Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citizens for a Canadian Republic

I had deleted a sentence claiming that the CCR perfered a certain system if/when the position of the Queen of Canada is abolished. I did this because earlier today I read this statement on CCR's website:

Please note: The objective of Citizens for a Canadian Republic is solely to promote the concept of Canada becoming a republic and present the options available for discussion. For that reason, we do not endorse or promote any of the above formulas.

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/faq.html

However, I've now read this from the goals page of CCR:

One logical way to proceed is to first of all engage now, while the Queen is healthy, in a process of democratizing the office of the governor general and redefining his or her role in government. In effect, we could have a parliamentary or even a direct popular election for the Governor-General, which, unlike the decision on who is our head of state, is one that does not require a constitutional amendment to implement. The name of this democratically chosen candidate for governor general would then be submitted to the Prime Minister as his or her nominee to the Queen.

This process is not without precedent. Canadian senators are normally appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Prime Minister. In 1990 however, Stan Waters, Canada's first and only democratically elected Senator, was appointed to the Senate by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney after receiving 43% of over 620,000 votes cast by Alberta voters.

The real benefit to applying this procedure to the Governor General’s position now is that it eliminates the main obstacle to a republican success in a national referendum on the head of state - namely, what do you replace it with. Approval by the provinces would still have to take place but with all of the divisive issues already resolved, only a simple referendum on just who our head of state should be would remain.

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/goals.html

I may have to revert my earlier edit.
- Indefual 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Point & Counterpoint

I was wondering if the debate section could be moved to an international, or at least less-nation-specific page on monarchy vs. Republic. See Republican Monarchist Debate. Perhaps the individual nation pages could focus on nation-specific issues. Sandwich Eater 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the arguments are similar to those of monarchists & republicans in other countries (ie. impartiality of the monarch, stability, etc.), however some are specific to Canada (ie. federalism, Quebec sovereignty, etc.) I guess it would all depend on the format it would take at Republican Monarchist Debate --gbambino 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Patriote Party

L.-J. Papineau's Patriote party (in the 1830) was republican. After the failure of the 92 Resolutions (rejected by London), they turned revolutionary. In the 1837 revolt, they wanted to seize control of Lower Canada (Quebec) and declare a Republic, based on the American model (which Papineau respected). -- Hugo Dufort 06:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

National Myth

"Historically, many Canadians have seen the monarchy as a traditional institution that forms a key part of the nation's raison d'être and justifies Canada's separateness from the United States. One of Canada's national myths is the story of the United Empire Loyalists, a group of British-North American settlers who migrated from the United States to Canada after the American Revolutionary War. A key justification for this migration was supposedly their Tory, monarchist beliefs which they felt the US revolution was betraying."

I would like ask one what grounds this if refered to as a national myth. The migration of loyalists into New Brunswick and Upper Canada is isn't a myth, it's a historical event. I would like to see the source for this.Shadowlance 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It seems doubtful, especially the language about "Tory, monarchist beliefs"--at a time when a significant part of the Canadian population was French. -BaronGrackle 17:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I also see no reason for this being included as a 'myth'. All articles relating to this 'myth' have no sourced statements. However I do not have sourced statements that 'prove' what I was taught in school, does anybody have any information one way or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.65.120 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

La raison d'être?

While I do not support abolishing the monarchy (although cutting expenses related to it is a different matter), saying that many Canadians see the monarchy as Canada's purpose is most absurd. Canada does not exist, first and foremost, for the Monarchy, but for Canadians ; the raison d'être of Canada is Canada itself, not the Monarchy. This may well be my opinion, so I will say nothing on the matter, but until the claim that the monarchy is often considered the reason behind Canada's continual existence is shown to be more than an opinion, I will also remove the sentence on the matter. --67.68.4.166 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As I was going to edit the sentence, I see that the wording is not as misleading as I thought it was. But, I do believe that someone should clarify that, at least today, there is no reason to believe that many Canadians see the Monarchy as the "raison d'être" of their country. --67.68.4.166 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

British Monarchy

G2Bambino: You can't just delete a genuine legal reference that directly applies to your comment. Not agreeing with it does not warrant removal. This quotation by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent was recently cited in Ontario Provincial Court as proof that Canada's monarchy is British. What more do you want?

• "Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566.

I won't relent on this. If you don't like where it is, I'm flexible on where to put it. But it must be placed next to your claim that Canada's monarchy isn't British. MC Rufus (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it isn't a legal reference; it's a reference within a legal reference. Secondly, your interpretations of St. Laurent's words are not backed up by any secondary sources, making them POV, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Thirdly, the sentence makes clear that the errors were percieved by monarchists. Fourthly, "some republicans" are weasel words, again, not allowed in Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, then here's the full legal reference in the words of Justice J. Rouleau in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 26, 2003:

• The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain. As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent to the House of Commons during the debate on the bill altering the royal title:

• "Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566

The key element here is: "Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain." He uses Prime Minister St. Laurent's quote stating the same as reinforcement. The bottom line: Canada's monarchy is the British monarchy. I will be revising the page to reflect the full quote plus adding a reference to back up the claim by republicans.MC Rufus (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does he say the Canadian monarchy is British, however. Please see the (very lengthy) discussion beginning at Talk:Monarchy in Canada/archive1#Rouleau and the Canadian Crown to see how the case you're referring to was worked out as a source for Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difficulty. MC Rufus is not himself asserting that the Canadian monarchy is British. Whether he believes it is neither here nor there. He is only quoting Hansard as saying, 'Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office'. And he is quoting it in the context of the republican debate, as if to say, 'they (the republicans) argue that the Canadian monarchy is really British'. To say that MC Rufus is arguing a POV is not fair. And to require secondary sources is not fair either, because Hansard is a primary source.--Gazzster (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, maybe you're right. I'm getting caught up in subtleties here, valid as they are. Rufus, of course, has a POV. The problem here is the pulling of quotes from both Rouleau and St. Laurent out of their contexts to support his personal take on things, which constitutes original research. Another republican minded person did the exact same thing some two or more years ago, which resulted in the long debate I referred Rufus to above.

Further, all we're talking about here is a brief mention of how both sides of the monarchist/republican debate have interpreted the results of one particular poll; it isn't necessary to delve into the complexities of the Canadian constitution in this area, especially when the subject matter is already covered elsewhere, and is linked to from the paragraph in question. --G2bambino (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I read his edit, Rufus seems to be saying that the republicans say the monarchy is British. I don't think he's trying to 'delve into the complexities of the Canadian constitution' at all. He's simply saying, republicans are saying that the Canadian monarchy is British. Republicans in Australia and New Zealand use the same argument. If you lay aside the legal subtleties, EII is practically Queen of Canada because she is the Queen of the UK. I would critique the quote though in that it appears to attribute the use of the quote to republicans. But this is not demonstrated.--Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but he's using the court case and the quote from Hansard in the court case as proof that the republicans' viewpoint is true. That's OR. The paragraph presently states that Canadian republicans generally veiw the monarchy as British, and even links to another paragraph that deals with exactly that interpretation on their part. The Rouleau and St. Laurent quotes just aren't applicable to the place Rufus is trying to insert them, even as a footnote. --G2bambino (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The quote is certainly interesting, and could be used somewhere. But I think commentaries would need to be sourced to discuss it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is; at Monarchy of Canada and elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to removing it completely and referring to the other article IF the monarchist objection to the poll wording "British Monarchy" is removed. Otherwise, it's entirely relevant and deserves a place next to the comment.MC Rufus (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please understand I don't think there's anything wrong with what you wrote. In fact I think it's a valid remark. You do need to attribute the opinion to republicans somehow. If you demonstrate how republicans have referred to the Hansard and/or the St. Laurent decision, that would be perfectly cool. --Gazzster (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you could do so, it wouldn't be appropriate to insert it in this particular place. Under "Republican arguments" would be the apt location. --G2bambino (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how attributing the references to republicans makes them more valid. In using them, I'm not necessarily even arguing for a republic, I'm defending the polling firm's legitimate use of the term "British monarchy." G2Bambino claims it skews the results. I say, so what. If public opinion changes by calling it what it is, then too bad. The use by the pollster is authentically backed up by both legal and political references, as well as common usage, which I haven't as yet gone into. G2's objection is the same as cigarette manufacturers objecting to medical research that paints their product in a bad light, so to get around it, they label it "mild" or "low tar." Monarchists do the same thing with their own labels like "Canadian monarchy", "Canadian Crown", "Maple Crown," all of them contrived simply for one purpose, to conceal the truth and make it more palatable to the public. Remember, G2 is the main propagandist at the monarchist league. It's his job to suppress valid republican arguments while promoting the monarchy's continued existence.

Also G2's deletion of the reference to "head of state" is just plain ridiculous. The fact that it isn't mentioned in the constitution is irrelevant. Every nation has to have a head of state, otherwise, they're a colony. Is this what G2 thinks Canada is? Even the founder and former chairman of the monarchist league is better informed:

• "A neutral Queen who seeks nothing for herself is our Head of State; her Canadian-born representatives carry out her role ably on a day-to-day basis." John Aimers 1997 http://www.uni.ca/library/debate2.html

MC Rufus (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason you ought to connect the references to the republicans is that otherwise, it looks like it is your own opinion. I agree that G2 is a monarchist and attempts to downplay the republican view when he can. But don't argue with him on his level. Use references. Then he will have to argue with the reference, not with you. Saying things like, 'it's his job to surpress valid republican arguments' is not really fair. He has, after all, said your references can be validly used. He only disagrees on where they should be used. And in any case, it makes your edits personal. Confine yourself to facts.--Gazzster (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I can talk. See Talk:Australian monarchy to see how I've not followed my own advice. But life is a learning experience.--Gazzster (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that the quotes were made by people arguing FOR the monarchy makes them even more relevant. They can't be misconstrued as being biased. And they can't possibly be my opinion because they're documented in a legal judgement as being attributed to a Canadian prime minister and an Ontario Superior Court justice. As far as I'm concerned, they're about as perfect a reference as one could find.MC Rufus (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is biased is your interpretation of what these quotes mean. You are pulling two particular ones out because, when not in their historical or legal contexts, they appear to affirm your opinions on the monarchy. If you looked at the archived discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Canada, you'd see that someone else attempted to do just that, but eventually could not refute the mountain of other cited evidence that proved him wrong. Regardless, the goal here is simply to assert the two viewpoints taken in regard to the results of a poll, not decide which one is right and which one wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "my interpretation" at all. I gave two statements, one of which was an >>Ontario Superior Court judge's interpretation<< of a prime minister's Hansard speech - both of which say the monarchies of Canada and Britain are one in the same. The judge goes one step further by saying Canada can't even legislate to change the so-called "Canadian monarchy" on its own without the British monarchy being changed beforehand. Therefore, stating that pollsters are skewing the results with incorrect wording is just plain false. Canada's monarchy is the British monarchy. There are only two ways out of this. Either remove the monarchists' objection to the poll wording altogether or balance it with the republican belief that calling it British is legitimate along with the Ontario Court rulling as a reference.MC Rufus (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We already know the monarch of Canada and monarch of the UK are one and the same person, Rufus; just like the Canadian and Jamaican monarchs are one and the same. It's called a personal union. But, you're trying create a mini essay that debunks the accepted thinking, attempting to argue that the crown within Canadian jurisdiction is in no way separate from the crown in British jurisdiction, making Canada subservient to the UK parliament, and using these two quotes out of context to affirm your thesis. This is what is original research. Worse, you're trying to ascribe your theory to all republicans, when there is no evidence that CCR uses Rouleau's ruling as a foundation for any argument that Canada is not independent.

The paragraph does now state that republicans view the monarchy as British only, but the court ruling is not a source that backs up this statement. --G2bambino (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a republican who sees Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada (seperate from the UK). PS- I'm glad to be back after a 'two-day hiatus' (thanks to power outages). GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Most of the edits on this page have been done by a senior member of the Monarchist League of Canada and reads as such. I'm open to anyone who can assist in balancing this entry so that it provides a more realistic view of the monarchy-republic debate. MC Rufus (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who edits the article is irrelevant, and who you think edits the article is simply worthless. The content of the article is what matters here. Perhaps what is there now simply reflects the balance between monarchist and republican argument, i.e. that the two sides aren't equal. I think you should get an outside party to decide if this article is biased or not. --G2bambino (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The outside party, will have to somebody who's neither a republican or a monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is what Wikipedia is like. It is open to editing by anyone. And each individual has his or her own interests. And we all have the right to attempt to justify our points of view. And even with following the editing guiidelines, an article will take on a distinct character if it is edited by only a few people. In this respect, Wikipedia is a pretty blunt instrument for getting at the truth. The solution, I believe, is for as many editors as possible to contribute to an article. It would be good to see these talk pages full of discussion about references, and how valid or useful they are. That way, editors would have to argue hard for their point of view. And, perhaps, articles would be balanced by different points of view. Instead, they so often seem to be full of debates about ideas of the editors themselves.And so the discussions so often turn into debates.--Gazzster (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, Gazzster. Having a particular interest, I have more resources at my disposal on which to base edits on that particular topic. However, believe it or not, but I have added much republican oriented information to this article, as much as I could find, anyway. Thus, I think the article relatively well reflects the situation of monarchist-republican debate in Canada. But, you're right, more participation generally results in a better article. For the time being, though, we need a decision on whether or not this article actually is unjustly slanted. --G2bambino (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My typing fingers are tied when it comes to 'sources' disputes. When it comes to producing sources, my pockets are empty (I'm also too lazy to look for websites). GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We could go to admin. But I doubt very much that an admin would read through the article. I suggest that editors could quote passages they believe are unbalanced. That way we might get the gist of what the problems are, and get a discussion going.--Gazzster (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That would help. I'm also opening an RfC for broader attention. --G2bambino (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm in favour of having an unbiased editor review it. I'm also able to point out its many errors and deficiencies. The big one, of course; of the four images shown, three represent supporters of the monarchy while the one representing the republican side of the debate is Quebec separatist leader Rene Leveseque???!!! This despite polls showing a majority of ALL Canadians support ending the monarchy? Come on.MC Rufus (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have ya got any ideas for who'd make a good unbiased editor? GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this matter? The user who claims there's a lack of fair representation for both sides hasn't even yet outlined where the apparent voids are. --G2bambino (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Dispute regarding neutrality/balance

Is the article Debate on the monarchy in Canada disproportionately skewed in favour of any side of the debate? --G2bambino (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is tricky buisness. How does one present an article like this (including its monarchist-counterpart articles) in a NPOV way? I'm stumped folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't. The question is, do the edits tilt the balance of POV in a particular direction?--Gazzster (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So the question is: Are these types of articles' contents being presented in such a way as to promote their topics. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't finished studying the whole article thoroughly, but two things strike me for the moment. First, the opening paragraphs:

Debate on the Monarchy of Canada has been taking place since before confederation in 1867, though it has rarely been of significance since the rebellions of 1837.

Historically, many Canadians have seen the monarchy as a traditional institution that forms a key part of the nation's raison d'être, and justifies Canada's separateness from the United States. One of Canada's national myths is the story of the United Empire Loyalists, a group of British North American settlers who fled to Canada from the United States after the American Revolutionary War. A key justification for this migration was supposedly their Tory, monarchist beliefs which were met with hostility by Americans immediately after the war.

Today, polls show that many contemporary Canadians are simply unaware of the Crown's role in their system of government, though this does not necessarily reflect a decrease or increase in the monarchy's popularity. A 2002 EKOS poll found that only 5% of Canadians could correctly identify Elizabeth II as Canada's sovereign and head of state.[1]

This more or less tells us straight away that the republican voice in Canada is of little significance.

Secondly, when the arguments of monarchists and republicans are discussed, those of the monarchists are dealt with thoroughly. Whereas those of the republicans are dealt with in one short paragraph. And they are reduced to the 'British colonial holdover' argument. The republican discourse is much more sophisticated than that.--Gazzster (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. Most Canadian are unaware of the fact Canada is a constitutional monarchy (a regrettable situation for we republicans & a plus for monarchist IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to do something about it. I may try. But I do feel Canadians need to set the balance.--Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You've every right to edit this article, don't let your non-Canadianism hold you back. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can do the editing. I've got polls, quotations, history, articles. I can do whatever it takes to improve it. I'm just reluctant to waste time adding it if G2bambino is going to delete it. He seems determined not to let a single republican word creep into his domain without a brawl. MC Rufus (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't anybody count on me, I've absolutely no sources. Typical me, empty pockets. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just read this article. The quality of this article is excellent and frankly, I am not sure whether it is in favour of monarchy or against it. It is well documented, balanced and intelligently structured. Congratulations to the editors! --Voui (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rene Leveque Image

This image has got to go, it gives the impression that all Canadian republicans are Quebec seperatist (and speratist in general). Hopefully, somebody can find a more appropiate image. Also, I'd recommend a balance of images - two monarchy related images & two republican related images. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, GoodDay, the picture of Lesveque is right next to a whole paragraph about Lesveque and his comments/actions. Stick a picture of Manley in there if you want, but there's no reason for anyone to assume Lesveque's image is a representation of all Canadian republicans any more than Michener's is to represent all Canadian monarchists. --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: John Manley. There are others but there may be copyright issues. Is there a process to get permission for use of a copyright protected image on Wikipedia? This is non-profit so I don't think a licensing fee is necessary. - MC Rufus (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Acquiring & implementing images on Wiki articles, isn't something I'm good at. PS- I'm not sure if Canadian Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie was republican, but he did turn down a knighthood. His is a image that might be added aswell (again, I'm not certain). GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point G2 (above), about Leveque image being next to content mentioning Leveque. The section will have to be expanded to mention John Manley & then add his image. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already mentioned, though an image of him could certainly be added. Perhaps his comments need expanding, but I'm not immediately aware of where to find them. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's better, John Manley is a Federalist-republican (is that a new terminology?) & it gives a more 'image' balance. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the image of Lesveque removed. It unfairly creates a negative impression of the debate by use of Association fallacy where if A makes claim P and Bs also make the same claim, then A is a B. In other words, a separtist endorsing republican government in an independant Quebec gives the impression that federalist Canadian republicans are separatist sympathizers.

Also, Lesvesque's comments actually don't even relate at all to the monarchy in Canada. He made them in reference to the Monarchy in Quebec where, on that subject's page, the identical picture and quotation already appear. If anyone wants to see his image and read his comments there, then I'm fine with that. A link from Debate on the monarchy in Canada should be all that's needed.

While we're at it, the Toporoski reference to Canadian citizens being "subjects of the Queen" also has to go. The Citizenship Act http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm makes no reference to "subject of the Queen." The term is a voluntary one without official status that monarchists are certainly free to use to describe themselves but it cannot be made to refer to all Canadians. - MC Rufus (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

'Tis up to you to remove it, I don't add/remove images - just make suggestions on them. As for the 'citizenship reference'? adding/removing citations & reference is something I avoid. Do what you feel is best. Mind you - these things may need more discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it all depends on what Lesveque envisioned the sovereignty-association relationship to be. If Quebec residents were to remain Canadian citizens, use Canadian money, etc., then the region would still be under the Queen of Canada's authority. As the subject of this article is the debate on the monarchy in Canada, and both Lesveque and Toporoski are talking about the role of the Canadian monarchy in a possibly sovereignty-associated Quebec, then it seems that the matter is relevant here. Also, let's not forget that the attitude of Quebec sovereigntists towards the monarchy - i.e. viewing it only as a federal institution - is discussed in the article, or that appeasing Quebec separatists is a common argument by republicans for the abolition of the monarchy.

As for the "subjects" thing: it's a direct quote from Toporoski; the words are attributed to him alone. --G2bambino (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

George Grant image

I'm a little concerned about this additon. Grant seems to be suggesting if Canada became a 'republic', it would be obsorbed by the USA (this could be interpreted as an excuse to keep monarchy). Seeing as this article is a potential for 'monarchist vs republican' editor disputes, perhaps it's best to remove Grant. I'll let other decide this. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it unsettles the 'image balance', as these article is about both groups views. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think you're reading too much into images. They're just illustrations to break up large bodies of text. It's hard to illustrate ideas, so I put in images of the people who had the ideas. If someone would, or could, expand the "Republican arguments" section, then they could add images as they please, within reason. --G2bambino (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the image 'personally' as much as I'm concerned about how 'Rufus MC' will react. I'm just hoping to head off an argument, before it gets started. Even a petty issue such as this (numbers of monarchist & republican images) can be a powered keg. Anyways, I'm not gonna revert the image - as 1) It's not my way & 2) I'm not gonna take advantage of your current probation. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, the George Grant image and opinion do not belong here. His claim is unsubstantiated and absolutely without international precedent. Plus, he's widely recognized as a right-wing religious fanatic. I expect I'd meet the same objection if I placed published unsubstantiated anti-monarchy quotations by someone with the same credentials. - MC Rufus (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on his credentials are noted, but his comments are related to the subject of the article, and cited to reliable sources. That's all that's needed to warrant inclusion. --G2bambino (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I've noticed that much of the content of both articles Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada is just an almost verbatim repetition of what's here. I'm not sure whether this article should be split to fill the two others, or the two merged into this one with redirects. Regardless, I don't see the need for the repetition. Thoughts? --G2bambino (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall, a merge would be acceptable to me. The only worry I'd have is that such an article would invite struggles between monarchist & republican editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Use material here to augment the relevant section in Monarchy in Canada.--Gazzster (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay: That's a valid worry, but I'm not sure separate articles would be any different in that regard; everyone is allowed to edit whatever article. I think this article is valuable for spelling out the debate, but I wonder if others will see a value in a separate article like Republicanism in Australia and Republicanim in the United Kingdom, which each don't have a "Debate" counterpart like we do here.

Gazzster: Wouldn't that just create more repetition? Or are you suggeesting dividing the information here and transplanting it to it's relevant monarchist or republican article? --G2bambino (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything here that is truly useful and not covered in Monarchy in Canada could be rewritten into the text there.--Gazzster (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to this, as long as no information is deleted. Personally, I hate seeing the same stuff on more than one page. However, I assume the debate was moved because of the size - which is my other peeve: pages that are just plain too big. Be prepared for the Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada pages to swell to ridiculous length. So, although I have no problem myself with merging, because of that, I'm slightly more inclined to just leaving it alone.

While we're at it; I see the same repetition problem with Monarchism in Canada and Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy in the Canadian provinces and the individual pages for the monarchy in each province, ie; Monarchy in Quebec, Monarchy in New Brunswick where I can't imagine there being many hits. - MC Rufus (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with these realm articles. They end up repeating material. Ideally there should be just one: Monarchy in Canada. But as I know this isn't going to happen, how about instead of Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada, transferring material from those articles to this one, and deleting both?--Gazzster (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of just it, though: there isn't anything in those articles that isn't already here. It's just direct repetition. I guess what I'm asking is: what's the best format in which to present the material: one article or two?

The other articles are a different matter. --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you guys prefer a merge? give it try. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to complicate things further, but I didn't say I approved of merging Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada "into" Debate on the monarchy in Canada. The historical references on the 'isms pages just don't fit into a page devoted to 'discussion' of the monarchy. If there's to be any merge at all (which I still don't fully endorse), the debate page has to merge with the two 'isms.

The ideal alternative would be to just keep all three pages and move all references to the debate or the pros and cons out of both Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada into Debate on the monarchy in Canada. The 'ism pages should be about things like the theories or doctrines, development of movements, popularity and significance in popular culture of the two. However, I think it would be a nightmare to enforce adherance. - MC Rufus (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And, then, what about the history of the debate? Currently Republicanism in Canada essentially mirrors the republican side of the debate outlined in the history section here. Of course, things like the Republic of Canada and Riel, etc., are part of the history of republicanism in this country, but, at the same time, are part of the debate. To be honest, I'm conflicted: I don't see a need for repetition - there's a danger of the two articles contradicting each other, which I've seen happen elsewhere - yet I can't see a way to merge. --G2bambino (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, I just stumbled upon this page because I've always been interested in the Canadian Monarchy, so I thought I would throw out my opinion (although I'm not an expert, by far). I think these pages should be merged, because to the initiate reader (like myself), it is far too difficult to have to click back and forth between 3 different pages in order to gain a clear understanding of the topic (plus I worry about POV forks, contradictions, etc). Perhaps the article Monarchism in Canada could contain the debates/discussion, history, outline, etc. It would make for a much more interesting and fun read. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's some repetition, especially debate-related. As I said above, the ideal alternative would be to just keep all three pages and move all references to the debate or the pros and cons out of both Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada into Debate on the monarchy in Canada. However, I don't think it'll stick. Enforcing it would be a full-time job. Anytime someone will make a claim on one side, someone else will offer a balance. Yet, the debate page offers too much information that's just not applicable to the other 2. In the end, the merged pages would split up and we'd be right back to where we are now with the editor(s) involved having gone to a lot of work for nothing. It's a job I'm certainly not up to. As is, Wikipedia-editing is already too much of a time-eater for me. So don't count on me to help police it.

I checked other polarizing issues on Wikipedia to see how they handle the splintering off and overlapping of related pages. Abortion is the best example. I lost count at 60 abortion-related pages, most of which overlapped to some degree. Despite there being so many articles on abortion with common subject-matter, I shudder to think how anyone could possibly merge even 1 or 2 easily or with any degree of permanence. We're only talking about 3 pages here so I just don't see this as important.

My conclusion: Despite the practical motives here, as they stand now, it works, although, typical of Wikipedia, it's not perfect. Merging any of these pages is an exercise in futility. It simply won't result in anything concrete. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be more than just a little repetition. The other problem is that republicanism and monarchism are ideological positions that rely on arguments for and against, so, in essence, Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada are just the two sides of the Debate on the monarchy in Canada. The one possible solution is to keep nothing but "Republican arguments" and "Monarchist arguments" here, and split the "History" section between Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada. Otherwise, I think the latter two articles should just become redirects here. --G2bambino (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, are the pages gonna be merged or not? GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The merge has occured, thank you. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It seemed someone had to be bold and make a move. Those other articles really just repeated exactly what was here anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

B class

Even with controversy about NPOV and merging, according to Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment can be rated in B class SriMesh | talk 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent update

As those watching this page have noticed, I made some constructive changes to help balance its POV. It's still heavily biased in favour of monarchism; for instance; monarchist arguments and quotations still far outnumber those from the republican side and the separatist and FLQ content has to be replaced by similar material more representative of popular republican views. Also, the Toporoski quotation is barely comprehensible (I've read PhD disertations that were easier to read) and needs refining or trimming. I also only got as far as the end of Citizens' Groups so this is only for starters. This page and others are being done in stages so the rest will have to wait until later. I have lots of photos, historical data, quotations and references so I'm sure the the more objective editors will agree that the changes are positive and go a long way towards making the articles informative as well as more balanced in their presentation.

These are the changes so far:

• 1) Generally made awkward sentences easier to read (most people who would read this are not likely to be academics versed in constitutional law).

This is not Simple English Wikipedia.

• 2) Simplified interpretation of UEL influence.

I don't believe that was a simplification, but, rather, a re-wording to insert some POV views about the UEL influence.

• 3) Simplified interpretation of the influence of Quebec and Canadian nationalism. The reference to the sovereignty movement was removed and replaced by Quebec nationalism (which is broader in scope and, unlike separtist objectives, directly influences national policy-making).

Fine.

• 4) Corrected EKOS poll question.(There was no mention of "Canada's sovereign" in the question.) Also added poll choices.

Fine.

• 5) Added tags for the many unverified statements.

Each will have to be discussed individually, but I can say you clearly didn't check the sources there as you placed tags for information that is already cited. Further, you bizzarrely removed refs and placed 'citation needed' tags.

• 6) Removed photo of René Lesvesque as per discussion. The reasoning being that it presents a false and biased view of republicanism, intended to give the reader a perception that republicans are seperatists.

Your personal interpretation of why the photo is there. Perhaps you don't want any link between Lesveque and the monarchy, but, unfortunately for you, he did wade into the debate, and on a national level.

• 7) Removed outdated view of public opinion trends. Deleted "in recent years, the numbers wishing for a republic have declined" and replaced it with the more up-to-date "However, out of the four national opinion polls on the monarchy question since 2005, the majority of Canadians supported ending the monarchy in three, while support was divided equally for both camps in one. (Reference was also added.)

Funnily enough, your words are an exact copy of CCR's interpretations of the poll results. That does not make them real or accurate. I've moved this information down to the polls section.

• 8) Corrected innaccurate statement about public servent contracts. (It only applies to contract workers).

The citation provided states something different.

• 9) Updated description of Citizens for a Canadian Republic's goals.

This goes into far too much detail for an article like this, and is more appropriate at Citizens for a Canadian Republic. Look at how much is written about the other two citizens' groups and compare to what you're trying to put in for CCR. --G2bambino (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

- MC Rufus (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Perhaps User:MC Rufus might explain what it is exactly that's incomprehensible about the present lead to this article? --G2bambino (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO there's nothing wrong with the lead. I would never mistake Canada's monarchy vs republic history for the Greeks or the French history. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You lost me there GoodDay. This is the issue: For a layperson or student reading this page and trying to get a grasp on the monarchy debate issues, please, give your honest, objective opinion on which one of these statements does it better and more clearly:

G2's:

• Historically, many Anglophone Canadians have not challenged the significance or symbolism of the monarchy, seeing it as a link to the United Kingdom, and as a mark of Canada's distinctiveness from the United States; one of Canada's national myths is the story of the United Empire Loyalists, a group of British North American settlers, loyal to the Crown, who fled to Canada from the United States after the American Revolutionary War, and who were met with hostility by Americans immediately after the conflict. However, paralleling the changes in constitutional law that saw the creation of a legally distinct Canadian monarchy in personal union with the other Commonwealth realms, the emergence in the 1960s of Quebec nationalism, and the evolution of Canadian nationalism, the cultural role of the monarchy in Canada altered following the 1960s, and its role and relevance were sometimes questioned.

or mine:

• Historically, many anglophone Canadians have not challenged the significance or symbolism of the monarchy; perceiving it to represent a link to Britain which also added to Canada's distinctness from the United States.
• One theory on the persistance of this sentiment is that the national culture of Canada contains residual resentment of the United States originating from the migration of United Empire Loyalist refugees, a group of British North American settlers who fled to what is now Canada from the United States after the American Revolutionary War. A key justification for this migration was supposedly their Tory, monarchist beliefs, which were met with hostility by Americans immediately after the war.
• However, paralleling the changes in constitutional law that saw the creation of a legally distinct Canadian monarchy shared by other Commonwealth realms, the emergence in the 1960's of both Quebec nationalism and Canadian nationalism resulted in increased questioning of the institution's contemporary role and relevancy.

- MC Rufus (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally.

Now, your first bullet point is a near identical copy of the first sentence of my version, so surely there's no issue there.

Your second bullet point is the contentious one. Firstly, you use the word "persistance," as though monarchist sentiment is some long-useless acretion that refuses to let go and die; something I'm sure you believe, but is not appropriate in this article. Secondly, you mention "resentment of the United States," thereby equating monarchism with anti-Americanism; again, a common republican tactic, but not appropriate here. Other than that, there's no difference between your version and mine.

Your third bullet point only removes personal union, an accurate term for the relationship. From earlier commentary it seems you have a problem understanding this term, but, again, that's not a reason not to include it here. And "increased questioning" isn't really clear, as the increase hasn't been all that great.

Further, you break the lead up into too many short paragraphs.

As there isn't much difference between the two, I suggest we remove the loaded terminology and go with something like:

Historically, many Anglophone Canadians have not challenged the significance or symbolism of the monarchy, seeing it as a link to the United Kingdom, and as a mark of Canada's distinctiveness from the United States; one of Canada's national myths is the story of the United Empire Loyalists, a group of British North American settlers, loyal to the Crown, who fled to Canada from the United States after the American Revolutionary War, and who were met with hostility by Americans immediately after the conflict. However, paralleling the changes in constitutional law that saw the creation of a legally distinct Canadian monarchy shared with the other Commonwealth realms, the emergence in the 1960s of Quebec nationalism, and the evolution of Canadian nationalism, the cultural role and relevance of the monarchy in Canada altered and was sometimes questioned.

Thoughts? --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A grumpy layman

I am a layperson - I propose that the both of you 'merge' your lead versions into something satisfying to at least both of you. I propose you both stop reverting each other & work things out on the discussion pages first (for all the articles you've both been fighting on). Guarenteed gentlemen, those articles will be heading towards being 'locked'. PS- keep in mind gentleman 'edit warring' doesen't neccesarily mean reverting more then 3-times in 24hrs, so again... Iron out your differances on the discussion pages first. I give this advice to you both, as there might be 'blockings' in the future. Remember the Administrators are out there watching. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- If you gentlemen persist in reverting each other on all those articles? I'm going to request 'protection' for them - perhaps that will encourage cooperation (at least it'll encourage ironing out differances on the discussion pages). GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PPS- Here are the articles I'll be keeping an eye on (for future edit spats): Will Ferguson, Peter Donolo, Wolfred Nelson, Mitchell Sharp, Daniel Tracey, Margaret Wente, Monarchist League of Canada and this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about your wonderful nation. But I do think that both versions are too verbose. Surely a lead would be a brief paragraph of 3 or 4 lines. There's no need to get into any kind of detail. --Gazzster (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a complicated topic. Do you have any suggestions? --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is. But couldn't you deal with the complications in the main body? For the lead, how about, 'The monarchy has been a source of contention in Canada since the (whatever) century.' And then introduce the principal times of contention.--Gazzster (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't really been a source of much contention. The only place I can see that there might be too much detail is in the part about the UEL. --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the title kinda says it has been a source of contention. Otherwise why has the article been written? I just think you (plural) have to as short as possible to avoid going off into an essay, which is what appears to be happening.--Gazzster (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said the monarchy hasn't caused much contention; it's flared up from time to time, but there wasn't really anything for 130 years. Even after the 1960s the debate has only come up sporadically in some media outlets, but never at a national level. So, because the contention has been limited and localised, should it really be focused on in the lead? I thought the more general sentence "the cultural role and relevance of the monarchy in Canada altered and was sometimes questioned" was more appropriate. --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of the 'discussion pages' length, would you guys indent properly? At this rate your conversation will be 'three words wide & overwhelmingly long' - G2 use '1 indent' & Gazz use '2 indents', Pretty Please. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry G2, I had missed that you said there hasn't been 'much' contention. But at the risk of losing the original point (and bugging GoodDay withn the indents!), I suppose you could ask yourselves this question: is there any value in an article which says that occasionally Mrs Windsor rattles the cup when she takes tea?--Gazzster (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting take on the situation, which, I suppose, somewhat harkens back to my questions about merging articles. I don't know, really; there's obviously enough info to fill an article, but it is just, barring the rebellions and the Quiet Revolution, some errant comments here and there by politicians and columnists. This article grew out of a section at Monarchy of Canada, but I don't know of any other "debate" articles. What to do? --G2bambino (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'll be keeping an eye on (for future edit spats): Will Ferguson, Peter Donolo, Wolfred Nelson, Mitchell Sharp, Daniel Tracey, Margaret Wente, Monarchist League of Canada and this article." Take a close look at my edits, GoodDay. I'm merely trying to right a POV imbalance that through neglect, has been the domain of G2 and one or two others for far too long. Well, that's changed now and he doesn't like it. Oh, he comes off as being accommodating but every time a discussion takes place, he goes right back to reverting. The trouble is, there just aren't enough editors interested in these pages - and those who are, as far as I can see, aren't interested in enforcing balanced POV. Therefore, like highway bandits in the lawless old west, he gets away with it, no matter how many times he's blocked or warned. Regarding the pages you're watching, the people are notable Canadian republicans which G2 wasn't the slightest bit interested in until I categorized them as such and provided citations and quotations to back it up. Everywhere I go, he stalks me, reverting everything I edit that in any way supports republicanism or downplays the monarchy. He even tried to argue that most of the above weren't republicans at all, even in the face of indisputable evidence - including the members of the 1837 Rebellion 'who set up a provisional republic! It's beyond belief. I have more republicans to add and categorize and I'll be editing those pages as well. I'm sure G2 will be right their on my ass reverting what I contribute so you better get ready to add those pages to your watch list as well. Until G2 is reigned in or banned, that is. - MC Rufus (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

MC, maybe you should stop getting into personalities and motives. It just inflames things. We've all had experiences here where we got into personalities and it didn't help one bit. To criticise G2 in order to defend him, I'll agree that there are times when he has not seen a side of an argument. And this might be due to his passion for his topic. Passion, of course, is not a bad thing in itself. But can you and I say that we have never been biased in an argument? If you say no I will not believe you. In his defence, he is perfectly reasonable if he is confronted with reason. Just a few posts ago, he asked for my opinion. I'm a republican and he knows it. If you think he is ignoring 'indisputable evidence' edit the page as you think fit, and take a dispute to the talk page.--Gazzster (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

G2, I suggest you read WP:3RR. You have now made over 60 reverts, partial reverts and reverts disguised as edits in the last 24 hours and have therefore violated the 3RR policies. In addition, you have ignored the views of the other editors here to remove contentious material violating NPOV and have ignored (up until 17:16, 18 February 2008) attempts to discuss or agree on a compromise. You have also been warned and blocked for edit warring previously so what is the problem? You must understand the rules by now. Please do not revert these sections again. - MC Rufus (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I've made three reverts - two in many parts, and one direct.

You might also note you haven't elaborated at all on your claims of imbalance in the article, specifically ignoring my request for some further explanation so as to move forward. Perhaps you'll do so now? --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Levesque image and reference to Fenians

I'm more than willing to work out a way to make this page acceptable to all parties. However, two areas that I won't budge on is the inclusion of the Levesque photo and the reference to the Fenians. Monarchists are all too eager to paint republicans as traitors and separatist sympathizers but it's all bunk. Republicanism in Canada is a mainstream belief that now shows consistent support by the majority of Canadians. Showing Levesque's photo as representative of the republican side of the debate is simply playing into monarchists' misinformation strategy, diminishes NPOV and is blatently polemic. In an earlier discussion, I went along with the inclusion of George Grant as a concession to delete Levesque but, surprise!, give G2 and inch and he takes a mile. Both Levesque and Grant are now on the page. How's that for compromise. Regarding the Fenians; they weren't Canadian, they invaded from the US. If they belong on this page, then so does the US capture of Montreal in 1775 and the invasions of the War of 1812. Also, the Fenians foe was Britain, not the monarchy. Their objective was to widen the revolt that was going on at the time in Ireland. Neither belong on this page. I've removed both and I believe any unbiased editor would agree that this is a reasonable response. But, I'm sure that G2 in all his wisdom has decided to revert this change again. So be it. I'm not going anywhere. - MC Rufus (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At least you're now admitting you're purposefully stubborn. That's a start, I suppose.

I think you need to be clear on one thing, though: this isn't a republican article. You may think CCR has the monopoly on challenging the Crown, but that's a limited POV. This is an article on the debate on the monarchy, and both Lesveque and the Fenians were a part of that. The first is obvious - his comments are right there in front of us. The second is shown in the worry of the Prime Minister for what would happen to the Governor General in Toronto; obviously is was suspected the Fenians might target the Crown. They may have been from the US, but they came to attack the Crown in Canada. But, I'll admit it is a bit of a broader issue that perhaps only tangentially touches on the monarchy in the Canadian scope.

Regardless, if you have personal biases against certain figures, that isn't anyone's problem but yours, and Wikipedia isn't here to accomodate your sensitivities. Give one sound, non-personal reason to remove Lesveque, and it goes. Otherwise, leave him be. --G2bambino (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Levesque removed, as I too find readers may get the impression that republicans are Quebec seperatist. But, it's not something I'm willing to fight over - for all we know, maybe there's Quebec seperatist who are also monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, come on, GoodDay. If we remove this because of what readers might think, where do we draw the line? And, what if what they might think is correct? After all, many Quebec separatists (though Lesveque was a sovereigntist) are republicans; few advocate a Quebec monarchy. This is starting to get like the dispute at Talk:Muhammad. --

G2bambino (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Parizeau once said retaining the monarchy in an independent Quebec was not something that could be ruled out. Also, Scottish separatists are now considering the possibility of an independent Scotland with the Queen as head of state. Just because they want independence, doesn't make them republican. In this case, the image of Levesque conjures images of the breakup of Canada, something monarchists seem to love to predict if we turf the monarchy. The only reason G2Bambino wants this photo there is to help perpetuate that myth. It has to go. There are more representative people to illustrate politician republicans. Brian Tobin, Herb Dhaliwhal, Pat Martin. In fact, why is seperatism even mentioned in a debate on the monarchy? - Jaye Peghtyff (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems, unsurprisingly, you've fallen into the same trap as Rufus (if you aren't one and the same person). Allow me to repeat myself for your benefit: this is not an article on republicanism. So, to be extra clear, for the simple minded: Lesveque does not "illustrate republicanism." As for your personal opinions on any covert motives on my part: paranoid, baseless, and useless. --G2bambino (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What's really unsurprising is that when you run out of valid points to argue, you resort to unfounded accusations and name calling. So I guess we can add those to your other Wikipedia violations: Ignoring Wikipedia's NPOV policy, repeated edit waring, trolling,stalking and general disruptive behaviour.

So I'll exercise restraint here and avoid your childish tactics with this simple response to your "this is not an article on republicanism:" It most certainly is. The article is called Debate on the monarchy. Unless in your twisted logic you think that means a Discussion on the monarchy at the exclusion of anything contray to it, a debate means discussing the pros and cons of all aspects of the subject. The last time I checked, the other side of the pro-monarchy side of the debate is the pro-republic side.

In regards to the Fenians, inserting that completely unrelated historical element into the debate is an obvious attempt to influence the reader to associate republicanism with radicalism. Inserting the image of Levesque has a similar motive: to suggest guilt by association or, in other words, a separatist is a republican so republicans must be separatists (or at least sympathizers). In both examples, it's nothing less than blatent violation of NPOV.

As mentioned, I'm ready to discuss all other aspects of this page. The Fenian and Levesque references absolutely must be removed and I'll go to the highest levels to make sure they are. - MC Rufus (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a narrow view-point. Nothing "must be removed" because you say so; Wikipedia is not censored to suit your personal sensitivities. The image has been there for some time, your removal of it is challenged on the basis that there is no non-personal reason for doing so; thus, the responsibility is yours to provide sound argument for your actions. If I remain unconvinced, start the dispute resolution process.

I've already commented on the Fenians. Perhaps it's a common tactic of Canadian republicans to keep fighting fights that have actually ceased some time ago? --G2bambino (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah! It's not gonna be like 'Muhammad'. MC wants the image removed, you want it to remain & I'm not overly concerned if it stays or goes - therefore? no consesus, thus status quo should continue. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want it to remain; it's just that I haven't seen a valid, non-personal argument for why it should go. It's just an illustration, placed next to text that specifically discusses Lesveque. Only Rufus seems to have laden it with any extra meaning. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, it is a rare image of Levesque. It's not often he's seen without a cigarette in his chops (though I'd bet he had one between his fingers, when the photo was taken). Anyways, I hope the Levesque inclusion/exclusion dispute ends soon. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a request for page protection. Either you guys are fighting over the Levesque image or he's been going back & forth to the store, for smokes. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: The both of you (MC & G2) have a right to repeal the 'protection' (if it's applied). GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article need protection because of a dispute between two editors?--Gazzster (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya can request unprotection, if ya like. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but I think we resort to protection when mature minds could work things out with time.--Gazzster (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rene Levesque.jpg

The image Image:Rene Levesque.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:RolandMichener.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chrétien

Ashok keeps altering the wording around the mention of Chrétien's idea about the President of the Queen's Privy Council. It, however, doesn't seem to make any improvement. Perhaps he could point out what he sees as making his version superior. --G2bambino (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reported EXACTLY what Chretien said (hence the use of quotation marks)- that he considered the notion of "taking the existing title..." There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he "considered advising the Governor General to take" anything. We don't have the right to assign considerations to Chretien that he has never acknowledged.

Also, reference was already made on the page to a comment of Manley's and I did the research necessary to find the actual quote so that it could be included. Those referencing this page can now read Manley's very words rather than a vague description of what he said. Surely, this is preferable!

I have corrected reference to the iniative which was considered by Chretien's office, in 1998, to correspond with the cited source: previous version said a report was "leaked" and used the phrase "severing final ties" (with the quotation marks). Neither term is supported by the cited source. Mondo Deluxe (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the previous description of the goals of CCR, in the paragraph on Manley, to correspond to the goals actually outlined on the organization's website. Mondo Deluxe (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this phrase "In the first half of the first decade of the new century, support for the monarchy has risen to include the majority of Canadians." because if, in 2008, 55% of Canadians support ending formal ties with the British monarchy, as is reported on the same page, it cannot be true.

I removed the following statements, as per Wikipedia policy, after citations were requested but not provided:

"Some monarchists argue that the process of downplaying the monarchy has led to widespread misunderstandings about the institution and how Canada is governed." (citation requested:February 2008)

"In the latter case immigration issues drive the discussion for change." (citation requested:February 2008)

"Republicans, who generally view the monarchy as only British welcomed the results."(citation requested:September 2008) Mondo Deluxe (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

G2bambino, who is a monarchist, has just added a 'unbalanced' tag to this article. Unfortunately there is no comment here about what the problem is. --Lawe (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I only just placed the tag; please, my fingers only move so fast, and there are a few other things to catch up on since I signed off last night. I added the tag because I think the article needs a good comb through for any unbalanced viewpoints, whether monarchist or republican (though I don't think Ashok's latest edits have helped matters in that sense). Further, there's no need to be personal about this (pointing out my monarchist leanings as though it's evidence of some ill motive), it's just a maintenance tag. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add "user who is on a 1RR restriction on monarchy related articles". Anyway, there is still no comment about the problem. Please write down the problem at the same time as the maintenance tag, as the tag specifically states to discuss the issue. --Lawe (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which of the references 1 to 4 support the statement "Up until the Second World War, Anglophone Canadians did not openly challenge the significance or symbolism of the monarchy, seeing it as a link to the United Kingdom, and as a mark of Canada's distinctiveness from the United States"? --Lawe (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could; of what benefit would it be, though? Please note: the tag is about unbalanced viewpoint and inaccuracy, not sources. For instance, one I immideately see (because it was most recently added) is the claim that the Prime Minister gives honours to the Governor General; simply not accurate. --G2bambino (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you could notch one up to G2 this time, Lawe: the article does appear unbalanced. All interested parties of whatever political bent have an opportunity to clean it up as they see fit.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a question of notches. What needs to be edited out to remove the tag? --Lawe (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no claim on this page "that the Prime Minister gives honours to the Governor General." A credited quote from Chretien's memoirs is included in which he describes a consideration he entertained regarding the office of the Governor General. If there is an implied claim it is made by Chretien, not by a Wiki editor. Mondo Deluxe (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that is the case. It may be unimportant, but no evidence of inaccuracy. --Lawe (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My impression of this "Canadian debate" article is that various people have voiced some ideas or support about ending the monarchy, there have been counter arguments and nothing of substance has changed or been seriously put forward. There is some polling data. The article is chronological and could use some clean up and pruning. The introduction is poor. I think this is an article relevance and structure issue. --Lawe (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is the Canadian head of state?

"Today, polls show that many Canadians are unaware of the monarchy's role in their system of government. A 2002 EKOS poll found that only 5% of Canadians could correctly identify the Queen as Canada's head of state."

I guess I am in that 95% because I thought the Governor General of Canada was our head of state. If that is incorrect then what is the Governor General if they are not the head of state? NorthernThunder (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Queen is the head of state; the governor general exercises all powers of head of state in the Queen's name. Some have suggested the term de facto head of state for such an arrangement. Indefatigable (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Governor General is the Federal representative of the Queen, and the Lieutenant Governors are the provincial representatives of the Queen. They all do business as the Queen, but do not hold the official title of head of state.--Kukamunga13 (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I haven't as of yet thought of a more appropriate name, however, in starting to give this article an overhaul, it struck me that the title of this page may be a little skewed; i.e. it implies that the monarchy is the only concept under debate, when, in fact, there are at least two different models being questioned and defended. I thought I'd start a discussion on it now, so that others could perhaps help in deciding what could be a more NPOV title before listing this at WP:RM (if necessary). --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly never gave it much thought. What are you proposing, for a new name? GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking if anyone else has a proposal; though I am thinking about it, I haven't yet been able to come up with one. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've no proposals. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an important point, but the focus of the debate is the monarchy. You refer to different models that don't involve monarchy... well, they're being argued and questioned in response to the question of the monarchy. You could call the article "Debate on the government in Canada", but it would be too vague because the article is about the monarchy debate. You could call it "Debate on the role of the monarchy in Canada", but I think that would be the same thing as the current title. Just my thoughts. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the debate obviously revolves around the monarchy. However, the discussion, to me, seems to have a double axis; there may be arguments for and against the monarchy, however, there are similarly arguments for and against any republican proposals. So, it seems unfair to imply that the monarchy is the only thing in question, while a republic is not. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're speaking of the 'what kind of republic discussion'. Mainly, the American system 'vs' the European system. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not just presidential vs. parliamentary, but also the very idea of any republic at all. It isn't as though the debate consists solely of the monarchy defending itself from criticism. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But, the core of the debate is: What shall we replace the monarchy with?. Debate on the replacement of the monarchy in Canada, might be a better title. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave that idea some thought. But, since I've added info that deals with why monarchy was chosen as the system for Canada's governance, the article is no longer solely about what people want to replace that system with. Besides, isn't Debate on the replacement of the monarchy in Canada just another way of saying Republicanism in Canada? --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the title of the parrallel subsection of Monarchy in Canada?--Gazzster (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Debate". --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a problem with the current title of this article. But, I'll leave it to you guys to juggle. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chretien's quote

Whoever keeps inserting a reference to Chrétien considering "advising the governor general to take the title of President..." please either provide a reference to support the contention that Chretien considered advising the governor general to take a particular course of action or leave the supported reference, which quotes Chrétien directly, as considering "taking the title and giving it etc". The reference presently noted says nothing at all about considerations to "advise" the governor general of anything.Mondo Deluxe (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As it seems your contributions to Wikipedia are few and fall into a very narrow range, you perhaps aren't aware of the following:

• Edit summaries are good practice.
• New talk page topics should be given a new section.

Now, as accurate as the Chretien quote may be as a quotation, it's content is problematic because, as my recently added tag communicates, it contradicts content both within Wikipedia and without. Namely, the position of President of the Queen's Privy Council is not a gift to be given by the Prime Minister; it is an appointment made by the Governor General. As this project is not a collection of quotes, we need not mimic Chretien's statement word for word when the point can be got from a more accurate and less misleading composition that uses Chretien's memoires as a source. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What I find problematic is that an anonymous Wiki editor considers that he or she has a better grasp of the functions and powers associated with the posts of Prime Minister and Governor General than a man who spent his entire career in senior government positions and served as Prime Minister for 10 years. The relevant points here, which are very well conveyed by the included quote, are that only the Prime Minister (and certainly not the Governor General) would have the power and authority to initiate a re-assignment of the title under discussion and that Chrétien considered this course of action as a way to downplay the position's monarchical association.Mondo Deluxe (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed the point. To be absolutely clear: Chretien's quote directly contradicts all information on Wikipedia regarding the governmental structure of Canada. Perhaps you can provide the relevant sources to back up your interpretation of the country's constitutional heirarchy, but this is not the place to do so. You should argue your case at Government of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada, Governor General of Canada, Queen's Privy Council for Canada, & etc. Further, you give absolutely zero reason why we must mimic the entire quote when it is not at all necessary to do so. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could direct me to the Wikipedia pages and precise paragraphs, and any other reliable sources, which contain substantiative proof that Chrétien did not have the authority to initiate and execute the re-assignment of a title from the President of the Privy Council to the Governor-General. If you there is substantiative proof to this effect I will personally collect and submit it to Chrétien, via his publisher, for his comment. If he is unable to defend his position I would have no problem with revising this Wikipedia entry.Mondo Deluxe (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to collect the information; it is in the footnotes of all the articles I mentioned. But, is that really your only proposed course of action? I think first you should answer the question put to you for the third time now: why must we mimic the entire quote? --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You say that Chrétien's quote directly contradicts all information on Wikipedia regarding the governmental structure of Canada but have not indicated a single article which demonstrates a contradiction. This is not surprising considering Chrétien served as Minister of Justice, Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister, and was one of the signatories of the proclamation of The Constitution Act, 1982. He undoubtedly has a very sound understanding of what the Prime Minister can and can not do. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more qualified expert in this regard. As far as including the quote goes, it is very succinct. I don't understand why you keep harping on about summarizing it. Why do you think your words would convey Chrétien's intent better than his own?Mondo Deluxe (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My post of 03:14, 5 June 2009, directed you to the relevant articles where you'd find sourced information regarding the power of appointment in Canada. I'm sure you'll find there that it's the Governor General who is constitutionally empowered to appoint Privy Councilors, not the Prime Minister. A quote claiming the opposite here will only cause confusion to readers. If you feel the way I've expressed Chretien's proposal in some way misrepresents his intended message, please be specific and I can perhaps massage the wording to be more accurate. As of now, I see nothing wrong with it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 poll

In regards to the Angus Reid 2008 poll it is inappropriate to begin the paragraph talking about a letter that was written to the pollster. The results of the poll represent the most important content of this paragraph and it is just common sense and courtesy to the reader to provide this information first before including superfluous details.Mondo Deluxe (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Monarchist objections to wording are detailed in (as-was) the paragraph just before, and the particulars of their communication to Angus Reid are quite irrelevant to the topic. The paragraphs have now been joined. -- 64.180.176.33 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From below:
I did [see "2008 poll", above (i.e. this section)], and addressed it in the post you just responded to. If you cannot prove that the sentence was slanderous and/or irrelevant, one can only assume you've conceded your mistake. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can see, you haven't "addressed it" -- and the assumption you threaten to make would be altogether unjustified. -- 64.180.176.33 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You said the sentence was slanderous. I said I couldn't see why. You've not clarified.

You said the sentence was irrelevant. I said how it was pertinent. You haven't responded.

Hence, as it stands, my assumption is totally justified. You are free, of course, to change it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it is really inconsiderate of you to continually insist on shifting this discussion between us away from this section, where it was begun (by me, following on from another editor's concerns of a similar nature to mine), to a new section which you began afterward, where you seem intent on focusing mainly on an issue I never raised. Please stop it.

Secondly, you've merely asserted that the sentence is "pertinent". You haven't said how you reckon so. It's not rightly up to me to prove the negative -- that it's irrelevant.

64.180.176.33 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As I explained below, my trying to maintain one discussion in one place was deliberate, not inconsiderate.

Regardless, as I also said in the section further on, Angus Reid ignoring the MLC's request for more fair questioning seems quite relevant to the topic of polls on the Canadian monarchy. Angus Reid conducts polls on the monarchy; the MLC thinks Angus Reid's questions are skewed; the MLC contacted Angus Reid in this regard; Angus Reid used essentially the same questions in its next poll on the Crown. The possible existence of deliberately non-neutral polling certainly seems to be fairly significant to anyone interested in this topic.

Your objections remain a mystery; you too have merely said the sentence is not relevant, but not why. Simply saying "I can't explain myself because I can't prove a negative" is not acceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So you wish for the matter in question to be included in the article so as to suggest "deliberately non-neutral polling" by Angus Reid.

64.180.176.33 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No; readers can conclude from the interaction what they wish; we must simply remain true to what the sources say. Now, why is the communication between Angus Reid and the MLC and the results of it not relevant? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to determine why you think that it is relevant. Your last two posts are inconsistent with each other. The former says, in effect, that you think the facts concerned suggest "deliberately non-neutral polling", and that that is why you want them in the article. The latter denies the same. Which is it? If it is the latter, then we are back to the question of why you think those facts are relevant to the topic at all.

64.180.176.33 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say what I think of the information; I said what could be thought of it. It isn't up to us to tell readers what to think about facts, merely state the actualities with supporting reliable sources. The communication between AR and the MLC is a fact, and what occurred after that communication is a fact, all relevant due to their relation both to the monarchy and to surveys, and hence to the wider debate on the Canadian Crown. We should be providing readers with all the facts available so that they may formulate informed opinions, whether you or I personally agree with them or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Poll done by "Canadian Friends of the Royal Family"

Now that the royal visit to Canada by the Prince of Wales has been completed, much of the visit was dominated by a poll result from a group named "Canadian Friends of the Royal Family".

This was first reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the story was repeated by other news and media throughout Canada and the United Kingdom. Whole programs and news journal shows were done entirely around the results of this poll which, understandably took many by surprise.

The CBC did not check its sources carefully and it is now known that the poll was a fraud and the "Canadian Friends of the Royal Family" does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In the end, while France's head of state attended the fête, Canada's did not, and was instead represented by her viceroy.

I think that the whole paragraph about Quebec city's 400st, and especially this sentence, is biaised to show that the Queen should have been invited. The prime minister of Canada attenteded the "fête" (does this word really belongs to an English article?). So Canada's most important leader, the one which takes decisions and is elected was there, just like the president of France. That Canada's symbolic head of state was not present is irrelevant to the article, especially since it's a foreign person. The viceroy, as called in the article, or more commonly the governor general, Canada's the facto head of state, was also there. Stephen Harper himself choose not to invite the queen, and, unlike what the article try to say, it's not because of a small separatist minority, but because of the general opinion in the province that the queen did not deserve to be there. We must understand that the majority of Quebecers are opposed to monarchy. --zorxd (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been very specific. What exactly puts forward the point of view that the Queen should have been advised to attend by her federal Cabinet? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this sentence in particular : "In the end, while France's head of state attended the fête, Canada's did not". While this is technically true, it's irrelevant. Our head of state is not really important since it's a foreign person, and she didn't come to Canada since 2005 I think. So that she was not in Quebec city in 2008 is business as usual. There are probably some head of states that come more often to Canada than our own. Also the use of the word "threats" to explain why the government didn't invite the queen to the event. Nowhere it says that it's because of unfavorable public opinion. In fact, two thirds of the population was unfavorable to the queen being invited : http://www.unimarketing.ca/Sondages/RapQc24-12-07.pdf. I think this information is much more relevant. The article want to show that it's only because of a vocal minority of separatists that threatened the government, while we know that it is much more than just that. --zorxd (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Much of what you say is merely your opinion (i.e. the "foreign" nature of Canada's own head of state, and mass opposition to the presence of the Queen), and thus isn't really pertinent. I was asking instead about the sourced content of the article. You've pointed to the mention of "threats" and minority demonstrators, but that was the terminology used by the Quebec and Quebec City governments. The poll you point to is interesting, but it hardly shows any proof that Quebeckers were pressuring the federal Cabient to keep the Queen away; the question merely asked whether or not respondents felt it was appropriate to have the Queen there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not only my opinion. I stated many facts. Fact : most people didn't want the queen to be there. Fact : the queen lives in England and doesn't come to canada very often. And what about this other fact : the british monarchy, just like Spain's monarchy, had nothing to do with the founding of Quebec city in 1608. Not talking about those 3 facts, and instead insiting on the fact that "while France's head of state attended the fête, Canada's did not", is a huge bias. Of course I could add my 3 facts to the article, but I think we should instead remove/rewrite parts of the paragraph. --zorxd (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Slanderous" statement

Mariocanse/209.17.159.3/64.180.176.33 insists - by revert war - on removing mention of correspondence between the Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada and the Director of Global Studies at Angus Reid on the grounds that this cited material is "slanderous". I personally fail to see how it is slanderous in any way, whatsoever. As it's supported by a reference that meets WP:RS and is pertinent to the content around it, there's no rational reason to censor the factoid. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See "2008 poll", above. -- 64.180.176.33 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with allegations of slander. Further, Angus Reid ignoring the MLC's request for more fair questioning seems quite relevant to the topic of polls on the Canadian monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please see "2008 poll", above. -- 64.180.176.33 (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I did, and addressed it in the post you just responded to. If you cannot prove that the sentence was slanderous and/or irrelevant, one can only assume you've conceded your mistake. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can see, you haven't "addressed it" -- and the assumption you threaten to make would be altogether unjustified. -- 64.180.176.33 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You said the sentence was slanderous. I said I couldn't see why. You've not clarified.

You said the sentence was irrelevant. I said how it was pertinent. You haven't responded.

Hence, as it stands, my assumption is totally justified. You are free, of course, to change it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it is really inconsiderate of you to continually insist on shifting this discussion between us away from this section, where it was begun (by me, following on from another editor's concerns of a similar nature to mine), to a new section which you began afterward, where you seem intent on focusing mainly on an issue I never raised. Please stop it.

Secondly, you've merely asserted that the sentence is "pertinent". You haven't said how you reckon so. It's not rightly up to me to prove the negative -- that it's irrelevant.

64.180.176.33 (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I started this section to address the allegations of slander; it was you who then linked it to comments you made in response to others in another section, made six months ago, about relevance. If it was not you who made the accusation of slander, why then did you direct me to your other post when I asked here for clarification regarding those specific indictments? Given your maiden arrival at Wikipedia was specifically to remove the same sentence as Mariocanse tried today to do and Mondo Deluxe (aka Jivashok, aka Ashok Charles) objected to six months ago, it seems highly likely that you are either Mariocanse or Ashok Charles. If you tell me which you are I will respond in the according location. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I never raised the issue of "slander". I initially answered you in this section simply so as to direct you to the intended discussion I had already opened about the issue I actually raised -- that of irrelevance -- which you had either overlooked or ignored. If you are willing to discuss that issue, do so there, not here. If you really insist on dividing the two issues regarding the same sentence into two separate talk-page sections, then talk to the editor or editors concerned about supposed slander here, in this section.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your assumptions about chimeric editors. At least as regards myself, they are altogether wrong -- not to mention rude.

64.180.176.33 (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm within my limits to believe that the coincidence is very nearly improbable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The entry by user Mesianiacal stated:

Angus Reid composed the question as it did despite an earlier request from the Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada to the Director of Global Studies for Angus Reid Strategies, asking that future surveys not use wording freighted with British bias.

This could easily be considered as a slanderous statement. Referring to “an earlier request” may lead the reader to believe that there was somehow an agreement between the MLC Chairman and the Director of Global Studies to ask the questions in a way that pleased the MLC Chairman. In fact, there was no agreement whatsoever.

Also, the communication from the Director of Global Studies to the MLC Chairman—which is used to sustain the existence of the “earlier request”—was a private e-mail, which amounted to a confidential communication solely intended for the addressees, where unauthorized disclosure was (and is) prohibited. The MLC Chairman disclosed the contents of this private e-mail by publishing it in the Autumn-Winter 2007 edition of Canadian Monarchist News. It is precisely this unauthorized disclosure—and the publication of the private e-mail on the Canadian Monarchist News—that allows Mesianiacal to claim that the private e-mail amounts to “sourced material.”

Mesianiacal’s reference does not meet WP:RS, because:

a) Self-published media (including newsletters) are largely not acceptable: The Canadian Monarchist News is described as “An occasional Newsletter for members and friends of The Monarchist League of Canada.” This makes the publication unsuitable as a source under WP:RS guidelines.

b) Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration: In order to sustain a point of view that pleases the “monarchist” side of this debate, Miesianiacal relies on the Canadian Monarchist News.

In order to sustain a “fact”, the response from the Director of Global Studies is included as a reference, but the actual communication from the MLC Chairman is not. In other words, the existence of the “earlier request” by the MLC Chairman is supported by the reply, but the request itself is nowhere to be found. The reader does not know what the MLC Chairman requested, or how.

In short, Mesianiacal’s entry makes an implied claim (the existence of an agreement to ask questions in a way that would please the MLC Chairman) that gives an individual (the Director of Global Studies) and a business (Angus Reid Strategies) a negative image.

The second version of events that was posted by Miesianiacal shortly after the first version was removed is not slanderous, but still contentious:

Despite its Director of Global Studies having received the Chairman of the Monarchist League’s comments regarding the wording of questions, Angus Reid conducted another poll in 2008 in which people were again asked about “formal ties” with the “British monarchy”, with 55% of respondents supporting an end to them.

We continue to have the problem of “sourced material” that comes from a partisan secondary source and a self-published newsletter, which is largely not acceptable under WP:RS. Also, as has been noted before, the communication from the Director of Global Studies to the MLC Chairman was a private e-mail, which amounted to a confidential communication solely intended for the addressees, where unauthorized disclosure was (and is) prohibited.

For the record, new surveys have been conducted by Angus Reid that do not feature the words “formal ties” or “British monarchy.” These surveys can be accessed at the links below:

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2009.10.31_Monarchy_CAN.pdf

http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/2009-11-16_Monarchy_CAN.pdf

Mariocanse (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What ridiculousness. There's no implication of any agreement, related to publishing the exchange or otherwise. Speculation and sheer fantasy are not admissable as evidence, sorry. Sourced information is needed, and primary sources are acceptable per WP:RS.

Thanks for the newer polls, though. They should be added to the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your reaction does not respect the talk page guidelines (Be polite, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming). However, it is evident that you felt compelled to add "according to the Monarchist League" to your entry. I thank you for it. I also look forward to an unbiased analysis of the more recent poll findings.

Mariocanse (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines say I should be polite to you, not your assertions, most of which were unnecessary and unfounded verbiage hiding the one salient point: the sentence didn't specify who said what. You're welcome for the change, and I think the entire page needs a good copyedit and trim; I'm in the middle of other tasks at the moment, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

minister of the Crown

John Manley is described, a side from his picture, as a former deputy prime minister (which is fine) but also "minister of the Crown". His own page don't even talk about his function as we don't care about it. All Canadian ministers are "ministers of the Crown". This only makes a useless link to the monarchy (to show how stupid it is for a minister of a Crown to be a republican). I tried to remove it but someone reverted my edit. I would like to know why. thanks --zorxd (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's true that all Canadian ministers are Ministers of the Crown, otherwise who do they minister? And indeed, that phrase is well placed there to show the irony that a Minister of the Crown supported it's abolition, when they have sworn allegiance to the Queen. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to confirm my point. "Minister of the Crown" is only there because someone tried to make a point. That irony is not neutral and so doesn't belong to wikipedia. Look at the official page of a minister : [1] or [2] no single mention of the word "Crown". Also look at wikipedia pages of ministers : [3] [4] [5]. They are not labelled as such very often, so it can be removed. They are refered to as "minister of finance", minister of the environment", "minister of health". --zorxd (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wither it is Irony or not doesn't make the statement less true. I disagree with your idea that such a statement doesn't belong a Wikipedia; Manley *WAS* a Minister of the Crown. I hardly think that it is against NPOV to both point out a truth (Even if it is a "technical" truth) and I believe it is particularly relevant on a page discussing the debate of the Monarchy, as used in this reference. I don't see that because the phrase isn't "used that often" or used on the pages of other Ministers makes it any less relevant to THIS page.

It strikes me (And I could well be wrong!) that you would like to see it removed less out of an NPOV issue and more because of the "Monarchical" sound of it? Dphilp75 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also true that he was : Minister of Finance, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Industry, Member of Parliament for Ottawa South, lawyer, businessman, liberal politician. Should I add them all? Of all his titles, "minister of the Crown" is probably the less important one. This title is ceremonial, not used in practice, and nobody care about it in Canada outside of some monarchists. I don't understand why the subtitle under a picture of him should contain any information that is not even considered important enough to be mentioned in his own article or official government page. This is only there to discredit one of the most prominent openly republican of Canada. The article also talk about Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Why don't we present him as "Prime Minister of the Crown" or something similar since the article is about monarchy? --zorxd (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you should bring up Chretien, as in his book, he uses the term Minister of the Crown several times. Further, Manley being all those things can be summed up AS being a Minister of the Crown rather than Minister of XXX (et al). As for your thought that no one in Canada outside the Monarchists use it, I can tell you that PLENTY of scholars use the term when not wanting to specifically state more than one Ministry. Ned Franks is a prime example. In so far as "Prime Minister of the Crown", this is a title that does not exist. "Minister of the Crown" does. You submit that "Minister of the Crown" is less important that the rest of his Titles, which I submit is a misunderstanding of how our system of Government works. The term is concise and accurate to encompass ANY title given to ANY Minister; Even those with out a Portfolio.

I *DO* understand the point that you are trying to make, but the fact of the matter is that "Minister of the Crown" is categorically what Manley was. Removing it does nothing for NPOV and everything for placating Republicans at the expense of the truth of the matter. While you could turn that argument around on me by suggesting that I want it left there to placate the Monarchists, leaving it there does not harm the facts nor the truth of this issue. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right that "minister of the Crown" is the best way to sum up multiple different minister of XXX titles (a quick google search doesn't seem to confirm this however, neither does the definition in the corresponding wikipedia article). However, if it is the case, then I guess that we should modify his own page, as well as the page of every single minister of all commonwealth realms that occupied more than one different position to reflect that, right? I didn't say that Chretien never used the expression, I said that he isn't presented as such in *this* article, unlike Manley. Why? Prime Minister of the Crown maybe doesn't exists, but by looking at Prime Minister of Canada, a very similar expression "primary Minister of the Crown" seems appropriate. If the title also apply to provincial ministers, then I guess we should present Benoit Pelletier as a minister of the Crown as well, or this article clearly has double standards. As of now, this is the only use that I can find in the whole wikipedia for "minister of the Crown" which is specific to a person instead of a position. For example, Minister of Agriculture (Canada) does use the expression, but not any page about a specific person who occupied the position. --zorxd (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To go to that degree, you are falling in to a very common "trap" on Wikipedia. Just because the consensus reached on those pages is one thing, does not mean that it needs to be the same on this page, or that one consensus on one topic MUST be the same on "related" pages. I would actually be quite in favour of inserting the term "Minister of the Crown" in not only Canada's Minister's pages, but also Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica (Et al) But it's a form of "Wiki-lawyering". That said, if a consensus were reached on this page to remove it, I would abide by it. By invoking "Primary Minister of the Crown" (A very apt description used for decades) actually seems to me to lend some weight to the continued use of the phrase "Minister of the Crown" for others, but again, it's a form of Wiki-Lawyering.

Beyond that, I would be interested to know what the parameters you used in Google were, as I was able to easily come up with corresponding articles out there.

In terms of the Provincial Premiers and Ministers, the phrase isn't as applicable as it would seem. The Phrase is generally only used in reference to Federal Ministers in any of the Commonwealth Realms, not to any regional Government. It's just part of the interesting fabric that makes up the rich history of Westminster style Governments. I really do understand the point you are trying to make here. I can easily understand that using the phrase with a picture of Manley could be construed as an embarrassing/ironic slight; but again, it does nothing for NPOV to ignore the facts and truth of the matter. If anything, I would be in favour of removing the "Deputy Prime Minister" title (As its merely an Honourary Title and means nothing) and solely having "Minister of the Crown" under his picture. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Check this on google : [6], [7], [8]. Minister of the Crown does not seem to include more positions than just "Canadian minister" or "member of the federal cabinet". According to Premier of Ontario, minister of the Crown also apply to provinces. I think we should remove deputy prime minister as well as minister of the Crown and instead show is most important title, which is minister of finances (as stated in Cabinet_of_Canada#Ministers.2C_secretaries.2C_and_deputies. Truth doesn't make it neutral. Think about it, if Manley was an homosexual, would you write it below his picture? I hope not, because his sexual orientation have nothing to do about the importance of his inclusion in this article. What is important here is that he have been an important federal politician (even occupying the minister of finance position), not that he had the word "Crown" in his title while being a republican. This "irony" (that a minister of a Crown is a republican), by the way, only seem to exist on Wikipedia. --zorxd (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just to add, you tell me what makes more sense to say? That Jean Chretien was a Minister of National Revenue, a Minister of Northern and Indian Affairs, a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister of Canada or to say that Jean Chretien was a Minister of the Crown for over 40 years including become Prime Minister? 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What makes more sense is saying only that he was Prime Minister, since it is the most important title and this isn't an article about the biography of Jean Chrétien. But if you really want to emphasize on his strong background in federal politics, you could also add that he occupied various ministries. No need to say "of the Crown". You can say a federal minister or a member of the federal cabinet, not sure which one is used the most in English. --zorxd (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've definitely hit a loggerhead on this issue between us! :) Best to leave it be and wait for others to chime in and we'll see what the consensus is at the end. Dphilp75 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on addition of quotation marks around "British monarchy"

Knowzilla, you just added quotation marks around "British monarchy", stating "the British monarchy no longer exists in Canada". I think that is unwarranted. The fact that Queen Elizabeth and family are Canada's monarchy does not change the fact that they are at the very same time the British monarchy, and, in fact, are best known as such. It is entirely legitimate to refer to them as the British monarchy, even if you personally would prefer that legtitimate designation not be used. The fact that they are the British monarchy is in very large part the origin of the debate in Canada that this Wikipedia article is about. The news articles and other sources cited in this article regularly refer to them as the British monarchy, without quotation marks, and I have yet to see a single news source that refers to them as the British monarchy between quotation marks. Adding quotation marks is an editorial addition of your point of view, and is not what is in the cited source or in common usage.

One of the the Wikipedia:Five Pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. The very first line states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Another of the five pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No original research, which states: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." 65.92.156.77 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"British monarchy" is a misnomer in Canada unless one is talking about the monarchy of the United Kingdom. From the Government of Saskatchewan: "Since the members of the Royal Family visit Canada in their capacity as family of the Queen of Canada, it is not accurate to refer to the 'Queen of England' or the 'British Royal Family.'"[9] You will also note that the Queen herself, when acting as a representative of Canada, never refers to herself as the British monarch or alludes to the British monarchy. The Department of Canadian Heritage also describes it as the "Canadian Crown" and a "uniquely Canadian institution" ("Moreover, with the passage of this law, the Canadian Crown became something that was Canada's own"), never as the "British Crown."[10]

It is only in casual parlance and in the media that the term "British monarchy" is frequently applied to the Canadian monarchy. But, no matter how often this error is made, it cannot be presented in Wikipedia as though that use is correct. Not only would that be a disservice to readers, but it would also lead Wikipedia to contradict itself.

Besides, just look at the quotation marks as doing what quotation marks do: demarking that which has been quoted from somewhere else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I essentially concur with 65.92.156.77. The source says what it says, which adding the quotes subtly changes or questions. That is POV editorialising, and so not legitimate. Moreover, Canada has ties to the British Monarchy regardless of the correctness of using "British Monarchy" in relation to Canada. -- 205.250.67.46 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The person of the sovereign is the only "tie" to the British monarchy. But, is it really that personal union the polls are asking about? Or is it specifically the monarchy of Canada the polls are focusing on, only mislabelling it as the British monarchy? It's a big question, given how much the answer affects how the polls are to be presented here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is very clear on this as stated above. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You admit that "in the media ... the term "British monarchy" is frequently applied" but you suggest that all the news media and cited sources have it wrong, "only mislabelling it as the British monarchy". But as the Wikipedia principles make clear, it is not up to you to interpret whether the cited sources are right or wrong. In fact, even the source being cited from, Angus Reid Strategies, has complained to you about your misrepresentation of their published results, yet you continue to push your point of view on the presentation of their findings.[11] 65.92.159.44 (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But what those cited sources state are completely incorrect and unreliable. On the other the most reliable source for this issue, the Government of Canada itself, tells us that the Canadian Crown can in no way be described as the British monarchy. You two biased IPs should stop trying to push across your incorrect views. Any poll which labels the Canadian monarchy as the British monarchy are completely incorrect. The two are completely separate: Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The only way they are related is through the person of Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who is both Queen of Canada, and of the United Kingdom, and several other countries. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire section needs to be re-written; not only is there too much detail, but it will also have to be made more clear that poll questions either erroneously refer to Canada's monarchy as the "British monarchy" or are asking about simply a severance of the personal union, which does not necessarily entail a republic. If the anons (one of whom I'm almost sure is associated with Angus Reid (Mario Canseco?), the IP being located in Vancouver, where AR's headquarters are located) want to use the exact words, then let's use the exact words; but, while we do use sources, we also don't present misconceptions - no matter how common - as though they're accurate (eg. the Queen of the United Kingdom is never referred to in Wikipedia by the common but wrong title "Queen of England"). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Knowzilla: I have not really taken a position on whether or not Angus-Reid ought to say "British monarchy". I have but said that the material's presentation in Wikipedia ought not to editorialise on that point. Opposing such editorialising, as I do, is the very opposite of bias. -- 205.250.67.46 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but we must make it clear to readers that the polls are using incorrect wording. And this is no POV on my part, it the law, as constitutionally and legally the Canadian monarchy is entirely different to the British monarchy and those facts must be presented to the readers.

@Miesianiacal: I'm pretty sure all the polls are simply mislabeling the Canadian monarchy as the British monarchy instead of speaking about the personal union. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. The key, though, will be not denying the polls use the term "British monarchy", but, at the same time, making sure it's clear here that the term has been used in the polls incorrectly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

CfD of Category:Canadian monarchists

I see there's a pretty lively debate going on here: you might want to cast your vote --aye, nay or otherwise -- at the nomination now underway to delete Category:Canadian monarchists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Perhaps its time we archive earlier portions of this page, its pretty hard to follow....Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The bots will start soon.--Oneiros (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotation marks around "British monarchy"?

Should quotation marks be added around the words "British monarchy" by editors that contend that all the cited sources are incorrect in using that designation? (discussion) 65.94.18.21 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the IP for opening an RfC to settle this question. I moved the RfC to the bottom of the page. Even if you have already expressed an opinion in an earlier thread, it would be appreciated if you would summarize your views here. This would help to settle the dispute which was reported at WP:AN3#User:Miesianiacal reported by 65.92.213.24 (talk) (Result: Protected), and might allow the article protection to be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am understanding this issue correctly, I would agree with the quotations. Many sources out there (Including my niece's Grade 5 Civic Lessons book!) continually refer to our Canadian Crown as the British Crown. While it isn't done out of malice, but mere ignorance, I think the quotations add a "Questioning" flare to the fact that even reputable sources get this wrong... That is, of course, assuming that I am understanding what the OP is getting at here... Dphilp75 (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the OP is against the added quotation marks, precisely for reasons that you pinpointed: "Many sources out there", "even reputable sources", including reference books and official school textbooks, refer to them as the British monarchy or the British Crown. Adding quotation marks, as you correctly pointed out, adds a "Questioning" flare to suggest to the reader that the reputable sources allegedly have it "wrong". This is precisely the reason that you, as well as Knowzilla[12] and Miesianiacal[13], gave for wanting the quotes there: to suggest that the reputable sources cited in this article are, according to your intepretations, wrong.

In my opinion, the fact that Queen Elizabeth and family are Canada's monarchy does not change the fact that they are at the very same time the British monarchy, and, in fact, are best known as such. It is entirely legitimate to refer to them as the British monarchy, even if the monarchists here would prefer that designation not be used. In fact, the fact that they are the British monarchy is in very large part the origin of the debate in Canada that this Wikipedia article is about. If it weren't for the fact that they are the British monarchy as well, this article might not even exist.

But, either way, the argument over whose interpretation is right or wrong is moot:

One of the the Wikipedia:Five Pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. The very first line states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Another of the five pillars of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No original research, which states: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

(Underlines added, the bold text was already on the Wikipedia policy page.)

As the Wikipedia principles very make clear, it is not up to us to interpret whether the cited sources are right or wrong. Canadian news articles and other sources cited in this article regularly refer to them as the British monarchy without quotation marks. I have yet to see a single news source that refers to them as the British monarchy between quotation marks. Adding quotation marks, in order to suggest something is wrong, is an editorial addition of your point of view, and is not what is in the cited source or in common usage.

By the way, it should also be pointed out that even the source being cited from, the well-known polling firm Angus Reid Strategies, has in the past complained (extremely politely) directly to Miesianiacal about misrepresenting their published results on this page, yet Miesianiacal is continuing to try to force his or her point of view on the presentation of the cited findings. 65.92.215.148 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh but we're not interpreting whether those sources are wrong or not. They ARE wrong. By law the Canadian Crown is separate from the British one, and we must make clear that the wording of the polling questions are incorrect, and those will affect how the people who are polled answer. We must give the full facts. Furthermore, we have also pointed to what the most reliable source for this issue, the Government of Canada, has to say about this, and it is that the Canadian Crown can in no way be properly described as the British monarchy. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the anon (regardless of his violations of WP:AGF and cowardly attacks on my character) is correct that it's not up to us to dictate whether or not a source is correct or incorrect for the sake of including it as a source or discarding it. Sources are sources and we must reflect them accurately in the article, even if we feel (we know) the sources themselves contain errors.

And most of the poll questions are indeed inaccurate, being written by people who've, like the anon, automatically accepted what's popular to be what's correct, leading them to operate on totally ignorant assumptions about the distinction (or lack thereof, for them) between the Canadian and British monarchies. (How they can simultaneously believe Canada is a sovereign country but under a crown that isn't its own is beyond me.)

Now, that doesn't mean we need to use all the sources, nor does it mean we can't present the accurate information alongside the erroneous; WP:V, which the anon relies on so much to get his POV pushed, applies as much to a source that refers to the Canadian monarchy correctly as it does to a source that refers to it incorrectly - and there are vastly better sources out there than poll questions and school textbooks that outline and prove the existence of a difference between the Canadian and British monarchies. In fact, this "British monarchy" mislabelling is a specific subject already covered in a couple of places on Wikipedia.

As I've said, I think the entire section needs to be re-written; it needs trimmed, excess detail removed, and made more encyclopaedic, rather than being essentially just a list of polls, questions, and percentages. The use of the term "British monarchy" vis-à-vis the proper, and official, use of the term "Canadian monarchy", can be explored and expanded. Also, poll questions should be scrutinised word for word to ascertain what the term "British monarchy" means in each. It's just going to take a little word-craft. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, you said a lot of different things, but didn't answer the question posed by this RfC: Should quotation marks be added around the words "British monarchy" by editors that contend that all the cited sources are incorrect in using that designation? 65.92.212.162 (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is put terribly; is there some function that makes quotation marks show up only for those editors who want to see them? Whether or not "British monarchy" deserves quotation marks depends entirely on what's said around the term. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reference to the British Crown or monarchy I could find in the article was the poll question, "Canada should sever its ties with the British Crown" (which is correctly in quotes). However since the term "British Crown" is incorrect it should be in quotes. But it was only in 1982 that Lord Denning decided that the Crown was "separate and divisible", and always had been. Before that time, it was considered correct to refer to the British Crown since it was believed the Crown was indivisible. Since Canadians were until 1981 British subjects, the term would not have aroused objections. TFD (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the term "British Crown", the phrase "British monarch" or "British monarchy" appears 8 times in the article, and there is another instance where "British monarchy" was changed to "monarchy" by Knowzilla who contended that the cited source was wrong. 65.94.17.254 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it now. Most of these are parts of direct quotes anyway, and all are attributed. The term "British monarchy" when referring to the Canadian monarchy is incorrect and presents a point of view (namely that the monarchy is a "foreign" institution) and therefore should be placed in direct quotes or part of a passage in direct quotes. TFD (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is contrary to policy, and to common sense. Direct quotes may not be altered. Editors may not impose what they know to be true on the the sources. Both of these are bannable offences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who proposed altering direct quotes? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(ouut)Common sense and Wikipedia policies and guidelines dictate that the "common English usage" should be the Wikipedia usage. Use of "scare quotes" in any article because one editor knows a usage is wrong is contrary to WP policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. In common English usage, Queen Elizabeth II is referred to as the Queen of England; common does not always equal correct and Wikipedia doesn't bow to common inaccuracies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Parsing? She is also "Duke of Normandy" as well -- yet I do not see cavils thereon getting very far! The issue here is whether "British monarchy" ought to be in scare quotes - and, in the case at hand, it appears common usage rules against it (as does the NYT Manual of Style etc.). Collect (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference lies in the fact that she actually is the Duke of Normandy; there's no such position as Queen of England. Similarly, there's no British monarchy in Canada, even though the Canadian monarchy may often be mislabelled the British monarchy.

I don't think anyone intends to use quotation marks as a scare tactic. I believe the desire is to prevent readers from being misled by inaccuracies presented as facts and/or confused by one claim contradicting another. However, quotation marks are probably not the only way to ensure clarity and exactness. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually she is "Queen of England". Hust as "British monarchy" is valid usage (see [14] ) Used in NYT [15] etc. Collect (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, she isn't. She's England's queen, but there exists no distinct position or title for the Queen of England; there hasn't since the Act of Union. Lazy American journalism, as with any other lazy journalism (such as that which calls Canada's monarchy the "British monarchy") doesn't trump the law. (You'll also note that nowhere on the British monarchy website is the Queen referred to as the Queen of England.)

Of course, "British monarchy" has valid usage; that would be in relation to Britain's monarchy, but not to the monarchy of any other country. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Simply because many people call Queen Elizabeth II "the Queen of England" or because some people call the Canadian monarchy "the British monarchy", it does not make those statements correct. There has not been a throne of England for about 3 centuries now, and there has been no British monarchy in Canada for several decades now. We must use reliable sources which state the facts correctly. And once again, the most reliable source for this issue, the Government of Canada, tells us that the British monarchy no longer exists in Canada, and in no way can the Canadian Crown be described as such. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you looked further on the website you would have found, "The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctive from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms".[16]. And could you please point to the relevant section of the NYT stylebook. Your link refers to the "Queen of England" as a picture caption and "Queen Elizabeth II of England", not "Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of England" in the article. TFD (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I fail to see how this aside has anything at all to do with whether "British monarchy" merits scare quotes in an article. Try [ if you desire the precise usage of "Queen of England" -- [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/global/17farms.html?scp=3&sq=%22queen%20of%20england%22&st=cse [17] [18] and somewhere on the order of a thousand other non-reader comment entries on the NYT in the past year alone <g>. Need more? Collect (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have given us a link to the sports section and the travel section, which says says this is a place where the Queen of England might stay. What does their style book say and how do they refer to her in her role as Queen of Canada? Incidentally if she really is the "Queen of England" the quotes are still required, because they erroneously referred to the "British monarchy" while, as every Fenian knows, it is the English monarchy. TFD (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is loud and clear that those arguing for the quotes want them because they contend that the cited sources are erroneous. However Wikipedia's core policies, that are non-negotiable, are clear regarding this: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." The question can in fact be generalized to this:

Should an editor be allowed to add scare quotes around a term because they believe that the cited sources are incorrect to use that term?

An example of this is when a creationist adds scare quotes around the "theory" of evolution, or when a climate-change skeptic adds scare quotes around climate "science" or around "scientific consensus". In this case, monarchists are trying to add scare quotes around "British monarchy" because they dispute the use of that the term by the cited sources. The Wikipedia article on scare quotes states: "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." WP:MOS specifically discourages the use of scare quotes. 65.94.16.122 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How is a question asked by a polling firm a reliable source on constitutional law? TFD (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has nothing to do with monarchism; it's disingenuous of you, forever rotating anon, to imply that your opponents are driven by a motive other than ensuring an accurate and comprehensive article.

Now, as TFD has alluded to, as far as the use of the term "British monarchy", the sources verify only that the polls used the term "British monarchy" in reference to the Canadian monarchy. They do not verify that such a use of that term is in any way correct. So, the article should acknowledge that the polls used the term "British monarchy" in reference to the Canadian monarchy; quotation marks may or may not be necessary; quotation marks aren't always scare quotes. But, I definitely believe that these acknowledgements should be accompanied by verifiably sourced information that demonstrates such a use of that term to, in fact, be totally incorrect. Though the anon may be against scare quotes, I trust he's not opposed to steering clear of misleading our readers by presenting uncontested inaccuracies and contradictions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, please refrain from changing the indentation of my comments. That is very disrespectful, uncalled for, and the next two comments are now overly-indented as a result. "Uncontested inaccuracies and contradictions" is your opinion - you believe the cited sources are inaccurate and you wish to have them contested by putting scare quotes around them. That is very clearly against Wikipedia core policies. 65.92.213.243 (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Collect and the IP, must I keep reminding? I've stated it several times now. THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THIS ISSUE WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT IS THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ITSELF, AND THEY REFUSE TO CALL THE CANADIAN MONARCHY "THE BRITISH MONARCHY", AND TELLS US THAT IN NO WAY CAN THE CANADIAN CROWN BE DESCRIBED AS SUCH. The IP seems to keep conveniently ignoring this. Furthermore, by bringing up all the talk about "the Queen of England", Collect, all you have done is shown us how incorrect many sources can be. It is an indisputable fact that there is no longer such a title and that the Throne of England has not existed since the English & Scottish Acts of Union 3 centuries ago. WIKIPEDIA IS HERE TO GIVE THE FACTS, simply because some people call Queen Elizabeth II "the Queen of England" or call the Canadian Crown "the British monarchy", it doesn't make those statements fact. Some lazy journalists cannot change constitutional law. Sources shouldn't be used if they are incorrect, and if they are used, it must be made clear to a reader that what they state is incorrect. We should always look to the most reliable source for any issue. And for this, the Government of Canada very clearly gives us the facts. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 05:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it seems the only time the term "British monarchy" is placed in quotes is when it mentions that there is a dispute over the use of the term. Did the source questioning the term use quotes? If so then we should too. TFD (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon, what is disrespectful is not indenting properly. Keep your comments in line so that everyone else can see where they begin and end compared to the posts before and after.

Also, you avoided the point completely. The polls do not serve as sources verifying the accuracy of using the term "British monarchy" in reference to the Canadian monarchy. Other sources do verify the inaccuracy of using the term "British monarchy" in reference to the Canadian monarchy. These sources express the opinion of the government, constitutional scholars, and the like, not mine.

In the absence of words based on the latter sources, this article will dishonestly present the poll questions as though they were unquestionably fair and balanced, eliminating the possibility that the wording of the question affected the resulting percentages. Also, unfamiliar readers of this article (like many of those asked these poll questions) will be misled into believing that Canada is under another country's monarchy. Thus Wikipedia will have either caused them to believe an untruth or made them confused by in many places saying Canada is an independent state under its own distinct crown and in another saying it's a colony or Crown protectorate of the United Kingdom. All of this is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V. Do you comprehend the need to avoid that? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, you again changed the indentation of my comments, after I had politely asked you not to. Please do not start a silly edit war over this, especially since this Request for Comment was the result of a 3RR report made against you to request help from your regular edit-warring. The WP:Talk page guidelines says "Generally, do not alter others' comments" - "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." - It's only "sometimes allowed", for example, "if you have their permission." - "But you should ... stop if there is any objection." You did not have my permission, and proceeded to do so again after I had objected and politely requested you not to. As a reminder, I organized this Request for Comment discussion, and my indentations were made to improve the readability of an already long discussion. Please have some respect for other editors, and for the core guidelines and principles of Wikipedia. 65.92.215.150 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ever rotating anon: From WP:INDENT: "Good Indentation makes prolonged discussions easier to read and understand." From WP:TPO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing layout errors." Giving one comment three different and erratic indents is not good indentation and thus does not improve readability in the least. Please have the courtesy to think of others.

The rest of your post is pointless; incorrect and ignored accusations of 3RR violations mean nothing. The page was protected to prevent you from edit warring as much as anyone else; discussion about the quotation marks was already taking place in the section above, before you started this RfC, yet you continued to edit war to enforce your change to the status quo, against not one, but two other editors, putting you in violation of WP:BRD and WP:CONS.

Now, please focus on the subject of this discussion so that it can be brought to a resolution as soon as possible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are quite clearly trying to redirect focus onto my non-registered status and dynamic IP connection, rather than constructively and fairly discussing this question on its own merits. Before I initiated this RfC there was a discussion and it was one that I had initiated as well. Instead of letting that discussion resolve the issue, you reverted me in the article and then you reverted a second editor three times. The edit war between you and that other editor is what led to the 3RR report against you and to the page protection. Of the last 10 edits made to the article before the page protection, 5 were by you and 5 were by the other editor. Now that we have your indentation concerns and your repeated attacks of my IP status out of the way, can we return to constructively and fairly discussing the question on its own merits? 65.92.212.239 (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote, ("In the absence of words based on the latter sources, this article will dishonestly present the poll questions as though they were unquestionably fair and balanced, eliminating the possibility that the wording of the question affected the resulting percentages.") clearly indicates that you wish to portray the polls as if their questions were not fair and balanced. But the core Wikipedia principles WP:NPOV and WP:NOR say you cannot do that. The article already includes criticisms that were made by an anonymous Senex in an occasional newsletter for friends and family of the Monarchist League, (if such an anonymous article can even constitute a reliable source.) For you to inject your opinion beyond that into the presentation of that particular poll and other polls constitutes POV and Original Research. 65.92.212.239 (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs and especially roaming IPs have always been problematic for various reasons; many of which are illustrated in the recent goings on at this page. There have been debates over the years about allowing only registered users to edit Wikipedia precisely so as to avoid these issues, which include: causing confusion about identity and/or evading the restrictions to curb bad behaviour.

And, as an adendum to that, you should note from WP:TALKPAGE: "if your comment consists of more than one paragraph, you must repeat the colons at the start of each paragraph." You did not do that, and even undid it when I did it for you.

I've already urged you to get back on topic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's you who is trying to push across your POV. Some of those polls are indeed not fair and balanced, and are worded badly. Either those polls should be removed or it be made clear to readers that those polls have worded their questions incorrectly. The Canadian Government, which is probably the most reliable source for this issue, tells us that the Canadian Crown cannot be described as the British monarchy or crown. Some incorrectly worded polls CANNOT change constitutional law. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 08:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Knowzilla, you cannot cherry-pick which well-cited polls to present. That is considered POV-editing. To give a neutral presentation, you have to present them all, and do so without skewing them through scare quotes or other means, and you also present any associated published criticism from reliable sources. This has already been done (although an anonymous Senex article in an occasional newsletter for friends and family is arguably not even a reliable source - but that's for another discussion). You also confound the larger public opinion debate with the narrower constitutional law debate. The debate occurs at more than one level and the text currently being argued over is under the section Polls of the article. The Polls section does not profess to present constitutional law, and is not the place for you to try to re-educate readers about constitutional law. 65.92.212.81 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

If the original text does not include the quotation marks, the article should not include the quotation marks. An RfC cannot overturn basic Wikipedia policy. I came here from the NPOV board. I have had no involvement in this article either as an administrator or in editing it, and make no comment about what is correct or not correct, I'm simply explaining our policy which, I note, has already been spelled out above. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@the IP: Alright, we can include all the polls, but however it still must be made clear to the readers that some of the polls have been worded incorrectly. It very obvious that the wording of these polls can drastically change how those polled answer. As for the 'scare quotes', well I suppose they could be removed, but we must still explain in the polling section that some of the polls are worded wrongly according to constitutional law. You may not want this, but we must present the full facts to the readers, in accordance with WP:NPOV. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We actually don't have to include all the polls at all; there's no policy or even a guideline that says otherwise. In fact, I think there are too many listed here, and it will only get worse as there seem to be three or four of these things every time there's a royal event. This isn't a free method of publication for Angus Reid and EKOS.

But, otherwise, you make my point, KnowZ: include here verifiably sourced text that outlines the proper facts and let the polls stand on their own against that. As the anon is all for NPOV and V, I'm sure he'll agree.

I think we're at the point now where we should start trying to recompose that entire section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweiler, could you please look at the article to see whether quotes are properly used. For the most part it appears that poll questions are in quotes in their entirety, while British monarchy is in quotes when reference is made to the Monarchist article, ""British monarchy ties" wording skews Angus Reid Poll on Crown Four Ways". As far as I know, it is not POV to put poll questions in quotes or to use scare quotes when paraphrasing sources that use them. How would we report on push polling? TFD (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We could also use secondary resources (e.g., newspapers) that report the polls rather than directly quoting the polling companies, which are primary sources. TFD (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When I looked yesterday it appeared that the issue of quotes around "British monarchy" was satisfactory. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I can safely declare the issue resolved now. A Wikipedia administrator from the NPOV noticeboard kindly reviewed the issue and discussion for us and stated in no uncertain terms:

"If the original text does not include the quotation marks, the article should not include the quotation marks. An RfC cannot overturn basic Wikipedia policy."

Since this is a matter of basic Wikipedia policy, and an RfC cannot overturn that, I will now close this Request for Comment. My thanks to everyone that participated constructively and sincerely. 65.92.157.103 (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Even if the quotation marks are removed, the section will be full of NPOV violations, and will be tagged as such at the earliest possible opportunity while efforts are made to resolve that problem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the issue in general terms, could someone please list the text that is disputed and we can deal with each of them. No one said that a question from a polling company cannot be placed in direct quotes or a paraphrase of a source that uses scare quotes should remove those quotes. TFD (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Restore RfC tag? An IP editor has attempted to close this RfC by removing the tag from the head of this section. I suggest that the RfC tag ought to be restored, because I don't see more than one editor agreeing that the RfC is over. RfCs normally go for thirty days, unless they are closed by consensus before that time. Also, if an agreement has been reached, I don't know what it is. If editors are content that the present draft of the article is neutral and fully complies with Wikipedia policy regarding quotation marks, I don't see any large number of editors signing up for that position yet. (Knowzilla and Miesianical wouldn't agree, for example). Anyone who feels that the RfC can be closed, please analyze the comments presented and give a summary of your findings. Then wait for concurrence before doing the close. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" This is the Queens official title as the Monarch of Canada. Note the fact the United Kingdom is the only nation apart from Canada listed, and that it is put before Canada. This simply reflects that the Monarch sits on the throne of a past Empire which was the British Empire. So there is no doubt the United Kingdom takes a dominant place in the Monarchy, after all the United Kingdom is the land where the Monarchy/Crown origionated.

The term British Monarch is official as the Queen is British born, but please note the differance between these terms;

• British Monarch (which suggests the actual King or Queen as being British born.) - Which is true
• British Monarchy (which suggests the entire Monarchy is all British.) - Which is not true

But each of these terms also have another meaning;

• British Monarch (which can also suggests one is talking about the Monarch as the Monarch of Britain in a British context.) - Which is true
• British Monarchy (which can also suggest the state of the monarchy in Britain in a British context.) - Which is true

The Monarchy is not only British, its equaly the Monarchy of other nations, however due to the dominant place the United Kingdom takes in the Monarchy it can be very common for people to just term "The British Monarchy" even when talking about the Monarchy in a Canadian context. Officialy when talking about the Monarchy in Canada one should use the term "Canadian Monarch" and "Canadian Monarchy". This is not to say Canadians cannot refer to The shared British and Candian Monarchy and talk about the Monarchy in a British context. However one cannot forget that the United Kingdom will allways play the largest role in the Monarchy simply becuase of the history of the Empire and natural British dominance over the monarchy given that the United Kingdom is the historic, present and future home of the Monarchy. The UK acts as the lead nation of the commonwealth reals hand in hand with the Monarchy sitting on the thone of a past Empire. Which is obvious given it was the British Empire.

Any way, thats a hell of alot of Monarchy for me lol, just wish you stayed in the Empire it would of made it alot easier hehehe. I do hope Canada doesnt throw away the Monarchy, it keeps Canada a very distinct nation and wouldnt like to see Canada becoming a smaller United States. Canada stands to loose alot of culture by throwing away Monarchy, plus republic is boring and you would only end up with a monarch style head of state like the Irish do when they ditched monarchy. Is it worth to loose that historic connection with Canadas past? There is also the type of republican system to choose that leads to years of arguments between politicans and millions wasted getting no where. Recon.Army (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how your comment relates to the topic of this RfC. The question is whether the quotation marks around "British monarchy" that are currently in the article are OK to use. If we widen out the question to be answered it could take forever to close this. The main problem in the article is how to describe the results of some opinion polls that decided to use the phrase "British monarchy" in the questions. (That was the pollsters' choice). This RfC is only about how to word the article. Some editors think the current wording is all right. Others think it is POV, but we don't know the specifics of what they would prefer. The RfC does not have to decide whether it is wise for Canada to remain a monarchy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of my message is pretty simple and very much related to the topic. I was just making clear the term of British Monarchy (though I did wander a bit). Obviously the use of quotation marks around "British monarchy" in this article is deliberate knowing that in this articles context it is wrong. Also the usage of the term British monarchy and its quotation marks give a sense of negative ideas of the Canadian monarchy. If quotation marks around "British monarchy" appear in the source that it may be related to they yes keep the quotation marks around "British monarchy", if not then remove it completely. Recon.Army (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal wrote: "Even if the quotation marks are removed, the section will be full of NPOV violations, and will be tagged as such at the earliest possible opportunity while efforts are made to resolve that problem."

User:EdJohnston wrote: "I don't see how your comment relates to the topic of this RfC. The question is whether the quotation marks around "British monarchy" that are currently in the article are OK to use. If we widen out the question to be answered it could take forever to close this."

Now EdJohnston's comment was for the comment by User:Recon.Army, but should it not also apply to Miesianiacal's comment? If the section is "full of NPOV violations", as Miesianiacal claims, I would suggest discussing them one at a time in new, separate sections on this page.

For the RfC on scare quotes added around the words "British monarchy" because some editors contend the cited sources are incorrect, a Wikipedia administrator from the NPOV noticeboard reviewed the discussion and page and said: "If the original text does not include the quotation marks, the article should not include the quotation marks. An RfC cannot overturn basic Wikipedia policy." User:Miesianiacal did not contest this and only referred to other things, and User:Knowzilla wrote "As for the 'scare quotes', well I suppose they could be removed." 65.92.156.7 (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the quotation marks, the main reason I wanted them there is to show readers that phrases that some of the polls use is incorrect in the context they are using it in (describing the Canadian monarchy as the British monarchy). It would seem though that the administrator from the NPOV board finds that those quotations around British monarchy/crown are fine [19] and it would be alright for them to be maintained. What I mainly want to see is that readers are explained that some of the polls are using incorrect phrases to describe the Canadian crown, it is important that they are explained this because the wording of polls can significantly change how the people polled answer (see push poll; though some of the polling companies/organizations in question here are probably not using the phrase they use to purposely manipulate the poll, but out of ignorance). --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not in the purview of WP editors to "explain" what they "know" to readers. It is the job of editors to furnish material from reliable sources only. If the source says the wording was wrong - then we can use what the source says (avoiding SYNTH of course). Absent such, we can not provide "correct opinion" about polls. Collect (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please read the article and explain which quotation marks you know think be removed. I do not see any that are incorrect. Incidentally, do you consider poll questions to be reliable sources on constitutional law? TFD (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the issue posited at the start of this section. As to the other "issue" you appear to raise, it is totally irrelevant here. I do not respond to straw arguments. Collect (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, two of the places where scare quotes were added around "British monarchy" were here. The scare quotes were added by Knowzilla and then repeatedly added again by Miesianiacal in reverts against two different editors even though a discussion had been started.[20] That led to a 3RR report requesting help with Miesianiacal's edit warring, and that led to this RfC. This RfC determines whether or not they can add the scare quotes back on to those sentences and other instances where they would like to put scare quotes around "British monarchy".

Not to answer for Collect, but regarding poll questions and constitutional law, again the purpose of the Polls section is not in any way to present or re-educate readers about the fine points of constitutional law but to present Canadian public opinion on the monarchy debate.65.94.19.216 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has been changed:

An Angus Reid Strategies poll conducted in September 2007 reported that the majority 53% of Canadians do not want the country to retain formal ties to the "British monarchy"....

An Angus Reid Strategies poll conducted in September 2007 reported that the majority of Canadians, 53%, thought that "Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy...."

Is there any disagreement over using the new sentence? TFD (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@the IP: However, presenting polls to readers, in which a phrase used is incorrect in relation to the context it's in and where it's obvious that the use of such as phrase can significantly alter how those polled answer, is not something which should be done. Only reliable sources should be used, and if certain sources which are contradictory to constitutional law are used, then the everything must be fully explained to the readers to maintain WP:NPOV. Furthermore, perhaps you missed this, but the administrator from the NPOV board considers it fine to maintain the quotation marks around British monarchy/crown: [21]. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@TFD: In your second version of the sentence I think it is clear that these are 'indirect speech quotes' and not 'scare quotes.' That sentence is simply reporting, in a neutral fashion, the actual words that Angus Reid chose to put in their poll question: (..that "Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy...") Those quote marks are not belittling the phrase or hinting that the question was incorrectly posed; they are simply reporting how the poll was worded. To me, this is fully consistent with Wikipedia policy. Editors who still don't like that way of phrasing it are welcome to suggest further alternatives. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

I'm fine with removing quotation marks from around "British monarchy" when the two words are in relation to a specific question asked in a poll. However, I hold that position only if new (and of course sourced) information is added to this page outlining how "British monarchy" is not a valid term in this context, along with the Monarchist League's opinion on the effect of such a term being used in a poll on the Canadian monarchy.

Inevitably, a section like that will require that the words "British monarchy" be highlighted in some form, either with quotation marks ("British monarchy") or italics (British monarchy). For example: 'Polls will frequently use the term "British monarchy" to refer to Canada's monarchy'; or 'Polls will frequently use the term British monarchy to refer to Canada's monarchy." The question is: will the anon still object? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Knowzilla, you claimed "the administrator from the NPOV board considers it fine to maintain the quotation marks around British monarchy/crown". That is not the case. User:Dougweller clearly stated "If the original text does not include the quotation marks, the article should not include the quotation marks."

You all continue to contend that the sources are incorrect, and have only changed your tactic from scare quotes to italics or putting scare quotes around a slightly longer phrase, all for the very same non-neutral POV motivation, to contest what you contend is wrong on the part of cited sources.

That's missing the point and continuing to ignore or skirt Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's "three core content policies", WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are "non-negotiable". "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." User:Dougweller also made clear, "An RfC cannot overturn basic Wikipedia policy."

Miesianiacal is obviously trying to negotiate a deal to find another way to contest the cited sources, and is now advancing a WP:SYNTHESIS as the latest tactic. The same editors are continously trying to circumvent Wikipedia core content policies, despite several other editors pointing that out and an administrator from the NPOV noticeboard doing so as well. Hopefully another administrator will step in and say something at some point to deal with all these continued attempts at NPOV circumvention. 65.92.158.106 (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what's becoming more and more apparent is that you feel "Wikipedia's core content policies" apply only to whatever you think is correct and not to what you disagree with. The following is reliably sourced:

• "The Act conferred legally and publicly, on the eve of the Queen's Coronation, the principle of a distinct constitutional monarchy for Canada. Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities... Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms." Canadian Parliamentary Review; p. 28
• "[T]here is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada." English Court of Appeal; S. 57
• "Although Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom, it is not on this basis that Canadians offer her allegiance. She is, quite separately, sovereign of Canada by deliberate choice of Canadians." Department of Canadian Heritage
• "Canada has developed important traditions and institutions that have become an integral part of our national identity. One such institution is the Canadian Crown... Queen Elizabeth was the first to be proclaimed independently Sovereign of Canada in 1953...

"[W]ith the passage of this law, the Canadian Crown became something that was Canada's own...

"The proclamation reaffirmed the newly crowned monarch's position as Queen of Canada, a role totally independent from that as Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. In reflecting the true face of contemporary Canada, these eleven individuals highlight not only our social and cultural richness, but also the uniqueness of the Canadian Crown...

"The Crown is truly Canadian through the Queen and her eleven Canadian representatives...

"In every sense of the word, it is the Canadian Crown." Department of Canadian Heritage; pp. 2, 9, 10, 39, 40

• "The Queen isn't here as the British sovereign but as the Canadian head of state, so she departed Heathrow on a Canadian Forces jet. And, MacLeod explains, when the plane crosses into our airspace, 'the Canadian secretary and police officer take over from their British counterparts.'" Maclean's
• "Such events and commemorations inspire a sense of pride and foster a greater understanding and appreciation of uniquely Canadian institutions such as the Crown..." Department of Canadian Hertiage
• "The Queen has a unique relationship with Canada, entirely separate from her role as Queen of the United Kingdom or any of her other realms." Buckingham Palace
• "Royal Family – means those persons, being subjects of the Canadian Sovereign..." Department of National Defence; p. 281
• "Since the members of the Royal Family visit Canada in their capacity as family of the Queen of Canada, it is not accurate to refer to the 'Queen of England' or the 'British Royal Family.'" Saskatchewan Office of the Provincial Secretary

That is just a sampling of what's available to support a section here on the reality that Canada's monarchy is not the British monarchy, though the two may be linked through the person of the sovereign. As all the sources meet WP:V, you must, by your own words, accept them as valid and permissible. If you still reject them, it can only be because you don't like what they say. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I have not read all of that, and it's got nothing to do with whether I like it or not. First, isn't there already a page Monarchy of Canada where that information belongs? Second, aren't you trying to bring that information to this page, where it doesn't belong, to continue to try to contest a cited source, against WP policies? Third, but most importantly, you are still continuing to try to negotiate for a new section in exchange for abiding by non-negotiable Wikipedia core content policies and principles. Lastly, your comment, which is about seeking a go ahead for a new section you are pushing, does not answer the question posed by this RfC. As EdJohnston said, "If we widen out the question to be answered it could take forever to close this."

Again, it's got nothing to do with whether I "like it" or not, as you try to suggest. Unlike you, I don't identify as either a monarchist or a republican, and I don't spend all my time trying to set people straight about the monarchy - my concern is the POV presentation and editing that has long dominated this page until my recent attempts to clean it up, and the reverts[22], misused/abused POV tag[23], and POV scare quotes[24] that followed. 65.94.84.214 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the phrasing used in the article? Is there any phrasing you wish to change? TFD (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's the anon trying to make me look like a bad, bad person again.

Regardless, you already got my answer to the question posed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, I'm an uninvolved editor. This discussion caught my eye.

I see that the article has several existing footnotes on unrelated items. Could you leave the quotes about the polls as are without the quotation marks, but then add a new footnote at the end of the quote explaining the status of the term British monarch as it should be used in Canada? For instance, add a fifth footnote to one of the quotes:

"An Angus Reid Strategies poll conducted in September 2007 reported that the majority 53% of Canadians do not want the country to retain formal ties to the British monarchy, while 35% did, and 12% were unsure."^{[2] [n. 5]}

[...]

^5. The term British monarchy as used in Canada...

Would this be acceptable? It would leave the text of the quoted material intact and remove the "scare quote" aspect, but also lead the reader to an explanation of the exact status of the term. Northumbrian (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, sorry if this was already suggested/rejected elsewhere. I tried to follow the discussion, but it's rather long across three discussion pages and forums, so I might have missed it. Northumbrian (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of non-reliable sources to fix non-neutral POV problems

Two sources that were used extensively on this page for POV purposes are very clearly non-reliable sources per WP:RS, so I am removing them to clean up the page and the Polls section, especially in light of the POV tag and comments requesting such action. The first is an opinion article written by an anonymous writer in an occasional newsletter for friends and family of the "Monarchist League of Canada"[25], and the second is the website of "Citizens for a Canadian Republic"[26]. The first unreliable source was long kept on this page by certain editors even though it was pointed out many times that the source was inappropriate and did not satisfy Wikipedia policies.[27][28] Administrators at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have now reviewed and confirmed that source to be unreliable.[29]

As part of the NPOV cleanup I am also removing the many unsourced statements in the section that had been tagged as such. The removal of the reliable sources and unsourced claims greatly simplifies and shortens the page and makes the information less obfuscated. 65.92.212.215 (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are suitable for this topic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Polls

Do we really need every poll on the subject from the last few years? Especially considering how widely the results can vary and how many essentially say the same thing... wouldn't it be better to just include a sampling? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The entire Polls section could be easily combined into one or two paragraphs. Taken collectively, I think it is fairly safe to say that these polls have produced rather ambiguous results, and vary greatly according to the types (and factual accuracy) of the questions asked. trackratte (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)