Talk:Chatham-Kent

message: I removed the line about Chatham-Kent being the Canadian leader for heart disease.  I did some research, and although Chatham-Kent has a terribly high instance of heart disease, its not quite the leader.
These are by figures released from the Heart and Stroke foundation that points to Chatham-Kent being a hot spot for coronary artery disease...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heart Disease

message: I noticed this edit which changed the Catholic population of Chatham-Kent from 36% to 46%, and this edit by the same IP, which changed "No religious affiliation" from 12.2% to 2.2%, so I reviewed the StatsCan data.  Here are the percentages I get out of a total population of 105,485:
*Protestant: 50,980 = 48.3%
*Catholic: 38,125 = 36.1%
*Other Christian: 2,835 = 2.7%
*Other religions: 780 = 0.7%
*No religious affiliation: 12,775 = 12.1%
I've updated the article with those figures. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: :Image:Chathamkentcrest.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Chathamkentcrest.png

message: It seems a little odd that there is no mention of where the town's name came from. Obviously this is wild stab in the dark but might it have some link to Chatham, Kent, a naval dockyard town on a tributary of the River Thames? Frankly I'd be very surprised if that was an accident.  --LiamE 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's in a name

message: Since I last looked, rather a lot of negatively spun material has been added, mostly by people within the community, and without citations.  Why is the glass half empty in Chatham?  If you want businesses to locate here and give you jobs, stop talking the community down, and where there is a genuine issue, kindly post a citation to validate the information.
I'm going to edit the article in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Feel free to repost material with citations to support it, but save opinion pieces for the letters page of the Chatham Daily News or letters to the Mayor or council.
69.159.230.251 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some of the more obvious unsourced statements, including:
According to the Province's Ministry of Community and Social Services, Chatham-Kent has a high percentage of people receiving welfare and disability benefits.  Some believe this is mainly due to the general poor health of the community, and the lack of well-paying, steady jobs for those individuals who are able to work.
*"Some believe" - who?  The Mayor?  The Minister of Community and Social Services?  The guy down the street?  These are generally considered weasel words.
*"High percentage" - compared to what?  What's average?  Is it higher?  Significantly higher?
*"According to the..." - needs to be better sourced, with a link if available.
Also, I checked the August 05 Reader's Digest but couldn't find any reference to Chatham.  Please provide a page number before re-adding the reference.  Blotto adrift 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a number of changes to the article, including a couple of new categories (also moved around some content on the talk page so it's in chronological order).  Does anyone have any objections if the notable persons list is done in alpha order?  There's one name with no birthdate and not everyone of note associated with C-K was actually born there.  Almost all of the content in the miscellaneous section has either been moved or deleted.  Will see what else I can do.  Blotto adrift 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Famous locals placed in alpha order.  Blotto adrift (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin

message: It was nice to see someone "being bold" and finally cleaning up all the unsourced material in this article. It's good to remember that according to Wikipedia policy technically *any* unsourced material can be removed by any editor on sight. I'm really hoping that the latest revisions can form a core for the article as a whole. It's obviously not right that any negative things about the community be censored out, but in my opinion, it's also not correct to allow large numbers of completely unreferenced points to just sit there and position the community in a negative light simply through innuendo without any supporting documentation through actual citations. If you believe that something is important enough to be in the article in the first place, then surely it can't take months to find an actual reference to back it up. Deconstructhis 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding unsourced material

message: Message to anon editor - regardless of your opinion on the edits, you need to adhere to WP:Civil.  Also, it would look better if you didn't just automatically revert simple things that are standard practice - alphabetical lists, eliminating miscellaneous categories, placing well-known resident listings at the end of the article and deleting mentions of a newspaper that has been out of business for a year.  On top of that, the reference to heart disease is still in the article, with the citations you provided.  And I used to live in the area, not that that matters. Blotto adrift (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: I reverted the following passage:
In the last 10 years there has been increasing urban sprawl within some of the larger communities in Chatham-Kent (Chatham and Blenheim in particular), with the development of large, big-box corporate development. The development at the north end of Communication Road in Blenheim, and a large portion of St. Clair Street in Chatham are examples of this phenomenon. Although supplying some jobs to Chatham-Kent, this development has put pressure on the existing (and potential) smaller, independent shops and businesses which also costs jobs to residents.  
Numbers from Statistics Canada’s 2001 Census demonstrate that the average number of people without a complete high school education is higher in Chatham-Kent than the province of Ontario. As well, the average earnings of full-time, full-year workers and families are significantly lower in Chatham-Kent than in Ontario as a whole. With and unbalanced industry based heavily in manufacturing, construction, and agriculture, many believe the phenomena of crime, drugs, and health problems are connected to the educational, cultural and industrial constrains of the municipality.
Most of this needs to be sourced.  It is true that StatsCan data does indicate that the education levels are lower (it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, although a link citation should be added).  Likely true for the income info as well.  However, the extrapolation of this into an explanation for assorted social problems should be referenced.   Blotto adrift 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the "extrapolation" that's the problem. It's one thing to cite stats from StatsCan data, it's when the personal "interpretation" of that data begins that it becomes problematic in the context of Wikipedia, even if personally I happen to agree with what's being said. If the editor can find a reliable previously published source for what they're submitting, fine, otherwise as far as Wiki policy goes, it's their own opinion and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. My question is: how many communities can you name whose problems couldn't be attributed to issues associated with poverty and lack of education if you want to look at it that way? Why is Chatham-Kent being singled out in this regard? You could say the same thing about London or Toronto. Deconstructhis 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More recent edits

message: I have moved this article's importance rating to "Mid" to be consistent with most other Ontario cities.  PKT (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada/Ontario project rating 

message: I apologize for moving this article without discussion. I think the hyphen is an obvious enough difference to distinguish from the comma in Chatham, Kent, but perhaps consensus holds otherwise, in which case the move should be reversed. –Pomte 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, but we did carbon-copy the English on this one, actually. Chatham used to be an independent city within Kent County, perfectly replicating the one in England — a municipal merger during the Mike Harris years is the only reason there's a hyphen in it now. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chatham is still a city. Many things proving it. MASTERBING21 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chatham-Kent, Ontario → Chatham-Kent 

message: I find it interesting that there is no individual wikipedia article for Chatham. There is only one for "Chatham-Kent". These are two seperate things in my opinion. Chatham was/is a city. Chatham-Kent is a Municipality that has a number of small distinct towns inside of it. It seems like there is a focus on the history, economy, education, and other sub-divisions of "Chatham Proper". If this article is going to be on "Chatham-Kent" I propose that future writers attempt to include stories from the smaller communities. It is just a humble suggestion. I would be interested to hear what other people think about this topic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.98.184 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chatham can have its own separate article anytime somebody takes the time to write up a properly written, formatted and referenced one. To date, nobody ever has. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity Problem? 

message: FYI, this article was recently mentioned in the media: 'Looney bin' label deleted; Wikipedia edits entry about C-K. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I put in a RPP earlier today Here. The request was denied because the article hadn't been attacked.  Just keep it in mind if there are a lot of attacks following the news report. -- BpEps - t@lk 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Media attention

message: move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment - On the article Chatham—Kent that is just an old Ontario provincial riding located in the former city of Chatham, Ontario from 1967 to 1999 I believe. So as of right now the new provincial riding name is Chatham-Kent—Essex and the new municipality in Ontario is Chatham-Kent, Ontario. Steam5 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The em-dashes in electoral district names weren't chosen by us just as a way to disambiguate electoral district titles from city titles; they're actually part of the proper, legal, official name of the thing. You can read electoral district (Canada) if you need clarification, but the correct title for the electoral district does absolutely, unequivocally require an em-dash, not a hyphen. If you get hung up on the "distinct geographic names" part of the explanation, keep in mind that Chatham and Kent were two distinct geographic names at the time; when they were merged into the single entity of Chatham-Kent, the electoral district became Chatham-Kent—Essex. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, Chatham—Kent surely also needs disaming - many of us are notoriously unable to distinguish between em-dashes and hyphens. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but you appeared to be specifically suggesting that the electoral district's article should be moved to a title with a hyphen in it. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was Pk, who I suspect may have been proving my point there! Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: This should probably be closed first.  But I think we do have a consensus emerging: change the title here, & then close the Cfd as Keep, as they will then match the title here. No need to do anything further I think - let the closers handle it. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*Nb discussion from 2007 a couple of sections up, with one recent comment supporting the move now proposed (ok, by Peterk, now repeated in this section). Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment - On the article Chatham—Kent that is just an old Ontario provincial riding located in the former city of Chatham, Ontario from 1967 to 1999 I believe. So as of right now the new provincial riding name is Chatham-Kent—Essex and the new municipality in Ontario is Chatham-Kent, Ontario. Steam5 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The em-dashes in electoral district names weren't chosen by us just as a way to disambiguate electoral district titles from city titles; they're actually part of the proper, legal, official name of the thing. You can read electoral district (Canada) if you need clarification, but the correct title for the electoral district does absolutely, unequivocally require an em-dash, not a hyphen. If you get hung up on the "distinct geographic names" part of the explanation, keep in mind that Chatham and Kent were two distinct geographic names at the time; when they were merged into the single entity of Chatham-Kent, the electoral district became Chatham-Kent—Essex. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, Chatham—Kent surely also needs disaming - many of us are notoriously unable to distinguish between em-dashes and hyphens. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but you appeared to be specifically suggesting that the electoral district's article should be moved to a title with a hyphen in it. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was Pk, who I suspect may have been proving my point there! Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: This should probably be closed first.  But I think we do have a consensus emerging: change the title here, & then close the Cfd as Keep, as they will then match the title here. No need to do anything further I think - let the closers handle it. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*Nb discussion from 2007 a couple of sections up, with one recent comment supporting the move now proposed (ok, by Peterk, now repeated in this section). Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Intense (aka non-wiki-based) research on Martin Delany ultimately leads one to Chatham, Ontario, where he was allegedly in exile at "the colored school". Will someone please expand this topic? --mikomango (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request - The Colored School 

message: :Erie Beach is not Fort Erie, but it redirects there.
:And has since 2008. 
:Also, am I the only one who has never heard of Raglan? Kid Bugs (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I change the redirect to Chatham-Kent. You could have done that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Firstly, there is an Erie Beach in Fort Erie; just because you're more familiar with the one in Chatham-Kent doesn't mean it's the only one. Raglan, according to the MapArt Ontario Road Atlas, is just outside Shrewsbury — spitting distance, interestingly, from the Erie Beach in C-K. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erie Beach is not Fort Erie 

message: How precise do we want to be on the image caption for St. Clair St? The caption indicates that it's Hwy 40, but where that image is actually taken, it has not become Hwy 40 at that point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagikDragon (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Clair St. image caption

message: Why is this line in here: In the past there have been allegations of low pay and poor living and working conditions for these agricultural labourers.[13] 'El Contrato', a film by The National Film Board of Canada, addresses these issues in depth. The citation goes to an article on Leamington, which, last time I looked, was in Essex, not Chatham-Kent. The NFB film appears to center on Leamington too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagikDragon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Farm labour allegations?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chatham-Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515230646/http://www.hylandseeds.com/products.php to http://hylandseeds.com/products.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chatham-Kent. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314154615/http://www.pathoy.onmpp.ca:80/E85GasolineNowAvailableinChatham-Kent.htm to http://www.pathoy.onmpp.ca/E85GasolineNowAvailableinChatham-Kent.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.--Zefr (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just a reminder to everybody not to conflate the population of the municipality of Chatham-Kent with the population of the census division of Chatham-Kent. They are not the same thing; the census division consists of Chatham-Kent and the separate First Nations reserve at Moraviantown. The correct population figure for the municipality in the 2016 census is 101,647, not 102,042 — the 102,042 is the census division. I've added a clarification to the article about the difference between the municipality and the census division, including the population figure for the census division — but the population of the census division is not to be conflated with the population of the municipality, because they do not represent the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Population