Jump to content

Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edits by DanHobley

Overall, what a large amount of excellent work! One area where I disagree is where in two places you had "some sources consider it to be a single lake" followed by three references. In fact, when read overall, at least two of those three references say the opposite overall. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit clash! Resolved now. Glad you think I'm on the right lines. Feel free to tweak at (remove?) those references, but I think the basic point stands - that there is a small but legitimate group of "proper" sources who hold the minority viewpoint. DanHobley (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the point as worded stands, maybe some wording tweaks would resolve both problems. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Feel free. (I think you already did, and I missed this...?) DanHobley (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, tweaked 2 similar sentences. I left the references, it just took wording tweak (without changing the main theme of the sentence) to reconcile it to what what the sources said. (On my first pass I accidentally did other additional changes (see below) which I think are gone now.) North8000 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Expansion & rewrite

Hi all. Given the total failure of my attempt (above) to get detail-level engagement with an action plan for this article, I've gone ahead and just made a bunch of changes. User:RockMagnetist has already kindly given some feedback, and I'm hopeful this - genuinely - is NPOV and can meet most people's concerns. The article explicitly and fairly discusses most of the issues people have been bouncing around these talk pages, and backs them up with references. Please read, engage with, and treat with an open mind before reverting or immediately changing phrases. I think there's actual article content here now as well, rather than just what was essentially a setup as support for arguments happening elsewhere on WP. Some of this will probably shortly get inserted/referenced over at Straits of Mackinac as well.

In particular, if at all possible can we please, please try not to get hung up on the opening sentence? Note that it implicitly recognizes the primacy of Lakes Huron and Michigan, but also that the composit terminology is both legitimate and useful in some circumstances.

Feedback and refinement extremely welcome. Further arguing about black and white distinctions of semantics is not. If consensus says people didn't want me to have done this, I'll just back right off and leave you guys to it. But I'm hopeful. DanHobley (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dan, thanks for your work on breaking the current log-jam and moving things ahead. but you went somewhat too far in your efforts, I'm afraid, in that the "compromise" wording in nmumerous instances presupposes the non-hydrological existence of Lake Michigan-Huron, something for which no sources have been presented. I've maintained your structure, but have amended the wording to bring the article into the consensus, which is that "Lake Michigan-Huron" exists for hydrological purposes, but otherside Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are separate lakes. If I had my druthers, I would have removed any discussion about Lake M-H being the largest, since it's really speculation, but since there is 1 source that supports that contention (an article in apopular magazine), I've left it in, with suitable wording. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, it's absolutely impossible not to get "too hung up on the opening sentence", as is many cases it's the only things some readers will see. It must accurately represent and reflect reality, and not be the result of trying to please all parties with a compromise -- that's when we get camels instead of horses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree although I said it in a different way. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(more edit conflicts...) I fundamentally disagree with where you're coming from on this. Hydrological existence equals existence; I think your underlying gripe is that this technical terminology isn't in widespread use? But why does that matter for the purposes of this article? The putative "non-hydrological existence" of LM-H doesn't matter; it does exist hydrologically and semantically (in that context), there's lots of sources to back this up ([1]), that's what my rewrite was about, and I think the article made that clear (and your rewrites less so, though I guess not catastrophically).
Basically my view is that the first sentence, Lake Michigan–Huron is a name sometimes given to Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the Great Lakes of North America when they are considered as one hydrologically connected body of water, should have pleased everyone. The hydrological use is recognised, the existence of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan is noted (why do we even need to do that I ask? It's massively obvious), and they are one body of water - water gets pumped between them through the straits. I just don't see why we need the less clear and vague use of "hydrological system" in preference. Later on, to me "XXX are..." (your words) is much more POV than "very many authorities consider..." (my words), so why change, going under NPOV?
Frankly, at this point, I'm tapping out. I think the above makes my rationale clear. I don't intend to revert your changes, but I think most of them re-introduce a totally unnecessary POV slant on text I was really very careful with. I've now spent the best part of a day looking at the primary literature on this, starting with an open mind and no preconceptions; what you're describing as "compromise wording" is really, honestly just NPOV looking at the primary literature. But whatever, guys. If anyone wants me, or wants a second NPOV reading on something, or a vote on a formal decision, someone come get me from my dragon cave at User:DanHobley, but otherwise I think I'll stay clear for a while (life's to short for this crap, etc etc). RARRRRR. DanHobley (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a small aside; I'm not 100% sure what you are referring to by primary literature, but note that on wikipedia we prefer secondary sources. We can not make analytical claims or deductions from primary sources ourselves. For example, referencing to bing and googlemaps etc to support the claim "The separate names are found on many atlases and maps" is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, lured back. I get your point here, and yes, elements of the referencing are sub-ideal. A full day on this was my limit, so "it'll do" won the day over "that's just right". My point on "primary literature" simply means I've been reading "proper" scientific literature about the lakes as well as the secondary material, for an actually rounded view. I'm hoping that no-one is going to object to me having done this...? But yes, I know we prefer the secondary stuff. Is really referring to atlases and maps to support the claim that many atlases and maps show things really WP:OR? If it is, and someone can show me the detailed guidelines, let's change those references up - but that is a stupid policy! If it makes anyone feel better, I can add a real atlas? Given the level of appeals from really blatant OR on the talk pages for the rename and merge proposals, and the state the article was in before, can I recommend leaving much of this a a halfway house? (Note I only introduced reference to atlases and maps to provide a verifiable statement of the primacy of the "common names" in the first place, which certain editors have been extremely vocal about here...) DanHobley (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My question is the relevance of the Maps? If they are not addressing the topic, maybe there is an element of Synth or at least a lingering, "so"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, OK. This was basically just here to emphasise the primacy of the individual names over the composite name in what you might call "general usage". I have few strong opinions; take it out of you aren't a fan. This might become relevant again if issues of name change come up in the future, but I agree it's probably not absolutely necessary. DanHobley (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think, I've formed a strong opinion on that either, but I think IRW took them out.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to Dan's version. I suggest that the three of us (myself, Ken, and North) stop interfering with the reasonable editors (Dan, Alan, Jason, Rock) and let them continue with their work. If we have problems with their edits (as I do below), we should present our objections here and try to convince them, rather than forcing our POV on the article. And BTW, it's two sources that say MH is the largest lake, but Ken keeps deleting one.

I think we should also consider Jason's proposal, which got no objections at all, apart from a few quibbles I had. It started "Lake Michigan–Huron, sometimes Lake Huron–Michigan, is a body of water that consists of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, ..." Dan's current wording, "Lake Michigan–Huron is a name sometimes given to Lake Michigan and Lake Huron ...", is problematic per the MOS: we are discouraged from starting an article with "X is the name of" or "X is a word for", but should just say "X is". (This goes with us being an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary: the article is not about the name MH, but about the concept of MH being one body of water.) And X clearly is a body of water in this context; it's also a system of *three* bodies of water in other of our sources. (We should also keep the 2nd name, since it's in the source Ken keeps deleting.) — kwami (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! That is more informative and real yeomen's work. For others, the fact that it is, in science, "one" is what makes it significant, because that has real world consequences, according to the sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But it does use more than those sources. And just because there is a lesser source in some place does not mean it fails wp:verifiable (but maybe you meant something else -- of course, it depends on the text of the sentence it supports, whether it is RS. See [2]) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahem - I think you'll find "some of the text fails verification" would be a more accurate and less likely to offend way to put this. On the actual point, closer inspection will reveal that the apparent 4th grade book is actually a bulletin of the Geological Survey Division of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. I do not envy those 4th graders being made to wade through this, but it's a solid reference from a reputable source. Feel free to remove the Brittanica reference if it offends too greatly - but note the exact same information is also present in the bulletin. I was doubling up where I could. As noted above, I was flagging in enthusiasm for perfect referencing by the end. DanHobley (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DanHobley, for your contribution. You came across a glorified stub, and while most people were arguing over the meaning of the word "lake", you turned it into a decent start-level article. And thanks, Alanscottwalker, for your unfailing calm and good sense, as well as for several references. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for your good work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree and think this article is much improved and currently reads quite well, with interesting and well cited information. Despite my post in the "An attempt at a synthesis" section just now I want to say, looking good! Nice work. I hope no one minds if I delete the line "The separate names are found on many atlases and maps", which currently has a "citation needed" tag and anyway seems covered with the previous statement "many authorities consider the two Lakes Michigan and Huron to be geographically distinct". The term "authorities" includes, for example, atlases, USGS maps, and so on. Finally, given all the talk in the article about the "basins" of lakes Michigan and Huron (basins in the sense of geologic depressions rather than drainage basins, which was what I assumed "basin" meant until I clicked the link) it would be very nice to have a map of the bathymetry of the two lakes. I will look for a good one we could use. Separate bathymetry images can be seen at [3] and [4]. I think a bathymetry map would be interesting not just for showing how the Straits of Mackinac separate the two main basins but also how both lakes are more than a single simple basin. Pfly (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
One final post before I go do Something Else. I couldn't find the kind of bathymetry map I was picturing—I found stuff but all either too cluttered with text or too simple, or too limited in scope. I could probably make the kind of map I'm picturing with GIS data from [5], but that's more work than I have in me right now. Maybe someday. Pfly (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I don't know if anyone feels a need for additional sources, but while looking for bathymetry I stumbled upon this one and thought I'd mention it: [6] A page about the Great Lakes from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which includes this quote (twice, under both Lake Michigan and Lake Huron): "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.)" Pfly (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
PS, I just realized there is talk of a source from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality just above in this section, which perhaps is the same source I just posted about. I looked at the sources used on the article to make sure this one wasn't already being used and, not seeing it, posted about it here. If it is already "known" by you guys, well, nevermind! It's not currently used in the article and I don't think I've seen an actual link to it on this talk page... Pfly (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. There does seem to be some confusion among participants, but basically the down and dirty is that the entire drainage basin could be a lake just depending on how high the water gets (or until the basin fails). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps some context in the article on the Laurentian Basin would help? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, basin (Depression (geology)) is the best term, I think, when talking about how the Straits connect the main bains of the two lakes. I assumed drainage basin at first because I tend to work on river articles. And in the US and Canada drainage basins are usually called watersheds anyway. If anyone other than me read it wrong perhaps some clarification could be added, but that the word basin is a link should be enough, I would think. Pfly (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing word?

"This depth compares with to maximum depths of 750 feet (229 m) in Lake Huron and 923 feet (281 m) in Lake Michigan." It looks like there's a word missing in there. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. Got it. DanHobley (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Some observations

In the 1st paragraph it says "...through which flow can occur in both directions depending on local weather conditions over each basin..." When I read this it appears to say that straits act like a two way road with flow in both directions. I think what is meant is that it is like a single lane road that reverses directions sometimes flowing from Michigan into Huron and sometimes the other way. I think if "both directions" is changed to "either direction" it would clear that up. The 4th paragraph states again that water flows both ways.

In the 3rd paragraph the 2nd sentence starts with "This depth compares with to maximum depths of 750 feet (229 m)..." Something is missing in that sentence. The next sentence uses the word planform. It isn't linked and it probably isn't a word that many people would know what it means. Looking at the planform article people may be able to figure out what is meant but since it focuses on airplane wings people might not understand what it has to do with lakes. That might need to be written differently. GB fan 01:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Got the typo in the 3rd para. Might be clearer now, though I realised during prep that "planform" might be too technical. Your interpretation of the 1st paragraph is also correct, and I hadn't realised it wasn't as clear as it could be. Feel free to WP:SOFIXIT in both cases. DanHobley (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I modified the sentences concerning flow, hope it is better now. There is still a problem the 2nd sentence in the 3rd paragraph, I don't think the words "with" and "to" belong next to each other in that sentence. Is there something missing or does one of those two words just have to be removed? I am not sure what to do with the planform sentence. GB fan 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I screwed up

With this edit [7] I intended only to tweak the last sentence of the lead. Somehow it included a whole bunch of other unintended changes. I tried to revert my edit but I couldn't because of the larger number of edits that occurred since. Sorry! I'll try to revert the pieces of it individually. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, we'll just have to throw you off the Island, then!Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hydrological POV

Kwami

Other than reverting denialists, so that our (my, Ken's, North8000's) squabbling does not disrupt the work being done here, I plan to stay off these articles at least until our geo-project members finish. Instead of editing directly, I will post my concerns here. (I'll even avoid fixing commas and hyphens, as much as they make my fingers itch.) I must say, however, that the article is already very much improved. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by."
—WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
  • "Lake Michigan–Huron is a name sometimes given to"  Done
    Per WP:DICT (at right), this wording will eventually be deleted—there are several editors who make the rounds of WP doing just that—so IMO it would be best if the geo people did it to ensure that it remains NPOV.
    Perhaps we could consider the wording of Jason's proposal, which had universal acceptance until it was deleted by Ken:
    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.
  • the alt name "Lake Huron–Michigan" should be restored; if we need a ref that uses it, the ref should be restored as well.  Done
  • "In the context of hydrology, however, the two can be considered as one body of water."  Done
    Actually, in the context of hydrology, the two *are* one body of water. That's why we add 'in the context of hydrology'.
Illustrates the less-well-known POV's involved
  • Three components?  Done
    In the NOAA source, Michigan, Huron, and Georgian Bay are treated as three components of MH. This has been mentioned by others above; IMO we should at least mention that while the Huron–Georgian divide is not the bottleneck that Michigan–Huron is, it is significant enough to sometimes warrant treating Georgian Bay as a third component. If fact, since NOAA pubs are PD, we can use their schematic (right) to illustrate the point.
Related articles:
  • I have reverted Ken's BOLD deletions from the leads of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. Any alternative wording proposed by the editors here would be welcome. Or just revert me if you feel Ken was right.  Done
  • As suggested by Pfly above, we should have a footnote in the lakes-by-are list. If one of you does it, that will avoid the claim that I'm railroading through my POV.  Done

— kwami (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Side note. I have not been squabbling, please see my statement at wp:ani regarding making such implications. I don't agree with the equivalency implied in your statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Tijfo098
I was going to post something similar to what Kwami said, as far as the contents is concerned, but he beat me to it.
  1. The current lead starting with "Lake Michigan–Huron is a name sometimes given ..." is pretty silly, besides contravening some policies. Every label attached to a concept is a name, including "lake Michigan" and "lake Huron". See Wikipedia:NOTDICT#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary for wikipolicy and use–mention distinction for the general principle. So we don't start with "Lake Michingan is a name given to a body of water..." Also, many concepts are referred to by several names. There is no need in such cases to say that any given name is only "sometimes given". If there are other names by which this concept is known, simply add them. See MOS:BOLDSYN.
  2. Whether M and H are one lake or two depends on the definition of lake. There are explicit definitions in hydrology where several basins connected by straits but which are at the same level are one lake. I've added one such def to article on lake because it was missing any hydrological definition of the notion. What needs to be made clear in the lead of this article is in which context this notion (not merely name) is used. It could start with "In hydrology, lake M-H is the subsumption of the basins of L H and L M. They are considered as one lake/unit because..." or something like that.
  3. The explanation in the lead should be much simpler. Let's check out how some sources manage that: [8] "Lake Huron is connected to Lake Michingan by the wide Staight of Mackinac and the two lakes are a hydrological unit, both being 176m above sea level." [9] "From a hydrologic point of view, Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered to be one lake because the elevation of their water surfaces is the same." You can add how the water circulates through the straight causing that afterwards.
That's what I have to say for now. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I see #1 has been well explained at WP:UMD. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

That "sometimes" in the first sentence really is absolutely key. It needs to be retained IMO. I've had success avoiding the WK:DICT teams before, and would advocate leaving this style of intro sentence alone until someone gets forceful about it.

Kwami - it was me who did the alt name deletion, exactly because I could not find a reference using it (turns out googling this form is a nightmare because many sites describe the lake by state - i.e., "Lake Huron, MI" - and I lack the Google-fu to make it recognise en-dashes). Show me one, and I'd be happy to put it back.DanHobley (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are several references for Lake M-H and that is also the article title. Why change it? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
...Having now seen Tijfo098's comments, I actually quite like his approach, and wouldn't object to adjustments along these lines. i.e, replace "sometimes" with a better description of the hydrological context of the naming. DanHobley (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why is it "absolutely key" to retain "sometimes"? Because the concept is sometimes used without naming it? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Dan, the "X is a name" approach really conflicts with the MOS. We only use such wording on articles about words or names. It will eventually get deleted by someone, and that could start the whole debate again, so I really hope one of you will come up with st more encyclopedic.
The passage, which Ken deleted repeatedly, is:
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality says, "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." [Ref: Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan.[10] (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6AaQJIiTQ)]
That wording is really hard to find with Google because of all the false positives you get for "Lake Huron, Michigan". AFAIK it is the wording generally used by the State of Michigan, for example on the signs put up along nature trails. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are some more, although they still don't outweigh the sources in favor of Michigan-Huron:
RockMagnetist (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not arguing that we should change the name! only that we list this as a second name. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami's suggestions seem reasonable – especially the key concept that "in the context of hydrology, the two are one body of water". North8000, do you take issue with any of those proposed changes? Mojoworker (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Mojoworker's questions. Except for clouding the issue (and going off the topic of this article) with subdividing Georgian Bay (but not the other bays) I have no objections. But as always in this article, the important area is the details of the wording. May I suggest that somebody other than Kwami create the wording and put it in? North8000 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"somebody other than Kwami": That's why I'm posting here for discussion, and promised to stay off the article until this is finished. I'd hardly ask you to stay off, and then go edit it myself.
As for why only Georgian Bay, easy: because that's what our refs do. If you have refs which treat other bays the same way, please share! Since we're talking about how people divide up MH, I think it's relevant that NOAA divides it into three rather than the usual two. Pfly made a similar point when explaining why "system" was not a good term: "One could argue that Lake Huron is a system, with Georgian Bay and the North Channel each connected only by narrow straits." Interesting POV, that, if we could find a ref for separating the North Channel, but I haven't seen one. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"In a source" does not necessarily mean germane to the article. IMHO this article should be about things related to the combining of the two lakes, not about things within either individual lake. I think that there is a steep slippery slope (into chaotic overlap, and complete loss of focus for this article) waiting for us if we start putting in things about Lake Michigan or Lake Huron individually that do not relate to the combining of the two. But, in the spirit of compromise, I'll downgrade my "objection" on Georgian bay to just an opinion, and say I'm fine with whatever others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with that opinion, but this case is different: In the NOAA approach, Georgian Bay is not st within Lake Huron, but a separate entity within MH. That is, it isn't Georgian Bay ∈ Huron ∈ MH, but rather MH = {Georgian Bay, Huron, Michigan}, so Georgian Bay ∈ MH directly. The hydrology is described as existing in three basins, not two. Similarly, St Marys as the inflow and St Clair as the outflow are mentioned in this article, despite being included in the Lake Huron article as well, because you can't discuss the hydrology without them. I doubt there can be many things of this kind, so I don't expect there to be any slippery slope. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be a whole new definition of Lake Huron. :-)  :-) We'll then have to start the new article: Lake Huron (does not include Georgian Bay) and rename this one to Lake Huron-Michigan-Georgian Bay :-)  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
On one hand I'm not sure how useful it would be to get into details about Georgian Bay, but on the other I like that NOAA diagram and wonder if we should use it. And if we do use it we will need to say something about Georgian Bay. I don't know a lot about the bay, but some quick searching turned up some interesting tidbits, perhaps worth further research. Lots of sources say Georgian Bay is sometimes called the "sixth Great Lake" due to its size and narrow straits joining it with the rest of Lake Huron. Also, European exploration of the Great Lakes jumped from the east end of Lake Ontario directly to Georgian Bay (via the Ottawa River and Lake Nipissing). Because this route was in the territory of the Huron Indians the bay/lake was soon called Lake/Lac Huron. Apparently some of the earliest maps from this era show no real distinction between Georgian Bay and Lake Huron—the geography was not well understood. Anyway, I have to run or I would try to say more. I'm still not sure whether it would be worth getting into this kind of detail about Georgian Bay. And I'm not sure how often it is really considered distinct from Lake Huron, other than in that NOAA diagram. I'd want to see more sources. Anyway, at this point in the process of improving this article perhaps it would be better to leave such complications for later? I'll think about it...gotta run! Pfly (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
A NOAA schematic of the hydrology of the Great Lakes, taking Lake Michigan–Huron to be a single lake with three basins: Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Georgian Bay.[1]
We could even just use the img, and note that MH is being treated as three basins, and let the reader follow the link to Georgian Bay if they want more. (We should probably treat the subject better at Lake Huron, though!) At NOAA, it's not just the diagram: all their data is arranged that way. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
How's this? →
I like that. I admit I am a bit of a sucker for diagrams of hydrological systems. :-) Pfly (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

H-M

By the way, it appears as "Huron-Michigan" as well and as early as 1952 [11]. Also in 1969. Also in this 2009 book, p. 57 (also on p. 728-729; in this book it appears as M-H as well though). I think M-H is far more common (compared to H-M), at least in recent publications. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT it's more common in older pubs as well; it also goes back to at least 1913.[12] — kwami (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"In the context of hydrology, however, the two can be considered as one body of water."

I think that this sentence is against the spirit of WP:WEIGHT. Is there some hydrology publication which says they aren't or shouldn't be considered as one? From what I've seen, the one lake/unit view is overwhelmingly present in hydrological approach/discussion/materials on the topic. So the watering down with "can be" instead of "are" seems unjustified in this context. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue there is that one can also study the hydrology of portions of larger bodies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A "body" of water is a lake. It is a "body" because it is big in the middle but narrow at the inlet/outlet. Lake M-H is two bodies of water but one system of water. The two bodies of water are interconnected in several ways measured by level, pH, temperature, flow, etc. They are, however, separated geographically. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If a body of water is a lake, then Michigan-Huron, which is a body of water per many of our sources, is a lake. You'd need to provide supporting sources if you wish to convince us otherwise. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that kind of definition in say, body of water. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yea, there is no general definition of "lake" or "body of water" to depend on. Nor is there any authority with the power to create and enforce a standard definition. I don't understand the use of the word "geographic" above, saying the lakes are "separated geographically". Geography is just the study of the Earth and its surface features. The term is too vague for me to be able to make sense of its use here. As far as lakes and bodies of water sometimes having complicated shapes with narrow constrictions and large "geographically separated" lobes, there are plenty of counter examples where a single name is used and the whole body commonly regarded as one lake: Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba come to mind (Lake Manitoba's very name derives from its having a narrow constriction in its center). Also Lake Balkhash, Moosehead Lake, Flagstaff Lake (Maine), and countless others. Thus the argument that Lake Michigan-Huron can't really be a lake due to its shape doesn't hold water, so to speak. Pfly (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the common understanding of 'geographic' is whatever you find on a map. I tend to use the word that way: geographically separate meaning that they have separate names on the map. 'Conventional' might be a more accurate way of saying it. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

ASW Comments

Here' a go at the lead for the current article: Lake Michigan–Huron (also Huron–Michigan) hydrologically consists of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Thus, it may be studied as a single body of water. In this context, the Lakes, located within the Great Lakes of North America, are considered as one lake because they are joined at the narrow, open-water Straits of Mackinac, and rise and fall together. The present lake body was formed, ... years ago, during the .... On rare occassion, it has been referred to as the world's largest freshwater lake.

Commenting on Kwami Proposal: The two Lakes are not just "popular." They are also their own names and the subject of study themselves. The 'largest' stuff is relatively unimportant to the science, but ok since there are some few authorities, but it need not even be in the lead, in my view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the largest stuff not needing to be in the opening sentence or two, although I like how it is now in the second paragraph of the lead. Also agree on "popular" not being the right word. "Common" and "traditional" both seem appropriate, although I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it. I would also prefer the hydrological bit slightly later in the lead, more like the page currently reads. Perhaps something like
  • Lake Michigan–Huron (also Huron–Michigan) is the combined waters of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, which are hydrologically joined at the narrow, open-water Straits of Mackinac. Although Lakes Michigan and Huron are usually regarded as separate they are sometimes considered a single body of water...
Well, something like that anyway. Pfly (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I like that. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure the reader would understand 'hydrologically' in this context, though, and a quick glance at the hydrology article suggests it wouldn't do much to enlighten them. Considering the passions this has provoked, I don't think that's wise. Something about equilibrium, perhaps, though that might have the same problem (hydrostatic equilibrium isn't terribly enlightening either, though that would be easier to fix). Of course, we explain the concepts in the body, but since that's the case, is it beneficial to use jargon in the lead?
Quibble: usually regarded as separate *lakes*, ... — kwami (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I like Pfly's phrasing too. I think the link through to hydrology covers kwami's concerns? DanHobley (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no. I followed the link, supposing I didn't know what it meant, and I don't see how I'd get the concept from that article without spending more time than I'd be willing to, if at all. I don't see how it adds anything (if you understand it, you won't need it, and if you need it, you won't understand it), so in this one place I prefer Alan's wording. Maybe 'joined through' rather than 'at' would help a little. — kwami (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hydrologically is probably as good as anything (but the other ideas are also fine). I think that the even the sources used it in a general sense to try to say "they have such a proportionately strong water connection that they are roughly at the same level" and "for the purposes of many particular scientific topics it is useful and accurate-enough to treat them as a single body of water" ....all of that is certainly not specified by the one word "Hydrologically" nor is there any other one word which does so. Sentences can be used to establish a useful thought or concept even when they are not precise / thorough. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is no good word I can think of either. At that point, I ask what's the point of having any word at all—throw out the adjectives you don't need (as a writing teacher might advise), since 'joined' covers it about as well. A quibble, though. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I did toy with:Lake Michigan–Huron (also Huron-Michigan) consists of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. In hydrology, it may be studied as a single body of water. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems overly restrictive to me. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Me too; I mean I like the idea, but Lake M-H is not only talked about within the field of hydrology. I also find the link to hydrology less than helpful for explaining what we're trying to say. I can't think of another way to say it while remaining simple. Hmm. Pfly (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Lake MH is the combined waters of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, which join at the narrow, open-water Straits of Mackinac. (... which are linked through?) — kwami (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey! NOAA words it as "one lake hydraulically", and our article on hydraulics is much more helpful.
Also, the two waters join each other. They aren't joined by st else. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, hydraulics looks potentially useful. I don't know if it would work so well to say something like Lake M-H is the combined waters of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, which are hydraulically joined at the narrow, open-water Straits of Mackinac...; since they could be hydraulically joined by a river, if I am reading the hydraulics page right. It would need to read something more like what you said, one lake hydraulically, thus ruling out a river connection, right? Or maybe replacing "joined at" with "joined by the...Straits of Mackinac". Hmm, brain fuzzy, time to sleep. Will probably return with a clearer head tomorrow. Amazing how much effort can go into a sentence or two on Wikipedia. Pfly (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
'Hydrologically' is similarly fuzzy. That's one reason I don't like the jargon: it isn't precise enough to clarify, like using 'geographically' above to mean 'on a map'. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The new first sentence looks like it was written by a committee. In the context of two lakes connected by straits, is there any difference between "hydrologically joined" and "joined"? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh, yea, might as well just say joined. Pfly (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Conjoined". [13] [14] [15] :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How does this look for the next two sentences? They are sometimes considered a single lake because, on average, their water levels are the same. Water flows through the straits in either direction, depending on local weather conditions. (The bit about resonances could be moved to the second paragraph.) RockMagnetist (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good except do y'all think that it would be more informative to at least hint at the normal direction of flow through the straits? North8000 (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Good point. How about: They are sometimes considered a single lake because, on average, their water levels are the same. Although the flow of water through the straits is generally eastward, it can flow in either direction depending on local weather conditions.RockMagnetist (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Looks good. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we should note it is generally eastward; in the body we can give the numbers. But "because, on average, their water levels are the same" is false: it's because they're a single approx equilibrium body. If they weren't connected, they wouldn't be considered one lake just because they were at the same elevation. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Next try: They are sometimes considered a single lake because the flow of water through the straits keeps their water levels in near-equilibrium. Although the flow is generally eastward, it can be in either direction depending on local weather conditions.RockMagnetist (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that captures it. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
[after the edit] That works well, though IMO the 3rd sentence doesn't belong in the first paragraph, or even in the lead at all. It seems to be the kind of detail that would introduce that section of the body. But, again, that's just a quibble. — kwami (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Also still not sure of the value of "hydrologically", but I don't mind. Thanks for your work RockMagnetist! I may make a few edits, at least to the second paragraph. Minor wording things. Pfly (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed "hydrologically". I could take or leave the third sentence. RockMagnetist (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I just tried to remove the third sentence but felt it wasn't quite right and couldn't see how to reword it. The bit here is: Although the flow is generally eastward, it can be in either direction depending on local weather conditions. Standing waves can also build up enough to drive flow one way or the other. The standing wave thing refers to seiches, I think, which are explained later in the article. The thing is, if I understand right the direction of flow through the straits depends on weather conditions and seiches. Simply taking the standing wave sentence out makes the lead say the flow direction depends on weather, period. I thought about rewording it ...depending on local weather conditions and seiches, but jargon in the lead is undesirable. Changing "seiches" to "standing waves" doesn't cut it either. And I didn't like ...local weather conditions and wave action, or waves. So I don't know. Maybe it's fine as it is. Pfly (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Why do we need to include any of them? How about, Although the average flow is eastward, it can be in either direction (or) Although the average flow is eastward, it changes with local conditions. What exactly causes the changes can be left to the text.
Also, IMO the word 'entity' is a bit odd. It's semantically empty, so what about Although Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are geographically distinct, some sources count them as a unit (Again, just a quibble.) — kwami (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"Local conditions"! Sometimes the simple solutions are harder to see. I made that change and took out the standing waves sentence. I also took out the first use of "entity", which I also found a little odd. I left the second two because I didn't like the feel of "...some sources count Michigan-Huron as a single unit, or a single unit with respect to certain areas such as level data and hydrology." Actually, perhaps "entity" should just be "lake". I'll just go ahead and make that change, but if anyone prefers something else please feel free to change it. While we're at it, I find "...a single unit with respect to certain areas such as level data and hydrology" a bit awkward. I thought about linking level data, but 1) that doesn't really fix the awkwardness, and 2) wow the water level page is bad! Pfly (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I originally wrote that phrase to fix a complete misrepresentation of the sources, I.E. to move the sources to a phrase which they DO support. I tweaked it. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The ref move was inappropriate. I left the rest of your changes, but I really think it's a bad idea for us to start editing this article again before it's settled. (Or, frankly, probably even after it's settled.) That's why I've been suggesting even minor changes here, rather than 'fixing' them. Where you said "May I suggest that somebody other than Kwami create the wording and put it in?" above, may I suggest that you follow that advice as well? I take issue with nearly all of your edits, just as you take issue with nearly all of mine, while neither of us seems to have a problem with the other editors here. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kwamikagami for lack of time. I'll be very blunt and brief, and without meaning to be nasty. Based on the history and behavior at this article and the related one, it is only you who needs to limit their editing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I have: I have limited myself to reverting you, Ken, and those who come here pushing the POV that Michigan-Huron does not exist against the consensus that it does. Based on your history of inappropriate edits and inexplicable interpretations, and the fact that your edits continue to be problematic, if you have a problem with the article, please bring it up here for others to fix. Things are going well; please don't mess with that. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
A clever mis-representation of the situation. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of who is right or wrong, you two have a history of reverting each other. North8000, how about you make a goodwill gesture and agree to suggest edits on this talk page before making changes? In doing so, you would not be conceding anything to kwami; you would just be making a pragmatic decision that will reduce the edit warring. Since kwami started doing this there has been a lot less friction. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
No but defacto yes. The "no" is that based on the history and behavior at this article and the related one, it is only Kwamikagami who needs to limit their editing. It is far out of line to even hint at even slightly equating the situations. The "defacto yes" is that I'll be barely on wiki tomorrow and then off the grid for 9 days after that. About half way there I'll visit Lake Superior, I'll tell them to keep sending water to M-H to keep them full so that we have something to debate about. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

In the spirit of not making even minor changes myself, I have some suggestions for copy editing. Mostly wording and structure: I don't think I'm suggesting any changes of fact or opinion. First explicit strike-outs and additions, then the proposed result in italics. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The connection between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is [through] the Straits of Mackinac, which are [is] 5 miles (8 km) wide and 120 feet (37 m) deep. This depth compares with {odd wording: move to after the following clause} the maximum depths of 750 feet (229 m) in Lake Huron and 923 feet (281 m) in Lake Michigan. Although the Straits create a pronounced bottleneck in the contours of the shoreline[,] and a major constriction in the local bathymetry [compared with ...], defining two distinct topographic basins, they are still deep enough and wide [large/extensive] enough to allow [the] free exchange of water between the basins on either side without requiring a significant excess hydraulic head on one lake compared to the other. Thus, b[B]ecause of the link through the Straits, both Lakes Michigan and Huron have a [maintain the same] mean water level of[, currently at] 577 feet (176 m).

The connection between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron through the Straits of Mackinac is 5 miles (8 km) wide and 120 feet (37 m) deep. Although the Straits create a pronounced bottleneck in the contour of the shoreline, and a major constriction in the local bathymetry compared with the maximum depths of 750 feet (229 m) in Lake Huron and 923 feet (281 m) in Lake Michigan, defining two distinct basins, they are extensive enough to allow the free exchange of water between the basins on either side. Because of the link through the Straits, Lakes Michigan and Huron maintain the same mean water level, currently at 577 feet (176 m).

During the last ice age, the sizes and connectivity of the two basins varied dramatically through [over] time. Sequential advances and retreats of the Laurentian ice sheet repeatedly opened and dammed various possible outlets from the area, as well as providing dramatically varying amounts of meltwater to the system. At various times what is now Michigan–Huron was clearly separated into two lakes, and at other times was part of a single, deeper lake. At its [the] peak, [of the ice sheets] around 11,000 years ago[, what is known to geologists as Lake Algonquin was] and dammed by the ice sheet to the northeast, [and] incorporated both modern lakes [the Lake] Huron and [Lake] Michigan [basins], as well as much of modern lake [the Lake] Superior [basin]. Before that[,] Lake Chicago occupied the southern tip of the Lake Michigan basin, at the southern extent of the glaciers. Around 9,500 years ago, new pathways draining the system to the east were opened by the retreat of the ice, and what is now Lake Huron (known to geologists as Lake Stanley) was separate from what is now Lake Michigan (Lake Chippewa), with Lake Michigan [Chippewa] at a slightly higher level. They were connected by the now[-]submerged Mackinac Channel, which discharged into post–glacial Lake Huron [Lake Stanley] over Mackinac Falls. Ongoing warping of the surface [underlying land] by isostatic uplift due to [after] the removal of the glacial ice continued to perturb [modify?] the drainage structure of the region, allowing re-integration [the ??] of all three basins (Superior, Michigan and Huron) as the Nipissing Great Lakes. This arrangement was probably stable for more than 1,000 years, ending only when lake outlets other than the St. Clair River were cut off around 4,000 years ago. The current configuration of the lakes reflects the latest step in a long history of their postglacial evolution.

During the last ice age, the sizes and connectivity of the two basins varied dramatically over time. Sequential advances and retreats of the Laurentian ice sheet repeatedly opened and dammed various outlets from the area, as well as providing dramatically varying amounts of meltwater to the system. At various times what is now Michigan–Huron was clearly separated into two lakes, and at other times was part of a single, deeper lake. At the peak of the ice sheets around 11,000 years ago, what is known to geologists as Lake Algonquin was dammed by ice to the northeast and incorporated the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan basins, as well as much of the Lake Superior basin. Before that, Lake Chicago occupied the southern tip of the Lake Michigan basin, at the southern extent of the glaciers. Around 9,500 years ago, new pathways draining the system to the east were opened by the retreat of the ice, and what is now Lake Huron (known to geologists as Lake Stanley) was separate from what is now Lake Michigan (Lake Chippewa), with Lake Chippewa at a slightly higher level. They were connected by the now-submerged Mackinac Channel, which discharged into Lake Stanley over Mackinac Falls. Ongoing warping of the underlying land by isostatic uplift after the removal of the glacial ice continued to modify {?} the drainage structure of the region, allowing the reunification {?} of all three basins (Superior, Michigan and Huron) as the Nipissing Great Lakes. This arrangement was probably stable for more than 1,000 years, ending only when lake outlets other than the St. Clair River were cut off around 4,000 years ago. The current configuration of the lakes reflects the latest step in a long history of their postglacial evolution.

If not here, perhaps a link to a stub to supply the alternative names Nipissing Great Lake and Great Lake Nipissing (about one-half and one-quarter as common as Nipissing Great Lakes). Or maybe just write Nipissing Great Lake/Lakes ? — kwami (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I made most of these changes. A few didn't work for me. I made some of my own copyedits and left some items unchanged. Which isn't to say I think everything is perfect by any extent. A few things were awkward or confusing in a way I couldn't immediately solve, so left for later. One is the way the ancient lake names are mentioned, often parenthetically, which seems awkward and confusing. Also this sentence: Lake Chicago occupied the southern tip of the Lake Michigan basin, at the southern extent of the ice sheets. I almost changed "southern extent" to "southern end", assuming Lake Chicago was just south of the ice sheet, but then realized I didn't really know where Lake Chicago was in relation to the ice sheets at the time. I checked the two nearest sources and neither mentioned Lake Chicago, so I added a fact tag. I know I've seen a source that has this info—probably one already in use here. Anyway, that's all the time I right at the moment. Be back later! Pfly (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.
Yes, it was just south of the ice sheet, same as Lake Algonquin. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Ya, found a good source at Great Lakes. Apparently I still have a bit of time this evening. :-) Pfly (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
History §: you have Michigan discharging into Stanley. I think both need to be the name for the era.
Nipissing Great Lakes: IMO it's confusing to have 3 lakes merge into lakes (plural). Lake/Lakes would work better.
Bathymetry §: I really don't see the point of the hydraulic-head comment. If you understand it, you won't need it, so I think it's better left out.
The mean water level varies over time. They don't have a mean water level of 577 feet because of the Straits; rather, they maintain the same mean water level because of the Straits, and that level is currently 577 feet (but may be lower next year).
— kwami (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes on the mean water level point, I'll change that. I didn't quite understand the hydraulic-head bit, so left it until I could figure out if it was worth keeping or not, but having read the linked page and thought about it, I think you are right. I also agree about the sentence with Nipissing Great Lakes being a bit confusing, but I haven't read enough in sources to understand it enough to reword well, so I've left it for now. I'm slowly reading through some of the decent, longer geologic history sources. Re: "you have Michigan discharging into Stanley", if I did I've since fixed it? There's a bunch of other minor wording issues I may or not may get around to. Like the term "basin"; we talk about a "Lake Michigan basin", "all three basins (Superior, Michigan, and Huron)", "two distinct basins", "distinct topographic basins" (I thought I took out "topographic", huh), etc. I don't know geological terms that well, but reading these sources it seems that there are a number of separate basins within each modern lake, and in the past some of these basins were separate lakes. There's a good map of "depositional basins" on p. 522 of [16]. I understand that we're using "basin" to mean what is currently underwater and perhaps this is okay, but I wonder if it's technically incorrect to speak of the "Lake Michigan basin", when there are actually a number of basins under the lake's waters. But like I said, a minor point perhaps. Pfly (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, taken care of.
'Basin' isn't perfect, but IMO calling Lake Chicago "modern Lake Michigan" is worse. Maybe "what is now Lake Michigan"?
You took out 'topographic' in the previous §. I didn't mind it so much here.
There are three forms of the name for Nipissing. Some of the sources I checked explained it: some people use the plural cuz it was almost three lakes (in fact, at least at the time one was written, they weren't sure it wasn't at least two), and correspond to three modern lakes; others use the singular cuz it was actually one lake. Since we say it was one lake, it's a bit disconnected to use the plural. IMO we should either use the singular or give both. Preferably the sg; if an article is ever written for it, the issues can be explained there. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I think the old 'rebound' was better than 'isostatic adjustment'. 'Rebound' is self-explanatory, while the latter is rather impenetrable. — kwami (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think so too, and glacial isostatic adjustment redirects to Post-glacial rebound anyway. I note that the page says "Recently, the term post-glacial rebound is gradually being replaced by the term glacial isostatic adjustment" and explains why. And the reasons make sense, yet still the term "glacial isostatic adjustment" is, as you say, rather impenetrable. Geologists should try to come up with a different term that is both more accurate than "rebound" and less jargony than "isostatic". I'll change it back. In either case the link takes you to the same page, and that page explains the two terms and why "isostatic adjustment" is technically better than "rebound". Pfly (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I think our sentence's use of the phrase "warping of the land" implies more than just rebound. Pfly (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I replaced "isostatic uplift" with "Post-glacial rebound", but then noticed the "gradually being replaced by the term glacial isostatic adjustment ... in recognition that the response of the Earth to glacial loading and unloading is not limited to the upward rebound movement" and went with that instead. But in the context of this article, I think Post-glacial rebound is probably easier to understand. Mojoworker (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

geographically[original research?] distinct

I assume "geographically" was a good faith attempt to give a name to the other-than-hydrological POV, but it seems concocted and not directly supported by the references provided. I actually tried to find something like this myself a while back, but didn't find something satisfactory. What I did find were:

  • A computer science (!!) book that says (as an aside) [17] "Hydrology experts sometimes refer tot the lakes as a single entity, Lake Michigan-Huron. On the other hand it makes senses to consider the two lakes as separate from a political point of view, since Lake Michigan is wholly within the borders of the United States, while the border between the US and Canada divides Lake Huron."
  • A mobile encyclopedia for smartphones by MobileReference (?? - no authors given as far as I can tell, ISBN 1605010537) which says [18] "Hydrologically Michigan and Huron are the same body of water (sometimes called Lake Michigan-Huron), but are geographically distinct. Counted together, it is the largest fresh water body in the world by surface area. [...]" Assuming this is a WP:RS, it could probably be used to substantiate the "geographically" adjective.

Hope this helps, Tijfo098 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The 2nd is a copy of this very article. I don't know what the CompSci book is copying (I noticed it too), but we should make sure it's not an old version of us. But you're right, "geographically" is too vague to be meaningful. We can probly find refs they're legally separate lakes, and certainly they are culturally. — kwami (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I think I found something a little more useful in an Infobase Publishing encyc [19]: "Lake Huron is connected to Lake Michigan by the Straits of Mackinac, which are so wide that some hydrologists argue the two lakes are actually two lobes of a single lake and are regarded as separate only because of historic accident: The first French explorers in the area discovered the lakes' southern end long before discovering the straits." The entry is authored by this guy, it seems. Not the greatest source, but better than OR. The references for that entry should probably be explored. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, references for that history would be most interesting. But refs that the lakes are legally distinct would, I suspect, be relatively easy to come up with. — kwami (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


I haven't had time to keep up here, but should get back around sooner or later. I'm skeptical about that history quote above—that French explorers found the southern end of Lake Michigan before finding the Straits of Mackinac. I thought Jean Nicolet was the first non-native known to have reached Lake Michigan, and I'm almost certain he came via the Straits. Pfly (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I've noticed that too after reading in more detail how Lake Michigan was [re]discovered by Nicolet [20]. It's still a bit controversial which way he went, but he traveled on water. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just say "normally considered distinct" instead of "geographically distinct". Or normally regarded as/thought of as distinct. I'll just make that change. If it's a problem for anyone we can talk about it. Pfly (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "normally", "usually", "in most/all other contexts" are phrases we could use. But see Rich Farmbrough's comment (and subsequent ones) in another section below with which I also agree. Most casual readers of this article don't seem to get confused even without hyper-emphasis on when L & M are not considered one lake. Duh. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree. That whole second paragraph could be done without and at no great loss to understanding. Although, I think "widely" may be better than "normally" Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Area

I corrected the area once, and added a ref, but was reverted. According to the State of Michigan, we're off by 200km². (Perhaps due to the recent drop in water level?)

117,400 km2 (45,300 sq mi) [Dept. of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan[21] ]

We already use that ref, I think. — kwami (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed & ref'd it. — kwami (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

summary at Great Lakes

The summary was a copy of an old version of the lead here. Didn't really fit that way, as well as not having kept up. I reworded it as follows, which I hope captures what we've agreed to here, while paraphrasing enough to fit into the text there. Please change anything that isn't right, esp. if you can explain it here:

Lakes Huron and Michigan are sometimes considered a single lake, called Lake Michigan–Huron or Lake Huron–Michigan, because the flow of water through the Straits of Mackinac connects them as one hydrological body of water and keeps their levels in near-equilibrium. The straits are 5 miles (8 km) wide and 120 feet (37 m) deep; the water levels (currently at 577 feet (176 m)) rise and fall together, and the flow between the lakes frequently reverses direction.

Here we introduce MH with the title, and so should lead off with that name. There, on the other hand, we've already introduced H and M, so IMO it flows better to lead off with those, as givens, and then introduce the new name. Different context, different word order. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother mentioning the H-M order anywhere outside this article. It's too uncommon. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. — kwami (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Bays

Minor quibble, not really about the above, but about related articles. I noticed that in Lake Michigan, Lake Michigan was refereed to as a bay of M-H. I've removed that. Many sources avoid any sort of terminology, but one or two refer to M and H as the two "lobes" of M-H. A few more describe the basins as "conjoined" (there are some links above on this page.) As far as I can tell the lake "lobe" terminology isn't any sort of standard even in hydrology itself, but was apparently borrowed from glacier terminology. So in the rare instances when it might be needed, "lobe" is definitely preferable to "bay" when speaking of M and H as parts of M-H. (Also avoids confusion with things like Green Bay (Lake Michigan).) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically it's a bay, like Georgian Bay (NOAA schematic again), but you're right: since this is so contentious, we shouldn't use the word if our sources don't. I thought one or two of them did, but maybe not any used as refs. — kwami (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "bay" is well-defined enough to say "technically it's a bay". In fact the OED defines "bay" as "An indentation of the sea into the land with a wide opening", which is definitely not the case here (although it's not the case with Georgian Bay or many other things named "bay"—ie, it's not a well-defined term). I like the sound of "lobe", but I might just say Lake Michigan is a "part" of M-H, if I had to say anything. Pfly (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Dictionaries aren't good sources for identifying peripheral members of categories. Cf. Lake Maracaibo, which is very similar and is a bay per the several sources I found there. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Well sure, I guess I was mainly saying the word "bay" didn't seem right to me, is all. Pfly (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Who calls Lake Maracaibo a "bay". It isn't a bay, if anything it is a lagoon. The west lobe of Lake Huron-Michigan is not a "bay" in any reasonable English-language usage.Eregli bob (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Basins

This may go back to the basins, within basins, within basins, within Basin discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Michigan–Huron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Michigan–Huron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lake Michigan–Huron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lake_Michigan–Huron/Archive_2&oldid=1073140658"