Talk:Kawartha Lakes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kawartha - A Bobcaygeonism:[edit]

As a Bobcaygeonite for many years, and having done a fair bit of research on the matter, I can finally explain the origin of the word Kawartha. In the 1950s, Bobcaygeon was experiencing a bit of a tourism slump. Up until the 1940s, the many of tourists coming to Bobcaygeon were from Ohio, Michigan, New York and many other places - these people coming to town on the Canadian Pacific Railway from Toronto and beyond.

By the 1950s, the automobile and a much-improved highway system was starting make its effects felt: people were changing their travel patterns, and instead of coming to Bobcaygeon for weeks on end, they could flit about almost anywhere a tank of gas could take them. The Canadian Pacific Railway pulled up their stakes in Bobcaygeon in 1957.

The town fathers looked around them and tried to figure out what other places had that Bobcaygeon did not. At this time, the Muskokas were really taking off. Many many people would rush into the Muskokas for a weekend, but not much of that traffic was coming our way. So a delegation from the town council, headed by Ab Bottom travelled to Curve Lake to have a talk with the elders there. They asked for a cool indian name to call the area.

Ka-wa-tha is what they came up with (Land of Shining Waters.) They came back to town, and happily began spreading around the new title for their lakes: the Kawathas. As you have pointed out, the Ojibwa have no "R" sound in their language, hence the Kawatha. The Bobcaygeonites (and many Americans) also had problems saying it as delivered, so some enterprising individual in the Bobcaygeon Chamber of Commerce added the "R" after a couple of years. If you don't believe me, go up to Coboconk. There is still a business there called "Kawatha Garage" and no it is not a typo!!!

So, there it is. Kawartha was a Bobcaygeonism, and Anglicization of a made-up Ojibwa word, so all that you hear perpetuated that Kawartha is a Peterborough thing, is really a bunch of bunk. I think that Peterborough has only recently learned how to properly spell their name, the common usage was Peterboro, no?

As for "We Love Beavers," well that goes without saying, but perhaps someone could come up with the Ojibwa word for "Fresh Great Blue Heron Tracks Through a Big Pile of Osprey Poop on a pile of sand" Now THAT would be impressive.

Cli0019 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Cli0019 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can verify that garage name... Although I'm pretty sure it has since been rebranded as Coboconk Auto (Repair?) when new owners made it into a used car lot. I'm going up next weekend so I will double check. Can you get any official sources that backup these claims? (Even a pamphlet from the bobcaygeon tourist booth is something instead of nothing) -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I just stumbled upon a 1930-1931 Ontario road map that has the entire area labeled as the Kawartha Lakes. Might defeat the validity of this claim. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further, reading through Ontario Place Names from University of Toronto Press, 97, the term was coined by Martha Whetung of the Curvy Lake reserve in 1895. However, it backs up the idea that promoters subsequently added the 'r' and changed the meaning to "bright waters and happy lands." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The area has many beavers around, which has lead to the nickname "We love Beavers", in an attempt to out-odd the Newfoundland town of Dildo.

This seems like nonsense to me - I don't think the beaver population in Kawartha Lakes is abnormal for Central Ontario; "We love Beavers" is not really a nickname; who is supposed to be making this so-called attempt? (certainly not city officials); is Dildo, Newfoundland the pinnacle of Canadian oddness? I'm eliding it, but I haven't lived there in some time, so please correct me if this is actually an established fact. Zander 12:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

name etymology[edit]

The name "Kawartha" does not sound like it is Ojibwe and some sources I came across said Wyandot, so on the Kawartha lakes pages, it was chaged back in November of 2006 to reflect that. Now, thinking about it, though it still does not sound like an Ojibwe word, I thought of a possible Ojibwe etymology. Could someone please find and source the region's name? If it really is Ojibwe, it might be something like Gaa-waasagamaag ("place where the lake-water is bright / is shining / have white-caps") and was corrupted down to its present name. In general, since the Mississauga Ojibwe language in the region was one of the earliest documented Ojibwe (such as by Evans and by Sommerfield), both clearly recorded Ojibwe of that region did not have any "r" or "th" sounds, though often "r" is used in English to denote lengthening of a vowel. Just a thought. CJLippert 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've come across this from Basil Johnston's Anishinaubae Thesaurus (2007): "Gau-wautae-gummauh glistening body of water; Kawartha Lakes, Ontario." Seems like my guess was close, but if his pronunciation were to be put in Fiero orthography, it would be Gaa-waategamaag (grammatically, should have a final -g to go with the gaa-). I will adjust the Kawartha Lakes, Ontario and the Kawartha lakes articles accordingly.CJLippert 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Do not merege. Why would you merge the article about the City with the article about the lakes just because they have the same name? The lakes do not lie wholly within the boundaries of the city -- they go into neighbouring counties. Ground Zero | t 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No merge. Agree with Ground Zero. -- P199 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Vankoughnet is listed as being within Kawartha Lakes, but the current Ontario Roadmap Online Map 5 shows it as part of the amalgamated Town of Bracebridge. papageno 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is true. Vankoughnet is a neighbourhood of Bracebridge,on Highway 118. A road leads from Vankoughnet into Victoria County, providing the only access to the northernmost part of Digby, Laxton and Longford township (the original Longford township had no communities, and I do not know if it ever even had a municipal hall). And yes, I know that it is no longer Victoria County, but "City of Kawartha Lakes" makes no sense at all. A lot of weird amalgamations have occured in Ontario around the year 2000, and new municipalities were given uncreative long names. I mean, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen? Come on! --User:Crustaceanguy, June 8, 2009

List of communities[edit]

I've noticed that many of the listed communities are in neighboring counties. Can we please clean this up to only include communities within the boundaries and CDP of Kawartha Lakes? Seagrave for example is clearly to the east of Simcoe street, placing it within Durham. Preferably only communities with growth beyond a main drag of houses (Ie. at least a store and a street) should be listed, and many of the Corners and Landings should be removed or moved into a sperate list that includes all the unincorporated communities, hamlets, ghost towns, and abandoned post offices. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right, after a night at my cottage with a 2009 official relief map of the Kawarthas, I have made the following list. This is an official list of all the actual communities that exist in 2009:

Kawartha Lakes communities
Fenelon Falls
Sturgeon Point
Burnt River
O'Donnell Landing
Elm Tree Corners
Oakdene Point
Starr's Beach
Newman's Point
Gillson's Point
New Park
Mount Horeb
Feir Mill
Orange Corners
Fowlers Corners
Frank Hill
Keneden Park
Fee's Landing
Salem Corners
Little Britain
Taylor Corners
Linden Valley
Powles Corners
Daytonia Beach
Southview Estates
Isaacs Glen
Camp Kagawong
Long Point
Victoria Road
Head Lake
Campbell's Beach
Lake Dalrymple
McCrackins Beach
Cowan's Bay
Hillhead Corners
Cunningham's Corners
Fox's Corners
King Wharf
Lakeview Estates
Victora Place
Glenway Village
Pickerel Point
Snug Harbour
Pleasant Point
Kennedy Bay
Kenhill Beach
Cedar Glen
Ancona Point
Bitch Point
Kenstone Beach
Verulam Park
Sandy Point
Bury's Green
Silver Lake
Union Creek

Hartley Road[edit]

This statement on the main page today does not seem quite right. "that Hartley Road, the shortest numbered route in the city of Kawartha Lakes, is entirely a causeway crossing the man-made Mitchell Lake?"

According to Google Maps, Hartley Road is long, with only a small section crossing Mitchell Lake. See map below.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hartley Road does indeed continue for quite a while, through its namesake "village" (More of an abandoned post office/rural church), finally ending at the corners of Cambray and Woodville Roads (Kawartha Lakes Road 9). However, a quick look at the official Kawartha Lakes city roads map shows that the designation of 'Kawartha Lakes Road 3' (The shortest numbered route in the city) merely lasts across the lake. Although the numbered shield blocks the exact ending point, the lone sign on the entire road that marks it as "Kawartha Lakes Road 3" indicates its ending point on the shores of the lake a few metres north of Robinson Avenue. I was there earlier today but forgot to get a picture of that sign at the waters edge (The water was actually about 6 inches lower than the lowest dip in the causeway today oddly enough).
Perhaps the wording was not exact, but the name wasn't the focus of the hook and Hartley Road is the name of the road on its stretch as KLR 3, as evidenced by the sign approaching the road along Portage Road (48) with the name and shield. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have re-added the word ignorantly to describe the actions taken by the Ontario government both leading up to and after the amalgamation of Victoria County and its townships. While some may see this as NPOV breaker, they do not know the story. The facts and figures are available here, and show many councils and citizens (Including a city wide referendum with 51% against, and a far less reliable citizens referendum that garnered a 95% vote to de-amalgamate) did not wish to have a single-tier municipality for such a massive rural area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That "ignorantly" is the main reason that I tagged this section as {{unbalanced}}. The cited sources do not demonstrate ignorance on the part of the commissioner—indeed it's a stretch to say that they even allege it (VOCO says "Mr. Kitchen ignored [the people]", which is hardly the usual meaning of "ignorantly".). To state this as fact is to draw an improper conclusion, or to merely deride him. The commissioner's conduct should be explained and criticized based on the analyses of reliable sources—and preferably journalistic or academic ones, rather than advocacy groups. That VOCO site linked above is rather obviously political, and as such is not a very appropriate source for a controversial allegation. Similarly for the other cited source (Yes Victoria).
I'm restoring the tag that was removed, per this rationale. TheFeds 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm sure there are hundreds of reliable academic sources about a rural municipality. The two groups have reliable sources for their information as most of the politicians that represented Victoria county are present in those groups. I'm not sure which word would be more suitable than ignorantly. I suppose the word "ignorantly" implies that the person was unknowledgeable of the consequences of their action or of the effects they would have on the people, and as such would indeed be the wrong choice of wording. However, to have not only the capital of the county, but also all but one of the townships oppose the actions of the commissioner, yet have the government do whatever it decides it wants to do, is controversial. Therefore, a controversial allegation should be made to reflect the consensus of the population of this municipality.
I'm sorry, but just because its the doing of the government does not automatically make the decision validated (hell, the commissioner's group is just as much an advocacy group as the groups that oppose it). The facts are there, and the government of Ontario continues to ignore it. Can you suggest a more appropriate word to fit this situation? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using the term "ignorantly" has nothing to do with validating a decision. Presumably, the provincial government was in full possession of the facts, so they were not ignorant of anything. Presumably you wish to express that the government ignored the apparent will of the communities affected? If so, please reword it that way. The current wording expresses an opinion, which we try not to do here. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding sources: you may have trouble finding academic sources, which is why I also suggested journalistic ones—surely there's a local newspaper that covered this in a way that didn't editorialize in support of a particular position. And the major Ontario papers would have described the Ontario government's amalgamation activities in some detail—did any address the referendum in this municipality or the government's motivations?
Those advocacy groups could reasonably be cited to describe their own positions. For example, you can definitely write that a citizens' advocacy group was upset and protested—it pretty much says so directly. But saying that there was "general opposition from residents of the area" means that you're treating the word of that advocacy group as authoritative, which is a bad idea. How can we be reasonably certain that they're not exaggerating the support for their position to further their own agenda? That's hardly uncommon among politicians or ideologues. (And maybe they're all being completely honest—but for the benefit of a neutral point of view, we should err on the side of verifiability through independent sourcing.)
As for the word "ignorantly", perhaps you would want to simply leave the adverb out entirely: "...the government pushed forward with the amalgamation...". This would seem to avoid the problem of sourcing that characterization of the government of the day.
The sentence "This act was made by Ontario commissioner Kitchen, responding to a 2 - 3 vote by the Township of Emily to call the commissioner in to assist with the mismanagement of their landfill site." is rather confusing; I'm not sure what this landfill site has to do with the amalgamation act. Maybe that goes somewhere else?
Regarding the de-amalgamation referendum, given that a reader will not likely be familiar with the process, it should be clarified that legally, that referendum was not binding upon the Ontario government (not a binding referendum process approved by act of the Ontario Legislature). Right now, one could get the impression that the government was violating the law by not honouring the results, rather than bending or breaking an election promise. For this in particular, I'm sure that local media must have reported the results—why not source the information from them, or from city hall?
I don't disagree that the past governments' actions were controversial, or even bad policy. TheFeds 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll second pretty much all of this, these are the same points I would raise. Ideally, there would be some placement into the context of how successive Ontario governments have pursued the regional government policy. It's been a trend for 30 years. As a former resident of Scott Township and having lived 6 km from the "city limits" at the time of amalgamation, I'm sure there are lots of sources out there on citizen discontent and reaction to some of the mess-ups that followed. There may even be an academic study by now, but definitely there was a lot of news coverage of this in local and national press. The wording just needs to change to a more neutral stance, and should also cover why the provincial government went ahead with the change despite the opposition (beyond vague allegations that is, what was the stated rationale?). Franamax (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the rationale was to centralize the government and the various sectors (waste/water/infrastructure, etc) in order to save money (At least according to the Kitchen report). I'll see what I can dig up though. I'm 99.995% certain that there would be dozens of articles from the Lindsay newspaper discussing everything. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That certainly has always been the rationale, versus the local democracy and local decision-making/employment/effectiveness arguments on the other side by those who actually pay the taxes. The Lindsay paper may be a little too close to the issue (although it will certainly document the opposition). Other local/regional newspapers covered this, I know Scugog/Durham for sure, Peterborough had a similar experience, Barrie, Ottawa, lots of "regionalized" cities and villages would have a comment in their paper...
The Toronto Star would likely be better for removed-party coverage of both sides of the issue, at least I can't remember if they were pro or con. I don't think they have online archives though. I think the key here is getting overall balance in the wording more than just sourcing the fact there was opposition. Franamax (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly true. The globe and mail does a lot of political stuff, so I'm sure they'd have some articles. Their back issues are available online (Though for a fee). Either way, I will get to it in time. Right now this article is on my to-do list, but I'm starting with Victoria County (sandbox link) to cover the stuff that happened before 2001. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure my library sub covers Globe archives, so don't be spending money for something you couldn't get just as easily from the WP:LIBRARY (or use to donate for wiki-servers!). :) Franamax (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been bugging me for a few days now. I've not found time yet to dig for new sources, but I've reread the lede and the existing sources a few times. I'm not able to find support in the sources to use "ignorantly", I feel this word draws a conclusion (which may indeed be true, but is not our conclusion to draw in plain prose). To me, the including sentence reads well and with equal accuracy without that word, thus I shall now be bold and remove it. I'll try to help with updating also. Franamax (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Noting that many of the communities in Kawartha Lakes either were redlinks or had unreferenced (and sometimes incredibly poorly-written, to boot), I would like to propose an alternative model for writing about them. I call it the Sudbury solution, because it was the approach that solved a similar mess for that set of articles.

The approach would be as follows:

  • Instead of each individual community having its own permanently unreferenced stub, concentrate on the places that were incorporated municipalities prior to their amalgamation into today's Kawartha Lakes: Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, Omemee, Sturgeon Point, Woodville and the townships. All of those articles will be able to be referenced to at least one valid source without difficulty, and most of them already contain an area map pointing out approximately where the place is (which is more than any of the unreferenced community stubs had.)
  • Smaller communities, instead of being redirected to the city as a whole or standing alone as unreferenceable stubs, would be redirected to whichever municipality they were part of until such time as a properly referenced article can be written. This also has the benefit that even if a properly referenced article is never written about the community, the community's name still links to something; given the relatively small number of editors who have sufficient expertise in the area, it also means that there would be a far more manageable number of articles to work on and to monitor for vandalism and such. (What would you rather have on your watchlist, 15 articles or 70?)

It is, however, important to note that the "inherent notability" of places does not mean that a community is exempt from WP:RS or entitled to keep an unreferenced stub; it means that a place is valid as a potential topic for a properly referenced article. The references are still a requirement, and an article about an "inherently notable" topic can still be deleted or redirected if proper references aren't forthcoming. Having ten or fifteen decent articles would suit both our needs and our readership's needs far more than having sixty bad stubs. Sure, the ideal would be to have a high-quality article about every community, but if we have to choose one or the other we need quality first, not quantity. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my intention once I cleanup WP:ONRD a bit. I have the bare skeleton for an article on Victoria County to cover the history of the region, then I plan on having an article for each of the former townships that now make up the larger city of Kawartha Lakes. These no longer exist, but more or less make up the ward boundaries for the city and divide it evenly. Those will serve as a list of the former constituent villages and hamlets. Finally, a select few towns have a good history to tell (Kinmount, Burnt River, Norland, Coboconk, Kirkfield, Fenelon Falls, Victoria Road, Oakwood, Sturgeon Point, Lindsay and Bobcaygeon). The remainder are saved for last. Most are absolutely nothing when you drive by on the road, but yet they are marked with a name on every map. The only place they exist is in history. Former post offices now served by rural routes, or former railroad stops that grew into bustling markets and fell without a trace. WP:DEADLINE applies here, and this is one of my main points of interest. It will get done in time, and even if it doesn't, I have the references ready in the other articles if some other willing soul comes along to fix these stubs. If you're going to redirect, merge the information into the redirected article. Make a mess, it can be cleaned up - These aren't heavily trafficked articles, and I have all of them on my watchlist. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects Causing Mapping Problems for Businesses and Organizations[edit]

Imagine what would happen if all the city pages in Ontario were redirected to the Province of Ontario page.

Several business owners,and organizations in communities within City of Kawartha Lakes, have reported not being able to list their addresses on Facebook due to Facebook not recognizing their community exists. After much examination of the problem, it seems connected to redirects of Wikipedia pages to City if Kawartha Lakes. Case in point - Yelverton,Ontario. See Facebook Yelverton,Ontario

Please do not redirect articles about physical locations to City of Kawartha Lakes.

In addition, redirecting pages in Wikipedia can decrease your reach. It would be much better to develop each community page, and link it to the City of Kawartha Lakes Page. Yrhelper (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should probably bring this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada; not many people are likely to notice it here. If there is a consensus from discussion there to create stand-alone articles for all of these locations, then we can follow your suggestion. Bear in mind, though, that this is really a Facebook issue, rather than a Wikipedia one. It's Facebook's interpretation of Wikipedia's data that is causing the problem, not Wikipedia's data itself. You might want to bring this up with Facebook tech support if you haven't done so already. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects Causing Wikipedia Loss of Authority[edit]

I have posted about the problems these redirects are causing, as it may be more than a Canadian issue. Facebook is not misinterpreting Wikipedia information.If you view Facebook source code, you will see,Facebook Places pages are automatically created, based on Wikipedia's information. Facebook may be only one place where the redirects on Wikipedia are creating havoc. Any site like Facebook,that automatically creates pages about places based on Wikipedia will have erroneous information, about City of Kawartha Lakes municipalities. It is important to maintain the validity and recognition that Wikipedia has obtained as a credible source of information. A redirect is used to indicate that one thing is the same as another. Bobcaygeon, is not the same thing as City of Kawartha Lakes, just as City of Kawartha Lakes is not the same thing as Ontario. nor Ontario the same as Canada. Places which have a mailing address need to each have a Wikipedia page. Yrhelper (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]