Talk:Citizens for a Canadian Republic

POV
I'm disturbed by the recent edits which seem to indicate some bad faith editing by an avowed monarchist (at least from reading his user page). The selective use of polls confuses the issues: why not use the full text from the linked article on polls which indicates that public opinion is at best confused and that polling which seems to support the status quo was skewed? Also, the mention of the unsuccessful lawsuit is not balanced with the recent successes in court. I will not add or take anything out until I hear from other editors as I feel large changes such as those need to be taken to the talk page. Replacing what is claimed to be POV content with content that is POV is bad faith editing and needs to be addressed. Freshacconci 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Be careful with slinging around accusations of bad faith. The poll results were certainly originally edited to favour a certain point of view; the only alternative to deleting them was to balance them with the fact that other results contradicted what was only mentioned here. Is it preferred that I delete mention of the polls all-together?
 * Further, the lawsuit was unsuccessful - that's a fact. If there were any successful ones, add them into the article.  Perhaps that would be a better use of your energy than trying to find malice wherever you can. --G2bambino 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad faith is editing an article to skew it in one direction, which I feel you did (you support the monarchy, you edited the article to slant the Republican cause as lost: how else to judge your edits? Yes, an important Wikipedia guideline is to WP:ASSUME which I strive to do until I see something that clearly indicates otherwise). I was of course referring to the Charles Roach class action suit which is ongoing but has had some success in the Ontario Supreme Court. If you were truly interested in objectivity and maintaining NPOV I'd think you would have added that. As I've said, I'm not making changes until I hear from other editors as I'm interested in finding consensus (or at least bringing it to the talk page). Your edits to the polls only skewed things in the other direction. The actual text in the linked article seems to be quite balanced. Why not just keep it as a link to that with some simple wording indicating the difficulties in establishing a public "mood" on the issue. As it is now written it appears that Canadians wish to retain the current form of government which is not quite true (it's more along the lines that a majority of Canadians are not interested in the topic). And edit summary comments about "hiding" some sort of "truth" is certainly loaded. Cheers. Freshacconci 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have a hard time taking criticism seriously when its focus is on the wrong subject. If you wanted to see a skewed article, look at the record of this one before I edited it.  I'm not going to say my edits are perfect, but I completely fail to see how what I did purports any winning or losing, unless there was a documented win or loss to speak of.  Perhaps you could specifically point out how my adding the opposing take to a one-sided view actually tipped the balance in the other direction?
 * Frankly, I don't think the polls are worth any mention in this article: I don't see how some mixed poll results relate to the formation of CCR. Was there some direct link between the two events?  So, yes, I fully agree that what's said here about the polls could be reduced to at least a sentence with a link to the more detailed coverage of the polls.  However, that would necessitate the deletion of text inserted by another editor, which I thought might result in an edit war.  Perhaps I've simply been made paranoid by experiences elsewhere on Wikipedia.
 * It's also quite evident that CCR promotes a president, whether such a person would be titled as such or not.
 * I'm not sure we'll get much more input here from other users; this isn't a heavy traffic article and seems to only be haunted by people with a specific tie to either camp on both sides of the monarchy. Unless, of course, an RfC is opened. --G2bambino 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC) PS- It seems you're confusing the Roach lawsuit with the O'Donohue one. The former is pending, the latter failed, twice, in fact. --G2bambino 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're both victims of that sort of paranoia: it's really what I've been acting on here. You're right: no one seems to bother with this article and when some big changes happen out of nowhere, that's a bit of a red flag for me. I was never a fan of the article to begin with (that's why it was on my watch list as something that I would work on at some point). But life is too short for pettiness and I'll happily take back my accusations of bad faith editing. I would be interested in hearing from others on any of this (if there's anyone else reading this...). I am fine with removing the mention of polls since it actually does not have much to do with the CCR. The CCR (which I have no connection to BTW), is an advocacy group and the article should stick to the basic facts. It seems we've both been on Wikipedia long enough to refrain from gutter-level personal attacks (my comment is directed at me mostly). Take care. Freshacconci 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy baloney, I've missed the discussion. Anyways, I too agree with the removal of the polls. GoodDay 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I too have been disturbed by the relentless hatchet job done on this entry by monarchists. I have restored the vandalizing of this page done by G2Bambino who happens to be Gavin Guthrie, the main propagandist at the Monarchist League of Canada. I will be formally submitting a complaint to Wikipedia about G2Bambino and suggest banning him if this continues. I will also recommend that Wikipedia editors examine the page for accuracy and fairness and consider locking the page against further acts. Please note. When doing research I also noticed that the previous Wikipedia entry for the national director of CCR, Tom Freda, has been deleted (perhaps by the same person?). MC Rufus (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have formally submitted a complaint regarding G2Bambino and am requesting arbitration to prevent him from vandalizing this page. Obviously, this person has his own personal ax to grind against republicans. According to the Monarchist League of Canada website, he is the Vice-Chairman and "coordinates the League's political action and strategic programmes." To Freshacconci: I disagree about the removal of the polls. The page links directly to the polling firms' data and the nature of the polls directly relate to the subject of the monarchy/republic debate. Comments on that page are made impartially. I haven't a clue as to how anyone could consider them not "relevant to the CCR" since that's the sole reason for the organization's existence. The reason G2Bambino objects to them is because they show declining support for the monarchy and increased support for a republic. His motivations for concealing them is pure deceit. Regarding the slow traffic here. Check when the monarchy comes up in the news, like a royal scandal or a royal visit. You should see a big difference.MC Rufus (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion clearly outlines how the decision to remove the polls was reached. If you wish to have them reinserted, argue your case here as your edits run contrary to what was decided here by three editors, not one. Also, please do not change the link to Debate on the monarchy in Canada, which is the main article on the subject; what you keep reverting to is a sub of another page. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What was it that Diefenbaker said about polls? Anyways, I'm a republican & I'm looking forward to the day Canada holds a Referendum on the issue. I've little faith in polls myself - if anything, a majority of Canadian are unaware that Canada is a monarchy. I've no problem with polls being barred from any articles - republican or monarchist articles, as I find them unreliable. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * MC, isn't calling for G2bambino's Wiki-execution? getting carried away? Off with his head tends to be linked historically with 'Monarchy' (though there were those republican incidents in France, during the 1790's). Anyways, calm down & above all don't edit war. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the reliability of polls, but the truth is, they've been taken and the resulting numbers exist, however one wants to interpret them. This is why they've been included in a dedicated section of Debate on the monarchy in Canada. However, I think the pertinent question here was, and still is: what is the relevance of the polls to the founding of CCR? Along the lines of what I asked earlier, was the group formed because of the poll results? If so, then that should be mentioned, but the questions asked, personal interpretations of the results, etc., are rather irrelevant to the subject of the article. --G2bambino (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this dispute is also occuring at Republicanism in Canada, perhaps a compromise can be struck. Have the polls there, but not here. I'd don't want to see anybody getting blocked over this topic, afterall we're all Canadians, eh? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, GoodDay, I think Republicanism in Canada is a separate issue all-together and shouldn't be tied into what's going on here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confident things will work out. Hopefully, my opinons on the matter, will calm the waters. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to be the adult one here and bow out of this stupidity. I will relent and be happy with the polls link alone without the other reference. I am also pleased that the youtube link is gone. It was nothing but a mean-spirited, sattirical spoof intent on poking fun at republicans and had no business being on a page intended to educate people. If it somehow returns, I guarantee I'll take it down. Also, I'm now committed to following the republican pages on Wikipedia more closely so I have been in contact with CCR and have been granted access to their archives. Over the next few days, I will be adding more historical data and photos that will add to the informative value of this page.MC Rufus (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'You Tube' is certainly a questionable source. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a source, just linked to the subject of the article, as most external links are. --G2bambino (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let go, my Logo
Feel free to discuss it here, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin is just being his regular pain in the ass. The logo belongs here, as it does on the other republican movement's pages. There will be a battle if it gets taken down there as well. I also noticed that a NZ monarchist deleted the Common Cause page. It's pretty obvious that monarchists are in panic mode. Negative polls and referendums all over the place. Petty vandalism won't help, I'm afraid.MC Rufus (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should dispel with the territorialism and paranoia and focus only on sound arguments. The logo was first, and rightly, removed by User:Lonewolf BC, with the sound reasoning that it "belongs in an article on Common Cause." Are there any actual rebuttals to that? --G2bambino (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be nice spot for it as well ... if the page wasn't deleted last march by NZ monarchist (at least, that's what he claims on his profile) User:Brian. Nonetheless, the logo has survived without objection on both the Aus and NZ republican pages. Funny, it takes a Canadian monarchist to complain about a simple logo.MC Rufus (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to entertain your monarchist paranoias, but, I'll explain to you, yet again, that I, whom I assume you refer to as the "Canadian monarchist," did not first remove the image; User:Lonewolf BC did. I suppose you suspect him to be a monarchist too. Regardless, you haven't given any reason why it should be here. Care to try again? --G2bambino (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Common Cause.jpg
Image:Common Cause.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability
There is a tag on this article that states there needs to be reliable 3rd-party references. It is amazing to me that this article exists because I have never even heard of it and in all the Quebec newspapers that I have read to now there never seemed to my recollection to be a reference to this organization. I have done a search and except for mentions in some blogs and forums and a few articles there doesn't appear to be very many distinct references. It seems like an irrelevant organization and the article should be deleted. In fact, unless someone can convince me otherwise I will nominate for deletion because there is not much of use in the article to begin with! It is just a paragraph.

This man Tony O'Donohue and the "Acadian" guy who sued because of his public service appear to be the only notable people attached to the organization. But the organization itself has literally no notability other than they believe Canada should be a republic. Well you know what, that doesn't make you notable unless you are creating some kind of scandal or successfully getting a referendum started. They haven't achieved anything. Laval (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been mentioned in Toronto newspapers a couple of times, mostly around Victoria Day. They also had coverage on CBC, once. But, other than that, I don't know how notable CCR is. --G2bambino (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, don't anybody delete this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect you should give a reason why this organization is notable. See WP:N. To me it does not fulfill the criteria. Laval (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's borderline; perhaps an AfD would clear up with the community whether or not the subject here is notable enough for inclusion. Frankly, I'm not sure which way I'd vote on such a request. --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly until I saw this article I never even heard of it. The article does not establish notability for the organization itself. A spurious lawsuit by Charles Roach doesn't convince me. The only guy with the org who seems to have accomplished something is the self-claimed Acadian civil servant, and that lawsuit was on his behalf, not the org. So I agree that a AfD would be best but I fear potential vote stacking on the part of people in relation to the CCR. It reflects badly on them that one of their most definitely non-notable members creates an article for himself and claims to be a politician - for student office! Laval (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also we must accept the fact that the lack of neutral 3rd-party sources makes the case against notability stronger. The article is not new and yet it only references the CCR. Laval (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For a group that claims to be so pro-Canada, look at this line from JJ's website: "My name is JJ McCullough. With your vote I can help Unite Canada and the USA so that every North American can share in the American dream of being the greatest nation on earth." Is this a joke or what? This org should be called "Canadians for North American Union". But I digress. Laval (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I could try and search out some of the articles that focused on CCR's Victoria Day protests; as I said, that's about the only attention they've ever really received. On the one hand, this is the first republican organisation in Canada since at least the 1830s, while, on the other hand, they really don't get much coverage despite their uniqueness. In other words, CCR is the leader in a cause that has no real support or coverage. --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A protest in my opinion would not fulfill notability. If this is the limit of their claim to fame, I suggest AfD as I have done with JJ. The views of the org appear to be fringe at best and are not on par with say, Quebec sovereignty which has a long and established history. Laval (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's keep this in perspective. Remember, this isn't a forum and isn't the place to discuss the pros and cons of Canadian Republicanism. First of all, who is "JJ" and what does he have to do with this article? My opinion is that this has some minor notability, but an AfD may be necessary to clear it all up. And let's also remember to assume good faith (per the assumptions above about CCR members "stacking the vote").  freshacconci  talk talk  22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * JJ appears to be a member of the org's "board". Please read my messages. If you can establish notability, you can make your argument in the AfD. And if we look at Republicanism in Canada we see that is barely sourced and there is not much to put in that article either. I am not suggesting we delete that, but any pertinent verifiable info on CCR can be moved there. Laval (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to merging this to Republicanism in Canada, but I have no idea what "messages" you're referring to. We're discussing this topic on this page, and I don't see any references to JJ. It makes it hard to follow the discussion if the thread continues elsewhere.  freshacconci  talk talk  22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I think Laval is referring to JJ because he's the user who created this article as well as someone who is either a CCR member or supporter. As far as I know, there are two other CCR executive members editing on Wikipedia, and one member/supporter, if it matters. --G2bambino (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * JJ is a member of the CCR executive committee Laval (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I saw that after I posted the above. You beat me to it before I could fix my words. --G2bambino (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

By "messages" I am referring to my posts here. Unless there is some WP jargon that I do not know about, this what I mean when I wrote "messages". I would think that would be obvious. Laval (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we're talking about this JJ person. I thought you were referring to messages that actually explained who he was. Let's try to check the sarcasm at the door, it's not helpful, nor civil. You didn't mention that JJ was an editor until later. All I saw was "JJ" and references to his website, with no link.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not intend sarcasm. I think you are reading too much into things. Laval (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no new sources for this article. If it goes to AfD, I'm gonna have to support deletion. If I opposed deletion at this point, it could rightfully be viewed as a PoV move on my part. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already nominated the article. Laval (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Censorship by Freshacconci
I am putting this sourced and valid material here since User:Freshacconci keeps deleting it. I am also going to report him to admins. Censorship sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laval (talk • contribs)

Support for North American Union
A member of the CCR executive committee, J.J. McCullough, supports the union of Canada with the United States and produced a campaign video entitled, "Vote JJ McCullough for a United North America" as part of his attempt to run for office on the Conservative Party of Canada ticket. He also believes that Canada is anti-American and that this "is the root cause of most problems with this country." Laval (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. Whenever someone on Wikipedia doesn't get their way, they cry censorship. This information is about one person and cannot be in this article per WP:DUE. In other words, we cannot claim the whole organization supports the viewpoint of one member. This also violates WP:BLP. Where's your sources for this beyond McCullough's own website?  freshacconci  talk talk  00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reported you. You cannot censor facts. See WP:NPOV and try to understand it. I have explained clearly why it belongs here. You cannot unilaterally censor me. The man in question is a prominent spokesperson and member of the organizations executive committee. What part of that do you not understand? Laval (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have explained why it doesn't belong in the article. Please read the links I provided and try to understand those. I didn't "unilaterally" do anything. I'm following protocol by asking you to bring the edit discussion here and wait for others' opinions. Thank you.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You won't get your way. You aren't the boss of me nor are you the dictator of this article. Your behaviour is shameful. Laval (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know why that was. I fixed it.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there a fight over this, when the article is being considered for deletion? GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he believes it won't get deleted. Laval (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, don't assume anything about me. Try to show some good faith here. I really don't care about the article per ce. It's borderline at best. I do care about poorly sourced information being added.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You assume bad faith right from the start. Take your own advice and stop lecturing me. Thus far I am disgusted and I hope that admins block you for your rude and condescending behaviour. Laval (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest both of you stop, as it take 2 to tango. Reverse the article back to what it was before this spat began. Then wait 'til after the AfD, before resuming this topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good advice, GoodDay. Cooler heads should prevail. I'll leave that edit up to you, lest I be accused of censorship. Cheers!  freshacconci  talk talk  01:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at this accusation from him in his edit summary. He accuses me of bad faith and breaks WP guidelines instead of assuming good faith. Hopefully he will be sanctioned. Laval (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An Administrator would have to review that. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, as others have said, this is a lot of effort for an article that may be/probably will be deleted. I find it odd that the nominating editor is spending so much time adding things to an article he wants deleted. I see he's reverted my last edit, thus pretty much invalidating everything he's said about my reverting: as GoodDay has wisely stated, it takes two to tango. Anyway, I'm moving on to more amiable endeavors. He can have his "victory"!  freshacconci  talk talk  01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Freshacconci on this matter: CCR does not support an NAU, so I don't see why that information should be included in the article. As an editing side note to Laval: WP:BRD directs us to discuss after someone reverts our edits, not revert it back over and over. --G2bambino (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is just an WP:ESSAY and does not reflect policy or guidelines. When JJ McCullough, an executive member and spokesperson of the group who believes in merging Canada with the US, I think that is good enough proof. It may not be good enough for WP, but it is clear that CCR believes in that. If they don't believe it, they should have fired JJ for promoting such a concept and also for attacking Charles Roach. That they keep him as an executive committee member says a lot. Laval (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And BTW Freshacconci assumed bad faith from the very beginning (as he stated in his edit summary) and reverting someone immediately after they make an edit when the article has not been edited in a substantial way in so long goes to show bad faith. He then hypocritically demanded that I assume good faith in him. That is ridiculous. Laval (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good guideline to follow, anyway; if one does follow it, you were Bold, and freshacconi Reverted, so now we all should be Discussing, and, low and behold, we are! ;)
 * As for the ANU: I don't doubt McCullough's support for it, but do doubt the relation between CCR's mandate and McCullough's personal opinions. Has he raised the cause at CCR executive meetings? Maybe, but we don't know. Has CCR adopted the idea as a policy? Not as far as their material or other sources say. So, why mention it here? --G2bambino (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * His pro-NAU website and "campaign" video existed since the beginning of the year apparently and same for his own article which mentions said support. Only after I raised the issue here and put up the AfD did JJ delete everything from the web. There is no doubt in my mind that the other CCR executives knew about it after all this time. We can never know the full truth because the CCR is not considered noteworthy enough in Canadian political or media circles to warrant coverage, especially coverage of internal controversies. Laval (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And after all he was one of CCR's main spokespersons after the group was founded. I did some research and found a video of a very short "debate" he was involved in on CBC (very short minor segment) back in 2002 with a monarchist, the same year the CCR was founded! That says to me JJ is a primary figure in the group and his views are reflective of CCR values. I don't think Charles Roach even got involved until later. Laval (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And also it proves that the group is not "non-partisan" as they claim. JJ attempted to run as a Conservative Party candidate and he supports the Conservative Party (which is also strange because CPC and Stephen Harper are pro-monarchy). If the group is non-partisan, JJ should have quit or fired. They kept him so the group is technically partisan. Laval (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my view that JJ's views of Canada/US merger belong in this article or in Republicanism in Canada. He is a member of the executive committee and as I have illustrated a public spokesperson and face of the group since 2002 when it was founded. It should not have been deleted (ironically by G2). Laval (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But, one can speak publicly about a matter while holding different opinions privately. Obviously McCullough supports republicanism, but I don't think he's influenced CCR to adopt a pro NAU stance. Certainly, there is so far zero sources to back up any opposite claim. Internal conflict has dogged Australian republicans, and I've read that this rift is bound to always keep them on the losing side. So, internal conflict in the CCR (i.e. McCullough's opinions about Roach's anti-monarchy lawsuit) may be worthy of mention, but only very briefly, as the only source we have is one considered very flimsy by Wikipedia standards. --G2bambino (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NPOV we should not make judgements, but only state what is true. In this case, it is true that JJ believes Canada should merge with the US and pledge allegiance to the President. This we accept as true because he says so himself. And he condemns Charles Roach. If we accept that it is true JJ says and believes these things and that they can be included in WP, then certainly according to NPOV we must simply state what is true in the article. Laval (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, McCullough supports an NAU (apparently). That, however, has so little to do with CCR itself that it isn't worth mentioning here; Roach started Caribanna, defended Black Panthers, and compared the Queen to Adolf Hitler, but that isn't mentioned here, either. What might be of note is the conflict between McCullough and Roach's approaches to the republican cause in Canada, for the reasons I stated above. I'm just unsure about the sourcing for that. Perhaps it depends on the wording of the sentence being sourced (?). --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Roach defended the Black Panthers and compared the Queen to Adolf Hitler, that might be worthy of mention because again, it reflects the type of organization that it is. If Gilles Duceppe made the same comparison between the Queen and Adolf Hitler of if he made some other such absurd proclamation you can be damn sure it would be included in the article on the BQ. I don't think exceptions should be made for the CCR, which is far less notable than the BQ. These are absurdities, yes, but then again, the CCR does not condemn said absurdities. That makes it fair game for inclusion. Laval (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which BTW is an interesting point because if the CCR did condemn such absurdities, most likely it would be definitely included. The lack of condemnation makes them look even worse. Laval (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also mention the same applies to any member of a sovereigntist movement. The English media always jump on any Quebec politician or sovereigntist who makes any comment that is viewed as strange or controversial, even if the person is relatively minor. There are numerous examples of some member of PQ committee members making some comment that is then deemed controversial and then makes news everywhere. Of course the same will not apply to CCR members because the media don't care. Laval (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine it would only be mentioned on the BQ article if Duceppe made such a comment in relation to the BQ itself. He recently made a number of rants against the Governor General being in France for Quebec's 400th, but I don't see that mentioned on the BQ article; and rightly so, by my opinion. Like I said, it perhaps depends on the wording used here. Something like: "One member of CCR's executive committee has publicly made controversial remarks regarding the Queen, and his republican actions outside the organisation have been met with criticism from other CCR executive members..." might be viable. I don't know; just something off the top of my head. --G2bambino (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a good point there. But still, there is something to the idea of Roach comparing the Queen to Hitler, a man who is promoted as a champion of freedom by the CCR and Tom Freda, and JJ, who ridicules and taunts Roach, who is also a member of that same committee, and that JJ believes Canada should join the US. Duceppe's comments about the Governor General, you must admit, are nowhere near the league of absurdities as these two. I do not think he has even ever approached that level of absurdity - Duceppe has himself even said he likes the Queen, but that it makes no sense for her to rule over Canada (or rather, Quebec). Laval (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am basically saying is that the exceptional absurdity of these views should be taken into account. Again, they may not belong here, but Republicanism in Canada for sure, I would think. Laval (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is Debate on the monarchy in Canada... --G2bambino (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my problem with that article: there is no real "debate" on the monarchy in Canada. If such a debate existed or does exist, there would have been a referendum by now or at the very least an attempt at one. The title of the article assumes that such a debate exists, when in reality 99.9% of Canadians are unaware that the debate exists, because in reality, it doesn't exist. A few politicians have spoken in favour of republican ideas. That automatically makes it a debate? This is separate of course from the issue of monarchy in Quebec sovereignty circles. Laval (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at this statement from that article: "Debate on the Monarchy of Canada has been taking place since before Confederation in 1867" Where is the evidence for this? That doesn't even have a source. Laval (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW the article talks about the rebellions. They were not debates. They were attempts at revolution. The American Revolution wasn't a debate either. Laval (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Republicanism in Canada section
Having another gander at this article, I wonder if the newly added Republicanism in Canada section belongs here at all. McWhinney isn't affiliated with CCR, as far as I know, and constitutional matters are handled elsewhere. How is the section a help to this page? --G2bambino (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to G2bambino: My main reason for working this in was to try to place CCR in the larger context of Canadian Republicanism. I was thinking that someone coming this article may not understand the larger issue. Having said that, it may not work as you've said, and may show why this may be a merge situation, placing CCR in the main article as part of that history.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I want to see is evidence for this sentence: "That same year, CCR became involved in O'Donohue v. Canada[13], a lawsuit filed by one of its members" - the source used is a National Post article, to which there is no link. I am almost certain CCR was not itself involved in the lawsuit, only O'Donohue. Laval (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you're right. That section itself is unnecessary. The CCR only promotes the abolishing of monarchy and an elected head of state. Nothing in that section relates to the CCR. Laval (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to sources at O'Donohue v. Canada, CCR was not involved in the actual lawsuit. I believe the reference to O'Donohue should be removed or the wording changed. That's O'Donohue's personal business. If JJ's opinions on NAU and Charles Roach can't be used, why should O'Donohue be included? He filed that lawsuit as a private citizen, not as a representative of CCR. Laval (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike McCullough and Roach's personal beliefs, it's sourced that CCR had a part in O'Donohue's lawsuit, whatever role that was. --G2bambino (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It says on CCR's own history: "2002 - Citizens for a Canadian Republic challenges the legitimacy of the monarchy in Canada by filing an application to intervene in former Toronto councilor Tony O'Donohue's legal case to contest the Act of Settlement." --G2bambino (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And, a Toronto Sun article (replete with errors) archived on Tony O'Donohue's website: "The case 'could change Canadian history' because of its minute potential to have the Crown declared unconstitutional, said Tom Freda of the group Citizens for a Canadian Republic, who are supporting O'Donohue's case." --G2bambino (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Though... it says here that CCR was denied intervener status in the case. --G2bambino (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, that article as you say, has errors so automatically its a problem as a source. But here's the thing, CCR keeps claiming they were involved, but what other source do we have? Does CCR appear in any legal documents from the court? If not, as far as the state is concerned, they were not involved. I am sure CCR supported O'Donohue, but not in the legal sense, like if I support my friend's lawsuit against his neighbour, though I am not actually legally involved, or if I support President Bush and the Iraq war. Laval (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again we are left with CCR making a lot of trumped up claims but with no proof. Lets look at the facts: they have no head office nor have they ever had one, they exist only online as a website, they support this lawsuit and that lawsuit despite no legal proof of involvement. This must be the greatest joke ever put on the Canadian media, who obviously are no longer buying what Freda is selling. Laval (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim CCR had any role in the case itself; as the source I pulled out above says, they applied for intervener status and failed to get it. What other support they offered O'Donohue, I don't know. So, all I think needs be done is a rewording of what's there now, to dispel any current implications. --G2bambino (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not for deletion
Thus the group meets the criteria for notability --Lawe (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Appears in secondary sources: CBC Radio 11/5/2007: "Mais un groupe nommé « les Citoyens et Citoyennes pour une république canadienne » croit qu’on devrait faire disparaître toute mention de la royauté."
 * 2) International character: Member of Common Cause as verified by the Australian Republican Movement press release

Merge or no?
Sicne this ended up no consensus, it's defaulted to keep. The closing admin. has suggested we discuss it here, whether to keep as is or merge with Republicanism in Canada. I'm pretty neutral on this. I can start working on a merge in a day or two if we find consensus for that. I may be able to expand this article a bit further when I have some more time.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As the closing admin stated that there is not enough notability to warrant its own article, I second the motion for a merge. Laval (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with the view of the closing admin - there's not really enough here for it to be a standalone article right now. I'd say merge away. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whichever is decided, I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the article. Time to let go of this campaign, please. --Lawe (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Republicanism in Canada
A couple of years have passed and still there has been no expansion of the article and nothing new to add. I suggest that this vindicates my previous position that this article is useless and should be merged into Republicanism in Canada. Laval (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you'd bother to actually look, there has been a significant expansion since November 2008 when you originally nominated this for deletion. Here are the diffs: the article is beyond a stub and is referenced. I know you don't like it but it's time to let it go.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. This article is about one organization among several who espouse a Republican sentiment. Merging is not appropriate.  PK  T (alk)  14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, I think either this article should be stand alone (and perhaps mentioned in the republicanism article) or it should be deemed not notable and removed from both. I tend on the inclusionist side, but this group doesn't seem to have very much third party coverage according to my Google search. That is a very preliminary and superficial look on a group that I'd never heard of, so feel free to correct me ;) TastyCakes (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's not a lot of coverage but there is some which I feel establishes notability. As such, I see no harm in leaving this article as is; as PKT points out, this is one group out of several, so merging to Republicanism in Canada implies that this group is representative of anyone who favours republicanism, which is not true. The only reason for deletion was lack of sources at the time (which as we know is not necessarily a reason for deletion, as sources were in fact found). In the end, merging seems inappropriate for the reasons stated above and deletion resulted in no consensus. Laval is free to re-nominate it for deletion if he feels the article has not been improved in two years. An attempt to merge just seems to be a back-door way to get rid of an article he doesn't like.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article in The Vancouver Sun is from Oct. 2009 and is fairly substantial (for a newspaper) about the issue of monarchy and republicanism and the writer firmly asserts CCR as the main proponent for abolishing the monarchy. If you go to google news you will find plenty of mentions in the press, some passing mentions and the standard "statement from the organization" to some more in-depth reporting, including a few more mentions of the CCR being the main organized opposition to monarchy in Canada. So I think notability is well-established, and again, merging to the Republicanism in Canada article is misleading.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm looks like you're right, that google news thing shows a bunch of what look like notable, reliable sources to me (MacLeans, Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun etc). I think it'd be good to get some of those integrated into the article...  TastyCakes (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * weak oppose Contrary to what PKT says, this is the only anti-monarchy organisation in Canada. It's had some media coverage and has had intervener status in some court cases against the Canadian Crown. If it is merged, it should at least get a stand-alone section in Republicanism in Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as per above. Republican movement in Canada is quite lame ("World's Saddest Protest" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJk360DSA00), but still deserves a mention. Jagislaqroo (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Citizens for a Canadian Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627231349/http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.html
 * Added tag to http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/email.cgi?category=Canada&story=%2Fnews%2F2000%2F06%2F08%2Fqueenoath000608

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)