Talk:Monarchism in Canada

This part need to be removed, or heavily modified

By the early 21st century, though polls showed the province's population to be that which held the monarch most unfavourably, the Quebec establishment was becoming receptive again to the monarchy and its place in the country; despite threats of violence and protest from separatists, the Executive Council of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume (himself a former separatist), still desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II, or either Prince William or Prince Harry, at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec.

I removed this part, because it has many problems :

• Is is pro-monarchy biased (like too much in this article, but we will discuss a specific case here). It is written so that the reader thinks that there is a positive trend for the monarchy in Quebec. In fact, 2/3 of Quebecers were against that idea[1], so minimizing this to threats of violence and protest from separatists is dishonest.
• the statement about the "Quebec establishment" is unsourced. Giving the example of one minister and one mayor can't be generalized to "the establishment". Many other politicians from Quebec, including conservatives, were against. And even if someone could prove that the whole establishment wanted the Queen to be part of the ceremonies, it doesn't mean that they are "becoming receptive again to the monarchy and its place in the country", an other clearly unsourced statement, which happens to be the main idea of the paragraph. There is a big difference between inviting the Queen to a ceremony and thinking that monarchy has its place in the country.
• Just because the mayor happens to be a "former separatist" doesn't mean that it is relevant to include. 49.9% of Quebec can be described as such, so that means a lot of people.
• As a whole, it is a perfect example of WP:SYN, and should be removed because of that. While many parts are true and sourced (or could be sourced), at a whole, it is unsourced.

So I tried to remove it but a self-described subject of her majesty and monarchist reverted my edits. I see too many problems so I don't even think it is worth rephrasing, but if someone want to try, that could be a good idea. --zorxd (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewording is one thing. Lazy deletion is all together something else. It would be more constructive if you'd offer some proposals for an alternate composition, and leave the accusations of bias on my part out of the equation, lest you fall victim to the same. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I tought about it (really), but I didn't see anything worth keeping, so I deleted it. I am not sure what an alternate composition could look like, given that what I understand as the main idea (that monarchy is gaining support in the establishement of Quebec), is false (in my opinion, but unsourced otherwise). What I first tought is to keep only :

By the early 21st century, though polls showed the province's population to be that which held the monarch most unfavourably, the minister [insert minister name here] of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II, or either Prince William or Prince Harry, at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec.

and maybe add a sentence about the federal government that instead choose to go with the public opinion and not invite the Queen. But then, I realized that it no longer had much to do with Monarchism in Canada. This is a controversy about the monarchy, so I think that if we want to keep it, we should move it to Debate on the monarchy in Canada. But even if we move it, we should make sure that we remove synthesis of sources and any bias. --zorxd (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems germane because it's an obvious demonstration of positive attitude towards the monarchy on the part of Quebec leaders. But, there's no reason to reduce the Executive Council to one minister. The one source clearly says "the provincial government wanted the Queen" and "This is the will of the government of Quebec." I used "establishment" as a synonym for "government". However, I think I see the jist of your efforts, so perhaps something like this might work:

By 2007, though polls showed the province's population to be that which held the monarch most unfavourably, and despite threats of violence and protest from separatists, the Executive Council of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II, or either Prince William or Prince Harry, at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec.

I don't think the federal Cabinet's opinion on the matter is really relevant; the sentences relate to feelings towards the Crown in Quebec. I wonder, though, if it's pertinent to say this was the first invitation extended to a senior member of the Royal Family since the Duke and Duchess of York toured the province in 1989. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It Seems better, but still, I think it's cherry picking the one of the rare example of any "positive attitude towards the monarchy" (not to be confused with actual support of the monarchy). Don't forget that the result, as well as the will of the majority of the population of Quebec, was that the queen was not invited. Can we really turn this as a positive attitude towards the monarchy as it is currently in the article? I think if we do, it would not be honest. Also, this sentence still emphasize too much on the "threats from separatists" (as it if was the only reason for not inviting the Queen). And to be exact, it's only the mayor of Quebec, and not the provincial government, who talked about inviting one of the two princes. I think you are right that it was the position of the government, I was mistaken by the first source [2] that says that Christine St-Pierre contradicted the statement of Benoit Pelletier. Contradicted on what? It is not clear. However I think that the controversy about the Queen and the 400th of Quebec city, as a whole, was a demonstration of negative, not positive, attitude towards the monarchy. Monarchists even said that it was an insult to the Queen. The provincial government was only being polite (the PLQ do not attack the monarchy, but do not defend it much more), and Régis Labeaume wanted a maximum of "star" guests (hence the preference for the two princes, they attract crowds). He wanted a maximum of heads of state to give its city a maximum of exposure. He never said that he wanted the Queen to be there because it is the head of Canada and he believes in the monarchy. I agree that we don't necessary have to show the opinion of the federal cabinet, but we should not omit the result (no invitation). As for the first invitation since 1989, it might have been pertinent if there was an official invitation, but there hasn't been any, so it's a non-event. If the objective of the paragraph was to show the feelings towards the Crown in Quebec, then look no further : about 80% of the population think that it is useless [3]. --zorxd (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the idea that the sentence glosses over the generally negative feelings towards the monarchy in Quebec. I think it sets that fact down quite clearly; indeed, it relies on such, as well as the threats of protests, to highlight the extraordinariness of the government's and the mayor's stance. I'm not sure exactly why either came to the conclusions they did, but anyone who was against the Canadian monarchy could hardly be expected to want the Canadian monarch at their party. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you may be right about Labeaume, given his quoted words here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is minimizing the opposition to the monarchy, because it only says that Quebec is the most unfavourable province. Quebec could be the most unfavourable province with only 10% of opposition, who knows? The reality is much harder : the big majority oppose the monarchy to a certain level. It also omit that the position of the government was against the will of the population. Yes there have been threats of protest, but this is from a minority such as the Réseau de résistance du Québécois. I am not even sure that using the word "violence" would be acceptable given that it is not sourced. By reading your sentence, one could understand that the federal government surrendered to these vocal protesters, but in fact they probably had a very minor influence compared to the public opinion. Finally, some people in Quebec had the opinion that even if the monarchy is outdated, it is still the head of state and as such could be invited to the ceremonies. Others viewed that even if they are against the canadian monarchy, they have nothing against the Queen as the representative of the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if many members of the government shared one of these views. There was nothing extraordinary in their stance. The pope was also invited. It doesn't mean that they defend the catholic religion. We call this marketing. But if you really want to keep the event in the article, I would propose something like this instead :

By 2007, the desire of the provincial government and mayor of Quebec city Régis Labeaume to invite the Queen to the the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec city was met with strong opposition from the population of the province, which do not generally support the monarchy. Some vocal opponent even went further by warning that the people would demonstrate in protest. The federal government did not make any formal invitation to the royal family. --zorxd (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the opposition is minimised at all. Are you not desiring that the opposition be given undue prominence? The point of the sentence is to document that in 2007, Quebec leaders were prepared to welcome the Queen to the province to participate in a provincial event, something not done since 1964 for her, and since 1989 for any other member of the Royal Family. I don't think it can get much more streamlined than this:

By 2006, though polls showed the province's population to be that which held the monarch most unfavourably and separatists continued to protest the monarchy, the Executive Council of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the point was what you just said, then why not write it directly? I am thinking of something like In 2007, the governement of Quebec wanted to invite the queen for the first time since 1964. But didn't she come for the olympics in 1976? You seem to imply that something was different this time, it should be explained as it probably won't be obvious to the reader. But were the leaders really "prepared" to receive the queen? I don't think so, since the invitation didn't went very far. By the way, in Quebec, unlike what monarchists in Toronto seem to think, it is not only separatists who are opposed to the monarchy but a big majority of the population. They are often the most vocal protesters, but the distinction need to be made. As for the accusation of undue prominence, you must be kidding? The whole article minimize the opposition to the monarchy. Adding a little bit of information on that opposition can not be undue prominence.--zorxd (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

outdent The Olympics was a federal decision. Bourassa first did and then didn't want the Queen there; Trudeau decided she would attend. Ultimately, the recommendation to the Queen to come to Canada always rests with the federal Cabinet; as obviously also illustrated in the Quebec 400th example. In that case, the provincial government was not just "prepared" to have her there, they explicitly asked for her to be. That hasn't happened since Lesage requested her presence in 1964; only then, the feds agreed.

Regardless, I still don't see where the sentence I proposed implies what you say it does. And what's the point of dedicating vast amounts of space to anti-monarchism on a page about monarchism? We have Republicanism in Canada for that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is that there should not be any argument, either pro or anti-monarchy on this page. All arguments should be move on a common debate page to avoid the current POV fork. What do you think? But anyway, if it is to remain like this, I don't ask for "vast amounts", only that when prominent and required to understand the context, the republican view can't be hidden. In the case of the 400th of Quebec city, we can say that it is the first time since 1964 that a provincial government of Quebec had the initiative to ask the federal to invite the Queen. I have no problem with that (but now that I think about it, we would need a source that confirms that explicitly or it would be original research). But then, we have to say that the federal refused (and that the province can't officially invite the queen) or readers might think that the queen actually came to Quebec in 2008. Most readers not aware of the politics of Quebec won't understand why the feds refused so we then need to introduce the context. Saying that the population is both opposed to the monarchy and to the idea of inviting the Queen at the 400th seems a good summary to me. The only way I see to avoid these facts which of course can be considered as anti-monarchy is not to talk about the 400th at all in the article. I don't find your last proposition very readable. Perhaps you meant "and" instead of the second comma? Also, I think it completly misses the point, which you said is to show that it is the first invitation since 1964. --zorxd (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the main point of the sentence was that the 2007 invite was the first since '64. I said the crux of the sentence is that the Quebec government demonstrated a favourable attitude towards the monarchy; that it was the first invite to the Queen since '64 (or was it '87?) only serves to highlight the rarity of such a display of monarchism in Quebec in the late 20th century. Anti-monarchism is not related to the subject of this page, and so, while it certainly did exist in Quebec in 2007, it isn't relevant to this article except as context.

I believe it used to say the Queen eventually wasn't invited, but some other editor removed it, I think; I can't remember. Anyway, I see no issue with putting that in (back?). And, yes, there was an "and" missing from my last proposed sentence; thank you for pointing that out. I've fixed it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"that the Quebec government demonstrated a favourable attitude towards the monarchy" is original research and can't be added to the article. Having such intentions is what make this article biased. I suggest you either find a reliable source with the same view, or drop the idea of the 400th altogether. This article is about canadian monarchism, which is different from "advocacy of canadian monarchism", which I think would be a better title given the actual state of the article. Also, there is a difference between exposing the main ideas of the canadian monarchists and arguing in their favour. Take a look at Monarchism. It is not a list of the various advantage of a monarchy. Also reads WP:NPOV. Do you really think that this article has an impartial tone and balance? --zorxd (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I won't be removing the facts. The goverment invited the Queen; such is a favourable attitude towards the monarchy, unless you can somehow prove otherwise, and thus has a place on this page. Further, I have indeed done the best I can, by myself, to maintain balance in the article, and think I've done relatively well. It's ridiculous that you malign it for sticking to its subject. Perhaps you find the Canada article to be too imbalanced towards Canada?

I've tried to be accomodating to you, but it seems you're to have your way or no way. If you insist on that path, seek a third opinion that will back you up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean my way or no way? I proposed many corrections to your wordings, and made my own proposition (which you didn't really consider it seems). You still act as if it was your own article. Not agreeing on what to put in the article is one thing, but using that as an excuse for leaving in content with many flaws is unacceptable. And you can't ask me to prove the opposite of your original research. Your interpretation is not a fact. You can write it, but only if nobody challenge it. If it's the case, then you need to remove it unless you can support it with a source which is direct and explicit. As far as I know, no reliable source says that inviting the Queen meant a favourable attitude towards the monarchy. If it was the case and was relevant, then you should be able to find a source supporting it. Until we find a consensus, a compromise would be to remove it. You still don't make the distinction between making an advocacy of a subject and describing a subject which happens to be the advocacy of something else, and this, I think, it the source of many of the problems in this article. --zorxd (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What do the proposals matter in light of your insistence that the entire subject of the sentence in question is irrelevant to this page without a dominating focus on associated anti-monarchism that would be inappropriate on a page about monarchism, thereby leaving, in your mind, deletion as the only option? Perhaps you should leave your suspicions about POV forking aside for the duration of this particular discussion. Or, leave this matter be and focus on this supposed POV fork. Either way, the practice isn't to delete until a consensus is found; the status quo remains until a consensus for change is settled upon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You write the article alone, from a monarchist point of view, and then block any attempt of improving the article by saying that what you wrote should stay until there is a consensus? Sorry but it doesn't work like that. What is currently in the article, especially this part : the Quebec establishment was becoming receptive again to the monarchy and its place in the country is original research, so like it or not, it can be deleted. If you don't want anti-monarchist content to be added to the article, then you should start by not adding references to even with strong demonstrations of anti-monarchism such as the queen and the 400th of Quebec city. --zorxd (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does work like that. See WP:BRD. But, can you make up your mind on what to focus on? I clearly agreed to remove the words you say you found offensive; so why, especially after drifting off to matters about POV forks and not enough focus on anti-monarchism, are you back to complaining about them? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD assumes that there was a consensus before the controversy. Since you wrote everything alone, I am not sure that we can call this a consensus, but well, I won't remove everything just in case. You still didn't correct everything that I said. You are still talking about separatists protesters (as a way to minimize the opposition, and at the same time make an Appeal to fear). You are still using a way too complicated wording about the lack of support to the monarchy in Quebec instead of the much simpler "the majority oppose monarchy" (which is too much anti-monarchy for you it seems). And you still want to push an agenda which is original research (even if it was neutral, that would still not be acceptable). --zorxd (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As WP:BRD allows for only one revert to the original format before discussion, the status quo is, by default, what remains until consensus is reached. But it's going to be difficult to find that if you keep bouncing around from complaint to complaint; now your off to target motivations you only imagine I hold. Everything in my proposed versions is sourced - the threats of protests came from separatists, the province is where the monarchy polls lowest, the government wanted the Queen there - and the wording could be called anything but complicated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything is sourced individually, but putting them togheter is what is called WP:SYN. Also, it doesn't not reflect all the prominent points of view on the subject. Why not just say something like this, I think it will reflect better your idea : In the last half century, two different executive councils of Quebec (1963 and 2007) desired to invite the queen formally to visit the province. They are seen by monarchists as demonstrations of loyalty from those Quebec leaders, contrasting with the general opinion that is not generally favourable to the retention of the British monarchy. --zorxd (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're joking. How about:

Loyalty to the crown was expressed in 1963 by the Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage,[16] and in 2007, the Executive Council of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II, or either Prince William or Prince Harry, at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec,[96][97] though the federal Cabinet blocked the request as polls showed the province's population to be against the idea separatists threatened protests should the Queen attend.[95]

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Loyalty to the crown of Jean Lessage, is it an opinion? By looking at the source, it seems so, that's why I added the name of the author. Don't you agree? I saw that you removed that part. The source don't show what Lessage said so I don't know... Then, as I already said, only Labeaume talked about one of the two princes, not the government. Last, I think you forgot an other "and". Globally, I think it is pretty fair and would be a very good progress, however, I think it might still be original research depending of the meaning of the "as". If it means at the same time, it's alright, but if it means that the polls and the threats were the cause of the decision, it is not sourced. --zorxd (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

outdent

• [4] "...the federal government's recent decision to not invite the Queen for fear of sparking a nationalist backlash."
• [5] "the Tories have vetoed a visit by the Queen apparently because it may upset soft nationalists and separatists in Quebec."
• [6] "The Tory government, however, was far more worried at the spectre of angry protests and riot police..."
• [7] "the guardians of a certain Quebec nationalism managed to scare off Queen Elizabeth..."
• [8] "...la visite [de la reine] est restée dans la mémoire comme le samedi de la matraque. Depuis lors, la souveraine n'a à peu près jamais mis les pieds au Québec et il est fort probable que ni le comité organisateur des Fêtes du 400e anniversaire de la ville de Québec, ni le gouvernement canadien, n'oseront pas expédier une invitation qui risque de ternir l’ensemble des festivités." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All those sources are less biased then you. First, least nationalist is more inclusive than separatist in this case. Then, they use words like "upset", "fear of sparking backlash" and "the spectre" which I understand quite differently than saying that it is directly because of the "threats of protest". I insist on the word threats here. Saying that the federal blocked the request because it may upset nationalists is a lot better than saying that it is because of threats from separatists. If you read French, you will also see that as expected, the treatment by the English media is a lot worse than by the French media. You will probably consider the French media anti-monarchists but,

• [9] "Afin d'éviter toute mauvaise interprétation, le premier ministre Harper n'aurait pas l'intention d'inviter la reine d'Angleterre lors des célébrations du 400e de Québec en 2008."
• "[10]Craignant une polémique entre souverainistes et fédéralistes, le gouvernement Harper a résisté aux pressions du gouvernement du Québec, de la Ville de Québec et de ses propres fonctionnaires, qui voulaient inviter la reine [...]". This one reads "the Harper governement *resisted* to the pressions to invite the queen, and to avoid a controversy between federalists and sovereignists.
• [11]"Dans la capitale fédérale, on estime d’ailleurs qu’il aurait été plutôt incongru d’inviter la reine, le symbole de la monarchie britannique, à venir dans les rues de Québec durant les célébrations marquant le 400e anniversaire de cette ville unique en Amérique du Nord fondée par Samuel de Champlain. Et même si elle avait été invitée, on doute aussi que la reine aurait accepté cette invitation, compte tenu du tollé qu’a déjà suscité dans les rangs souverainistes une liste préliminaire d’invités". This one is interesting : even if the Queen was invited, she wouldn't have come. It also say that in Ottawa, it wasn't considered a good idea to invite the Queen, the symbol of the British monarchy.

And I am not counting the numerous texts written to oppose the visit of the Queen completely. What I wanted to show is that there are various different interpretations to the reasons for the federal for not inviting the queen. You can't just select the one that serves your agenda better. Now that I read a little bit more, the invitation seemed to come from the organizers of the 400th, not from the mayor or the government. They only briefly defended the decision of their organizers, it seems. --zorxd (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was you who earlier insisted on mentioning both the federal Cabinet's decision not to invite the Queen and why that conclusion was reached. Now, after trying to accommodate that request, you throw accusations of bias at me (because yours is, of course, perfectly acceptable) and imply my sources aren't good enough, oddly just before presenting citations of your own that actually support what I proposed. (!?) Do you know what you want anymore? Because I'm certainly baffled now; to each of my proposals you write long tracts of opposition, attacking the content, the sources, and me myself. Is it just one word you object to? Is it many words? Is it intent? I've no idea any more.

If I can filter out some sense from your posts over the last day and consider it along with the sources available and the need for brevity, it seems something like the following is appropriate:

Loyalty to the crown was expressed in 1963 by the Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage, and in 2007, the Executive Council of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec, though the federal Cabinet denied the request as, among other reasons, polls showed the province's population to be against the idea and Ottawa feared inflaming both Quebec nationalism and separatists, who had threatened protests should the Queen attend.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No sources confirmed what you said : that the federal blocked the request because of threats from separatists. I didn't say that your sources aren't good, only that your interpretation of them was exaggerated, and that other sources have an even different interpretation, such as that a symbol of the British monarchy have nothing to do with the foundation of Quebec city. If you wrote something more neutral and that reflect better the reality since the beggining, I wouldn't have to oppose like this. Now, you last proposal is getting better, but :

• You still didn't answer my questions about Lesage, your source is a book that doesn't look very neutral, to me it is an opinion.
• It still implies that the only reason for Ottawa to "fear inflaming nationalists and separatists" is the threat of protest. In fact, Ottawa would have tought this even if there was no threats at all. A bare minimum would be to change the end for "some of who had threatened protests should the Queen attend". It would then be acceptable for inclusion in the article, even if, like the rest of the article, represent a monarchist point of view, but as you said this is probably an other issue. --zorxd (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, if you want my cooperation, stop maligning me as some kind of incurable bigot. You're no paragon of impartiality yourself.

Now, consider a point I raised earlier: this is a page on monarchism in Canada. In composing an appropriate sentence, we must, therefore, not give undue focus to anti-monarchism. You have been, however, pushing for more and more information relating to opposition to the Crown, tipping the crux of the sentence from the request of the Quebec government for the Queen's attendance to the reasons why the invitation wasn't extended by the Federal Cabinet. If my suggested mention of the opposition to the Queen's presence isn't satisfactory to you, and your only solution is add more detail about that particular subject, then I can only suggest that it be removed all together:

Loyalty to the crown was expressed in 1963 by the Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage, and in 2007, the Executive Council of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec.

If you still find this unacceptable, you offer some alternative, or, if you have none, move to WP:3O as the next step in resolving this matter. I have nothing more to propose at this point.

Lastly, though it's an aside, the book used as a cite for the Lesage fact meets WP:RS and presents the fact as a fact and not an opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just made a proposition by adding the word "some". What do you think about it? And I already replied to your claim : yes, this page is about monarchism in Canada, but not about the advocacy of monarchism in Canada. It currently already gives undue focus to pro-monarchy arguments. It completely fails to display all the views on the subject, doesn't have an impartial tone and it is a POV fork with republicanism in Canada. From what I understand, you think it should remains like that? --zorxd (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Some" is a weasel word.

I've already briefly addressed the pointlessness of saying a page on monarchism focuses too much on monarchism. Whether or not it's a POV fork has yet to be established. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case we can identify which groups threatened to protest, no? You still didn't understand : this page as almost nothing to do with describing monarchism, it is advocating monarchism.

• Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries

This article clearly "engage in" monarchism.

• Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance.

This article fails to represent prominent viewpoints other than those who are pro-monarchism. Globally, it is a monarchist view of the Canadian history, which I would even describe as revisionist. You see pro-monarchy elements in events that were seen as anti-monarchy by most people (and most sources), such as the queen and the 400th, and in general the relation between french canadians and the crown. You use non-neutral words to minimize your opponent everywhere. --zorxd (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat once more and not again to you: it's pointless to complain about monarchist bias on a page about monarchism. This page outlines examples of monarchism throughout Canada's history, not a monarchist version of Canadian history. Whether or not there should be a page dedicated specifically to monarchism is a totally different matter. Don't confuse the two.

You have no further explicit proposals for the sentence on the invitation to the Queen for the 400th anniversary of Quebec, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeating that don't make it true. Yes, I have an other proposal : "In 2007, there have been a controversy about inviting the queen to the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec city, first city of New France. The organisers of the event had the queen on their list of quests, but the population didn't support the idea, the queen was seen as a symbol of British colonialism. Despite of protests from nationalists, the governement of Quebec and mayor of Quebec city still wanted the queen to come to give the event a more international standing. The federal cabinet ultimately blocked the request to avoid controversy in the province." --zorxd (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

outent That's biased, full of unsourced POV, and gives undue weight to a topic not related to this page. Not acceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your critics should be more specific. It is certainly not worse than your first wording. --zorxd (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The one that matters most is that I think it includes too much irrelevant information. The other complaints are second to that and thus irrelevant until the first is resolved. I last proposed to you a sentence that didn't mention the federal Cabinet's decision or reasoning, but you didn't indicate your feelings on it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is irrelevant? Everything in there help to understand the issue. I don't see how we can not include the result of the event and that's why I don't think your proposition is acceptable. We don't have to talk about the federal, but we really have to say that the invitation failed. Then I don't see how we could not explain a bit the context, and this is what I do. There is no way to turn that context in a pro-monarchist statement without being dishonest. Nobody outside monarchist circles saw anything pro-monarchy in this controversy. Nobody saw the attitude of the government as positive, or it should be easy to find sources about it. As you describe it, the issue is a non-event. A desire to invite that went nowhere, and that everybody knew what doomed from the start : I had a source that said that even if the Queen was invited, she wouldn't have come. But still, you see it (without any source) as a demonstration of favourable attitude towards the monarchy, and you won't accept anything that doesn't support your own view. --zorxd (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and will continue to do so as long as this article remains focused on monarchism. Until the scope is changed to include republicanism, there's no use discussing this particular matter any further. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First, do you agree that there is a difference between describing monarchism and advocating monarchism? If you don't, I agree that this discussion will go nowhere. --zorxd (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My answer to the question is irrelevant, though. You've already convinced yourself that the article focuses on the advocacy of monarchism rather than monarchism itself. I disagree with that, too. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And you have convinced yourself that the article as a neutral tone. So what? That doesn't make my question irrelevant. We all know why you don't want to answer. --zorxd (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you think you know why I don't answer. In reality, I don't answer because there's no point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

3O

Third Opinion Looking at the last proposed phrasing:

Loyalty to the crown was expressed in 1963 by the Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage, and in 2007, the Executive Council of Quebec and the Mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, desired the attendance of Queen Elizabeth II at the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec.

It seems to me that you could perhaps add that, in the event, no such invitation was issued (which would, surely, indicate a lack of government unanimity on the subject). If there's disagreement about why the invitation was not made, as seems to be the case, I don't think we need to discuss/speculate on what those reasons might have been.

Am I right in thinking that there is also disagreement as to whether Lesage did, or did not, express loyalty to the Queen in 1963? Or, for that matter, a disagreement as to whether this is notable? If so, I'd need to know more about what your sources actually say. If there is a dispute as to whether the source in question is reliable, that can probably be better addressed at the RSN. Anaxial (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; I personally find your suggestion and reasoning acceptable.

As for the Lesage information, I'm aware of no argument about its notability. Rather, another editor has questioned whether the author of the source is documenting a fact or merely expressing his opinion. It seems obvious to me that there's no opinion being proffered at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I still find that out of context, this can be interpreted the wrong way. As if the Queen received a special invitation from the government. She was on the same long list as Paul McCartney and the Pope, among others. She is also probably the only one on the list which hasn't been invited in the end. But well, if you think that the context (not the reasons, because you are right that we can't speculate, especially since the federal government didn't comment) isn't worth including at all in this article, fine, but I still think the whole issue should be better documented in an other article, probably Monarchy in Quebec, which is supposed to be neutral. Thanks for your input. --zorxd (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What I say is that we should present the facts clearly, and then let the reader make his own opinion on if it was an example of monarchism or not. A reader that doesn't know that Quebec city was founded by the French and then conquered by the British might not understand why there have been some opposition to the visit at the 400th anniversary of the city. (it is currently being described as anti-federal in an other article, which is clearly a POV). It's the same problem with Lesage. We don't even know the context. I still don't know what he said that could be qualified as "demonstration of loyalty". Why not let the reader make his own opinion? --zorxd (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Zorxd that without knowing what the source actually says, I can't judge whether Lesage really did say something that could be construed as an expression of loyalty. Is this, perhaps, corroborated somewhere else? If not, it might be that's it's not terribly notable with respect to this particular article (although it might be in an article about Lesage himself, since it illuminates his own position). Anaxial (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Which source is it that you don't know what it says? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The one for the statement that Lesage expressed loyalty to the crown in 1963. The page history is sufficiently complex by now that I haven't been able to work out exactly what the cite for that statement was - but, whatever it is, that's the one I'm wondering about (and that Zorxd seems to be disputing). Does that make sense? Anaxial (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have it. And, if I do, the source is here, at p. 172: "These ideas persisted in some Quebec circles; loyalty to the Crown was expressed as recently as April 1963 by Premier Jean Lesage." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Having a source doesn't make it NPOV. We would need to attribute the statement to the writer to be neutral. This is an opinion book. The author express the opinion that de Gaulle did an "attack" on Canada. --zorxd (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a little vague, and arguably not all that important. Without further detail as to what exactly he said, or the context it was said in, it seems reasonable to me to leave it out. Anaxial (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Objective of the article? POV fork

What is the objective of the article? It seems written as a list of arguments for the monarchy in Canada. Shouldn't most of that content be merged in Debate on the monarchy in Canada instead, and this article could focus on the monarchist movement and its history? It could include important members of the movement, debates *inside* the movement, etc. With the other article Republicanism in Canada, we made the mistake of POV fork --zorxd (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, not to dismiss your opinions, but, could we concentrate on one thing at a time? Which issue you've raised do you think is most important and should be dealt with first? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this one is a lot harder to fix, it requires a lot more work. The first two, I think, can be fixed quickly. --zorxd (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you'd change your mode of assaulting this article; by adding countless tags - both big and small - without any effort at correcting the problems you yourself point out, you come dangerously close to breaching WP:POINT. I've addressed the multiple issues you felt existed, anyway. But, from now on, please either tweak the wording yourself or raise the matters here, one at a time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, many more problems are left in this article. I can continue the listing here, but doing it only one at the time would be way too long (given that most of those that I already discussed here didn't get an answer). I fixed a few ones by the way (by attributing the point of view to their supporters). But this is specifically because I want to discuss them here that I tag the problems instead of deleting the content. I just read the definition of WP:POINT, and I don't think it applies to what I am doing : it talks about frustration with policies or guidelines. I don't have any problem with the policies or the guidelines, it's the opposite actually, I think that this article need to respect them a lot more. It can be long before issues are solved. In the mean time, tags should stay in the article for the readers. That being said, what do you think about the POV fork? Do you agree that this article should describe the canadian monarchism movement instead of trying to defend its point of view? The arguments could be merged in the debate article. --zorxd (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But you can't place the tag and then wait for someone else to start the discussion; the onus is on you to begin talk here. However, much of what you tagged were simple fixes that, I imagine, you could have done yourself, without need to either tag or start yet another concurrent thread of discussion. I only have a limited amount of time to devote to this work, so I can't fix everything for you or respond to you right away. And on that note, I must run now to make a doctor's appointment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also realized that you removed some tags without fixing the issue, especially in the "Colonial era" section. I understand that you worked a lot for this article, but that doesn't give you the right to destroy the work of others. Some tags are made especially because they are shorter are cleaner than starting a discussion. One example is the tag, you can't remove it just because you don't agree with the tag (in that case, you would need to start a discussion about the issue). Anyway, instead of reverting your edits, I started a discussion about it as you asked. You don't have to fix and review everything, of course, this is supposed to be a collaborative project, so I don't see any problems to highlight many issues in the article at the same time, different people can look at them at the same time, this is how the article will improve the fastest. --zorxd (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation tags can be removed when they're unnecessary; i.e. when there already is a citation. I did note that I neglected to make a correcting edit where I removed a syn tag; I'll work on that now that I'm back.

I should also add: don't expect anyone else to chime in here but me; I'm pretty much the only editor of this article. I've always realised that puts this page in danger of being slanted towards my particular take on the subject, so I'm glad to have outside input, finally. But do please be careful; you were a bit too over-zealous with your use of maintenance tags. For instance, a banner at the head of a section negates the need for inline tags; the presence of only one or two possible infractions does not warrant a banner tag; & etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

various issues in the article

• or unsubstantiated ones, such as the republican claim that the monarchy was non-consensually imposed on Canadians

Saying that it is "unsubstantiated", like saying that it is "imagined", is not neutral. This is a real argument used by republicans.

A real argument based on unsubstantiated assertions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in your monarchist view, all republican arguments are unsubstantiated. But in this particular case, do you have a source for making that claim? --zorxd (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for theirs? After all, "unsubstantiated" means without factual backing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that something is unsubstantiated is a strong assumption and must be backed by a source. Again, I don't have to prove the opposite to remove that original research. This in big parts because of such statements that the whole article is far from being neutral. --zorxd (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You can hardly present it as factual, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't, it is presented as a republican claim. --zorxd (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about changing how it's presented. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about not presenting it in a too negative way as it is currently the case. Saying that it is a republican argument, and refuting it right after, is more than enough. Else, we would have to do the same about many monarchists arguments in Republicanism in Canada. That you see it as unsubstantiated is your POV, but you shouldn't put it in the article. --zorxd (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But, negativity is subjective; your personal dislike of a fact doesn't justify the removal of said fact. There is no grounds to the claim made by some republicans that the monarchy was forced on Canada. In fact, there is concrete evidence that proves the claim wrong: "Canada thus did not have monarchy forced upon it."[12] Surely you aren't going to argue that the government of Canada has a monarchist agenda and is knowingly publishing untruths. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Try to find a single country that admits that the monarchy was forced to the people. Of course, they will all say that it was a democratic choice. It doesn't mean that it's the case. Look at the USA. They choose to be a republic, and the British army fought them. Republicans could argue that it would have been the same for Canada. In 1867, Canadians were free to choose, as long as they chose to keep the British monarchy, or be prepared to fight it. I don't ask you to agree with that, monarchists probably say that Canada was really free to choose, but you can't say that it is unsubstantiated. --zorxd (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can say its unsubstantiated as long as you fail to substantiate it. Back up some of your claims with some sources and then we'll talk. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, no. You need a source to say that it is unsubstantiated, or you can't say it. I don't ask you to write in the article that it is substantiated. If I did, then I would need a source. --zorxd (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I just provided a source that proves the claim to be unsubstantiated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you gave the POV of the government of Canada which is that monarchism wasn't forced to Canadians. The POV of the government of Cuba is also that communism was the choice of the people. Republicans can argue otherwise, and you have the right not to agree. But you can't say that it is unsubstantiated. --zorxd (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The reliable source says the monarchy wasn't forced on Canada, not monarchism. Until there's proof the source is wrong and the monarchy was forced on Canada, the claim remains unsubstantiated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the British monarchy was forced to the French settlers. And the English settlers that came after didn't exactly choose monarchy in England either. You don't seem to make the distinction between a source that represent an opinion and a source that represent an uncontested fact. That the monarchy wasn't forced to Canadian is an opinion, even if it comes from the government. That doesn't mean that the source isn't reliable by the way. The selection of sources that suit your goals is an other reason why this article is so biased. Anyway, I don't see a source for supporting that it is a republican claim. So we can't say that either. If we find one, that would mean that the claim isn't unsubstantiated. --zorxd (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusing matters with drifting theories isn't going to make your case any stronger. The simple fact remains: there's no proof for the claim that the monarchy was forced on Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But the important fact here is that there is no "proof" of the theory as being "unsubstantiated". And even if there was one, that would not be a "proof", but a POV. It's like if you said in the article that the theory was "stupid", and then argue that it is stupid to think the opposite of the official position of the government of Canada. Anyways, I see that I will probably have to look for a 3O again. I wish more people, and especially people with more neutral opinion about the monarchy could contribute to the article. --zorxd (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words: you wish more people who shared your personal bias were here, becuase, of course, you fail to understand that Wikipedia works on consensus, not who has the most votes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish more people of various opinions had written the article. That's all. It isn't acceptable that the word unsubstantiated is still in the article. It is only there because the current "consensus" is made by a single contributor. --zorxd (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

outdent : Please read this : Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. [13] So even if you don't agree with the republican claim being discussed here, you have to include it, and you can't do it pejoratively because of : The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. [14] Clearly, by saying that it is unsubstantiated violates WP:NPOV. --zorxd (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Even after the transfer of New France to the British in 1759, the loyalty of the French-speaking population was attracted to the British Crown through the implementation of various legislation, including the Quebec Act, keeping them from being lured to the republicanism that boiled south of the border.

Saying that the Quebec Act made the population "attracted to the British Crown" instead of "being lured to the republicanism" is speculation. The act attracted the population to the country as a whole, not necessary to the Crown or the monarchy. I am sure that the source didn't say what is said in the article explicitly, but I can't verify since the link is broken.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the wording of that particular sentence myself. But there are no sources saying inhabitants of Lower Canada were attracted to Britain, the country. What the sources available do say is there was a preference for the monarchical-parliamentary form of government provided to the colony by Britain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at rewording this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

some of whom saw their rights as being safer under the Crown than in an independent American republic

It still have the same problem : under the Crown, if it is to mean inside the British empire (no matter who the head of state is), is fine. However, if it means "inside a monarchy", it is original research. Since this article is about monarchism, the reader could easily make the wrong interpretation. In other words, you can't see an example of monarchism here, as a source that said "under the crown" probably used it as a synonym for the whole country/system (personification of the state as you call it). Also, "some" appears to be a weasel word. --zorxd (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Republicans were seen as being generally of American origin, having thus been taught to admire republican government as the best in the world and to ridicule monarchism,[19] "a few individuals, who unfortunately, are led by those, whose hostility to the British constitution is such, that they would sacrifice any and every thing to pull it down, in order that they might build up a Republic on its ruins."

It is a very biased monarchist point of view presented as a fact. It should be attributed as such. Who was thinking that? Is it all the monarchists? A single individual?

• Further, the republican rebellions of 1837 – with their significant minority of conservative followers who critiqued Canada's Westminster parliamentary constitutional monarchy as both too democratic and too tyrannical in comparison to their preferred American model of checks and balances[21] – failed to inspire the majority of colonists to espouse a break with the Crown

This is WP:SYN. While this is probably true that a minority of republican rebels found Canada "too democratic", it does not belongs in the same sentence as the rest. Also, saying that it "failed to inspire the majority of colonists to espouse a break with the Crown" is WP:OR. The source (from the monarchist league, of course) argues that the rebellions were not against the crown itself, but against problems in the empire. But we can't conclude what is said in the article, especially since the low level of democracy at the time and the power of the army probably made many colonists to fear to support the rebels. --zorxd (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The "democratic... tyrannical" wording can certainly be re-arranged. However, the rest is hardly OR to point out that the rebellions failed to bring about republics. Can you provide evidence that they succeeded? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your general approach is wrong (and is a nice example of Argument from ignorance). Just because we can't show something doesn't mean that the opposite must be true. Anyway, wikipedia doesn't seek truth but verifiability. So unless it is verifiable that it really "failed to inspire" a "majority", it can't be said in the article. What you seems to forget is that, in the lower Canada at least, the rebellions were not only republicans but also a manifestation of a desire of decolonisation. But the biggest problem is the assumption that because not enough people rebelled, it necessary means that they still wanted the crown. It's as if you said that in 2010, 100% of the population is loyal to the British crown because they don't try a republican rebellion. We know that this is false because of polls, but we don't have polls from 1837, and we can't assume anything. If there is a rebellion next week, with only 10% of the population, it doesn't mean that it failed to inspire the other 90%. --zorxd (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A break from the Crown was part of the impetus behind the rebellions. They failed to attract enough followers to succeed. That's all the article says. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the rebellion failed in abolishing the crown would be all right. The problem comes from the wordings "failed to inspire" and "majority", and maybe also "espouse", because they implies that keeping the crown was, not only the result, but also the will of the population at the time. --zorxd (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• according to surveys, the population is generally unaware of the existence of a monarch as their head of state

I am not sure that the meaning of this sentence will be clear to the reader. The population generally doesn't know what a head of state is (many people doesn't make the distinction with the head of government). I hardly see how this result is surprising. Everybody knows that Canada is a monarchy, many people just didn't understand the question. Is this survey really relevant, especially in the introduction? It is presented as a justification for monarchism not being strong in Canada, I think this is WP:OR. --zorxd (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have sources for it, but trust me, there's many people in my area, who don't even know what the word monarchy means (let alone who Elizabeth II is). Lack of interest by the average Joe & Jane, is partially why Canada is still a monarchy. It's not because of low intelligence, but rather because of 'no interest'. Joe & Jack are concerned about paying their bills, not the Canadian monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The British are more aware of the British monarchy, then Canadians are aware of the Canadian monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are right that some people doesn't even know about the monarchy, but still, the problem in the article is that it implies that monarchism would be more prevalent in the population if the population knew more about the monarchy (such as the fact that the current head of state is a monarch). I think this not NPOV. --zorxd (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to know what Canadians would think of the monarchy, if they were fully aware of the monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Zorxd, your interpretation of facts is not everyone's interpretation of facts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, but unlike you I don't put my interpretation of facts in the article. You arrange facts (such as the canadians say that monarchy as a role as canadian identifier, and the lack of knowledge about who the head of state is) to promote the idea that if Canadians would know more, they would be more monarchists. Funny that you don't choose to include an opinion poll about the support to the monarchy instead. --zorxd (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There you go again thinking your interpretation of the words is the only interpretation that can exist, including in my own head. I see no such implication that you talk about. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, what's the point of the sentence? What does it bring to the article about monarchism in Canada? Let's look at the whole sentence :

Though a majority of polled individuals agree that the monarchy has a role as a Canadian identifier, as with its political counterpart, strong monarchism is not a prevalent element of contemporary Canadian society; according to surveys, the population is generally unaware of the existence of a monarch as their head of state

What's the point of if? Looks like the unawareness of the population is an excuse for the lack of strong monarchism, especially given that they agree that it has a role as a Canadian identifier. Am I wrong? --zorxd (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are wrong. The sentence offers three related facts. You could draw conclusions of your own from those facts, but the sentence in which the facts are listed does not itself say any one is the cause of another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok then why these 3 facts? And why in the same sentence? --zorxd (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because they're germane. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not answer the question. Why not choose an opinion poll about the monarchy instead? That would make a lot more sense to support the idea that the people are divided on the issue, and so, neither strong monarchism or strong republicanism is prevalent. --zorxd (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's not the answer you want doesn't mean it's not the answer to your question. And your response begs the questions: Why "instead"? And which poll? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of choosing to talk about the canadian identity and not knowing who is the head of state (two details that are not so important for the introduction), it would have been more relevant to show the level of support to the monarchy. The last poll, I think, is from October 2009 by Ipsos-Reid. Some of the interesting results are found in this article [15]. --zorxd (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, I've no immediate issue with mentioning poll results. But, we obviously disagree on the importance of the general populace's knowledge of who is head of state. I'm not sure there's a way to compromise in such a position. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that the lack of awareness is why there's never been a referendum on the Canadian monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in part, with this claim, but it is original research unless sourced. If sourced, given that it is speculative, it should be presented as an opinion because others could have a different interpretation (such as the simple idea that a referendum wouldn't be binding, each province needs to approve the change). Presenting only the result, on justifications that it explains why there's never been a referendum without saying it explicitly, is still implicit original research, which isn't much better. --zorxd (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, the Quiet Revolution, like earlier revolts, failed to inspire republicanism in the Canadian populace outside of Quebec

Do we really care that the Quiet Revolution failed to inspire republicanism outside of Quebec, as it was an event that occurred only in Quebec? --zorxd (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of awareness again, by the average Canadian. Also, the fact that the Canadian monarchy is benign (examples: nobody's been executed by orders of the Queen, for giving her the finger). GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

POV use of polling

While there are several references to polling in this article, all are to polls which are 17 years old or older. More recent polls are excluded.[16] Wellington Bay (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The article should include the polls. The article is not comprehensive without it and readers should expect to be told whether monarchism is a majority or minority view. At present there's no obvious indication of how much support there is for monarchism, which is a flaw in the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this article needs or necessarily should have any polling information as we already have an article for the Debate on the monarchy in Canada where polling trends would form a logical critical component. This article is about the monarchist movement in Canada, not about the debate as to whether Canada should be a monarchy. Clearly 100% of the monarchist movement believes Canada should be a monarchy in some way shape or form, and clearly there would be opposition to that, but this article isn't about popular sentiment or republicanism. Again, we already have articles for republicanism in Canada, and another for that debate. So, I would therefore recommend that all polling be removed from this article entirely and instead placed in articles whose topic actually includes the debates illustrated by that data. trackratte (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Include the most recent polls, fwiw. Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled that abolishing the monarchy in Canada, requires approval from the federal Parliament & all ten provincial legislatures. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)