Talk:Monarchy of Canada

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monarchy of Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 30 days

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Monarchy of Canada is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 17, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 24, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
December 19, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Canada: Governments Top‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Commonwealth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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