Talk:Southern Ontario

Untitled
I have found some difficulties in discovering some of the routes for the underground railroad. One of the questions that I have are where did the various lines of escape end. I know of several in the United States but very few in Canada and yet we know that many escaped slaves came to Canada to find their freedom. I know of one such area in in a small community called Canfield. As a matter of fact not only was this part of the underground railroad but many of these ex-slaves settled not far from there. There later grew a small settlement of these escaped slaves on what became unofficially known as the "Darkie Side Road" this was not a slur against anyone but rather intended for reference alone. This information came from word of mouth and I am in the process of attempting to confirm some of this.

By A. Gowling

In the small town I grew up in (Dunnville) Highway 56 was generally regarded as "The Darkie Side Road" I distinctly remember my father, in the 1950's pointing out a group of houses (maybe deserted I don't know) on the left hand side driving north. I was probably pretty young, but my recollection was that this settlement was closer to the junction of Highway 20. I suppose it could have been Canfield, but it is on Highway 3 and I have often heard Dunnville residents call 56 the Darkie Side Road. Tom Williams

Northern Ontario
I've tagged as problematic the statement that the dividing line between Southern and Northern Ontario was traditionally "counties vs. districts".

At least officially, the dividing line between the two regions has always been the line created by Georgian Bay, the French River and Lake Nipissing, while Parry Sound and Muskoka were essentially a transitional region that had aspects of both the south and the north — but although they were certainly more "northern" politically and culturally (Parry Sound more so, Muskoka less), they were (and still are) both geographically in the south. For instance, nobody would ever say that Gravenhurst or Huntsville or Bracebridge was in Northern Ontario — but the moment you step up to the region which all three of those towns are part of, then suddenly people do sometimes say Northern. There's a certain illogic to that.

Furthermore, Muskoka is not a "district" in the sense meant by any other division in Ontario that has the word district in its name, as it is legally a regional municipality and does have an upper-tier government. So calling Muskoka "northern" on the basis of a division between incorporated and unincorporated census divisions simply doesn't wash, because if that's the criterion then Muskoka doesn't even meet it. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I've always considered Highway 17 between Sudbury and North Bay to be the border, and I've NEVER heard anybody refer to anything south of it as being in Northern Ontario. I'm not sure who put Parry Sound and Muskoka (which are District Municipalities) into the definition of Northern Ontario. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite correct, for the record; Parry Sound is just a district, which has no regional tier of municipal government at all, and while Muskoka has the word "district" in its name, its actual legal status is that of a regional municipality just like York or Peel or Durham. "District municipality" isn't a separate class of thing; it's just a weird Muskoka-specific naming holdover which isn't intended to imply that it actually has any sort of sui generis status in law.
 * The border certainly falls near Highway 17, but I really don't think you've ever heard anybody say that Noëlville or Killarney, which are both south of the highway but north of the French River, were in the south. But you are right that there's no official boundary line defined in any legal sense.
 * For what it's worth, the primary reason that this back-and-forth exists over Muskoka and Parry Sound is that FedNor includes both of them in its service area, while the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund includes Parry Sound but not Muskoka. I also think a lot of people don't get that Muskoka is actually a real regional municipality and not a district in the northern no-second-tier sense.
 * And for what it's worth, I've actually seen people argue (on here, no less!) that "Northern Ontario" meant anything north of Barrie, which is a rather "you just got off the plane from Caracas an hour ago, didn't you?" thing to say no matter how you slice it. But then again, Bob McAdorey used to give weather forecasts on Global that involved Sudbury being included in Central Ontario, but Capreol in Northern. I never actually did figure out where you'd have to draw the dividing line for that to work. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no official demarcation line between northern and southern Ontario; or at least if there is, it hasn't been found and cited in our article. The best I think we can do in the article is present known alternative opinions. I tend to think that the line described by Bearcat (ie, French River, Lake Nipissing, and presumably the Mattawa River to the Ottawa River) is as good a "natural" demarcation line as any, but of course one could use highways or political boundaries as alternatives.  PK T (alk)  17:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Found one: http://www.eco.on.ca/eng/index.php/pubs/eco-publications/challenges-to-sustainability-in-northern-ontario.php
 * Traditionally defined by a line drawn from the Mattawa River across Lake Nipissing to the French River, the southern boundary of Northern Ontario now includes the Muskoka Lakes area.
 * The fact that it says "area" instead of "district" or "region" raises my curiosity. What part of Muskoka? Either way, here is a source that gives absolute boundaries for the "traditional" line. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Muskoka and Parry Sound are/were districts not Counties .... Muskoka has recently become a regional municipality. That in no way means that suddenly it becomes part of Southern Ontario. It was a full out district until recently. I agree that the "border" between North and South is disputable, which is the case with any non-definite boundary. I suggest we leave it the way it is, having Muskoka and Parry Sound as transition district/municipality belonging to both North and South. 209.183.149.174 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they always were part of the South. I have no idea who began the idea that Muskoka was in the north, but it is unheard of. Here is another source: http://www.canoe.ca/AllAboutCanoes/book_french.html which indicates the French River, Lake Nipissing, and the Mattawa River. I've made appropriate changes, with the source. The map in the infobox needs to be updated likewise. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Muskoka and Parry Sound should remain as neutral areas, both part of the North and South. As mentioned the boundary has historically been the division between Districts and Counties. Muskoka has changed from a District, this doesn't change history. Muskoka may not be considered "Northern Ontario", but it's certainly not considered "Southern Ontario" either. References can be found arguing both ways so they're irrelevant. The key map and facts should stay the way they are. PhilthyBear (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The boundary has historically been the French River. Not because that's what I say, but because that's what all the sources say. Do you have an actual reliable source that indicates otherwise? And Muskoka became a regional municipality in 1971 — which might be "recent" within the scope of Ontario's entire history, I suppose, but doesn't even approach being "recent" in the sense that our friend 209 meant it. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Government source showing Muskoka in Northern Ontario, with mapping to prove it. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/maps/ontario-north.aspx 209.183.149.174 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A source that's talking about 1927? With maps that don't show anything further south than the bottom of Manitoulin Island? Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the maps are of poor quality, but the reference clearly shows proof. Title = Districts of NORTHERN Ontario ... Listed under said Title = Muskoka and Parry Sound. Southern Ontario was once all "Counties". Muskoka was never a county. It was a District like the rest of the North. 209.183.149.174 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the one who said that the maps "proved" your point, not me. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To use a source from 1927 to describe the current situation is absurd. If we are to use this to say historically that Muskoka and Parry Sound were part of Northern Ontario, then we must describe that this was at a point in time before our current transportation network, and that the "north" of Ontario was much more southern than today (Most were made in the 1880's before Patricia became part of Ontario. Besides, Ontario was extensively restructured in 1974 and 1975.


 * Not to mention several more sources that make clearer distinctions as to what is north and south:
 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/429340/Ontario (Britannica Online) - "Northern Ontario, as usually defined, lies north of a line drawn from the confluence of the Mattawa and Ottawa rivers (at the Quebec border, east of Lake Nipissing) southwest to the mouth of the French River, on Georgian Bay."
 * http://www.chrs.ca/Rivers/Mattawa/Mattawa-F_e.htm (Canadian Rivers Heritage Site) - "The designated section of the Mattawa (river) lies between North Bay (pop. 52,000) and Mattawa (pop. 2,686) along the imaginary line dividing northern and southern Ontario." -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And another fascinating discovery: Haliburton wasn't a county in 1927, either — and didn't become one until 12 years after Muskoka became a regional municipality. Which means that if the definition were based on the recentism that our numbered friend demands, Haliburton wouldn't belong on the list either. But that didn't seem to exclude it from being listed as part of Southern Ontario. Why izzat, d'you suppose? Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haliburton was the "Provisional County of Haliburton" since 1874 when three townships from then "Victoria County" (now Kawartha Lakes) broke off and became Haliburton County. PhilthyBear (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the same thing was done with Muskoka, because Victoria County originally contained many of its townships. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only difference between a county and a district is the presence or lack of a county/district level of local government. So a "provisional county" (i.e. a division that's expected to eventually become a county, but doesn't yet have a county level of government because it doesn't yet have the population or the infrastructure to support one) really can't be distinguished from a district in any genuinely meaningful — or even remotely sourced — way, unless you reify the words themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tourism
I added the two citation needed tags to the tourism section because it contradicts this which does have citations. Maybe Toronto/Silver Horseshoe cheerleaders can not only provide citations, but also fix the chart. Isn't it just obvious that more international visitors go to Toronto than Rome? I just hope this isn't a deliberate snub against Canada. --Antigrandiose (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, and I hope my math is right, but 21% of the Canadian population that lives outside of Ottawa visits this city every year? --Antigrandiose (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Ontario Science Centre should be added as tourist attractions of Southern Ontario. Comments? Nutster (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Ontario
I live in Eastern Ontario, which I have never considered part of Southern Ontario. The first external link of the article, to Southern Ontario Tourism, shows a map that does not include Eastern Ontario. I suspect that most people, when they say "Southern Ontario", are thinking of the area covered by the tourism link, and maybe a little more to the east, but not Eastern Ontario. Should the article not mention this as an alternative (and, I suspect, much more common) definition of Southern Ontario? Sagifer (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the website you're speaking of. It is of very poor quality and should be called "Southwestern Ontario Tourism" as it doesn't show much outside of SW Ontario. Aside from that, Ontario only has two regions, north and south. Eastern, Central, and SW Ontario are only subregions. You wouldn't hear many locals in those subregions speaking of their areas as just "Southern Ontario" because of it's vast size (larger than most US states). It's far easier and common to speak of their specific subregions. The provincial government, federal government, as well as government departments like Ontario Parks include all subregions in southern Ontario. I agree with you that people in Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston, Barrie, don't often think about themselves as in "Southern Ontario" due to the more common subregion usage. But they all are. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The legal demarcation line is the French and Mattawa rivers. There is no formal boundary between Eastern, south-central and southwestern Ontario in the same way. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK...but the article isn't specifically about the Ontario Government's definition of Southern Ontario, is it? That there isn't even a mention of this point of controversy in the article is highly suspect, especially as this article (as well as dozens of other ones pertaining to Ontario) seems scrupulously stage-managed by Ontario Liberal political operatives. Nobody in any part of the legally-defined "Southern Ontario" considers points east of, oh, Napanee to be a part thereof. Furthermore, there are different government definitions for different legislative purposes (e.g. for Drive Clean testing, Renfrew County is not considered part of Southern Ontario; there are similar caveats with regard to MNR hunting and fishing zones). 184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"white sand" in bold??
Does anybody know why the term "white sand" in the Climate section is in bold? Sxg169 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Political status
So far as I can tell, "Southern Ontario" has no legal status. Thus I don't see why the "s" is capitalized, other than that it happens to come at the start of a sentence.

I know traditionally "Northern Ontario" has the 'N' in capital. Still, the article seems to imply some legal status that I don't think exists. It is simply a territorial description, that is contested, see e.g. other person's comment on eastern vs southern Ontario. NWG123 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Capitalization doesn't automatically imply political or legal status per se. Geographic regions with no political or legal status, such as Batiscanie or Southern Manitoba, are routinely capitalized because regardless of political or legal status it is still the proper name of a specific and defined region. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was thinking just the same as . (There's a lot of deceased-equine flagellation coming up.) I notice also that here calls it "a specific and defined region", much as they said above (01:29, 26 November 2009):
 * At least officially, the dividing line between the two regions has always been the line created by Georgian Bay...


 * But they also admit a little further down that
 * you are right that there's no official boundary line defined in any legal sense.


 * Again, quotes a source, apparently in reply to 's "there is no official demarcation line", as saying
 * Traditionally defined by a line drawn from the Mattawa River across Lake Nipissing to the French River, the southern boundary of Northern Ontario now includes the Muskoka Lakes area.


 * And says
 * The boundary has historically been the French River. Not because that's what I say, but because that's what all the sources say.


 * But of course, neither "traditional" and "historical" means or makes something official. And then, again, says (bottom of section, 04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
 * The legal demarcation line is the French and Mattawa rivers.


 * But from all that we've seen here, there is no legal/official definition, despite some claims to the contrary.


 * Why am I beating this dead horse? Because at the top of the infobox is


 * and the first sentence of the text is (underlines added)
 * Southern Ontario is a of the province of Ontario, Canada,  being Northern Ontario.


 * Those two certainly imply that there's something official and legal about those names and definition(s). I mean, gee, if "county" ("County"?) and "district" and maybe "municipal district" are official divisions, why not "primary region"? But in fact it is not, nor is region as used here. Maybe that's obvious to Canucks, including any in this long-drawn-out discussion, but to this lifelong USAian and probably almost all non-Canadians, it sure isn't.
 * So I propose
 * in the infobox, moving "Southern Ontario" from the "official_name" field to the "nickname" field, leaving "official_name" blank because there isn't any
 * editing the lede paragraph to make it clear that the status of Southern and Northern Ontario as "regions" or "primary regions" is a matter of tradition and common usage and has no official status in government or law. Compare the beginning of Southern United States.
 * Also doing the same for Northern Ontario and any other pages about regions of Canada that foster this mistaken impression. Fellow Wikipedians, what say you? --Thnidu (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, an infobox cannot not have an "official name" in it. Secondly, there are important and relevant and defining political and administrative differences between Southern Ontario and Northern Ontario; for example, SO is divided into counties and regional municipalities which are actually governed as municipal entities, while NO has no "upper tier" of local government between the towns or cities and the provinces. Any service that would be provided in the south by the county or regional municipality instead of by an individual town or city on its own, in the north is provided directly by the provincial government: an entire network of provincially maintained "secondary highways" instead of "county roads". District service offices, which are departments of the provincial government, to administer government services that would be handled by a county or regional municipality in the south. And on and so forth. There are actually real, identifiable differences in the basic nature of government administration between the two regions, which is what makes them "primary" regions — there are actual distinctions between the two areas that actually exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Area of Southern Ontario
Where does the area measurement of Southern Ontario come from? There doesn't appear to be a source. The article shows an area of 139,931 km2 for the total area, including 126,819 km2 in the core area and 13,112 km2 in the extended area. If Southern Ontario consists of the 40 census divisions listed in the article, the total of these census divisions is considerably smaller. The 40 census divisions are a total of 114,217 km2 - 101,264 km2 for the 38 core census divisions and 12,953 km2 in the two extended ones (Parry Sound and Muskoka). These numbers are from Statistics Canada. I can't find any information that accounts for the difference. Clowndentist (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Been there since the infobox was added in 2009. No idea where the numbers were pulled from.diff -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)