Talk:Eastern Ontario

Defining Region's Boundaries

I'm not sure what source was used to create the boundaries for Eastern Ontario in this article. I would say that the boundaries used are not the generally accepted boundaries. Below I've included to reputable references which show the region itself self-identifies as greater than this area and that the Province of Ontario also recognizes a greater area. I think the article should be amended to include the region as defined by the Province of Ontario. http://www.ontarioeast.ca/content/ontario-east-communities http://www.ontario.ca/business-and-economy/eastern-ontario-development-fund

List of major communities

Initially, the list consisted of:

• Ottawa
• Kingston
• Cornwall
• Pembroke
• Brockville
• Hawkesbury
• Embrun
• Rockland
• Smiths Falls
• Carleton Place
• Prescott

But then, someone removed Embrun, Rockland and Hawkesbury. Which is a stupid thing to do, given that Embrun, Rockland and Hawkesbury each have more people than Prescott, and Hawkesbury has more people than Carleton Place. But then someone re-added Embrun. I've re-added Hawkesbury and Rockland and listed them in order of population.

Embrun, Rockland and Hawkesbury have been removed by some people, even though they are definitely in the top 10 population-wise - all of them are ahead of Prescott. If you are considering removing those three towns, then you should also remove Prescott, Carleton Place and Smiths Falls, as Embrun, Rockland and Hawkesbury have just as many people as they do.

However, people in Renfrew/Arnprior/Carleton Place/Smiths Falls/Perth/Kemptville tend to think that their towns are bigger than the Prescott-Russell towns, even though this IS NOT TRUE. The Hawkesbury/Rockland/Embrun/Casselman/Russell area has just as many people as the Lanark area, if not more.

A lot of people tend to overlook the Hawkesbury/Rockland/Embrun/Casselman/Russell area for some reason. This may be because Hawkesbury/Rockland/Embrun/Casselman/Russell have only been big towns for about a decade, whereas the Renfrew/Arnprior/Carleton Place/Smiths Falls/Perth/Kemptville area has had big towns for about a century. But today, they are all equal - so it doesn't matter whether or not they have been big towns for longer - all that matters is how many people they have. --216.106.111.200 21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not one of population; it's that the list should comprise incorporated municipalities. There's no valid reason to take what's otherwise a list of incorporated municipalities, but then add two communities that are within the boundaries of incorporated municipalities which aren't themselves listed. If you want to prioritize unincorporated communities over municipalities, then the list may as well include Nepean and Gloucester and Collins Bay, too. Bearcat 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is good to add unincorporated communities because (more so in rural Eastern Ontario) many municipalities have been merged recently, and the people identify where they live by community, not by municipality. Someone from Rockland will identify themselves as being from Rockland, not from Clarence-Rockland. Similarly, someone from Embrun will say "I'm from Embrun" not "I'm from Russell Township" (it is better to add "township" to the end because just saying Russell will create confusion between the township and the community, again because people identify themselves by community, not municipality). And since when are Gloucester and Nepean communities? I had the impression that they themselves were a combination of many communities (having been evolved from townships) and not communities themselves. --FreshFruitsRule 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of a solution. Why don't we include major urban areas instead? They correspond to cultural areas and they are official regions. I'll wait for your opinion before I change the list. --FreshFruitsRule 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"conservative, similar to much of Western Canada and large parts of the United States, due to strong religious influence and a heavily traditional agricultural base" The use of "due to" in this sentence implies that "strong religious influence" and agriculture result in conservatism. I question this implicit causal link. How can we suggest that agriculture results in political conservatism? Religion, maybe. Who wrote this? What did he/she mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorsting (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)