Talk:Lake Eyre

Pronunciation

If anyone could add the pronunciation of "Eyre" to this article, I think it would be helpful. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always believed it to be pronouced as in the word 'air' --Drewnoakes 11:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Birds

I vaguelly recall an interesting fact (?) regarding the migration of birds to Lake Eyre during these occasional floods. Of particular note was the question of how these birds would know that the lake contained water, when they would usually be living quite a distance away. --Drewnoakes 11:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur... Would like to see a whole section on the flora and fauna... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.72.46 (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And I tried to edit the section in an effort to explode the bird myth and it was removed citing lack of original research despite the research being my own. So this site continues to perpetuate garbage - Commodore Lake Eyre Yacht Club. It is interesting how a newspaper can be quoted as a source when the newspaper rings me for information!

That is how Wikipedia works. If you have knowledge of birds at Lake Eyre that has never been published, I suggest you publish it in an ornithological journal, then it can be cited in this article. If you are familiar with the already published sources, please add teh information and provide the references you have. It is very helpful to have experts who know what are good sources and how to find them. Further information on what might seem like an odd policy can be found at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As high as birds fly, and as good as their vision often is, it would be surprising if birds did not recognize a flooded Lake Eyre from what might seem a surprising distance.Pbrower2a (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Salinity

Does the lake contain salt water when it is full? How salty is it? --Drewnoakes 11:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, but when it is empty it's a massive salt flat, so I would assume the water would be pretty salty. Xyzzyva 15:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is salty. I've not seen it freshly filled, but driving on it causes water to pool in the wheel ruts in some places. That water is very salty and unpleasant to taste. It also irritates bare skin. I don't know how the birds can sit in the stuff! Buster95 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to know just how large Lake Eyre was at its maximum. Did it rival the Great Lakes of North America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.155.2.3 (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lake Eyre is salty when it is full. We have just returned from a trip there. The water, however, as it rushes into the lake is less salty and certain fresh water fish do thrive early as it is filling, but as the water evaporates the salt levels rises and rises until the marine life start do die due to the salinity. It is never fresh water though. We walked out across the salt flats at Halligans Bay as the 2010 flood waters hadn't reached there as yet, but the signs were still there from the 2009 floods with lines of dead fish along the beach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.245.183 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Drastic times / Flooding Lake Eyre

If the sea level were to rise drastically, it might be feasible to pipeline seawater into Lake Eyre (and the Danakil depression in Africa) thereby creating permanent inland seas with local fishing industry and climate advantages as a bonus, as well as lowering sea levels a bit. Or maybe the lowering of global sea levels would be so insubstantial as to render the idea useless. Lgh (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

During the Second World War the Japanese planned to dynamite vast areas of the Northern Territory, once they had successfully invaded Australia, in order to make a massive inland sea in Central Australia.

Much of Central Australia, including the Nullarbor Desert, is below sea level. There were proposals in the 1950s to explode a line of underground nuclear bombs to cause depression in the crust and form a wide "canal" from the Southern Ocean to flood the Centre and form an inland sea, with new local weather patterns and greening of large areas of former desert. Quite politically incorrect today of course --MichaelGG (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The pipeline concept was proposed (again) in the mid-1970s as a way of connecting the Southern Ocean to Lake Eyre. The run would drop a total of 10 metres over its length, and would naturally drain sea water into the Lake Eyre depression. The main argument for it was to provide a climate stabiliser for the central South Australian state and to provide evaporation to enhance rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin. The main criticism was that it not feasible due to the rate of evaporation of the water on entering the lake compared to the rate of inflow (this requiring a massive pipeline) and the water loss along the pipeline (water proofing of the porous rock, or use of a water proof piping, would require too much material). The project remained a concept study only.

Edward John Eyre

It is stated that Lake Eyre was named after Edward John Eyre, an early explorer of Australia, because he was the first to sight the lake.

He could not have sighted Lake Eyre. In 1940 he led an expedition into the northern reaches of the Flinders Ranges in search of a route into inland Australia with the hope to discover the fabled inland sea. He got as far north as, what he called, Mount Hopeless when he abandoned the expedition in favour of moving on to Port Lincoln and then heading a futher expedition successfully from Port Lincoln to Albany in Western Australia.

Eyre, thought that Lake Torrens, which is located to the west of the Flinders Ranges swung around the top end of the ranges and down the eastern side in a horeshoe shape. What he did see was not one large lake but a mixure of different lakes, Lake Torrens to the West, Lake Frome to the East, Lake Blanche and Lake Callabonna to the north and northeast and refractive mirages.

Mount Hopeless is 127 meters above sealevel and the nearest point of Lake Eyre to Mount Hopeless is well over 200 kilometres which is absolutely impossible to see as the horizon would be far far shorter than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.245.183 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

==Eyre did sight Lake Eyre(South)== but he thought it was a continuation of Lake Torrens. If you look at the map at http://www.greatsafaris.com.au/images/Eyre_Map.jpg you will see that Eyre did 3 trips in the area from a base camp at the northern end of the Flinders Ranges where there was reliable water. His first trip was west to Torrens, second North to Lake Eyre south and third to Mount Hopeless where he sighted Lakes Blanche and Callabonna believing all these lakes to be one continuous horseshoe lake blocking the way north. Bob Backway, Commodore LEYC

Indigenous Peoples?

I'm concerned that there's no reference at all in the article to the Indigenous people of the Lake Eyre region, such as the Kokata and Arabana [Arabunna], who have lived in the area for tens of thousands of years. Is this an unconscious way to write Aboriginal people out of history? Melba1 (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a natural consequence of the way that Wikipedia articles are written. Wikipedia articles start out with little or no information about the article topic and people add what they know. If someone knows about the indigenous people of the area and sees that the article lacks information on them, that person should add information about them to the article. If a person has that knowledge and refuses to add it then it is that person who is writing aboriginal people out of history, not Wikipedia as a whole. The article is likely missing information about the Kokata and Arabana because no one who knows anything about them has contributed to it so far. Since you apparently do, please add what you know, however much, however little. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do the fish come from?

If the fish named here can survive only when the water is high and relatively unsalty, where do they come from? I mean, presumably they die off when the lake dries up. How do they return when it floods? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a good question. I think the article needs an Ecology section. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Evaporation rate

I was going to add "Evaporation rates from a filled lake are estimated to range between 1,800 mm and 2,000 mm." from {{cite book |title=Deserts and Desert Environments |last=Laity |first=Julie J. |year=2009 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=1444300741 |pages=76, 112 |url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wtAbzLLTcwcC |accessdate=20 December 2012 }} However the source doesn't explain over what time period this refers to. If someone can elaborate on this it would be appreciated. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Move to official name?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Lake Eyre → ? – Two editors have recently tried to move this article from "Lake Eyre" to "Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre", the lake's new official name. I would prefer to start a discussion rather than continue effectively move warring. I don't really have a strong opinion on the issue, but obviously the official name is not always the common name. Particularly in this case, I don't think "Kati Thanda" is recognised to the same extent that "Lake Eyre" is by the Australian (and general) public, and thus "Lake Eyre" would be the most appropriate name currently. I would further note that dual naming is rather uncommmon in Australia, and when it occurs one name is likely to be more recognisable (e.g. "Uluru / Ayers Rock" is the official name, "Uluru" is what Wikipedia's article is titled). IgnorantArmies – 11:02, Thursday December 20, 2012 (UTC) – 11:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be here, with redirects from Kati Thanda and Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre. When I was growing up Ayers Rock was the common name but in recent years Uluru has become more common. The same thing might happen here and one day "Kati Thanda" might be the common name, but that's not the case now. A google search for "Kati Thanda" returns 3,360 results while "Lake Eyre" returns 654,000. Page view statistics for Kati Thanda show 28 views today and nothing previously.[1] Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre returns 69 views today, and nothing previously.[2] Lake Eyre returns 8,661 views in the last 30 days,[3] and 8,890 last month.[4] nuff said. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Move to Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre. The official name has just been put into place, not even a few days ago. WP:COMMONNAME asks us to weight the question in favor of sources published after the name change, but we will not have such sources for a while yet (except for news announcements of the change). I'd like to see a few future news items or magazine articles that primarily discuss the lake itself rather than making the recent name change the main point. I hold that the new and larger official name is a fair choice for the article name; none of our readers will be taken to the wrong article if they type in the old name. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says that Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Until such time as we have those future sources that you speak of, we have to use what the sources we do have most frequently refer to, which is Lake Eyre, not Kati Thanda and, like Ayers Rock / Uluru, certainly not Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre. We can't be WP:CRYSTAL and assume that Kati Thanda will be the common name in years to come. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I know of a couple of articles in the USA for which the new, official name is where the article lives but the common/old name lives on in popular usage. The article for Nevada National Security Site was moved from Nevada Test Site after a government name change but people often say the old name or just NTS even though the new abbreviation would be NNSS. That's an example of government-instituted name change just like in Australia. US sports arenas are rife with "official" names that are not yet (or will ever be) in popular usage. The O.co Coliseum is popularly the Oakland Coliseum. HP Pavilion at San Jose is often called San Jose Arena or the Shark Tank (for the local hockey team.) Qualcomm Stadium is often called San Diego Stadium. The Reliant Astrodome is just about always called the Houston Astrodome. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Move. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to situations where an official name has changed, and place it on us to decide whether to recognise it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misread WP:COMMONNAME. It specifically says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" and then tells us "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". What WP:COMMONNAME is saying is that if, after the name change the new name becomes widely used then, even though the object may have been called something else for a long time (this was the situation with Ayers Rock, which very quickly became commonly known as Uluru) then the new common name should be used. The problem here is that because the change is so recent, there are virtually no sources published after the name change. Of course news reports are going to refer to it, but there are no other sources and, as I've said above, we can't be WP:CRYSTAL and assume that Kati Thanda will be the common name in years to come. We have to base the article title on how it is commonly referred to now, and that's clearly "Lake Eyre". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You've just argued against your own quote, though. "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". And you're yet to cite a single source published after the change that still insists on using the outdated name. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't done that. I've specifically said, "The problem here is that because the change is so recent, there are virtually no sources published after the name change", which I followed up with "we can't be WP:CRYSTAL and assume that Kati Thanda will be the common name in years to come. We have to base the article title on how it is commonly referred to now". As for your claim that I'm "yet to cite a single source published after the change that still insists on using the outdated name", to be honest, that's quite ridiculous. There are certainly hundreds of sites that are in no hurry to start using the new name. The change is so recent that there are virtually no sources than news reports (which I also mentioned above) that use the new name. Google hits and Wikipedia page view stats clearly indicate that Lake Eyre is the common name and that our readers are using Lake Eyre still. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ignore WP:COMMONNAME Appealing to fixed policy would all be fine if Wikipedia was an uninvolved observer, but it's not. A huge proportion of the population now uses Wikipedia as its primary source of information on things they're unsure about. The official name has been changed for a very good reason. If that kind of reason isn't covered by WP:COMMONNAME, then we should ignore that policy and make our own very sensible decision here. (And fix WP:COMMONNAME) Oh, and because the official change is very new, Google hits is obviously also a pretty silly measure. Wisdom is needed here, not appeals to perhaps irrelevant policy. HiLo48 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is - or should be - an uninvolved observer. Inherent in our fundamental principles is the fact that we collate and report information - ie we are (collectively) a neutral observer, and we should be "uninvolved" in the sense that we do not try to influence people. While it is true that Wikipedia is a primary source of information for many people, that alone should not have any bearing on the decision as to whether to rename the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The problem is that even when we "do not try to influence people", we still, of course, do. Whichever path we choose will be stronger because of our choice. Ideals are important to have, but we must acknowledge that sometimes reality gets in the way. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • "Whichever path we choose will be stronger because of our choice..." - All the more reason not to base our decision on the expected outcome of that decision. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The official name is almost irrelevant here as we should be using the name in common use. If it is proven that this "official" name is used most of the time then we can reconsider. Changing is the name to something that no one knows is not wisdom, it is stupidity. A redirect can easily be used for the alternative names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, one thing that bothers me often on Wikipedia is when I make a post, then someone else posts as if they haven't read a word that I wrote..... (or calls me stupid?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was thinking that myself. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is known commonly as "Lake Eyre". It is too early to tell whether the official name will become the common name. StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is too soon to know if the new official name will become the WP:COMMONNAME or not. Also, don't forget that this is just the article name, and that the official name will still be used in the article's lead. - Evad37 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Evad37, not the common name. The guidelines for the analogous problem in New Zealand articles are relevant here; in particular point #2 says that "it often takes a good ten years after a renaming for a usage pattern to be established". Graham87 06:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -independently of whether we rename this article - do we have a Category for "places with dual names"? Perhaps we should have. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We do, of course, have Category:Geographical naming disputes. StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Done - Category:Places with dual names. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – the new "official" name presented as two names jammed together with a hyphen is very odd, and does not appear in any books that way. There are a few "Kati-thanda Lake Eyre" and "Kati-Thanda Lake Eyre", but until books catch up with "official" we won't have a lot of clue as to whether the new name is going to catch on. Hopefully if it does they'll use something more sensible than the hyphen. An en dash would make sense to connect the two names, and we should represent it that way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is very odd, the dual naming process used by Australia is consistent between states in that the names are separated by a solidus sometimes preceded and followed by a space( / ) with neither name taking precedence,[5][6][7] meaning that the name should be "Kati Thanda/Lake Eyre". Interestingly, Geoscience Australia doesn't list Kati-thanda, it lists "Lake Eyre (North)", which has a variant name of "Kati-Tanda".[8] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. No reason to wait. This is clearly the official name. For how many thousands of years has it been called Kati Thanda? There is a possibility that over time it will change again, and drop the second half, but that is more like decades away, and would go through the same name changing process. While it was a tad premature to bring it up, the writing is clearly on the wall, and there is no reason to just bring it up again in a month - just move it now instead.[9] [10] Apteva (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no written language, there's no real evidence that Kati-thanda has been in use any longer than Lake Eyre. However, that's not the point, which is that we should be using Lake Eyre, which is the common name. There will be no further name changing process, the lake is dual named and will retain both Aboriginal and English names. That's how the dual naming system works. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This argument supporting the move runs foul of both article naming policy and content policy (which is also relevant in this particular case), see vote below for details. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. While most Australians would now recognise Uluru as a place name, most would know Lake Eyre by no other name. As yet news services here never use the official name except when the subject of the story is itself what to call it, which has been in the news lately, obviously! Wider usage may come in time as it has with Uluru but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:official names explains exactly the policy that should be applied here. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Move target

Please note that this move was originally (diff) proposed to move to an unspecified name, and was subsequently (diff) modified to be specifically to Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre, and has now (diff1 diff2) been reverted to the original unspecified request.

This is unfortunate IMO. You shouldn't need to check the page history to see the context of a "vote" in a formalised discussion such as this. I certainly didn't.

Fortunately this probably doesn't make a great deal of difference to the particular discussion above, but it should be noted that contributions (including mine) between 06:27, 23 December 2012 and 10:39, 28 December 2012 refer to the specific move, and therefore may misunderstand other comments, particularly but not only ones which do not fall within this range. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The first 10 votes were based on the original, unspecified target, until the target was changed.[11] Only yours was based on that change that Apteva made, before the nominator picked up on the change.[12] Other contributions made within the timeframe that you specified refer to pre-existing discussions within the thread. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The !votes for and against moving the article have all been about the difference between the previous name and either "Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre" (with a hyphen), "Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre" (with an en dash), or "Kati Thanda – Lake Eyre" (with a spaced en dash). All three choices are functionally the same with regard to every one of the arguments given. There will be no change to the RfC result as a result of the little edit war over the target name. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but IMO it makes it a lot harder for the closing admin. Remember that they are most often coming in to the discussion cold. My starting this section was mainly to save them a little time, and also to save them from a possible nasty surprise if someone then questioned their decision because of things they hadn't noticed and shouldn't be expected to notice. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Racist

This page is incorrectly titled and racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.165.93 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Geological history and climatic change

I have seen suggestions that the southern half of Australia, when connected to Antarctica, that the area including Lake Eyre has been cooler and moister when in the high-middle and middle latitudes.

Global Climate Change (Modern to 540 Ma) CR Scotese - YouTube

@Pbrower2a - The geological history is much more complex than that - at the time when Australia was rifting away from Antarctica during the Cretaceous, a large part of the continent was covered by the Eromanga Sea, a prehistoric epicontinental sea that once covered the Eromanga Basin. During the Pleistocene there have been extreme climatic fluctuations from glacial to interglacial phases; in southern Australia periglacial (icier/windier) conditions were also times of increased rainfall. As recently as 35,000 years ago the lake was freshwater and three times its present size, and is referred to as Lake Dieri (see e.g. Lake Dieri) - the modern Lake Eyre is a remnant. Bahudhara (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the correct name

This lake has been historically known as Kati Thanda by the owners of the lake and the land surrounding it. The use of a European name only occurred for a blink of an eye compared to the more than 35,000 years that it was known as Kati Thanda. Given that native title has finally been recognise over the lake and the surrounding land, it is correct to use the name given to the lake by the owners of it. To use any other name, other than as a reference to the imposed European name, is not just disrespectful to the wishes of the native title holders, but is incredibly insulting. The continued use of the European name in this article is form of oppression and racist. Using the European name, or the combined name, is a way of diminishing the ownership rights and history the Arabana people have over this lake.

If the wishes of the owners of the lake are not recognised, then I will refer the matter to the Australian Human Rights Commission to ensure the correct name is enforced, by court order if necessary. Such action would also include the potential prosecution of Wikipedia editors that continue to remove the Kati Thanda name and replace it with incorrect European name. The use of the incorrect European name leaves Wikipedia and editors making such changes, open to legal action for damages to the value of the naming rights Arabana people. Whats up skip (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No legal threats Bahudhara (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of information on recognition of native title

Even if an editor didn't agree with the changes to name of the lake, it was unacceptable to remove my edits that contained reference to the source documents, rather than just a reference to a third party news article which contained errors. Whats up skip (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I readded the ref that you had added, BEFORE you posted your comment. (Interestingly, this ref doesn't contain the term "Kati Thanda".) Bahudhara (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-title as 'Kati-Thanda' or 'Kati-Thanda / Lake Eyre' now?

The argument of 12 years ago on this talk page goes something like this: there are more people who call the body of water 'Lake Eyre' in everyday conversation than there are people who call it 'Kati-Thanda', and therefore the Wikipedia page should simply be titled 'Lake Eyre'. This argument kinda glosses over the fact that the large number of folks who called the body of water 'Kati-Thanda' for thousands of years, way before other cultures discovered it for themselves, were drastically reduced in numbers by folks who ended up calling it 'Lake Eyre'.

The name 'Lake Eyre' has many unavoidable connotations with colonial violence, much like the name 'Ayers Rock' does with regard to the geological feature also called Uluru. Titling this article 'Lake Eyre' comes across, to this Wikipedian, as privileging the colonizing culture present in Australia, simply because that culture continues to dominate the country in terms of sheer numbers. As a reflection of present trends, Wikipedia ends up inherently acting as a stabilizer of present trends, too. Is reflecting (and so stablizing) a current behavioural trend, when the trend is metaphorically soaked in blood, really wise? Does it really hurt to give this article the same treatment as Wikipedia has already given to the article on Uluru?

77.241.128.47 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)