Talk:Tom Freda

restored
January 28, 2008 - I restored this deleted page because as a founder of Citizens for a Canadian Republic and their national director, he is a notable figure and is often in the news as a public spokesperson for the republican movement. He also shares the same status as the founder of the Monarchist League, who is also represented in Wikipedia. I have asked for and received access to Citizens for a Canadian Republic's archives and will be updating this page gradually with more up to date and relevant information as that information becomes available.MC Rufus (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Canada will have a President; just not today, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or for a loooooong, long time. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we republicans must be doing something right. The monarchist league vice chairman acknowledging that Canada will be a republic some day. I guess the only thing we disagree on is when. :D MC Rufus (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a realist, I must agree - In fact, it's easier for the UK to abolish their monarchy, then it is for Canada to abolish its monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for a debate but I couldn't pass on this. If you are a realist, consider: The monarchy barely registers on most people's minds in Canada, yet when asked, a majority already clearly supports ending the monarchy now, more when the 'Charlie factor' is considerd. If that majority were to reach say 60-65% (a not too unreasonable expectation if the rest of the Commonwealth dumps it or the Queen nears abdication or death), do you not think a way around the constitutional roadblock could be found? Canada is, after all, a democracy . Where there's a will, there's a way. I'm one of many, many, more who are just beginning to catch on to this movement, which I didn't even know existed until 2 years ago. I believe it's a simmering pot getting very close to boiling over. - MC Rufus (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me if there was a Referendum held, I'd vote for 'abolishment'. At the momment the Monarchy's advantage (and Republican's disadvantage) is awareness - most Canadians are unaware that Canada is a monarchy -, I suppose too, the monarchy is a benign institution (example: they haven't executed anybody for snubbing the Queen). We'll be a republic before the 22nd century. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: Also the Canadian Royal Family resides 'mainly' in the UK, thus another advantage for them (out of sight, out of mind). Thus the major reason for Canadian unawareness. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you see the contradictions in these statements, Rufus: "The monarchy barely registers on most people's minds in Canada," "this movement [is] a simmering pot getting very close to boiling over." Your first statement is correct, the monarchy isn't forefront in most Canadians' thoughts. But, when you don't know about something, you probably don't care about it either, and thus, you're not going to "boil over" about it. I suppose the will to lead to your way is a desire to "educate" Canadians about their "subservience" to a "foreign" monarch - with them being unknowing, they're all ripe for republican propaganda indoctrinations - and thus enrage them enough to "boil over" and demand change. But, of course, preying on the ignorant is not a fair way to go about it. If Canadians had the actual facts about their constitutional system and history, and then decided to "boil over"... well, that's all-together different. But a "boiled over" ignorant mass led by a self-interested elite few is nothing different to the Bolshevik revolution. --G2bambino (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bolshevik revolution??" Getting a bit carried away here, G2? If that were actually true, we've been guilty of it for nearly a century, because we've been chipping away at the monarchy so much it's hanging on by a mere thread. The only thing keeping Canada from breaking free, by all admissions here ... is ignorance. If I were a monarchist, I'd be very concerned.
 * And I fail to comprehend how the desire for democracy, equality and sovereignty can remotely be motivated by self-interest and elitism. On the contrary, monarchists seem motivated by a desire to keep Canada white/protestant/anglo-centric - at the expense of the "ignorant mass," which is getting progressively less and less ignorant as we become less reliant on the colonial 'apron-strings' and more confident of our nationhood.
 * I'm sure you'll want to get the last word in but to save GoodDay from our 'blogging' :), I'll ignore it and bow out now. - MC Rufus (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you'd ignore any further comment; it seems a common tactic amongst your ilk! --G2bambino (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "ilk"?? Good for you for dusting that one off. You just don't hear "ilk" much these days. Now if we can only get rid of "ergo," I'd be happy. :D - MC Rufus (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop jabbing each other. It ain't helping things. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we blogging? Anyways, whatever Canada does, I'm confident it'll be peaceful. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotations?
There are two quotations. This is too many? One is from a speech from the CCR website that describes Freda's views succinctly. The other backs up the claim that his web site was an influence in the formation of the Canadian republican movement. These quotations do nothing but enhance the informative value of the page. My opinion? The tag was placed for one reason: The editor, who does little else than follow me around deleting my edits, is well-known as being involved heavily in the pro-monarchy Wikipedia pages and he simply doesn't like the subject matter. - MC Rufus (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The quotes are too many too close to each other in too small an article. 2) The quote supporting the claim about Freda's websites isn't necessary; it simply repeats what's already stated. 3) The quote of Freda's speech, similarly, doesn't offer anything that can't be put into an encyclopaedic format within the body of the text, as I did. 4) Biography articles do not, as a rule, include quotations. If you want to put Freda's quote somewhere else, such as an article on Canadian republicanism, then feel free to do so. But it, and the other redundant one, are needlessly inappropriate here. --G2bambino (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Your merging his speech quotation into the body removes all impact of his views and presents them with a monarchist slant. (Your intent, no doubt).
 * 2) I found nothing in the Wikipedia Style guide that says "Biography articles do not, as a rule, include quotations." Quotations does say that editors should try and work quotations into the body of the article and get consensus. However, it's only a recommendation. In this case, where the quotation can easily be re-interpreted to carry less impact or minimize the credibility of the subject (as you have done), leaving the quotation in avoids any chance of bias.
 * 3) The reference to the Republic of Canada Online quotation reinforces the statement in the body which only has a link to a book that supposedly contains something that refers to it. To avoid having more than one quotation, I'll find a way to incorporate it into the body without losing its informative value. -MC Rufus (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll have to provide an example of just what constitutes a "monarchist slant."
 * I direct you to Quotations
 * There's no need to "reinforce" the statement with a quote, the cite does that for you. Incorporating the quote into the body of the article is a better move. --G2bambino (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing material at subject's request
I'm not certain, but I think that's something Wikipedia frowns on. Tom Freda is a public person & removing material simply because he wants it moved is tricky stuff. But again, I'm not certain of this. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't check the policy either but CCR, which has been very helpful in providing information so far (with many more entries to come), sent me this in an email: "Due to recent news regarding identity theft and to safeguard the privacy of his family, Tom has requested the following be deleted from his Wikipedia entry ...." I see the request as perfectly reasonable so I didn't question it. - McRuf2 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is about the person and unless his spouse and children become more noteworthy in his story it seems fine to pull that information. That said anyone can re-add it again so just note as subject's stated privacy concerns if it needs to be removed again. Banje boi  21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)