, the definition of sea refers to a large body of SALT water. Thus, saying "freshwater sea" feels like an oxymoron. That plus, I live in the region and have never heard anybody refer to them as seas. I guess what I'm getting at is what specifically qualifies them to be classified as seas? I would personally consider something like the Great Salt Lake to be a sea, but not any of the great lakes as they are all freshwater bodies with natural outlets. 69.57.34.69 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand why the term "sea" is being applied to the Great Lakes. It doesn't just feel like an oxymoron; it is, since the definition of sea is a large body of salt water. Asher196 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree too, and just changed the lead to say they are lakes instead of seas. Their inclusion in the navbox is arguably alright, as they are listed under "Inland seaways and landlocked seas", and they are part of a sea "way". Pfly (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] There need to be fewer 'editors' at Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

I realize this post is not up to the usual standards of Wikipedia, and for this I apologize. But I have had it up to here (my hand is above my head) with there being dozens upon dozens of unnecessary 'citation needed's per article. If the article says that "The 747 is a four engined intercontinental passenger aircraft designed and manufactured by the Boeing Corporation", and there is a photograph of a 747 and it has, yep, four engines, do NOT put a 'citation needed' after the four engine part. Just stop. The rest of us get it, and you are in our way. ThomasGuyLindenmuth (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.

Sorry, I can't help noticing that your message provided a clear example of your lemma (in the title of this section). I would immediately guess the tag is about 2% (actually this thread should be deleted). Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ecology

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

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


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Lakes"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export