Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

..."the rules for succession are not fixed"...

I see nothing in any cited source in the present version for the words As such, the rules for succession are not fixed, but may be changed by a constitutional amendment, in the section "Succession and regency". The wording stems from May 2007[1] (User:G2bambino), and even if well-sourced is argumentative rather than factual. Qexigator (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There's already a number of sources stating the laws of succession are part of the constitution. More specifically,

• Justice Rouleau of the Ontario Superior Court did say "Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would... for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."[2] That pretty well defines a change to succession as a constitutional amendment.
• Here, Philippe Lagassé says "A change to the rules of succession necessarily amends the Constitution."
• Anne Twomey cites Rouleau's statement that the Act of Settlement is part of Canada's constitution and goes on to say "Underlying these interconnected provisions [of the Statute of Westminster] is the assumption that a Dominion may itself change the rules of succession to its own throne (because it could now legislate in a manner that was contrary to British laws, such as the Act of Settlement, that had previously applied by paramount force)."[3]

None of the above means the wording is ideal, but does confirm the gist of it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...." Instead, Miesianiacal is presenting the views of tiny minorities as uncontested fact. It is questionable whether any of the sources meet rs. Obiter dicta in a provincial court of appeal, an op-ed and a blog. TFD (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Qexigator asked for sources. I provided them. Now you're shifting the subject of this section off topic to the matter of weight. It is a problem only if the opposite viewpoint isn't getting its due in comparison to the above viewpoint. You haven't yet provided a single source supporting the government's position. I did, up above. There's not that many (former federal Cabinet, Warren J Newman, Benoît Pelletier, Mark Walters); certainly no more than there are for the opinion the succession rules are part of the Canadian constitution and require constitutional amendment to change (Justice J Rouleau, Justice RS Hackland, the Supreme Court, Anne Twomey, Gary Toffoli, Robert Mcgreggor). If you feel otherwise, please back up your position. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case we need to correct the text to reflect the mainstream view. TFD (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

None of the above means the wording is ideal, but does confirm the gist of it (Mies. above) amounts to saying that the words in question, viz., 'As such, the rules for succession are not fixed, but may be changed by a constitutional amendment' is an editor's personal interpretation of the content of the three sources cited, which, in the case of Lagasse and Twomey are argumentative not factual, and in the case of Rouleau, are obiter unless necessary for the determination of the issue before the Ontario court in O’Donohue v. Canada decided 10 years before the act of 2013, the purport or effect of which could not have been argued in those proceedings, and which has practically no bearing on the effect of the 2013 act, and will have none unless it forms part of the necessary reasoning for the final determination the current legal proceedings in Quebec. The article is not about rival opinions on the Constitution of Canada. I see no encyclopedically informative value for this article in the sentence questioned at the top of this section, and its removal would improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact Twomey said the words of the Appeal Court judge were obiter dictum. Since the Court decided O'Donoghue had no standing, the comments on amending the Succession Act are moot. Even if they were definitive, they would only have affected Ontario, which might have led to Ontario having a different monarch from the rest of the country. TFD (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who said the material should "have bearing" on the 2013 act. I provided cites that support the statement you drew attention to; there is essentially no leap between the content of the cites and the content of the statement; i.e. there is no personal interpretation or original research. You have cites. You're free to suggest how you'd like the information integrated, of course. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote 8 years ago does not represent a mainstream view now. I do not know if it did then. All we are saying is that the article should present mainstream thinking. Obviously one can always find sources for fringe views, but neutrality, which is policy, says we should provide more weight to mainstream views. TFD (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Prove "mainstream", please. I still don't see any cites from you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, and noting those of TFD and Mies., including "free to suggest how you'd like the information integrated, of course", I am going ahead with:

• removal of the sentence 'As such, the rules for succession are not fixed, but may be changed by a constitutional amendment', which adds nothing informative for the reader in that context, and nothing else is needed there.
• the rewrite proposed above, which accepts, and is compatible with Mies.'s remark "it was the enactment of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 in the UK that changed the law of succession for Canada; Canada simply takes as its monarch whomever is monarch of the UK."

Qexigator (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It isn't evident how your edit is compatible with what I said about the government's position being the Succession to the Crown act changed the succession. What you wrote claims the Succession to the Throne Act altered it. As I said, the Succession to the Throne Act makes no claim to alter anything. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Twomey vid

I am doubtful about a need to retain a link to the Twomey vid as an untranscribed inline linked ref., not easily verified. It may be of sufficient interest for an External link, and I will put it there, but, given the content of the article which explains the position well enough without it, may be it is of no more than academic interest, and is not needed here. Qexigator (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It was the one source supporting the claim succession is governed in part by common law. It's a reliable source; it doesn't need to be transcribed. So, yes, put it back. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I've no objections to its being deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As we know, Blackstone is usually regarded as one of the most eminent of authors, and his text will need no reinforcement from Twomey's vid.[4] Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I note the source is Commentaries on the Laws of England. Twomey, on the other hand, spoke specifically about Canada. Further, Twomey was also used as the source to support the part in the article about the Department of External Affairs including all succession-related laws in its list of acts within Canadian law. I don't see why the source needs to go. It supports content and meets WP:RS. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not cite directly the Department of External Affairs "including all succession-related laws in its list of acts within Canadian law"? It seems perverse to rely on this 40min vid. Lacking a transcription of it, we should at least have a pinpoint (mins in) of where in this are the passages, which if transcribed, would, in your opinion, be worth sourcing. Qexigator (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. If that's available online. But, also, fair enough on the pinpointing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Twomey's video was explaining why she thought the Canadian government was wrong and only mentions common law in passing. Certainly we cannot expect readers to listen through a half hour lecture, instead of using a link to an article that explains how common law affects the succession. Generally too videos are poor sources. Even when spoken by experts, there is possibility of error and some videos are edited, so meanings can be lost. TFD (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive repetition of "Canada/Canadian"

"The Canadian Royal Family is a group of people related to the monarch of Canada."[5]

It is redundant to say that someone's family is related to them. The constant repetition of Canada and Canadian is also redundant since the article is about the "Monarchy of Canada." It is as if we must continue to drill into readers: "The Queen is Queen of Canada. It is a separate role from her role as Queen of 15 other sovereign states."

TFD (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mies' edit summary reminded me that he & I discussed this before. I'll have to let him refresh my memory here, as to why he's reverted. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Should we add "(When in Canada)" or "(When in Ottawa)", for the residences? Or should we exclude the residences all together, like at Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of New Zealand, Monarchy of Jamaica, Monarchy of Papua New Guinea, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither. The residences are still the monarch's when he or she is not physically present in them (this was already explained to you ten days ago at Talk:Rideau Hall). To extend your logic, the White House ceases to be the residence of the President of the United States when the president is off at a G8 summit in Europe. Further, the monarch can and does stay in a number of places when in Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits & edit summaries, explain that Elizabeth II mostly resides in the United Kingdom. IMHO, The current version, creates the false impression that she's residing in Canada. With all due respect, Mies' has misunderstood my proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edits did not say any such thing, though. And it is beside the point. The field is for official residences of the monarch, not for stating where he or she may or may not physically be most of the time.

There's no false impression given by a list containing just the names of two buildings. The article explains Rideau Hall is "primarily used by the governor general". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to let others weigh in on this discusson. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that even if true, it would be confusing to say that Rideau Hall and the Citadel (and what about provincial government houses?) are her official residences, because it implies that she resides there, when in fact she does not. Perhaps official Canadian residence would be more clear. But it is well within policy to remove the claim until sources are provided. All I could find is a Monarchist League article that sources the claim to the wife of a former governor-general. TFD (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

TFD, as explained in the conversation that was linked, there are several references already in the appropriate article. Second, an official residence does not imply its always occupied by the office holder. There have been prime ministers that have never moved into the Sussex residence for example, and an "An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state, head of government, governor or other senior figure officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual conducts work-related functions, or actually lives." So, the question of day to day residency is irrelevant to a discussion on official residences. And the Queen of Canada doesn't have any non-Canadian residences, so adding "Canadian" is a bit redundant, akin to saying the Canadian Queen of Canada. trackratte (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

While "official residence" may not mean where someone always lives, it is usually where someone normally lives or at least least lives part of the time. That's the understanding of the average reader, and if the Queen does not live there that should be mentioned which is overly complex for an info-box. The Queen's main "official residence" is Buckingham Palace, which is where she issues proclamations concerning Canada and also the contact address, both on the Royal Family's website and that of the governor general.[6] Also we still do not have any reliable sources that Rideau Hall is her official residence. When did it become that? What were the sovereign's previous addresses? TFD (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing the person with the office. Elizabeth II lives in a variety of places, occupies a variety of offices, and fills a variety of functions, all of which are irrelevant to this discussion. The Queen of Canada is an office, the office officially resides at Rideau Hall and the Citadel of Quebec, thus "official residence", in the same way as the office of the Prime Minister of Canada officially resides at 24 Sussex and Harrington Lake (office and official being the key words here). Justin Trudeau may never step foot in 24 Sussex drive, and his mailing address may continue to be David Johnson's backyard, that doesn't change or have any effect on 24 Sussex remaining the official residence of the Prime Minister of Canada. trackratte (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also for references, yes we do, they are in the body of the article. For example, "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen", and "Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall". "Rideau Hall was her [Elizabeth II] her home as much as Buckingham Palace in London or Holyroodhouse Palace in Edinburgh". "Rideau Hall the Governor-General's and the monarch's official residence...". There's more references as well, and yes, all of those quotes are from published books or journal articles. trackratte (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian monarch doesn't even reside in Canada. That this situation is being repressed, is a detriment to our readers. PS: Yes, I know you and Mies totally disagree with this & always will. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repressed? Nice try. "The Queen lives predominantly in the United Kingdom and, while several powers are the sovereign's alone, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties in Canada are carried out by the Queen's representative, the governor general".

What you are saying "is being repressed" is clearly noted front and centre in the article's lede. Either you haven't bothered to read the article, or you are purposefully misrepresenting the situation. trackratte (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, you're not going to agree with me concerning the infobox (which is a presentation dispute), and you never will. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, underscoring passages from the article does not mean they are sourced. Please provide a source that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Queen. TFD (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Those aren't quotes from the article, they're quotes from the sources cited within it, where I've underlined quotes from four different cited references. How about you read the article, and have a look at its sources first? trackratte (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, yes I read the article and commented above: "All I could find is a Monarchist League article that sources the claim to the wife of a former governor-general." [20:39, 20 November 2015] Thanks for the additional sources, but they still seem lacking. The first one says Rideau Hall is her official residence "when in Ottawa" and as you note includes the other government houses, which this article's info-box does not. But it provides no source for that. Is there legislation or an order-in-council that says that? The second source says, as you note, Rideau Hall was just as much her home but says nothing about official. I note too that two of the current editors discussed the issue at Talk:Official residence 8 years ago. TFD (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace?

Says here that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace. Perhaps there's a mistake here, unless he's just visiting the Queen of the United Kingdom. Afterall, the Queen of Canada resides at Rideau Hall. You'd think he would've visited Elizabeth II at Rideau Hall first, though. But again, maybe he wanted to meet the British monarch first. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Her titles themselves are not affected by her location. He meet Queen Elizabeth II of Canada (and also of some other places) at a mutually convenient spot. Wikiain (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean her office. Her title in Canada is "of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen." The only thing that changes is which of her realms is singled out for special mention. TFD (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiain. The location of Trudeau's audience with the Queen doesn't seem relevant here. Had the Queen invited him for an audience at a Starbucks in Australia, it still wouldn't change her official residence (irrespective of whether or not Rideau Hall should be listed as her official residence). Graham (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite. My point was just that the problem that GoodDay suggests does not arise. The title for Canada, i.e under Canadian law, is "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" (Royal Style and Titles Act 1985 (Can) - I've just fixed that link in the article, currently note 47). The title attaches to the office, the debate on which I want not to get into. My point was only that, when the Canadian PM met HM in Buck House on exclusively Canadian business, he met Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. (And TFD is right about standardisation of the title format across the Commonwealth realms.) Wikiain (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I replied to the GoodDay on his talk page. TFD (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If we are in agreement that the Canadian monarch primarily resides in the United Kingdom. Shall we -
1) add "When in Canada" next to the residences listed in the infobox?
2) delete the residences from the infobox or
3) leave the infobox residences as is. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer (2). "When in Canada" could provoke an unproductive thread about "When not in Canada?". Monarchy of Australia and Monarchy of New Zealand don't have "residences" in their infoboxes. Monarchy of the United Kingdom has it, but links to a list that is extensive and variegated, and so not really comparable. (Or maybe keep it and state "No fixed abode".) Wikiain (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I see (2) as better than the others. The section "Federal residences and royal household", including the captions, gives the information properly explained. There is no need for anything on residence in the infobox, and it would be pointless to add in the text that she is also Queen of Canada as well as of all the other realms wherever she resides, which is mostly in one of her residences in the UK. Qexigator (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

1) The official residence of the Queen of Canada is well sourced and factual. 2) Geographic location of a person has no bearing on the status of the office or the office's officially designated residence, in the same way that the official residence of the prime minister does not cease to be an official residence just because Justin Trudeau doesn't live there or that he is out of the country. 3) How is removing the residences from the infobox improving it? 4) How are official residences in this office's infobox any different from the prime minister infobox? trackratte (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reliable source that it is the official residence. A reliable source would explain what legislation, order-in-council, legal decision or scholarly opinion determined this. Is this specific to Canada or is it true of all vice-regal residences in the Commonwealth? There are records from the public accounts in 1867 that it would be the residence of the governor-general, but they do not mention the Queen. Certainly there was no expectation that she would even visit Ottawa, let alone reside there. TFD (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that she resides there, where a person lives or works is irrelevant. I'm finding it hard to believe that you don't understand what an official residence is since we've already gone over it multiple times.

There are five reliable sources already presented in the article, 1 academic published in a journal, 1 official Government of Canada academic published book, 1 academic published book, and 2 websites by academic and published author. trackratte (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot tell which sources you are describing. Could you please say which of the following come under which category: A Bousfield, B Galbraith, C Aimers, D Lanctot, E Toffoli, F MacLeod. I assume those are the sources you are referring to. TFD (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the infobox is certainly conveying that Elizabeth II resides at Rideau Hall & the Citadelle. It's because she doesn't actually reside at these places or anywhere's in Canada, that I've requested exclusion of these places from the infobox or atleast, clarification on these residencies being included in the infobox, via addition of "When in Canada". GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Elizabeth II, and we are not talking about Elizabeth II's infobox. The infobox is quite clearly about the Queen of Canada, which is an office, and as such the office officially resides at a certain location. In the exact same way that Justin Trudeau resides at Rideau Cottage, but the official residence of the Prime Minister of Canada is 24 Sussex Drive. Or Jack Layton never actually moved into Stornoway, but Stornoway was still the official residence of the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The question of official residences for given offices such as the sovereign, governor general, prime minister, leader of the opposition, etc are all matters of fact, are all referenced, and are all in those offices' infoboxes. You're confusing the personal residences of individual people with those of the offices they currently hold. Discussions of personal residences belong in those individuals' wiki pages, such as Elizabeth II, David Johnston, Justin Trudeau, or Rona Ambrose respectively.

Your argument would only make sense if this were the Elizabeth II wiki article, which it isn't. trackratte (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources trump primary sources, however. Furthermore, having residences listed in the infobox as they are, creates the erroneous impression that the Canadian monarch resides in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the secondary sources explicitly state that the Queen of Canada's official residences are Rideau Hall and the Citadel.

The Canadian crown does reside in Canada. As the Canadian crown, monarchy, and state are legally and officially one and the same thing, it is nonsense to state that the institution of the Canadian state resides elsewhere.

"...it formally established the Canadian Crown as an institution distinct from the British Crown. That the person wearing the crown happened to be the same in each case was completely irrelevant." (British and Canadian Studies Journal, 2014)

The physical location of Elizabeth II is irrelevant to the institution of the Canadian monarchy.

If you believe it is not clear where Elizabeth II lives within Wikipedia, I suggest you take it up at the Elizabeth II talk page.As for this article, it clearly states that "Elizabeth II lives predominantly in the United Kingdom" right there in the lede, so is abundantly clear where she, as an individual person, lives. trackratte (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

CBC news & CTV news (during government changes or cabinet shuffles) describe Rideau Hall (for example) as the Governor General's official residence. Concerning this article infobox, atleast, WP:WEIGHT should be respected. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Officially published books written by experts in the field, and articles published by the academic journal of the Parliament of Canada are far more reliable than news reports published in consumer media by non-experts. Thus, expert, official, and academically published references have considerably more weight than a CTV reporter.

Second, Rideau Hall is the governor general's official residence. No one has said otherwise. As you see below (and above) Rideau Hall is the official residence of the institution of the Canadian crown, which is to say the Queen of Canada and its representative, the governor general. trackratte (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as the argument is that they're the official residences of the office & not the office holder? then perhaps '"Queen in right of Canada" or better yet "In right of Canada" (as monarch won't always be a queen), should be added to the residences in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Queen of Canada is the office. "in right of..." is the designation of which privy council's advice is being used by the Crown in issuing a law, instrument, etc, and is a useful device for distinguishing whether or not an Act is being passed based on the advice of Ontario's cabinet or Quebec's, for example. It has no bearing on the office itself. trackratte (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added "(Crown in right of Canada)", but IMHO we should delete the 'residences' section entirely. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that editors will be aware that the purpose of articles such as these is not to make this or that political or social comment, or points of grammar about one of the various uses of a word such as "residence", but to report for the information of ordinary readers useful information on the article topic, we should seek to avoid presenting the information in a way that can be seen to be attempting to sway readers toany particular pov. Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, I still do not see any reliable sources. The book by Bousfield and Toffoli, the first source, merely says, "Rideau Hall was her home, as much as Buckingham Palace in London or Holyroodhouse Palace in Edinburgh."[7] No explanation is made of what that means and no sources are provided. Also, the book is basically a fan book, with lots of pictures. Certainly there are royalists who claim Rideau Hall is the Queen's official residence, but we need a reliable source to prove it. And if there are no official records that it is the official residence, then how is it official? Maybe it is the "unofficial" official residence? TFD (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop deliberately ignoring the references, unless you are trying to convince me that you can't see the article. Crown of Maples, which is an official Government of Canada publication, and was written by experts in the Department of Heritage as well as practical experts such as Kevin McLeod, states quite clearly that "Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall".

In the Canadian Parliamentary Review, which is published by the Parliament of Canada as their academic journal, states "...Rideau Hall the Governor-General's and the monarch's official Canadian residence".

There are more available in the article, and probably more available elsewhere, but it shouldn't be up to me to repeatedly spoon feed you the reliable third-party and official sources that are already clearly in the article. trackratte (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, the Canadian Parliamentary Review is not an academic journal. And while normally one would accept the "Crown of Maples" for straightforward information, it suffers by having no footnotes and the relevant cite is in a "Glossary" section. Any idea where the authors of the glossary got their description or what they mean? TFD (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was refereed journal, it's an academic journal in the sense of a professional forum for the introduction and presentation academic of material whose purpose is to facilitate the advancement of academic discourse on the institution and topics relevant to the institution and its function. In the same way as the Canadian Military Journal, the Canadian Army Journal, or any number of journals across the world. Second, both those references are sufficient for academic works, and all of the references are reliable, third party sources in line with Wikipedia's policy. All I see is editors attempting to put their own personal opinions above those of clearly articulated facts within reliable and official sources. The sources are clear, Rideau Hall is an official residence of the Canadian crown. trackratte (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian Parliamentary Review is not at the url cited but now identified as a dead link, "www.revparl.ca". This is also the dead end that my other searches come to, including that through my institution's library, so it seems to have once been correct. Trying to open it by itself gets the same answer, server not found. Nor can I find this publication on the Canadian Parliament library website. Where is it? Wikiain (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link in the article reference and it opened right up as a PDF in my browser. It looks like either someone put a deadlink marker there, or someone has since repaired the link without taking down the marker. Either way, it works just fine when you click on the link in the reflist. trackratte (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No dice, whether I click on the title or on the PDF icon - though for comparison MacLeod works fine either way. Galbraith actually has the url "http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/12/3/12n3_89e.pdf" but that redirects to "www.revparl.ca" which can't be found - and I've tried in two browsers. Maybe you have the PDF cached. I'm still at a loss, as was whoever tagged "www.revparl.ca" as dead in 2014. A publication like this surely has to be somewhere online. Wikiain (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The URL you just posted works fine. The Parliamentary Review used to be at its own website, and is now hosted on the Parliament of Canada webspace. It should be the second article within the journal. trackratte (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I put up a request at RSN. I would ask editors not to pile on and repeat this discussion thread on the noticeboard and instead let other editors provide their valuable input. TFD (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, TFD. If something that is readily accessible in Canada is inaccessible in any way from Australia, I must return to cultivating my own garden. Wikiain (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Meantime, noting that the sources appear to be government sponsored information to influence popular support or sentiment for a royal visit, such as George VI's, or , if claimed to be of RS status, either insufficiently scholarly to cite legislation, or alternatively, tacitly acknowledging that there is none, let the section be clarified by adding "Each is a "Government House", but may be customarily known by some specific name such as "Rideau Hall"." Qexigator (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

done Qexigator (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

+ It could be that many Canadians today may suppose that it is a nick-name derived from Rideau Hall (TV series), so at least if the name is retained for the infobox, a note to explain that the TV series takes its name from the Government House at I Sussex Drive, not the other way round, should be added. Qexigator (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of that TV series, but if it's an issue I think the appropriate place for it would be at the Rideau Hall article if required. trackratte (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete the residences section

Discussion on sources at Official Residences. trackratte (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, we'd be better off deleting the residences section from the infobox. It appears to give the wrong impression that the Canadian monarch resides in Canada. It's either deletion or an explanation for the inclusion be added, explaining the difference between the 'person' & 'the office'. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Rideau Hall as an official residence of the Queen of Canada is a verified fact.
2. The lede clearly states "Elizabeth II lives predominantly in the United Kingdom" so the argument that the article is not clear in this regard is suspect.
3. An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state, head of government, governor or other senior figure officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual conducts work-related functions, or actually lives".
4. In using your logic, "we should delete the residences section from the Prime Minister of Canada infobox as it gives the wrong impression that Justin Trudeau actually lives there". Or that we should have deleted residences from the Leader of the Official Opposition infobox when Jack Layton never moved in. Questions of where Elizabeth II "actually lives" are for the Elizabeth II article. Questions of where the Canadian sovereign officially resides are for this article, of which the sources are clear: "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen", and many other variations on the same meaning. trackratte (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your 4 points can't be put into the infobox & we're concerned about the infobox, not the lede. We'll have to let the others weight in, on whether or not to delete or clarify. Who's doubting about which country the Canadian Prime Minister resides in? Let's concentrate on this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's the role of the article not the infobox. The infobox just displays very limited factoids, and has a residency section, and in this case the official residences of the Queen of Canada are Rideau Hall and the Citadel. "Rideau Hall" and "La Citadel" are the only words that need to go there. Even the Ottawa and Quebec City bits can go, as they are seen in the blue-linked articles. trackratte (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to see what the other editors suggest to do, if anything. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've put in a request for more input, at the WP:CANADA. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree Secondly, while we had a sources that Rideau Hall, the Citadel and provincial government houses are official residences of the Queen they do not explain how they came to that conclusion, whether other interpretations are possible or when this came about. Thirdly, we have other sources, including the website maintained by the Royal family themselves, that says the Queen's official residences are Buckingham Palace and other buildings in the UK. TFD (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the section, as it appears there's only one individual who's actively opposing. The other opposing individual, appears to have lost interest in the topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Two people wanting to delete a sourced fact is not consensus. Just because there are no replies for a day does not mean that I or anyone else has lost interest, it means they are not on Wikipedia. Third, someone "loosing interest" does not constitute agreement. trackratte (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, four people have opted for deletion. Myself, TFD, Qexigator & Wikiain. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Compromise

I'm re-offering this compromise, between those who want deletion & those who want no changes. I've added "(When in Canada)" to help readers understand that the Canadian monarch doesn't reside in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• After spending the time to read through this discussion on a very minor point in the infobox and looking at some of these sources, I Oppose this change. It appears clear that these place are the Queen's Official Residence, wherever she might be and in whatever role she might be in (acting as Queen of Canada or otherwise). Deleting this information will not benefit the article, and altering it as suggested will not reflect the facts either and seems to be pushing some sort of POV. Our "readers" as it was put in the discussion above, expect to read an encyclopedia here. Doing nothing is the best course of action here. Outback the koala (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as 3 individuals (I'm assuming Miesianiacal still opposes) now oppose my proposed changes. There appears little chance of getting a consensus for it. I'm a practical type, so I won't be pushing for these changes any further. PS- I continue to be concerned about the inaccurate impression the infobox gives to readers, by merely showing Rideau Hall & La Citadelle. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

G'day Outback the koala: you might like to visit your ancestral Australia, where the Governor-General has an official residence but I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as the monarch's (sound of Aussies ROTFL). I'd say the article on that residence, Government House, Canberra, gets it just right:

Government House, Canberra, commonly known as Yarralumla, is the official residence of the Governor-General of Australia. ... The Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II, and foreign heads of state stay at Government House when on official visits to Canberra.

Now that I've managed to locate the Galbraith article, I see that he claims (without direct evidence) that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Governor General as well as of the monarch, while La Citadelle is the Governor General's "secondary" residence, and were resided in by the royal couple on the very first occasion when a reigning monarch had visited any of the imperial dominions: 1939. That they stayed there surely doesn't make those places their official residences; what has to be shown is that they stayed in those places because they were their own official residences and not just places the Governor General put them up in when they weren't spending most of the rest of the month chuffing around on the royal train. (And, making my day BTW, Galbraith says they arrived in Canada on a liner named Empress of Australia ...) Nearly fell out of my gumtree.

I think the key point is: either some legal document (preferably an act of the Canadian parliament) designates Rideau Hall or La Citadelle as official residences of the monarch of Canada, and none has been shown; or they have been so established by custom, and a first arrival as late as 1939 (first at La Citadelle - "Réchauffez le rosbif!") plus a few visits thereafter (assuming that they stayed there) hardly suffice. If there is any such document, let it be cited. Wikiain (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The need for legal documentation is a red herring. Multiple reliable sources have been provided. Ergo, WP:V has been met. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, the distinction between what is official versus what is legal continues to be entirely lost, whether through a lack of understanding or as a purposeful stawman construction. Corporations release official statements, have official stationary, and have official websites, all without an act of parliament. trackratte (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I can recall the same "no act of parliament means not official" argument being used years ago by those who insisted Canada has no official royal anthem. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Those sources don't seem to me to be reliable if they don't provide legal documentation, as they very easily could if it exists. I don't know whether they do; but, since they keep getting cited without mentioning any such evidence, which could conclude the matter, it seems that they don't. A national anthem, such as that of the UK, can become so through long and consistent usage - a few stopovers are not comparable. What private corporations do is beside the point.

However, the discussion is continuing in today's new section "Queen's Residence (and governor general's)". Can we agree to end this section and carry on, if we wish, only there? Wikiain (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless you want to copy and past the whole section in, my response to you will seem slightly bizarre in the section below otherwise. It's a bit of a disaster right now in terms of organization as an editor decided to start four or so separate conversations on this page, as well as a few places on other talk pages as well, so....

To respond: A sources reliability is not dependant on "legal documentation". When the Government of Canada says, in an official publication, which places are official residences of which office, that is evidence in itself. Since the governor general doesn't have any powers or authorities beyond those of the Queen which have been delegated, that the office of GG doesn't actually own anything in its own right, and the fact that the office of the GG is simply a vector of representation of the office of the sovereign, then quite clearly the office of the GG only occupies Rideau Hall for example, on behalf of the sovereign who actually has title.

Now, while all that makes sense in terms of Constitutional theory and Canadian law, it is original research as no source has been presented which explains the relationship in that way. However, we do have multiple sources which say, including those of the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada, that Rideau Hall and the Citadel are the Queen's Canadian residences. So you, or I, can speculate and postulate and throw theory back and forth, but it's not up to us or our opinions and original research, but what the sources actually say inline with Wikipedia's policies. trackratte (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Queen's Residence (and governor general's)

Where? Outback the koala (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom. The infobox only lists residences & not official residences. PS- see Infobox discussion above. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've clearly stumbled into it here. Can't you two keep it off the page and discuss it here first. It looks awful, all these edits. Now I'll step slowly away from this page (unless you'd like me to weigh in) Outback the koala (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't impliment such a change, without editorial backing. AFAIK, there's atleast 3 editors who support both my full deletions & now my compromise ("When in Canada") attempts. I won't edit-war over implimenting those changes, however. Particularly, when the objecting editor is so determined to keep out those changes. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a lot of reading in that section. Give me some time to read up and I'll give my option as well. Outback the koala (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm only aware of GoodDay's support in that "Compromise" section, and only GoodDay and TFD under the "delete" section, unless there's a bunch of jumbling elsewhere, in which case the conversations shouldn't be there, but in the appropriate spot. Second, the residence of the Queen of Canada does not magically cease to exists once she leaves Canada's borders, and there are zero sources saying that. In the exact same way that a citizen doesn't lose title to their home the moment they step out of the country, or 24 Sussex suddenly ceases to be the residence of the PM as soon as Justin Trudeau leaves the country. And to recap the official and other reliable sources:

1. Crown of Maples (official Government of Canada publication put together by academic and professional experts): "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen", and "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative [the governor general]. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall."
2. The Parliament of Canada's official journal, Parliamentary Review: "...Rideau Hall the Governor-General's and the monarch's official Canadian residence".
3. From the book Fifty Years the Queen by Arthur Bousfield (published historian): "Rideau Hall was her home...the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Airforce - took turns mounting guard at her Ottawa residence [Rideau Hall]", and "She [the Queen of Canada] stayed at the Citadel, her official residence".
4. From Canada's Constitutional Monarchy by Nathan Tidridge (multiple books published on Canada's constitutional affairs). "Serving as the Sovereign's primary Canadian residence, as well as the governor general's office and residence", and "Her Majesty's official residence in Canada...and occupied by the Queen's representative...".
5. From Shelldrake: Canadian Artillery Museums and Gun Monuments by Harold A. Skaarup (published historian): "The Citadelle...has also been an official residence of the Queen in Right of Canada and the Governor General of Canada since 1872".
6. From The Queen at the Council Fire: The Treaty of Niagara, Reconciliation, and the Dignified Crown in Canada by Nathan Tildridge (published author on several books on the Canadian constitution/monarchy), "Rideau Hall (the Queen's Canadian residence)".
7. From Royal Tours 1786-2010: Home to Canada by Arthur Bousfield (a historian) and Garry Toffoli (both who have published numerous histories), "...as they mounted a guard for the first time at the queen's residence, Rideau Hall".

trackratte (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The version you prefer in the infobox, gives the erroneous impression that the Canadian monarch resides in Canada. Yes, we know you've pointed out that the situation is explained in the article content, but we're concerned about the INFOBOX, which happens to be one of the first items readers come across. It's the PRESENTATION in the INFOBOX, that's our concern here. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop fragmenting conversations. You've started this same conversation under four different headings on this talk page alone. The sovereign's residences are a simple fact. Removing facts does not help the article. Saying that they are only residences of the Crown when Elizabeth II is physically in Canada is simply wrong. Facts not fitting your clearly republican/anti-monarchy POV does not allow you the privilege of arbitrarily deleting very well-sourced facts and edit-warring. trackratte (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You just don't understand what I'm trying to get across here. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I created this section before I saw the first one. My bad. Outback the koala (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This section could be merged into the orginal discussion above if you'd prefer. It would allow for continuity in following the discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies to GoodDay then, I thought the same person had started a fourth heading. trackratte (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice, if you'd also apologize for continuing to accuse me of pushing a republican-PoV, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop continuously and simultaneously posting the exact same thing on multiple forums and at multiples places within the same forum. I just responded to your above where you originally posted it. If you didn't want to discuss it there, then you shouldn't have posted it there in the first place. trackratte (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Posting lots of inadequate sources over and over again does not make up for the lack of one good source. Go and find a source that explains when and how they became official residences. And howcome no sources for the other Commonwealth realms make the same claims about their viceregal residences? TFD (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research forum ("Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information"). The fact is that the Citadel and Rideau Hall are the Canadian residences of the Canadian sovereign and their their representative, the Governor General. That is the simple fact supported by over 7 reliable references, and quite frankly doesn't have anything to do with my opinion as the article simply reflects reliably sourced facts, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you want to conduct a research project, go ahead, but this isn't the place to publish original research. And if are requesting that I conduct original research for Wikipedia, the answer is no.

2. How foreign countries arrange their state residences is completely irrelevant to this article and the facts at hand. trackratte (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's right. And that is why for unusual claims we used high-quality secondary sources that provide footnotes so that we know where they got their information. As you say we do not conduct original research here but rely on well-documented researched sources. This reminds me of long disputes over whether the Queen is Duke of Normandy. She is not but several monarchist sources say she is and it took a lot of research by editors to find a paper explaining the facts. But all that can be avoided by using good sources.

The examples I provided are not foreign countries but countries that share the same sovereign in personal union and other than the UK all developed as colonies with the same system of government each with a governor representing the Queen and residing in an official residence.

The Governor-General's website which is hosted by the Queen of Canada's government says, "Rideau Hall is the official residence and workplace of every governor general since 1867."[8] It says nothing about the Royal Family residing there.

TFD (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, so foreign countries. Unless you are saying that Canada is not a sovereign state, or that other countries are somehow Canadian provinces or colonies in some way.

No idea about Duke of whatever, don't see how it's relevant. The Canadian state, through officially published Government of Canada and Parliamentary material, says that these two residences belong to, and are official residents of the Crown. This is supported by quality secondary sources in accordance with WP. Package it anyway you like, your argument to date has simply been "I don't like it". trackratte (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You keep bringing up issues that have nothing to do with the discussion. Commowealth nations are not "foreign", they are external. But none of that has anything to do with your theory that the Queen resides in Rideau Hall, the Citadel, and provincial government houses based on a glossary and some articles by monarchists. You need to show a record that makes it official , such as the 1867 order that made it the official residence of the governor general. If you have reasonable curiosity, you might wonder whether Victoria every resided there. Maybe It became the official residence when England came under threat in 1939. Talk to me. Where does this fact derive? Is it statute, order in council or common law? Why does the monarch simultaneously not reside in the dozens of other government houses? Is this unique to Canada? Does the Queen have her own bedroom and does the governor-general have to vacate? Have you thought about this? TFD (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually simply responding to your points, so if issues are being discussed here "that having nothing to with the the discussion", then perhaps you should re-evaluate your points, such as how foreign countries organize their residences, which as you say, has nothing to do with this discussion about Canada. And, yes, Australia is a foreign country to Canada, as is every other Commonwealth realm. Foreign of course means "situated outside a place or country; especially : situated outside one's own country" / "born in, belonging to, or characteristic of some place or country other than the one under consideration" / "of, relating to, or proceeding from some other person or material thing than the one under consideration". Seeing as these countries are "situated outside" of Canada, and are 'belonging to a state other than Canada', they are by definition, foreign countries.

An editor's musings on whether or not "Victoria ever resided there", or whether the "Queen [has] her own bedroom", does not change any of the sourced facts presented. trackratte (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The above comments read as if, unlike TFD, trackratte has lost track (can't help it, no pun intended) of the points under discussion: 1_That the sources s/he relies on fail to meet the valid objections made by TFD (no need for me to repeat them). 2_Either way, there is no need to have the item in the infobox, and the content of the article itself suffices. Compare

• Monarchy of the United Kingdom, links to List of British royal residences
• Monarchy of Australia, nothing in infobox, section on "Vice-regal residences"
• Monarchy of New Zealand, nil.

Readers are in no way misled or denied notable information if the item is not in the infobox. The infobox fails to let readers know that the named government houses are customarily referred to as official residences, and each is identified for that purpose by a local name, that they are occupied mainly as a residence by the governor general, and one of them more so than the other, and that both are available for use as a residence by the monarch when in Canada. Keeping it in ought not be seen or felt as a point of honour for a proud Canadian, or a resident of Québec City. The two places are named in the Governor General's infobox as "Residence", which they are in the ordinary sense, and which is what the word would be taken to mean by the ordinary reader. Similarly, Governor-General of Australia names two "Residence"s in the infobox. There is not equality of meaning between the infoboxes for the g-gs and the monarch, as if the governor-general and the monarch are co-habitant residents of the same house at the same time. The nearest comparison would be a person who owns mansions in UK, Canada, and other countries, resides mainly in the UK, but has estate or business interests in the other countries, which are managed and directed by an agent appointed to oversee the owner's affairs in each of those countries, and who, in connection with that appointment, resides in the owner's mansion there, given the local nick-name "the guv'nor's house". Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

+ While it may be said that the Crown of UK "resides" in UK, and of Canada in Canada, and that the monarchy of UK resides in UK, and of Canada in Canada, it would not be usual to say of them that they have a particular place of residence. Although the infobox is headed "Queen of Canada, FEDERAL", the article topic is "Monarchy of Canada". Perhaps the heading should be "Monarchy of Canada - FEDERAL - royal arms - Incumbent - image -Elizabeth II". She is named here as the incumbent office-holder with a "Style" and "Heir apparent". But does the "Monarchy of Canada" reside at Rideau Hall, and at La Citadelle? Is there any source to support that? Qexigator (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to provided links to sources so all can see and read for themselves ....dont omit information or sources ... Anyone can see with a search what we should be saying.-- Moxy (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My deletion of the residences in the infobox, were continously reverted. Then I tried compromising by putting "(When in Canada)" next to both residences, but again was continously reverted. There's only so much, that this one little editor (me) can do :( GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the refs added to Infobox[9] as supporting information that the "Monarchy of Canada" resides at Rideau Hall, and at La Citadelle. If the Monarchy of Canada resides in Canada, that is not place-specific but throughout the whole country, pervasively and immanently, like the Crown, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Qexigator (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox isn't headed by the words "Monarchy of Canada". The infobox doesn't have a field for where the Queen resides. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is not talking about were she lives but that its one of her properties....perhaps this is the point some people dont get? I have multiple residential properties but only live at one of them... her houses here is the same thing. Dont have to reside at a residence for it to be yours-- Moxy (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"The infobox is not talking about were she lives but that its one of her properties..." Precisely. She "lives" or "resides" or "stays" in many places. That doesn't mean either that the place she is in is automatically the official residence (hotels, for instance) or that the official residences she is not in at any given moment cease to be her official residences because she's not in them. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What ? not sure what your arguing for either point . All should just follow the sources over personal opinions of property law. What is the problem here ? is there any sources that claim its not the queens home? Why is ever thing so complicated with this topic when sources are so clear is beyond me.....every time there is an RfC we follow the sources....so why not just start that of the bat instead of this long unless process. Looks like some simply dont like what some sources say....so again an RfC so we can follow the sources?-- Moxy (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We've gone over this several times already. By the logic being used against the inclusion of the Queen's Canadian residences in the infobox, the Citadel should be removed from the Governor General's infobox, since the GG isn't actually living there right now but at Rideau Hall. 24 Sussex should be removed from the Prime Minister of Canada infobox because Justin Trudeau isn't living there either. And oh heaven help us, the Prime Minister of Canada infobox is misleading readers that Justin Trudeau is currently living at 24 Sussex. Except that doesn't bother certain members of this crowd for some reason. Oh, and if we need to remove residency from this offices' infobox, simply because "Readers are in no way misled or denied notable information if the item is not in the infobox", then we should be removing residencies from the PMs, Leader of the Official Opposition, and GGs infoboxes as well.

This artificial and illogical construction ignores a few things, one's title to a property residence doesn't disappear the moment you step out of the house or leave the country, and the same is true for corporations. Second, these are not the residences of David Johnston, Elizabeth II, or Justin Trudeau, but in actual fact of the governor general, prime minister, and sovereign, so the individual people temporarily occupying these offices have nothing to do with it. In the same way the office of the CEO of company X, for example, doesn't change simply because John Smith isn't physically there. For that matter, the office doesn't change at all, even when John Smith is replaced by Jane Doe for example. Where an "individual is currently physically located", and where "an office resides" are two very different thing, and these two concepts are distinct. This isn't an infobox about a person, but an office. No one is arguing that Rideau Hall should be included in the Elizabeth II infobox. Finally, Wikipedia Policies apply. The fact is clearly sourced and verifiable.

trackratte (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Title to property" is completely beside the point(s) at issue, what some would call a red herring, or straw man, or distraction, or OR or SYN, (whichever name is preferred in lieu of reasoned discussion), or plain wrong. A place may be a private or official person's "residence", in continuous occupation, or only sometimes, or irregularly or intermittently, without that person having ownership or any other title to the property. I see no comment so far rebutting the points made against having the item in the infobox. Qexigator (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Crown owns countless properties throughout Canada, including the PM's official and current residences and the Parliament buildings, it does not make them official residences. Note that the Parliament buildings in London is an official residence. TFD (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, editors need look no further than Palace of Westminster to note that it "retains its original style and status as a royal residence and is the property of the Crown." Now that the property point has been retracted (again, not meant as a pun), let me add that track.'s comment if we need to remove residency from this offices' infobox, simply because "Readers are in no way misled or denied notable information if the item is not in the infobox", then we should be removing residencies from the PMs, Leader of the Official Opposition, and GGs infoboxes as well is a false comparison and non sequitur, for the reason already given above (at 17:15, 7 December). And remenber, the article's topic is Monarchy of Canada not Monarch of Canada. Qexigator (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems the only people throwing around a "red herring, or straw man, or distraction, or OR or SYN" are those arguing there should be no mention of the residences in the infobox: nonsensical semantics, imaginary requirements, revised definitions, and the like. There is a field for residences in Template:Infobox monarchy. There being residences for the monarch of Canada is a fact supported by multiple sources meeting WP:RS, meaning the information meets WP:V. The residences field can show the residences. That's it.

If anyone wants the residences field removed from the template, that's a different argument that should be started at the template talk page and with wide notice, since the template is used in many articles and many of those have the residences field filled in. If anyone feels anything said to be official requires legislation to support the claim, that's a different argument that should be started at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, since that will have affect on many articles in Wikipedia. Ditto for those who think Wikipedia should require secondary sources show their sources in order to satisfy WP:RS. This is not the place to make such changes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To respond as if a generic "template" must be filled in regardless of the content and purport of any particular article, tends to confirm that there is no reasonable rebuttal available. It is absent from the infobox for Monarchy of Australia, a nearer comparison for a federal Commonwealth realm than kingdoms such as Denmark or Spain. Qexigator (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That is yet another straw man argument. Perhaps you could not cherry-pick from my comments and instead address the whole? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It has already been established that how foreign countries arrange their official residences has no bearing on Canada's. Also, there may not be any reliable sources saying that the Queen of Australia has an official residence, I have no idea, and frankly doesn't matter here. While discussions about whether or not British palaces are currently residences of the Queen of the UK or what foreign countries are doing are all well and good I suppose, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand and seem rather distracting. trackratte (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at each of your listed sources, trackratte, or those of them that are weblinked:

• The Maple Crown is published by the Canadian government but is no way a scholarly work. In any case, it claims that all of the Government Houses are official royal residences and that Rideau Hall is HM's residence "when in Ottawa", which supports GoodDay's compromise proposal.
• Galbraith is in a journal that may publish scholarship. I wouldn't discount it, but it's not strong. And it doesn't speak for the Canadian government.
• Bousfield and Toffoli is just propaganda. "Rideau Hall was her home, as much as Buckingham Palace in London or Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh" (p 10) is either daft or means only that she felt at home in it when she was in it.
• Tildridge claims that all of the Government Houses are official royal residences, though Rideau Hall is "primary".

None of these sources support their statements with any references - at least not in the parts that are available online.

• Bousfield may have references, not visible online, but the index is included and I can't see anything relevant in it.
• Shelldrake/Skraarup has references, but not on this point and some of those given are to Wikipedia ....

My point here is not that any of these (except maybe the last) ought to have given legal references—some of them are just not that level of publication. My point instead is that they don't, when such documentation should be very easy to find, and that makes them unreliable sources.

In that case, as TFD asked earlier, legal documentation should be sought. If it can be found, it should be cited from an official source or other reputable source such as CanLII. That would not conflict with WP:OR, which states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". This is well established WP practice: articles on law cite legal documentation all the time and sometimes with a template for it.

If relevant legal documentation cannot be found, in that way or in some better secondary source than those so far provided, the claim should not be made. The relevance of similar monarchies, such as that of Australia, is that it cannot be assumed that a vice-regal residence is also considered to be a regal residence. Thus that claim requires specific evidence. So, such evidence should be sought and, if it can't be found, the claim should not be made—neither in the infobox nor in the article. Wikiain (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You are asking for a scholarly article to confirm something that if subsumed to be a basic fact in this field. What student or professor would research such minute detail of monarchy in Canada. This discussion is over such triviality it is mind boggling. Please I urge you to show me a scholarly article that says proves to me a certain PEI senator lives where he says he does. No such article exists? Then it must be expunged from our encyclopedia. This is corrupted logic. Rideau is the seat of the monarchy of Canada, personified in the Queen. Outback the koala (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

1. So, to recap, what the reliable, published sources say: “Rideau Hall is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen", "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa", "Rideau Hall [is] the Governor-General's and the monarch's official Canadian residence", "the Citadel, her official residence", "the Sovereign's primary Canadian residence", "The Citadelle... an official residence of the Queen", "the queen's residence, Rideau Hall", "Rideau Hall (the Queen's Canadian residence)", "Serving as the Sovereign's primary Canadian residence", "Her Majesty's official residence in Canada", and "Rideau Hall, the official residence in Ottawa of...the Canadian monarch".
2. And what you say: "the claim [that the Queen of Canada has residences] should not be made".
3. Okay, I acknowledge your unfounded opinion. I still don't see any reason to delete these residences from the Queen of Canada infobox, particularly since they are longstanding and have been there, in this infobox, for over 5 years. trackratte (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dispute tags should be added to the infobox & article content, until this current dispute is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Primarily used by the governor general?

The sentence "The sovereign's principal official residences, as well as those primarily used by the governor general, are Rideau Hall in Ottawa, Ontario and Citadelle, in Quebec City", appears to read as though they are 'not' official residences of the governor general.
Also, isn't 12 sources all clumped together, not allowed on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What else would "those" be referring to if not "official residences"? Regardless, I see both your concerns (clarity of the sentence, and sources breaking up the text) as valid points.

Perhaps "Each is a Government House, but may be customarily known by some specific name. The sovereign's and governor general's principal official residences are Rideau Hall in Ottawa and the Citadelle in Quebec City." or,

"Each is a Government House and are "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative, the governor general"[source Crown of Maples, p. XVII]". trackratte (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, as a matter of style, a bunch of refs like that is unsightly and breaks up the text and is to be avoided. At present however, it seems to be under dispute so the references serve as a fairly vital component. As I mentioned in a previous edit, they will have to be consolidated into a note with perhaps a short explanation and all of the references. That way it's all tucked away in a single note, doesn't break up the text, but is still there for readers and editors who want or need the information and sources. trackratte (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the above two issues are now resolved, given the recent changes made inline with your concerns. trackratte (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of your options, trackratte, preserve with no new evidence the key disputed claim—whether any of the Government Houses are official residences of the monarch. Consequently I support the proposal that this article be tagged as disputed. Wikiain (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Let this be resolved by avoiding the disputed claim, without resort to tagging. Qexigator (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a sec here are people claiming that a source by "J. William Galbraith" the former Information Officer for the federal government is not a good source? -- Moxy (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It may be right or wrong, but it lacks references. Wikiain (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the requirement that references have references? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't supposed any such requirement. What I said in an earlier section was more complex than that. Wikiain (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then the remark about the Galbraith reference having no references lacks pertinence. If the source meets WP:RS, it's allowable as a source. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It has pertinence in the context of what I said earlier. Wikiain (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you mean your comment at 01:06, 9 December 2015, then, no, not really. There you suggested the only sources we can accept here are laws or themselves use laws as sources: "My point instead is that they don't [give legal references], when such documentation should be very easy to find, and that makes them unreliable sources." That's again based on the presumption that references must have references to be reliable with the added bonus of a false definition of "official" as "having legislated origin". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Another compromise at infobox

I implimented a second compromise. I replaced the multiple refs with a simple ref to the fact that the Canadian monarch resides primarily in the United Kingdom. Please check it out in the edit history, as it's likely going to get reverted almost instantly. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha, so the Government of Canada's own official publication on the subject, as well as roughly 8 other reliable published sources are somehow questionable as sources, yet you citing nothing but your own unsupported words is good to go as a reference? Wow. Where's the source for that statement?

Replacing four clearly verifiable and reliable published sources with nothing but your own words is beyond against WP.

Nevermind that the unsupported claim you've inserted in your own words as a "reference" does not support the fact that it's apparently acting as a reference for. trackratte (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So references wasn't the best way to go. More importantly, I wanted everybody to view how the residences section in infobox, would look. I can easily change "The Canadian monarch primarily resides in the United Kingdom" into notes. We've got 'bout 3 days for latest compromise to be looked over. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to impliment 'asterisks' next to the residences & put a "The Canadian monarch resides primarily in the United Kingdom" or "When in Canada"note, at the bottom of the infobox. I think it's a compromise that both sides (those in favour of deletion & those in favour of retention) could agree on. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what would be gained in inputting unsupported comments in place of any one of the numerous sourced statements we already have, such as “Rideau Hall is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen", "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa", "Rideau Hall [is] the Governor-General's and the monarch's official Canadian residence", "the Citadel, her official residence", "the Sovereign's primary Canadian residence", "The Citadelle... an official residence of the Queen", "the queen's residence, Rideau Hall", "Rideau Hall (the Queen's Canadian residence)", "Serving as the Sovereign's primary Canadian residence", "Her Majesty's official residence in Canada", and "Rideau Hall, the official residence in Ottawa of...the Canadian monarch".

And what source are you using to suggest that the Canadian monarch resides in the UK? As far as I'm aware, the Queen of Canada does not have any (Canadian) residences outside of Canada. Or are you meaning to say that Elizabeth II resides in the UK? trackratte (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll impliment my proposed changes when the article's protection expires. Yes, you'll immediately revert my edit & restore your own edit. But, at least I'll have another version to offer to those who favour 'deletion'. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, proposals, or "another version to offer" are done, particularly when you know they are contentious, on the talk page ("Discuss contentious changes on the talk page"). Making contentious edits knowing or seeking reversion does not add to the project, but actually takes away from it, as we can see with the page protection currently in place.

So instead of stamping your feet and purposefully making contentious edits, why don't you discuss your reasons beyond "because I want to", along with supporting evidence, on the talk page? For example, what source are you using to suggest that the Canadian monarch resides in the UK? As far as I'm aware, the Queen of Canada does not have any (Canadian) residences outside of Canada. Or are you meaning to say that Elizabeth II primarily resides in the UK? trackratte (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll impliment my 'third'proposal with "(When in Canada") as it's shorter. I will leave in your references, also. My first choice continues to be deletion of the residences. Again, my major concern is that readers will be given the false impression (in the infobox) that the Canadian monarch resides in Canada. Anyways, as before, I won't be edit-warring over this & will allow others to review & comment. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what is your "third proposal presently"? Reinstating (when in Canada) has already been removed several times with the reasons already stated. So, simply reinstating something which has already been reverted several times, without gaining consensus on the talk page first, is edit warring. And it is actions such as those which you seem dead-set on doing that results in pages being locked down, to the detriment of the entire project. Above we have 11 reliably sourced statements explicitly stating that they are the sovereign's "residences in Canada", or "primary Canadian residence", or "official residence in Canada". No sources say that they cease to be the residences of the Canadian monarch as soon as Elizabeth II leaves the country. trackratte (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have the details worked out, when the protection expires. Indeed, "(When in Canada)" was removed several times... by you. Anyways, it'll be my last attempt at a compromise. After that, I'll leave the infobox dispute to be worked out by you & the other editors. GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We are all aware that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are different people. They are corporations sole. But a corporation sole does not reside in buildings, it is the natural person who is indivisible that does. And that person lives in the UK, as does her family. TFD (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That person's residences in Canada include Rideau Hall and La Citadelle. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, corporations (in this case the institution of the sovereign as a corporation sole) are considered resident where the corporation is established (Residence: "The place where a corporation is established", or "The place where anything rests permanently"), such as their official headoffice/headquarters/official corporate address/where the corporation officially resides. This works for all corporations, for example the Canadian Armed Forces officially resides at 101 Colonel By Drive, or a corporation such as a business could have multiple official residences such as one in B.C, and another in N.S. for example. This is no different here, in that the Canadian monarch resides at their official Canadian residences. Where the "front office" or the "CEO" is physically located has nothing to do with it. trackratte (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Corporations are considered resident for tax purposes in the tax jurisdiction where most of their business is carried out, which may differ from where their head office is. I do not think that means a specific address, and in fact if we followed that reasoning, the Queen of Canada would reside in the Parliament Buildings where governance and legislating are. You link btw makes no claim that the CAF "resides" at Colonel By Drive. And are you saying that Rideau Hall is only the official residence of the incorporeal corporation sole? TFD (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox isn't the place for notes when the article itself spells out what would be in those notes. The citations shouldn't even be there; they're in the article, too. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I placed them there as the entire residences section kept on being removed, so for the benefit of editors involved in the discussion who haven't read the pertinent sections in the article space, the verifiable facts are readily accessible. The intent was to remove them once the issue was resolved, if able. trackratte (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll impliment my 'third' compromise, when the page expires. It'll either be accepted or rejected, among the rest of you. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And the purpose of a talk page, is to sort it out here so as to avoid purposeful contentious editing and reversions, ie WP:BRD. trackratte (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It has already been rejected. Saying you'll put it in regardless is essentially announcing you'll edit war again on an article currently locked because of edit warring as soon as the lock is removed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Relax gentlemen. The protection is in place for the next 3 days. A lot could happen between now & then. Everyone may opt for deletion or adding the 'When in Canada' bit or going with residences only (minus the references, I hope, as they appeared bunched up) or the entire discussion may simply dry up, which I will then take as a silent consensus for keeping the residences in place, without any added discriptive. Again gentlemen, there's no need to panic. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reading over the discussions these last few days. It appears I'm not going to get a consensus for either exclusion of the residences from the infobox or any additions of descriptives in the infobox, to explain that the Canadian monarch doesn't reside in Canada. Therefore, I shall leave the infobox as it 'was' (residences, with no additional info), even though I still support deletion. PS: Trackratte, per Miesianiacal's suggestion, leave the reference out as they're already in the article body. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The article explicitly states: ...with the monarch residing predominantly in the oldest and most populous realm, the United Kingdom, and viceroys (the Governor General of Canada in the federal sphere and a lieutenant governor in each province) acting as the sovereign's representatives in Canada. But "governor general" should be lower case? 11:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)