Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Change the photo

The photo of Charles in the Infobox should be traded for his official Canadian royal portrait, I feel like this is a logical decision. Does anyone else agree? Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

We would need a commercial copyright release......[https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-portraits/use-images.html Moxy🍁 01:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Issues with bias in the article

The entire article, especially the debate section, is written from a royalist posture. Especially of note is the continuous reference to lack of proper civics education whenever referring to criticisms of the crown, dismissing republican issues as ill-informed instead of presenting them at face value. The article is similarly dismissive of critiques that refer to the crown as British, claiming that they misunderstand the role of the crown as an 'entirely Canadian' institution. Instead of dismissing these critiques on the assumption that they are poorly informed, it would be more honest to present thid identification of the monarch and the institution of the crown as British as purposeful and essential to the rhetoric of the critique, especially as the monarch and royal family are themselves British and their lineage is a direct connection to Canada's colonial legacy.

If the page is to have a 'debate' section at all, it should necessarily make every effort to fairly represent all perspectives being debated. 37.228.214.69 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The main focus is correctly the role of the crown in Canadian government. While Canadian republicanism is correctly mentioned, it's fairly minor in Canada. TFD (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree ...."Canadians have never seriously considered a republican alternative." .... The political discord in Republic's kind of scary Canadians.[1] Moxy🍁 14:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm more referring to sections like the one I've pasted below from the public perception section that unnecessarily quote strings of folks supposedly agreeing with one other about how the public doesn't understand the importance of the monarchy. These list of sources doesn't really add anything useful to the reader. For example, the case of Hugo Cyr, the citation leads to an introductory section of a chapter about how news media reports the formation of government but is simplified down to 'Hugo Cyr agreed.' What use is this other than editorial using?:

"commentators stated that contemporary Canadians had and have a poor understanding of the Canadian monarchy; something the Monarchist League of Canada (MLC) claims opponents of the monarchy exacerbate by spreading disinformation and then take advantage of. Jackson wrote in his book, The Crown and Canadian Federalism, that this is part of a wider ignorance about Canadian civics and Hugo Cyr agreed, while Smith researched for his 1995 book, The Invisible Crown, he found it difficult to 'find anyone who could talk knowledgeably about the subject'." 37.228.214.69 (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Editorializing not editorial using sorry. 37.228.214.69 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this doesn't add anything to the article. It sounds like support someone would use in an undergraduate essay.Wellington Bay (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also agree with this point. Moxy🍁 22:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)