Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debate on the monarchy in Canada article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Citizens for a Canadian Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed Merger of Point & Counterpoint

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

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

[edit] Patriote Party

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

[edit] Bias in article

  • General feeling I found from this article is a lack of objectivity.

[edit] National Myth

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

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

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

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

[edit] La raison d'être?

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

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

[edit] British Monarchy

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

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

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

Firstly, it isn't a legal reference; it's a reference within a legal reference. Secondly, your interpretations of St. Laurent's words are not backed up by any secondary sources, making them POV, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Thirdly, the sentence makes clear that the errors were percieved by monarchists. Fourthly, "some republicans" are weasel words, again, not allowed in Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, then here's the full legal reference in the words of Justice J. Rouleau in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, June 26, 2003:
  • The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain. As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent to the House of Commons during the debate on the bill altering the royal title:
  • "Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566
The key element here is: "Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain." He uses Prime Minister St. Laurent's quote stating the same as reinforcement. The bottom line: Canada's monarchy is the British monarchy. I will be revising the page to reflect the full quote plus adding a reference to back up the claim by republicans.MC Rufus (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere does he say the Canadian monarchy is British, however. Please see the (very lengthy) discussion beginning at Talk:Monarchy in Canada/archive1#Rouleau and the Canadian Crown to see how the case you're referring to was worked out as a source for Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the difficulty. MC Rufus is not himself asserting that the Canadian monarchy is British. Whether he believes it is neither here nor there. He is only quoting Hansard as saying, 'Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office'. And he is quoting it in the context of the republican debate, as if to say, 'they (the republicans) argue that the Canadian monarchy is really British'. To say that MC Rufus is arguing a POV is not fair. And to require secondary sources is not fair either, because Hansard is a primary source.--Gazzster (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, maybe you're right. I'm getting caught up in subtleties here, valid as they are. Rufus, of course, has a POV. The problem here is the pulling of quotes from both Rouleau and St. Laurent out of their contexts to support his personal take on things, which constitutes original research. Another republican minded person did the exact same thing some two or more years ago, which resulted in the long debate I referred Rufus to above.
Further, all we're talking about here is a brief mention of how both sides of the monarchist/republican debate have interpreted the results of one particular poll; it isn't necessary to delve into the complexities of the Canadian constitution in this area, especially when the subject matter is already covered elsewhere, and is linked to from the paragraph in question. --G2bambino (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The way I read his edit, Rufus seems to be saying that the republicans say the monarchy is British. I don't think he's trying to 'delve into the complexities of the Canadian constitution' at all. He's simply saying, republicans are saying that the Canadian monarchy is British. Republicans in Australia and New Zealand use the same argument. If you lay aside the legal subtleties, EII is practically Queen of Canada because she is the Queen of the UK. I would critique the quote though in that it appears to attribute the use of the quote to republicans. But this is not demonstrated.--Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but he's using the court case and the quote from Hansard in the court case as proof that the republicans' viewpoint is true. That's OR. The paragraph presently states that Canadian republicans generally veiw the monarchy as British, and even links to another paragraph that deals with exactly that interpretation on their part. The Rouleau and St. Laurent quotes just aren't applicable to the place Rufus is trying to insert them, even as a footnote. --G2bambino (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The quote is certainly interesting, and could be used somewhere. But I think commentaries would need to be sourced to discuss it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is; at Monarchy of Canada and elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree to removing it completely and referring to the other article IF the monarchist objection to the poll wording "British Monarchy" is removed. Otherwise, it's entirely relevant and deserves a place next to the comment.MC Rufus (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Please understand I don't think there's anything wrong with what you wrote. In fact I think it's a valid remark. You do need to attribute the opinion to republicans somehow. If you demonstrate how republicans have referred to the Hansard and/or the St. Laurent decision, that would be perfectly cool. --Gazzster (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And if you could do so, it wouldn't be appropriate to insert it in this particular place. Under "Republican arguments" would be the apt location. --G2bambino (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how attributing the references to republicans makes them more valid. In using them, I'm not necessarily even arguing for a republic, I'm defending the polling firm's legitimate use of the term "British monarchy." G2Bambino claims it skews the results. I say, so what. If public opinion changes by calling it what it is, then too bad. The use by the pollster is authentically backed up by both legal and political references, as well as common usage, which I haven't as yet gone into. G2's objection is the same as cigarette manufacturers objecting to medical research that paints their product in a bad light, so to get around it, they label it "mild" or "low tar." Monarchists do the same thing with their own labels like "Canadian monarchy", "Canadian Crown", "Maple Crown," all of them contrived simply for one purpose, to conceal the truth and make it more palatable to the public. Remember, G2 is the main propagandist at the monarchist league. It's his job to suppress valid republican arguments while promoting the monarchy's continued existence.
Also G2's deletion of the reference to "head of state" is just plain ridiculous. The fact that it isn't mentioned in the constitution is irrelevant. Every nation has to have a head of state, otherwise, they're a colony. Is this what G2 thinks Canada is? Even the founder and former chairman of the monarchist league is better informed:
  • "A neutral Queen who seeks nothing for herself is our Head of State; her Canadian-born representatives carry out her role ably on a day-to-day basis." John Aimers 1997 http://www.uni.ca/library/debate2.html
MC Rufus (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason you ought to connect the references to the republicans is that otherwise, it looks like it is your own opinion. I agree that G2 is a monarchist and attempts to downplay the republican view when he can. But don't argue with him on his level. Use references. Then he will have to argue with the reference, not with you. Saying things like, 'it's his job to surpress valid republican arguments' is not really fair. He has, after all, said your references can be validly used. He only disagrees on where they should be used. And in any case, it makes your edits personal. Confine yourself to facts.--Gazzster (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I can talk. See Talk:Australian monarchy to see how I've not followed my own advice. But life is a learning experience.--Gazzster (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the fact that the quotes were made by people arguing FOR the monarchy makes them even more relevant. They can't be misconstrued as being biased. And they can't possibly be my opinion because they're documented in a legal judgement as being attributed to a Canadian prime minister and an Ontario Superior Court justice. As far as I'm concerned, they're about as perfect a reference as one could find.MC Rufus (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What is biased is your interpretation of what these quotes mean. You are pulling two particular ones out because, when not in their historical or legal contexts, they appear to affirm your opinions on the monarchy. If you looked at the archived discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Canada, you'd see that someone else attempted to do just that, but eventually could not refute the mountain of other cited evidence that proved him wrong. Regardless, the goal here is simply to assert the two viewpoints taken in regard to the results of a poll, not decide which one is right and which one wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not "my interpretation" at all. I gave two statements, one of which was an >>Ontario Superior Court judge's interpretation<< of a prime minister's Hansard speech - both of which say the monarchies of Canada and Britain are one in the same. The judge goes one step further by saying Canada can't even legislate to change the so-called "Canadian monarchy" on its own without the British monarchy being changed beforehand. Therefore, stating that pollsters are skewing the results with incorrect wording is just plain false. Canada's monarchy is the British monarchy. There are only two ways out of this. Either remove the monarchists' objection to the poll wording altogether or balance it with the republican belief that calling it British is legitimate along with the Ontario Court rulling as a reference.MC Rufus (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We already know the monarch of Canada and monarch of the UK are one and the same person, Rufus; just like the Canadian and Jamaican monarchs are one and the same. It's called a personal union. But, you're trying create a mini essay that debunks the accepted thinking, attempting to argue that the crown within Canadian jurisdiction is in no way separate from the crown in British jurisdiction, making Canada subservient to the UK parliament, and using these two quotes out of context to affirm your thesis. This is what is original research. Worse, you're trying to ascribe your theory to all republicans, when there is no evidence that CCR uses Rouleau's ruling as a foundation for any argument that Canada is not independent.
The paragraph does now state that republicans view the monarchy as British only, but the court ruling is not a source that backs up this statement. --G2bambino (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Unbalanced

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

Who edits the article is irrelevant, and who you think edits the article is simply worthless. The content of the article is what matters here. Perhaps what is there now simply reflects the balance between monarchist and republican argument, i.e. that the two sides aren't equal. I think you should get an outside party to decide if this article is biased or not. --G2bambino (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The outside party, will have to somebody who's neither a republican or a monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is what Wikipedia is like. It is open to editing by anyone. And each individual has his or her own interests. And we all have the right to attempt to justify our points of view. And even with following the editing guiidelines, an article will take on a distinct character if it is edited by only a few people. In this respect, Wikipedia is a pretty blunt instrument for getting at the truth. The solution, I believe, is for as many editors as possible to contribute to an article. It would be good to see these talk pages full of discussion about references, and how valid or useful they are. That way, editors would have to argue hard for their point of view. And, perhaps, articles would be balanced by different points of view. Instead, they so often seem to be full of debates about ideas of the editors themselves.And so the discussions so often turn into debates.--Gazzster (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, Gazzster. Having a particular interest, I have more resources at my disposal on which to base edits on that particular topic. However, believe it or not, but I have added much republican oriented information to this article, as much as I could find, anyway. Thus, I think the article relatively well reflects the situation of monarchist-republican debate in Canada. But, you're right, more participation generally results in a better article. For the time being, though, we need a decision on whether or not this article actually is unjustly slanted. --G2bambino (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My typing fingers are tied when it comes to 'sources' disputes. When it comes to producing sources, my pockets are empty (I'm also too lazy to look for websites). GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We could go to admin. But I doubt very much that an admin would read through the article. I suggest that editors could quote passages they believe are unbalanced. That way we might get the gist of what the problems are, and get a discussion going.--Gazzster (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That would help. I'm also opening an RfC for broader attention. --G2bambino (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm in favour of having an unbiased editor review it. I'm also able to point out its many errors and deficiencies. The big one, of course; of the four images shown, three represent supporters of the monarchy while the one representing the republican side of the debate is Quebec separatist leader Rene Leveseque???!!! This despite polls showing a majority of ALL Canadians support ending the monarchy? Come on.MC Rufus (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] RfC: Dispute regarding neutrality/balance

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

Hmm, this is tricky buisness. How does one present an article like this (including its monarchist-counterpart articles) in a NPOV way? I'm stumped folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't. The question is, do the edits tilt the balance of POV in a particular direction?--Gazzster (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So the question is: Are these types of articles' contents being presented in such a way as to promote their topics. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't finished studying the whole article thoroughly, but two things strike me for the moment. First, the opening paragraphs:

Debate on the Monarchy of Canada has been taking place since before confederation in 1867, though it has rarely been of significance since the rebellions of 1837. Historically, many Canadians have seen the monarchy as a traditional institution that forms a key part of the nation's raison d'être, and justifies Canada's separateness from the United States. One of Canada's national myths is the story of the United Empire Loyalists, a group of British North American settlers who fled to Canada from the United States after the American Revolutionary War. A key justification for this migration was supposedly their Tory, monarchist beliefs which were met with hostility by Americans immediately after the war. Today, polls show that many contemporary Canadians are simply unaware of the Crown's role in their system of government, though this does not necessarily reflect a decrease or increase in the monarchy's popularity. A 2002 EKOS poll found that only 5% of Canadians could correctly identify Elizabeth II as Canada's sovereign and head of state.[1]

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

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

You've hit the nail on the head. Most Canadian are unaware of the fact Canada is a constitutional monarchy (a regrettable situation for we republicans & a plus for monarchist IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to do something about it. I may try. But I do feel Canadians need to set the balance.--Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You've every right to edit this article, don't let your non-Canadianism hold you back. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I can do the editing. I've got polls, quotations, history, articles. I can do whatever it takes to improve it. I'm just reluctant to waste time adding it if G2bambino is going to delete it. He seems determined not to let a single republican word creep into his domain without a brawl. MC Rufus (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't anybody count on me, I've absolutely no sources. Typical me, empty pockets. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just read this article. The quality of this article is excellent and frankly, I am not sure whether it is in favour of monarchy or against it. It is well documented, balanced and intelligently structured. Congratulations to the editors! --Voui (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rene Leveque Image

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

Actually, GoodDay, the picture of Lesveque is right next to a whole paragraph about Lesveque and his comments/actions. Stick a picture of Manley in there if you want, but there's no reason for anyone to assume Lesveque's image is a representation of all Canadian republicans any more than Michener's is to represent all Canadian monarchists. --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's one: John Manley. There are others but there may be copyright issues. Is there a process to get permission for use of a copyright protected image on Wikipedia? This is non-profit so I don't think a licensing fee is necessary. - MC Rufus (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'd like to see the image of Lesveque removed. It unfairly creates a negative impression of the debate by use of Association fallacy where if A makes claim P and Bs also make the same claim, then A is a B. In other words, a separtist endorsing republican government in an independant Quebec gives the impression that federalist Canadian republicans are separatist sympathizers.
Also, Lesvesque's comments actually don't even relate at all to the monarchy in Canada. He made them in reference to the Monarchy in Quebec where, on that subject's page, the identical picture and quotation already appear. If anyone wants to see his image and read his comments there, then I'm fine with that. A link from Debate on the monarchy in Canada should be all that's needed.
While we're at it, the Toporoski reference to Canadian citizens being "subjects of the Queen" also has to go. The Citizenship Act http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm makes no reference to "subject of the Queen." The term is a voluntary one without official status that monarchists are certainly free to use to describe themselves but it cannot be made to refer to all Canadians. - MC Rufus (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I suppose it all depends on what Lesveque envisioned the sovereignty-association relationship to be. If Quebec residents were to remain Canadian citizens, use Canadian money, etc., then the region would still be under the Queen of Canada's authority. As the subject of this article is the debate on the monarchy in Canada, and both Lesveque and Toporoski are talking about the role of the Canadian monarchy in a possibly sovereignty-associated Quebec, then it seems that the matter is relevant here. Also, let's not forget that the attitude of Quebec sovereigntists towards the monarchy - i.e. viewing it only as a federal institution - is discussed in the article, or that appeasing Quebec separatists is a common argument by republicans for the abolition of the monarchy.
As for the "subjects" thing: it's a direct quote from Toporoski; the words are attributed to him alone. --G2bambino (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Grant image

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

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

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

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

Definitely, the George Grant image and opinion do not belong here. His claim is unsubstantiated and absolutely without international precedent. Plus, he's widely recognized as a right-wing religious fanatic. I expect I'd meet the same objection if I placed published unsubstantiated anti-monarchy quotations by someone with the same credentials. - MC Rufus (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinions on his credentials are noted, but his comments are related to the subject of the article, and cited to reliable sources. That's all that's needed to warrant inclusion. --G2bambino (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

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

Overall, a merge would be acceptable to me. The only worry I'd have is that such an article would invite struggles between monarchist & republican editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Use material here to augment the relevant section in Monarchy in Canada.--Gazzster (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay: That's a valid worry, but I'm not sure separate articles would be any different in that regard; everyone is allowed to edit whatever article. I think this article is valuable for spelling out the debate, but I wonder if others will see a value in a separate article like Republicanism in Australia and Republicanim in the United Kingdom, which each don't have a "Debate" counterpart like we do here.
Gazzster: Wouldn't that just create more repetition? Or are you suggeesting dividing the information here and transplanting it to it's relevant monarchist or republican article? --G2bambino (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Anything here that is truly useful and not covered in Monarchy in Canada could be rewritten into the text there.--Gazzster (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not averse to this, as long as no information is deleted. Personally, I hate seeing the same stuff on more than one page. However, I assume the debate was moved because of the size - which is my other peeve: pages that are just plain too big. Be prepared for the Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada pages to swell to ridiculous length. So, although I have no problem myself with merging, because of that, I'm slightly more inclined to just leaving it alone.
While we're at it; I see the same repetition problem with Monarchism in Canada and Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy in the Canadian provinces and the individual pages for the monarchy in each province, ie; Monarchy in Quebec, Monarchy in New Brunswick where I can't imagine there being many hits. - MC Rufus (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem with these realm articles. They end up repeating material. Ideally there should be just one: Monarchy in Canada. But as I know this isn't going to happen, how about instead of Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada, transferring material from those articles to this one, and deleting both?--Gazzster (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of just it, though: there isn't anything in those articles that isn't already here. It's just direct repetition. I guess what I'm asking is: what's the best format in which to present the material: one article or two?
The other articles are a different matter. --G2bambino (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you guys prefer a merge? give it try. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I hate to complicate things further, but I didn't say I approved of merging Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada "into" Debate on the monarchy in Canada. The historical references on the 'isms pages just don't fit into a page devoted to 'discussion' of the monarchy. If there's to be any merge at all (which I still don't fully endorse), the debate page has to merge with the two 'isms.
The ideal alternative would be to just keep all three pages and move all references to the debate or the pros and cons out of both Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada into Debate on the monarchy in Canada. The 'ism pages should be about things like the theories or doctrines, development of movements, popularity and significance in popular culture of the two. However, I think it would be a nightmare to enforce adherance. - MC Rufus (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And, then, what about the history of the debate? Currently Republicanism in Canada essentially mirrors the republican side of the debate outlined in the history section here. Of course, things like the Republic of Canada and Riel, etc., are part of the history of republicanism in this country, but, at the same time, are part of the debate. To be honest, I'm conflicted: I don't see a need for repetition - there's a danger of the two articles contradicting each other, which I've seen happen elsewhere - yet I can't see a way to merge. --G2bambino (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Hi, I just stumbled upon this page because I've always been interested in the Canadian Monarchy, so I thought I would throw out my opinion (although I'm not an expert, by far). I think these pages should be merged, because to the initiate reader (like myself), it is far too difficult to have to click back and forth between 3 different pages in order to gain a clear understanding of the topic (plus I worry about POV forks, contradictions, etc). Perhaps the article Monarchism in Canada could contain the debates/discussion, history, outline, etc. It would make for a much more interesting and fun read. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there's some repetition, especially debate-related. As I said above, the ideal alternative would be to just keep all three pages and move all references to the debate or the pros and cons out of both Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada into Debate on the monarchy in Canada. However, I don't think it'll stick. Enforcing it would be a full-time job. Anytime someone will make a claim on one side, someone else will offer a balance. Yet, the debate page offers too much information that's just not applicable to the other 2. In the end, the merged pages would split up and we'd be right back to where we are now with the editor(s) involved having gone to a lot of work for nothing. It's a job I'm certainly not up to. As is, Wikipedia-editing is already too much of a time-eater for me. So don't count on me to help police it.
I checked other polarizing issues on Wikipedia to see how they handle the splintering off and overlapping of related pages. Abortion is the best example. I lost count at 60 abortion-related pages, most of which overlapped to some degree. Despite there being so many articles on abortion with common subject-matter, I shudder to think how anyone could possibly merge even 1 or 2 easily or with any degree of permanence. We're only talking about 3 pages here so I just don't see this as important.
My conclusion: Despite the practical motives here, as they stand now, it works, although, typical of Wikipedia, it's not perfect. Merging any of these pages is an exercise in futility. It simply won't result in anything concrete. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be more than just a little repetition. The other problem is that republicanism and monarchism are ideological positions that rely on arguments for and against, so, in essence, Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada are just the two sides of the Debate on the monarchy in Canada. The one possible solution is to keep nothing but "Republican arguments" and "Monarchist arguments" here, and split the "History" section between Republicanism in Canada and Monarchism in Canada. Otherwise, I think the latter two articles should just become redirects here. --G2bambino (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So, are the pages gonna be merged or not? GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The merge has occured, thank you. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. It seemed someone had to be bold and make a move. Those other articles really just repeated exactly what was here anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B class

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

[edit] Recent update

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

These are the changes so far:

  • 1) Generally made awkward sentences easier to read (most people who would read this are not likely to be academics versed in constitutional law).
This is not Simple English Wikipedia.
  • 2) Simplified interpretation of UEL influence.
I don't believe that was a simplification, but, rather, a re-wording to insert some POV views about the UEL influence.
  • 3) Simplified interpretation of the influence of Quebec and Canadian nationalism. The reference to the sovereignty movement was removed and replaced by Quebec nationalism (which is broader in scope and, unlike separtist objectives, directly influences national policy-making).
Fine.
  • 4) Corrected EKOS poll question.(There was no mention of "Canada's sovereign" in the question.) Also added poll choices.
Fine.
  • 5) Added tags for the many unverified statements.
Each will have to be discussed individually, but I can say you clearly didn't check the sources there as you placed tags for information that is already cited. Further, you bizzarrely removed refs and placed 'citation needed' tags.
  • 6) Removed photo of René Lesvesque as per discussion. The reasoning being that it presents a false and biased view of republicanism, intended to give the reader a perception that republicans are seperatists.
Your personal interpretation of why the photo is there. Perhaps you don't want any link between Lesveque and the monarchy, but, unfortunately for you, he did wade into the debate, and on a national level.
  • 7) Removed outdated view of public opinion trends. Deleted "in recent years, the numbers wishing for a republic have declined" and replaced it with the more up-to-date "However, out of the four national opinion polls on the monarchy question since 2005, the majority of Canadians supported ending the monarchy in three, while support was divided equally for both camps in one. (Reference was also added.)
Funnily enough, your words are an exact copy of CCR's interpretations of the poll results. That does not make them real or accurate. I've moved this information down to the polls section.
  • 8) Corrected innaccurate statement about public servent contracts. (It only applies to contract workers).
The citation provided states something different.
  • 9) Updated description of Citizens for a Canadian Republic's goals.
This goes into far too much detail for an article like this, and is more appropriate at Citizens for a Canadian Republic. Look at how much is written about the other two citizens' groups and compare to what you're trying to put in for CCR. --G2bambino (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Lead

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

IMHO there's nothing wrong with the lead. I would never mistake Canada's monarchy vs republic history for the Greeks or the French history. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You lost me there GoodDay. This is the issue: For a layperson or student reading this page and trying to get a grasp on the monarchy debate issues, please, give your honest, objective opinion on which one of these statements does it better and more clearly:

G2's:

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

or mine:

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

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

Finally.
Now, your first bullet point is a near identical copy of the first sentence of my version, so surely there's no issue there.
Your second bullet point is the contentious one. Firstly, you use the word "persistance," as though monarchist sentiment is some long-useless acretion that refuses to let go and die; something I'm sure you believe, but is not appropriate in this article. Secondly, you mention "resentment of the United States," thereby equating monarchism with anti-Americanism; again, a common republican tactic, but not appropriate here. Other than that, there's no difference between your version and mine.
Your third bullet point only removes personal union, an accurate term for the relationship. From earlier commentary it seems you have a problem understanding this term, but, again, that's not a reason not to include it here. And "increased questioning" isn't really clear, as the increase hasn't been all that great.
Further, you break the lead up into too many short paragraphs.
As there isn't much difference between the two, I suggest we remove the loaded terminology and go with something like:
Historically, many Anglophone Canadians have not challenged the significance or symbolism of the monarchy, seeing it as a link to the United Kingdom, and as a mark of Canada's distinctiveness from the United States; one of Canada's national myths is the story of the United Empire Loyalists, a group of British North American settlers, loyal to the Crown, who fled to Canada from the United States after the American Revolutionary War, and who were met with hostility by Americans immediately after the conflict. However, paralleling the changes in constitutional law that saw the creation of a legally distinct Canadian monarchy shared with the other Commonwealth realms,[1][2][3][4] the emergence in the 1960s of Quebec nationalism, and the evolution of Canadian nationalism, the cultural role and relevance of the monarchy in Canada altered and was sometimes questioned.
Thoughts? --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A grumpy layman

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

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

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

I don't know much about your wonderful nation. But I do think that both versions are too verbose. Surely a lead would be a brief paragraph of 3 or 4 lines. There's no need to get into any kind of detail. --Gazzster (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of a complicated topic. Do you have any suggestions? --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it is. But couldn't you deal with the complications in the main body? For the lead, how about, 'The monarchy has been a source of contention in Canada since the (whatever) century.' And then introduce the principal times of contention.--Gazzster (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it hasn't really been a source of much contention. The only place I can see that there might be too much detail is in the part about the UEL. --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the title kinda says it has been a source of contention. Otherwise why has the article been written? I just think you (plural) have to as short as possible to avoid going off into an essay, which is what appears to be happening.--Gazzster (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I said the monarchy hasn't caused much contention; it's flared up from time to time, but there wasn't really anything for 130 years. Even after the 1960s the debate has only come up sporadically in some media outlets, but never at a national level. So, because the contention has been limited and localised, should it really be focused on in the lead? I thought the more general sentence "the cultural role and relevance of the monarchy in Canada altered and was sometimes questioned" was more appropriate. --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Sorry G2, I had missed that you said there hasn't been 'much' contention. But at the risk of losing the original point (and bugging GoodDay withn the indents!), I suppose you could ask yourselves this question: is there any value in an article which says that occasionally Mrs Windsor rattles the cup when she takes tea?--Gazzster (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting take on the situation, which, I suppose, somewhat harkens back to my questions about merging articles. I don't know, really; there's obviously enough info to fill an article, but it is just, barring the rebellions and the Quiet Revolution, some errant comments here and there by politicians and columnists. This article grew out of a section at Monarchy of Canada, but I don't know of any other "debate" articles. What to do? --G2bambino (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] 3RR

Warning

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

No, I've made three reverts - two in many parts, and one direct.
You might also note you haven't elaborated at all on your claims of imbalance in the article, specifically ignoring my request for some further explanation so as to move forward. Perhaps you'll do so now? --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Levesque image and reference to Fenians

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

At least you're now admitting you're purposefully stubborn. That's a start, I suppose.
I think you need to be clear on one thing, though: this isn't a republican article. You may think CCR has the monopoly on challenging the Crown, but that's a limited POV. This is an article on the debate on the monarchy, and both Lesveque and the Fenians were a part of that. The first is obvious - his comments are right there in front of us. The second is shown in the worry of the Prime Minister for what would happen to the Governor General in Toronto; obviously is was suspected the Fenians might target the Crown. They may have been from the US, but they came to attack the Crown in Canada. But, I'll admit it is a bit of a broader issue that perhaps only tangentially touches on the monarchy in the Canadian scope.
Regardless, if you have personal biases against certain figures, that isn't anyone's problem but yours, and Wikipedia isn't here to accomodate your sensitivities. Give one sound, non-personal reason to remove Lesveque, and it goes. Otherwise, leave him be. --G2bambino (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Levesque removed, as I too find readers may get the impression that republicans are Quebec seperatist. But, it's not something I'm willing to fight over - for all we know, maybe there's Quebec seperatist who are also monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, come on, GoodDay. If we remove this because of what readers might think, where do we draw the line? And, what if what they might think is correct? After all, many Quebec separatists (though Lesveque was a sovereigntist) are republicans; few advocate a Quebec monarchy. This is starting to get like the dispute at Talk:Muhammad. --

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

Jacques Parizeau once said retaining the monarchy in an independent Quebec was not something that could be ruled out. Also, Scottish separatists are now considering the possibility of an independent Scotland with the Queen as head of state. Just because they want independence, doesn't make them republican. In this case, the image of Levesque conjures images of the breakup of Canada, something monarchists seem to love to predict if we turf the monarchy. The only reason G2Bambino wants this photo there is to help perpetuate that myth. It has to go. There are more representative people to illustrate politician republicans. Brian Tobin, Herb Dhaliwhal, Pat Martin. In fact, why is seperatism even mentioned in a debate on the monarchy? - Jaye Peghtyff (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems, unsurprisingly, you've fallen into the same trap as Rufus (if you aren't one and the same person). Allow me to repeat myself for your benefit: this is not an article on republicanism. So, to be extra clear, for the simple minded: Lesveque does not "illustrate republicanism." As for your personal opinions on any covert motives on my part: paranoid, baseless, and useless. --G2bambino (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What's really unsurprising is that when you run out of valid points to argue, you resort to unfounded accusations and name calling. So I guess we can add those to your other Wikipedia violations: Ignoring Wikipedia's NPOV policy, repeated edit waring, trolling,stalking and general disruptive behaviour.
So I'll exercise restraint here and avoid your childish tactics with this simple response to your "this is not an article on republicanism:" It most certainly is. The article is called Debate on the monarchy. Unless in your twisted logic you think that means a Discussion on the monarchy at the exclusion of anything contray to it, a debate means discussing the pros and cons of all aspects of the subject. The last time I checked, the other side of the pro-monarchy side of the debate is the pro-republic side.
In regards to the Fenians, inserting that completely unrelated historical element into the debate is an obvious attempt to influence the reader to associate republicanism with radicalism. Inserting the image of Levesque has a similar motive: to suggest guilt by association or, in other words, a separatist is a republican so republicans must be separatists (or at least sympathizers). In both examples, it's nothing less than blatent violation of NPOV.
As mentioned, I'm ready to discuss all other aspects of this page. The Fenian and Levesque references absolutely must be removed and I'll go to the highest levels to make sure they are. - MC Rufus (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You have a narrow view-point. Nothing "must be removed" because you say so; Wikipedia is not censored to suit your personal sensitivities. The image has been there for some time, your removal of it is challenged on the basis that there is no non-personal reason for doing so; thus, the responsibility is yours to provide sound argument for your actions. If I remain unconvinced, start the dispute resolution process.
I've already commented on the Fenians. Perhaps it's a common tactic of Canadian republicans to keep fighting fights that have actually ceased some time ago? --G2bambino (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah! It's not gonna be like 'Muhammad'. MC wants the image removed, you want it to remain & I'm not overly concerned if it stays or goes - therefore? no consesus, thus status quo should continue. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really want it to remain; it's just that I haven't seen a valid, non-personal argument for why it should go. It's just an illustration, placed next to text that specifically discusses Lesveque. Only Rufus seems to have laden it with any extra meaning. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, it is a rare image of Levesque. It's not often he's seen without a cigarette in his chops (though I'd bet he had one between his fingers, when the photo was taken). Anyways, I hope the Levesque inclusion/exclusion dispute ends soon. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a request for page protection. Either you guys are fighting over the Levesque image or he's been going back & forth to the store, for smokes. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: The both of you (MC & G2) have a right to repeal the 'protection' (if it's applied). GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article need protection because of a dispute between two editors?--Gazzster (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ya can request unprotection, if ya like. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but I think we resort to protection when mature minds could work things out with time.--Gazzster (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)