Talk:Chatham-Kent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Heart Disease

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)

Stats Canada Numbers http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-221-XIE/2004002/tables/html/14282_01.htm

Heart and Stroke Foundation Study http://209.5.25.171/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=547&CategoryID=

If you can quote stats to support this comment, feel free to add it back.

Defkkon 22:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hate to burst your bubble(and make poor StatsCan look foolish), but HERE is the truth on heart disease throughout the region: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=012ae196-5d74-4b3b-9173-3e42d0c78859 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fault of bush (talk • contribs) .


[edit] Religion

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)

WRONG Jim. StatsCan(as usual) has their numbers skewed. My local library(which uses CITY data-not gov't manipulated numbers) has the figures I posted, so there! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fault of bush (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chathamkentcrest.png

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)

[edit] What's in a name

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)


I have to agree and I think that this would be correct, however I can't find anything saying this... http://www.chathamkentdirect.info/about_chatham_kent shows some history on Chatham which includes this: "The former city of Chatham began as a naval dockyard in the 1790`s, as it straddles the Thames River." Vtrickzv 04:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation and Interpretation in the Article

In my opinion this article seems to contain a fair bit of speculation based on personal interpretations by editors of primary sources, such as census statistics and government reports, as well as anecdotal explanations which appear to be based on the individual observations of a given editor. In my opinion, whole sections of this article are badly in need of rewriting in order to escape some of the more obvious biases going on here. Deconstructhis 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Move here and you'll see for yourself... This city is hazardous to your health.. In more ways than one!

  • Whether or not someone actually lives in a community that's the topic of an article has nothing to do with properly referencing the statements that appear in an article about that community. You have chosen to replace the following in the Chatham-Kent article :

"Chatham-Kent also has an extremely high density of restaurants and donut shops; their frequent usage, as well as the sedentary culture of the municipality, form another oft-hypothesized cause for the terrible state of local health."

I count a number of separate assertions in that statement, none of which have any referencing attached to them whatsoever and in fact appear to be based on nothing more than the personal observations of an individual. That part of the article has had a request for a proper citation attached to it for almost three months now, without anyone substantiating what it says. Wikipedia policy stipulates that unsupported assertions like these can be removed immediately, allowing three months for someone to properly reference claims is more than generous in my opinion. If you wish the section to remain in the article please provide a proper citation that demonstrates what's being asserted. Also, terms like "oft-hypothesized" are considered weasel words in Wikipedia articles and are not permitted. These editing issues are not going to just go away, responsible editors of this article are going to continue to do exactly what I'm doing here. If you agree with me that the goal is a properly researched article about Chatham-Kent, rather than a cluster of unsupported personal opinions, I hope you will attempt to see my point. I would appreciate support from other editors who agree with me. Like any community Chatham-Kent has its problems, but it deserves better than allowing its article to simply degrade into a bunch of unsupported claims. Deconstructhis 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But you don't live here so how can you know? Look, this city has a population of 43,000. We've got 10 Tim Horton's, Three McDonald's, Two Wendy's, Two KFC's, and umpteen other burger/subs/fast food joints, and there's another one coming with the opening of Boston Pizza this fall. Everywhere you look in this city it's just restaurants, donut shops and overweight/obese people. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm merely pointing out what I know to be a fact from experience. You don't know what this place is like until you've lived here. Just ask the myriads of people who used to live in Chatham--and left for greener pastures... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It dosen't matter what *I* think OR what *you* think. It dosen't even matter where I live or where you live, you're missing the whole point of what I was trying to say. Wikipedia can't be based on unreferenced personal opinions, even if you were the local medical officer of health in Chatham-Kent and you posted personal opinions based on your own observations, it has no place in Wikipedia. The only material that can legitimately be used here is previously published materials from reliable secondary sources that can be referenced by others if they wish to check its reliability. Period. Nothing else belongs on here. I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh, but it gets pretty discouraging sometimes trying to edit these articles and lots of people don't even seem to get exactly what this or any other encyclopedia actually *is*, something they might understand more if they read the policies. This isn't a collection of personal opinions, even of those who happen to have personal knowledge of a given subject, unless previously published sources are provided here, the information is unverifiable and consequently it's *useless* in an encyclopedia. Deconstructhis 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Deconstructhis, I do agree with you and think that this should be removed from the article unless someone is willing to find a source for the information. To the replier @ 72.39.173.71, these things may be true, but you do still need sources.. What you know, from experience, is exactly what is not wanted in Wikipedia articles. (WP:OR) Vtrickzv 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. You want sources, so I added some. Hopefully this silliness can stop now. Although Wikipedia is a great place, it's hardly reliable, but I digress. Opinions differ, and I accept that. Cheers nonetheless.

[edit] Spin

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)

It's an open secret why business won't locate here. It's called ABC: Anywhere But Chatham... High taxes, too much red tape, an akward downtown, and terrible infrastructure makes bringing any business here a gigantic burden... Anyone with even half a brain knows that, and this is EXACTLY why Chatham-Kent has gone down the tubes. It's not pessimism at all, it's called realism. Reality. Something that people don't like to deal with because it's too unpleasant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As an employer, I beg to disagree. The one thing we really lack as a location is a fast, frequent rail service to nearby major cities. Three hours to Toronto makes a same-day business trip a bit taxing, though possible. Road and Internet infrastructure is actually pretty good - we have Highway 401 and a 10Gigabit node (Shaw cable, just east of downtown) for those whose business requires lots of bandwidth. From a cost-of-doing-business POV we are very competitive, although I won't deny that the Canadian Dollar's current oil-fueled rocket-ride is eroding this. The "big fixes" in terms of business attraction and retention are a building the sports centre and getting the Capitol Theatre finally open, because while some people argue that those are a waste of money, they are the kind of things that employers and managers look for when they decide where *they* want to live.

69.159.230.251 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I used to work up at the mall for a store(which has since closed), and I know all the inside "dirt" as to why nobody wants to bring any new business, industry, or stores here. I can't get into the specific details(that's an entirely different topic), but I can tell you that the entire mall has been a money loser for several years now. Ivanhoe Cambridge, the "title holder", has placed it up for sale time and time again. Nobody wants it, and I don't blame them. If Sears ever decides to pull out of there, they might as shut the entire place down and bulldoze it, because the land is worth more than the mall itself. Everything is going Northside anyway. Downtown Chatham has been a cesspool ever since the recession of the 90's, and it never fully recovered. And the Capitol Theatre? Give me a break. They might as well give up on that too. It's been what? Over ten years now, and after all the time and money that was pissed away on that thing, we still aren't any closer to it being finished, or having a final completion date. As far as Chatham as a city goes, I have never seen so many unsavoury, shady people in my life. Not everyone is like that, I agree, but yes it would seem as though Chatham does qualify as the welfare capitol of Ontario. Drugs, alcoholism, unwed mothers, crackheads, dropouts, second and third generation "welfare families", a plethora of health problems, and well you get the picture. Is it any wonder why the younger crowd is leaving in droves? I can't say that I blame them. The grass IS greener on the other side. Chatham's prime was over a long time ago. We're becoming a retirement community more than anything. It's London and points East that you want to be...

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[citation needed]. 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)

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)
Famous locals placed in alpha order. Blotto adrift (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding unsourced material

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)

[edit] Recent edits

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)

  • 72.39.173.71 If there's a specific objection to content behind what you're doing here, I think the onus is on you to spell it out so that it can be addressed. I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you're attempting to achieve in choosing to continue to revert the material from its current version. Without justifying what you're doing it's getting increasingly difficult for other editors to determine what your objections in this situation actually are. Thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More recent edits

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)

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)

[edit] Chatham-Kent Socialist Current Blog Link

I'm curious about something concerning the person who posted the link. Would you be in support of someone including a link to, let's say, a blog called the 'Chatham-Kent Neo-Conservative Tribune'? How about treating a blog with a title like that as suitable material for citation purposes in supporting someone's position here on Wikipedia? Deconstructhis (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favour of that.
The fact that Wikipedia has a policy against allowing blogs to be posted is classist, as not everyone has the resources to purchase a domain and design a website. Those free domains are often the only resources for independent media to use. It is fine for Quebecor to own so much print media in Chatham-Kent, they are a coporation with ample resources. But for the independent media, whether conservative or socialist, it is an affront to democracy not to allow them (in whatever form they take, whether blog or conventional domain) to be visible on one of the most visited information websites. The trouble with news sources today is that they often have a clear ideological or partisan bias, but are unwilling to advertise it. It's very clandestine and suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.104.177 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Related to the above....I have some concerns with recent comments added regarding media ownership. I don't necessarily disagree with the general sentiments expressed or with the facts, but I don't think this is really the place to express them. First off, the newspapers listed aren't the only media available in C-K, newspaper or otherwise. Second, we have a situation where one city paper and a bunch of small town newspapers found themselves within the boundaries of the same municipality due to amalgamation - the concentration of ownership wouldn't be so pronounced if these papers were listed under the separate communities they serve. Third, and most importantly, the comments made on media concentration aren't unique to C-K and they are mostly unreferenced with POV (other Wikipedia articles are linked, but not referenced - references are for outside sources - changes have been made). The comments made belong with references in the wiki articles on media concentration and/or media in general. Blotto adrift (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This entry only deals with "print media," as the heading suggest. Of course there are other media in C-K, and they are listed in other sections. The separate communites are listed in the article (and they have their own Wikipedia entries). Since this is an entry for Chatham-Kent as a whole, it is important to highlight the concentrated, corporate media ownerhsip. Media concentration is not unique to Chatham-Kent, but it is a fact. The links help solidify the adverse affects of this phenomenon.
Reputable third-party sources referring to the specific situation in C-K would be required, otherwise it's POV and/or original research. Blotto adrift (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Rewrote the section. The individual ownership references were replaced by a single sentence at the bottom and the comments about media concentration were removed. Blotto adrift (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chatham-Kent, Ontario → Chatham-Kent

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)

  • Not a problem. The Canadian naming convention does suggest that consensus be obtained before the move, but we all sometimes learn of these things after the fact. As for the move, I support it. Chatham-Kent is a unique name, and I don't think there is any need to disambiguate it so as to distinguish it from the disambiguation used for the title of Chatham, Kent -- to fallback on disambiguation so as to avoid confusion with another disambiguated term is to truly descend into the disambiguation circle of hell, in my opinion. The use of a DAB statement at the top of both articles would be more than sufficient in the unlikely event of any confusion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I also support the move here. I just find it odd that for once in Canadian geography we didn't name it a carbon copy of the English one (comma vs dash). I support the use of the double DAB statements on each page (Chatham, Kent already has one). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • As the person who originally alerted Pomte to the fact that a consensus should be attained first, I'd just like to state for the record that I'm neutral about the move — if consensus is that dablines are sufficient, then I'm fine with that. But in a case like this it is best to clarify first how people feel about it. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada/Ontario project rating

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)

[edit] Identity Problem?

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)

[edit] Media attention

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)

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)