Talk:Lake Michigan-Huron

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 Tomer^talk 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

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)