Talk:Great Lakes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lakes
 Great Lakes is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
WikiProject Lakes
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Great Lakes 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.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 7 selected anniversary

Contents

[edit] Content lacking

Extraordinary that an article of this length cannot seem to be bothered writing about the main subjects: the hydrology and biology of the lakes. Who cares how many tons of cargo were shipped last year? Let's deal with important stuff: What lives in the lakes? Which of the lakes are healthy and which are not? What is their likely future? Do they freeze over in winter? What effect have the lampreys had? How important a natural resource are they in terms of fishing and related activities? Are they used for irrigation? Is the water still drinkable? Is there friction between Canada and the US over the management of the lakes? And so on. Lots of important stuff to do here.

I was looking forward to an interesting read about an area I know very little about. Very dissapointed. A surprisingly poor effort from the often excellent Wikipedia team. Tannin 14:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I find this response very odd. What "team"? This page, like all Wikipedia pages, was written in this fashion: first somebody wrote a page, then somebody else updated it, and then somebody else fixed some typos, etc. It's fair for you to list the topics that the page should also cover, but calling it a "poor effort" seems rude to me. It's not like anyone got paid to work on this page. -- Walt Pohl 16:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't know why you feel that way, Walt. What team? You, me, and everybody else here, of course. A poor quality page is a poor quality page. If it needs to be fixed, it needs to be fixed. And this page is way below the standard that a reader familiar other parts of the 'pedia might expect. (And as for getting paid .... well, I don't know about you but, like most people, if I'm getting paid for a job I feel obliged to create a solid, workmanlike result. If I'm doing it because I want to do it, then it gets my entire attention and I give it my very best shot. That's human nature, I think.)
The fact remains that this is a page about a really significant part of North America (a continent which has a huge number of 'pedia contributors, many of them very capable indeed) and although it has a fair bit of text already, it fails fairy comprehensively in the task of dealing with its subject. At a pinch, I could have a go at it myself, but I've never been within 5,000 miles of the Great Lakes and I have a different continent as my priority, one that I know a good deal more about and which doesn't have so many other 'pedia contributors in it. My hope is that one or another of our North American members will take this page on and fix up the glaring holes in it. Something as famous as the Great Lakes deserves better. Tannin 23:36, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think this article suffers from a phenomenon I've noticed in Wikipedia, that the larger a geographical entity is, the poorer the article on it tends to be. Perhaps that's because large subjects seem intimidating for one person to approach, and they sometimes become mish-mashes of attempts by many contributors without a common theme (there are exceptions of course). I love creating little articles about seas and inlets, but I think Atlantic Ocean is an abysmal article for example, full of strange statements like that the Black Sea is a "tributary" of the Atlantic and listing Istanbul as an Atlantic Ocean port city. Huh? By contrast take a look at Georgian Bay, one part of one of the Great Lakes. By the way, the lakes do often freeze over in winter. -- Decumanus 23:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well I went back and checked and someone has thankfully cleaned up the Atlantic Ocean a little bit since I last checked. It's not quite as bad as it was. :) -- Decumanus 23:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure you are right about the "Oh Lord, this is a huge topic, I'll edit something a bit easier" thing, Decumanus. (And Georgian Bay is a very clear illustration of your point.) I've long feel a bit guilty about my patch, the Geography of Australia. It really needs attention, but it's such a huge task. Just these last few days I've been working on Australian geography and .... sure enough ... I too avoided the main article and added things with a smaller compass. But I'm working my way around to it. Tannin
I guess if you're intended tone, Tannin, was "we suck", rather than "you suck", then it bothers me less. But philosophically I object to the idea that it's right for someone else to demand that you do work for them. I find it a morally outrageous notion that I owe it to you to write about the Great Lakes simply because you have unanswered questions about it. I already spend a considerable amount of time researching and updating pages that I have no particular expertise in, simply because I think it's a shame that we don't have any coverage of them. You think this page is bad? Try Geography of Africa. The page is just a lightly-edited cut-and-paste job from the 1911 Encyclopedia; about 0% of the place names are the same as they were in 1911. I've spent a bunch of my free time this week educating myself about the geography just so I can rewrite the page. And what's my total reward so far for this activity? Being told how I've failed humanity because I haven't updated the Great Lakes page too. -- Walt Pohl 01:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh, make no mistake, ths is very much a "we suck" comment, Walt. I too have failed humanity because I have not improved the Great Lakes page either. (I don't know anything about the Great Lakes, but I could find out.) I too have spent some time working on geography pages recently (well, hydrology, which is a subset of the same thing) and no-one has presented me with a prize either. Like you, my priority at present is the geography of another area. (Hell, I'm a bird man at heart, with a sideline in mammals, but I've grown tired of linking to pages that don't exist yet every time I say the Greater Spotted Whasaname is common in the wetlands of the Gulf of Carpentaria.) You are working on Africa, I'm working on Australasia. These are both areas with relatively few Wikipedia contributors (Africa in particular) and it isn't surprising that they are weak. We both probably ought to keep on working on those areas, as they are the ones that need the most help. But I remain very surprised at the state of this page - the US, after all, supplies ... oh ... probably more than 50% of the english language Wikipedia contributors. I'd have thought that someone would have done something more substantial about it by now. Tannin 03:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we should start a WikiProject to keep track of what's missing, and what needs work? There's an inviting red link ready waiting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography. -- Walt Pohl 07:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

[edit] Summary

Okay, I've read over the entire discussion, and for clarity's sake, I've made the following table to tally the opinions:

Question: Which Great Lakes should the Great Lakes article cover?

Canadian/U.S. African Both: a disambiguation page Neutral or undecided
  1. Bkonrad (older≠wiser)
  2. Jengod
  3. Moverton (Mike)
  4. Chuq
  5. Sunborn (metta)
  6. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]]
  7. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Mike McGregor (Can)

  (no one so far)  
  1. SimonP
  2. Hajor
  3. Peregrine981
  4. Ambi 00:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. AlanBarrett 10:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Trilobite
  7. TreveXtalk 18:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. Pyrop
  2. Mintguy
  3. Benc

Note: I was unsure of a couple users' comments, which never explicitly stated their authors' opinions. I've put them under "neutral" for the time being — if you are one of those users, feel free to clarify your position and move your name to the appropriate heading.

Additional opinions from other users are welcome. Simply add your name to the appropriate heading, but please keep all comments to the discussion section, below. • Benc • 23:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Below moved from User talk:Bkonrad, User talk:SimonP, and User talk:Jengod
Because the Great Lakes are by far the most well known of any of the things known as great lakes. It is absolutely silly to place them at a disambiguated name simply because a few relatively obscure places share the same name. older≠wiser 16:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How do you figure? Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? Perhaps in North America, but the Great Lakes of Africa are just as important as those of North America. I think the hundred million people of the Great Lakes region of Africa would find it somewhat insulting to consider their great lakes "obscure" just because the per capita GDP of their region is far lower. - SimonP 19:07, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Do a Google search. Despite Africa having a vastly smaller web presence than North America "Great Lakes" Africa gets more hits than "Great Lakes" "North America". - SimonP 19:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Comparing Google hits for "Great Lakes" Africa and "Great Lakes" "North America" is an mistaken comparison because people very rarely actually use the terms "Great Lakes" and "North America" together -- most people assume Great Lakes is in North America and no qualification is necessary. There are 3,540,000 Google hits for "Great Lakes" alone and only 394,000 for "Great Lakes" and Africa. There are more hits than that (569,000) for "Great Lakes" and Ohio or "Great Lakes" and Ontario (409,000) or "Great Lakes" and Michiagn (1,150,000) or "Great Lakes" and Wisconsin (486,000) or "Great Lakes" and Minnesota (403,000) or "Great Lakes" and Illinois (530,000) or "Great Lakes" and "United States" (708,000).

No matter which one's more or less notable, look at the actual Great Lakes page: it's a disambiguation page, and should be avoided. Pyrop 21:17, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page only b/c SimonP made it one. SimonP, in English, which this encyclopedia covers, the overwhelming majority of Great Lakes references are going to refer to the Great Lakes of North America. We have a standard at Wikipedia to use the simplest possible common name in English for any article, and to let items with overwhelming precedence keep a primary URL. Therefore President of the United States refers to the executive head of the U.S. government, Ottawa refers to the Canadian locale, rather than both being disambiguation pages for the exec office and the band and the Canadian locale and the number of other Ottawa-named things. jengod 21:50, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Provide evidence for this assertion that the Great Lakes are far less often cited in English rather than just asserting it. - SimonP 15:52, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
If we factor out the bias of North America having a greater Internet presence they are almost equal. Canada and Kenya are both English speaking countries with a bit more than 30 million people. Canada get fifteen times as many Google hits as Kenya. If we say that every page that does not mention Africa refers to North America (which is not the case as "Great Lakes" Congo -Africa gets over 50,000 hits) that gives NA a 10 to 1 advantage. This does not nearly make up for the 15 to 1 predominance of North America on the Internet. - SimonP 18:01, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't follow what you mean here. older≠wiser 18:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My point is that if he thinks the Great Lakes of Africa aren't as notable as the American ones, he should change the Great Lakes page also. Pyrop 02:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I did but this was reverted. - SimonP 15:52, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, in English, which this encyclopedia covers, the overwhelming majority of Great Lakes references are going to refer to the Great Lakes of North America. We have a standard at Wikipedia to use the simplest possible common name in English for any article, and to let items with overwhelming precedence keep a primary URL. Therefore President of the United States refers to the executive head of the U.S. government, Ottawa refers to the Canadian locale, rather than both being disambiguation pages for the exec office and the band and the Canadian locale and the number of other Ottawa-named things. jengod 21:55, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of English speakers live outside of Africa, and probably rarely if ever have occassion to consider the great lakes of Africa, whereas there are tens millions of English speakers living around the North American Great Lakes who have daily occasion to describe them and mention them as such, and, in deed, refer to them on Wikipedia. Plus, take a look at [links here:Great Lakes]--there are at least 100 direct links to the Great Lakes pages. There are about 20 links to the Great Lakes (Africa). I see what you're trying to do, and in general it's a good idea, but in many cases, common sense overwhelms the need to make everything even-stevens for, well, everything. jengod 05:45, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you believe an overwhelming majority of English speakers refer to the North American Great Lakes when they say Great Lakes? - SimonP 03:17, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Jengod, thanks for your words of support. I completely agree with you that in general it is a good thing to try to balance US-centric tendencies, but where there are so many casual references to the Great Lakes, it just seems to make more sense to leave the article where people expect it to be. older≠wiser 11:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are tens of millions of English speakers living around the African Great Lakes. Uganda, Kenya, and Malawi are all English speaking countries with some sixty million people. Again provide some evidence, that takes into account the greatly differing access to the Internet, that shows that the African Great Lakes are much less cited in English than the North American ones. It is certainly true that on the Internet, because of financial barriers to entry, the Great Lakes of North America are the most referenced. But as Jimbo has repeatedly mentioned Wikipedia is not an Internet encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet. Currently Wikipedia has many thousands of editors from North America and, according to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, twelve from Sub-Saharan Africa, so it is not a great surprise that we have far more links to the North American Great Lakes. But this should not be taken as proof that English speakers in general are similarly biased. - SimonP 15:50, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Tens of millions vs. hundreds of millions. Hmmm. Also, you have not provided any clear evidence that the unqualified term "Great Lakes" is commonly used to refer to what I generally see referred to as the "Great Lakes of Africa" or the "African Great Lakes" -- i.e., the people writing recognize that the term "Great Lakes" needs to be qualified because the unqualified term is most commonly used to refer to the North American lakes. older≠wiser 16:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The unqualified term Great Lakes frequently refers to the African group. The UN does so [1], so does the BBC [2], as does the WHO [3], even the US government does sometimes [4]. Also what do you mean by tens of millions vs hundreds of millions. There are not hundreds of millions of people living around either Great Lakes. - SimonP 16:27, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I was not referring to only people living around the Great Lakes, but to the entire populations of the U.S. and Canada plus very significant numbers of english-speakers elsewhere in the world who are likely to think of the North American Great Lakes when encountering the unqualified and uncontextualized term "Great Lakes". The links you provided are good, thanks. Although, to quibble a bit, the context of the references makes it pretty clear that they are in Africa, but I suppose the same could be said of many of the articles about the North American Great Lakes. My main concern is that there are so many casual references to the Great Lakes -- and given the demographic bias of wikipedia contributors, there will continue to be many more casual references to the Great Lakes added. That is one of the main reasons for the naming convention: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". There are relatively few articles that link to the African Great Lakes (and I'd argue that most people doing such linking would be well aware of the ambiguity with the NA Great Lakes, while there is a much greater likelihood that people linking to the NA Great Lakes would not expect the Great Lakes link to be a disambiguation page. older≠wiser 17:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here we go again, having to fight tooth and nail for Internationalism against this insular Americo-centrism, it is extremely tiresome. Mintguy (T) 17:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Along with User:Simonp and Mintguy I believe that neutrality and internationalism would be best served by Great Lakes being a disambig page. –Hajor 18:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*sigh* Look. We're not trying to conquer the world. And the Great Lakes aren't just USian, they're along Canada's border too. Frankly, I was thinking that the standard *should* take into account the limited Internet access in Africa, not to mention lower educational standards overall, therefore dramatically fewer printed references to the African Great Lakes. I didn't think those were racist assumptions, but rather pragmatic ones. I *hate* these fights--they drive me apeshit. If nothing else, SimonP, next time you're thinking of making a big page move, and changing hundreds of links, could you maybe bring it up on the talk page first. Half of peoples' angry reaction is just from surprise--if you at least attempt to build consensus first you'll have a heck of a lot less trouble imposing your will. But hey, I give up. All hail internationalism. Because that's the important thing, countering the total Amerocentrism every American shows in every situation because that is her or his primary agenda in every discussion or debate. jengod 19:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • While everyone is squabbling over perceived Americentrism, I actually took a look at the content of the articles. The American Great Lakes are described thus: "They are the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world, and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system is the largest fresh-water system in the world." (emphasis added) Taking a look at Great Lakes (Africa) we see: "There is no set definition of the Great Lakes". I think this is a slam dunk. Great Lakes should point to the American Great Lakes and Great Lakes (disambiguation) should point to the disambiguation page. —Mike 20:38, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
While the African Great Lakes and their outlet, the Nile River, may not be the largest fresh water system in the world, being in second place does not mean they are insignificant enough to not need disambiguation. Both systems have three of the world' ten largest lakes and the Africain Great Lakes have more people living around them. - SimonP 01:52, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the African Great Lakes are insignificant However, we need to keep in mind that this is a "Wiki"pedia--significance here is largely determined by the people who edit the WP. Unfortunately, sometimes that results in situations where the the most ideally fair solution is not practical. I counted 301 pages that link to the North American Great Lakes (not counting talk pages, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, or obvious disambiguation pages). I counted 12 pages that link to the African Great Lakes pages. I think it is rather arrogant to dictate to so many users of such a commonly linked article how they should use the term. My main objection is that there is a far greater likelihood that casual users of wikipedia will create links to Great Lakes and expect that the link will go to the NA lakes. On the other hand, I rather suspect that people editing articles linking to the African Great Lakes will be far more likely to be aware of the ambiguity with the NA lakes and edit accordingly. older≠wiser 02:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That is all very true. It is certainly the case that Wikipedia has a great and understandable bias towards those areas that have money and Internet access. It would make some sense to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia geared towards the online and wealthy as they are the current readers and editors; however, I think this goes against the founding vision of Wikipedia. One of Jimbo's, and Wikipedia's, main goals has long been to make information available to the world?s poorest. Jimbo has even discussed using foundation money to "distribute cheaply-printed paperback copies of Wikipedia to every school in every country in Africa." While today 90% of readers may automatically think of Lake Superior and company when they here the term Great Lakes, that might not be true in the future. - SimonP 03:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
OK then, fine, let's just decide that this is no longer a Wiki and will instead be a vehicle for instructing rich, dumb, Americans just how ignorant they are about the world outside the U.S. More seriously, I do not think the term "Great Lakes" is the single most common term used to refer to that area of Africa. Looking at various external sources, the area is variously termed as "Great Lakes of Africa", "African Great Lakes", "Great African Lakes", "Great Lakes of East Africa", "Great Rift Valley Lakes", and "Rift Valley Lakes". I don't think it is necessary to insist that both Great Lakes regions should equally require disambiguation when there are natual language alternatives that are already commonly in use. Yes, of course there is a bit of cultural hegemony in this, but as I understand it, Wikipedia is to report the state of the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. older≠wiser 13:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
None of the alternate names gets more than two percent of the Google hits of "Great Lakes" Africa. - SimonP 15:12, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
That's well and good, but of course, a search for ["Great Lakes" Africa] also subsumes most of the other terms, as well as including a fair amount of unrelated content (e.g., the Great Lakes Chemical corporation operations in Africa, the Minnesota Great Lakes Aquarium's exhibit on Lake Victoria, as well as multiple copies of various Wikipedia articles from Freedictionary.com due to how they optimize for Google) Of course there is likely some similar noise in search results that exclude Africa. Even while recognizing such limitations on Google results, there are 467,000 hits for ["Great Lakes" Africa] vs. 3,040,000 for ["Great Lakes" -Africa] (a quick perusal of the first hundred shows that nearly all are related to the NA lakes), which IMO demonstrates a strong preference for using the term "Great Lakes" to apply to the North American lakes, especially considering that there are quite reasonable, natural language alternatives for disambiguating the African lakes. Even the venerable Encyclopedia Britanica article on Great Lakes is exclusively about the NA lakes, as is Columbia's. older≠wiser 16:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just my two cents - I absolutely hate americo-centrism on Wikipedia. I am all for giving different places with the same name equal coverage. I live near a Great Lake. However I believe Great Lakes should go to the North American Great Lakes - it is clearly what most people searching for Great Lakes would be searching for, and it is what most people writing [[Great Lakes]] in articles would be intending to link to. With the disambig block at the very top of that article, I don't think it should be a problem at all. -- Chuq 13:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia has always been an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet, not an Internet encyclopedia. While today it might be the "encyclopedia that Slashdot built" I don't see any reason to encourage that tendency. - SimonP 15:12, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
I was much leaning the way of having the digambig on the front and let users choose which great lakes they wanted. However, this changed my mind around 2pi rads: We have a standard at Wikipedia to use the simplest possible common name in English for any article, and to let items with overwhelming precedence keep a primary URL. Therefore President of the United States refers to the executive head of the U.S. government, Ottawa refers to the Canadian locale, rather than both being disambiguation pages for the exec office and the band and the Canadian locale and the number of other Ottawa-named things. This explains why the great lakes page points to the North American variety. I hope this will be settled soon with the current setup. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 19:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I refactored this discussion, I recuse myself from voting. Which is just as well, because I'm ambivalent about this issue (along the same reasoning as Chuq and Sunborn's, above). • Benc • 23:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are there any other pages on Wikipedia where there are two items of relatively similar size and importance, but which are not disambiged because one usage is far more common among Wikipedia's current audience? I have looked through Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages and the closest I have been able to find are Maine and Frankfurt these pages are both disambigs in other languages but are not in English. While these are the closest examples I could find, it is arguable a defunct province and a city of one tenth the size of the other meet my criteria of "relatively similar size and importance." With these arguable exceptions I can find no other pages where we relegate something of near equivalent size and importance to a disambig page because of the English Wikipedia's readership.

On the contrary we have several examples that disregard the Google and incoming article counts. For instance Syracuse is an article on the ancient city. Syracuse, New York has a great deal more incoming articles and a few more Google hits, but is relegated to a line at the bottom. Other examples include Democratic Party and Republican Party, America, Albany, and House of Representatives. An interesting case is Georgia. Not only are the greater number of Google hits, greater size and population, and more references in Wikipedia ignored by the decision to have it be a disambig page rather than one about the state, but there is also long running effort to relegate the state to a disambiguation bar. Not moving Great Lakes based on what our audience current Internet audience is looking for will thus establish a new precedent. A precedent whereby Republican Party, for example, should redirect to the GOP because of the vastly more Google hits and incoming links referring to the American one. -SimonP 00:42, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

There are many Republican Party's in many countries around the world. Most people refer to the one closest to them when they say it; most would also expect that Republican Party, Democratic Party are common names around the world, even if they don't know anything about them. Up until this discussion I thought the North American Great Lakes were the only one, and I'm vaguely more into geography than the average person. -- Chuq 05:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are there any other pages on Wikipedia where there are two items of relatively similar size and importance, but which are not disambiged because one usage is far more common among Wikipedia's current audience? The example that suggests itself is "New England". And what that case and the Great Lakes have in common is the precision of one definition vs. the vague hand-waving in a general direction of the other: the USA (five lakes, six states, no vacilation) wins by a landslide. Maybe that's what tips it. –Hajor 16:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Would it be possible to have Great Lakes redirect to Great Lakes (North America). And then have the page show a disambiguous warning if you were redirected from Great Lakes but not show it if you went to Great Lakes (North America) directly? This would keep Great Lakes pointing to the North-American article. At the same time it would promote authors to use the more precise term Great Lakes (North America). Also, the redirect from Great Lakes to Great Lakes (North America) will give people a small nudge that there are more great lakes out there. --Alf 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

While I accept that there is controversy on moving the Great Lakes page, changing the links to Great Lakes (North America) hurts no one and there is no use in reverting them while this is still under discussion. - SimonP 15:54, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree there is not much point to ongoing reverts and have not been changing back these since your last reverts yesterday. {subst:{User:Bkonrad/sig}} 16:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hold on here -- I do not expect you to continue with changing these links that have nor already been changed. I very much object to going through a redirect when it is not necessary. Please stop making these changes until this is settled. if you persist, then I will feel obligated take back my agreement above and revert all of the redirects. older≠wiser 16:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I shall stop. - SimonP 16:10, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
OK, no more reverts until this is settled. How do you propose settling this? An RfC or a poll on the talk page? 16:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure how to settle this. My hope is I can convince you that the African Great Lakes are somewhat similar in notability to the North American ones. If that fails I am very hesitant to use a poll as Wikipedia is overwhelmingly biased towards a North American viewpoint. - SimonP 16:33, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
That's a bit insulting to insinuate that we aren't educated, reasonable people who can be persuaded with good arguments. —Mike 20:46, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I apologize, absolutely no offence was intended. - SimonP 01:52, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
You weren't wrong. My first reaction to "Great Lakes" isn't to think "Africa". TrekphilerFlag of Canada08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googling

Just FYI, Google finds the following:
BCorr|Брайен 17:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How does that find in favour of North America? It seems to be comparing two ways of referencing the African lakes. - SimonP 17:45, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry -- it should have been the following -- I cut and pasted the wrong search for the second one ("- Africa" instead of "-Africa")
I think this now makes the point well if you check the links that each one returns -- the one with "-Africa" turns up links referring to the Great Lakes in North America
-- BCorr|Брайен 19:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A minor tweak to the "Great Lakes of Africa" search (which, with 2060 hits, is a bit too low): looking for "great-lakes" africa OR african -"african-american" returns 457,000 hits. Slightly more respectable. –Hajor 19:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If we factor in that the Internet and Google are biased against Africa by at least a factor of ten it is a very respectable number indeed. Also note that African Great Lakes is, like North American Great Lakes, a term only used by outsiders. - SimonP 20:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Now I'm just being a geek and possibly muddying the waters (heh), but if you modify Hajor's search to include the province and a few states neighbouring the North American Great Lakes "great lakes" africa OR african -african-american (Michigan OR Ontario OR "New York") you get 179,000 of those 457,000 that are approximately 1/3 about Africa, 1/3 about North America, and 1/3 about both or neither. BCorr|Брайен 21:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Concur with SimonP that the Internet and Google are biased against Africa. For the time being, Africa is on the wrong side of the Digital Divide. The gap is gradually closing, and eventually the Wikipedia will get much more African traffic, so the Wikipedia should be ready for it. Instead of trying to find a fudge factor to balance African hits, I personally reject Google hits entirely as a fair metric in this decision. • Benc • 21:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Google is an unfair metric. All it shows is that there are more articles on the internet about the Great Lakes of America rather than the Great Lakes of Africa. This is hardly surprsing, as the vast majority of internet users are in the developed West rather than Africa. The point is that Google measurements do not demonstrate that the American lakes are more important or significant than African lakes. It is well established that Wikipedia has a geographic bias towards certain areas. I suggest the users on the Great Lakes=North America side of this argument go and take a look at the rationale behind the countering systemic bias Wikiproject.TreveXtalk 18:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecological problems

As there was little to nothing on the ecological-problems dimension of the Great Lakes topic, I added some paragraphs on "ecological challenges" just to start the ball rolling. I do not claim to be any sort of expert. I based my additions on Dave Dempsey's fairly recent book, On the Brink.

As somebody noted (first paragraph of this discussion,up top), the lack of article content on biology and hydrology is ludicrous. (I made absolutely no attempt to add anything on hydrology.) In light of thisprevious lack, I would rather that what I have started here not be removed - amended, amplified, clarified, re-named, corrected, yes. But if the section is taken out, we're back to the way an article on "The Great Lakes" might have been written in 1962: devoid of ecological content at all. That would be a 'happy-face' gloss.

Media coverage of problems in the Great Lakes was part of what kicked off the "green awareness" that swelled up in North America and the world 35 years ago. To leave this dimension out of this article would be a travesty... etc, etc.

J.R.

[edit] Zebra mussels

It is imperative that we mention the devasting impact of zebra mussels on the Great Lakes ecosystem. They were accidentally brought over less than 20 years ago and have multiplied like crazy, causing all kinds of problems on North American waterways (including the Mississippi River and others that aren't directly part of the GL ecosystem). -- Funnyhat 07:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone mentioned it. When you think something needs to be added, look at the Talk page and then add material to the article. Just take a breath and omit words like "imperative". There is guidance through the Help link. (SEWilco 19:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Great Bear and Great Slave Lake

These lakes should be included as well. They are considered Great Lakes at least in Canada and I see no discussion of them. They are found the North West Territories. --129.97.84.62 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the lakes in the water system known as the Great Lakes, not about any lake that happens to have "Great" in their name. See Great Lakes (disambiguation) for such other lakes. older≠wiser 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major cities

I won't for the moment argue against adding the three Canadian towns that just got in the list, but I'd really like to know why Windsor and Mackinac Island were removed. They are better known and more economically important than a few of the others on the list... /blahedo (t) 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great lakes History

Would any one be intrested in starting an article on the History of the Great Lakes? (i.e. human history on the lakes) I've searched for an article but I havent found much on the 'pedia. I've though about starting one myself, but there SO MUCH! and i don't know where to start! I mean, there's the importance to native history and cultures, european exploration and the fir trade, military conflicts, and then theres the shipping and the economy thats grown up around the lakes (and so much information related to it!) Thousands of shipwrecks. Maybe from that there could be a series of articles or even a Great Lakes WikiProject that could cover everything from the ecology of the lakes, the geological history, human history, economy etc,... Jeeze, I'm getting excited! Mike McGregor (Can) 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake St. Clair

I just added a section on Lake St. Clair's bid to be an official (North American) Great Lake, under the "Political issues" heading. The source for that tidbit is a Cleveland Plain Dealer article: "Great Lakes panel wants monster fish to stay away", October 16, 2002, Page B1. Mapsax 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Add: The article "Does size matter? Lake St. Clair advocates believe that it deserves to be called 'great'" (October 14, 2002, Page B1) also makes reference to the bid. Mapsax 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Get rid of the second satellite image

"The Great Lakes are clearly visible in this satellite image of North America" No they aren't. It's too dark over that area of the image. The image is kind of redundant anyway -- there's a perfectly good photo at the top. What do you guys think? P.S a good way to remember all the Great Lakes is the mnemonic HOMES --ScarletSpiderDave 15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree - get rid of it, it serves no purpose. (What kind of satellite image covers that much area without any cloud cover?) — Mmathu 07:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laurentian Great Lakes

I am a little mystified that a piece on the Laurentian Great Lakes doesn't actually call them by that name, and that the term does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia's subject listings. There is a great deal of back and forth on what "Great Lakes" means, but it doesn't bear much resemblance to anything you would hear at a meeting of people who do actual work on the lakes themselves.

An encyclopedia should be an arbiter of opinion, not a shrine to popular usage. The term Great Lakes is not specific, and is used to refer to different systems in different parts of the world by a very large number of people. Technical specialists are careful to use language which reduces ambiguity. It seems reasonable to me that an encyclopedia should do no less. If you Google the term "Laurentian Great Lakes" you find a long list of uses by groups such as the International Association for Great Lakes Research. If the parochial assumptions of its users are what define Wikipedia's definitions and structure, then its usefulness is much reduced. The term "Great Lakes" is ambiguous. Clarity is good. I think that a page that summarizes the different systems refered to globally as Great Lakes would be useful, and that links could very easily redirect users to the relevant specific subjects (Laurentian Great Lakes, African Great Lakes, whatever) so easily that it seems pointless to be arguing this.--Peter3 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Shouldn't this be at North American Great Lakes or Great Lakes (North America? It seems to me very western-centric to have "Great Lakes" direct here instead of being a redirect to Great Lakes (disambiguation). The term is used very frequently to refer to both this region and the African Great Lakes, so it seems to me that both should be disambiguated. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you scroll up the page, you'll find a discussion on the subject. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I would just like to point out that Lake Baikal has a volumn of 5,521 mi³ (23,600 cubic kilometers)and thus would be considered to contain more volumn of freshwater than the great lakes combined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal . I think it would be both prudent and interesting to include that fact in the article for sake of comparison and refrence. Just a minor suggestion to add to the cause.


[edit] Important cities along the lakes

The lakes seem to be listed in no particular order. Superior comes first, then Michigan and then Erie. Shouldn't it be alphabetical, or in some other order.

[edit] Fractal Coastline

I'm removing the sentence "Stretched end to end, their shorelines would reach nearly halfway around the equator." because it is not only ridiculous, but also uncited. Coastlines are pseudo-fractal in nature, and the length of a coastline depends extremely heavily on the length of the ruler you use to measure it. See How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension. If there were a citation, or an indication that some standard ruler were used, then I'd be ok with it. As it stands, it needs to go. --Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 00:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steamboat Walker, Great Lakes Ranger

I've heard the first steamer on the Lakes was Walk in the Water, operating Detroit-Buffalo. Can anybody confirm? Steamboat Willie 09:03, 15 December 2006 (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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:66.206.228.94 (talk • contribs).

...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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreat_Lakes_42c8.html"