Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada

Bias in article

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

Polling

How should polling on the Canadian monarchy and royal family be presented? 05:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not remove 13 years worth of polling data; as I explained in my edit summary, I removed (a ridiculous and still growing amount) of editors' interpretations of polls or, worse, interpretations of media interpretations of polls (which could not even consider the actual questions asked). I, in fact, kept all the actual polls and added two more, linking to them without commentary, thus eliminating the risk of accidental or deliberate bias in the article. I believe the polls section should thus be for general commentary (properly sourced, of course) on polls and their results. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You reverted quite a lot of polling data (including all the polling data from recent years showing a gradual reduction of support for the monarchy) and replaced it with a rationalization about how polling about the monarchy doesn't matter. If you want to remove that much material you need to discuss it first and certainly you should not be massaging the material to try to make it fit your personal or organizational preferences. Incidentally, if you are an official with the Monarchist League of Canada your editing of articles on the monarchy may be in violation of WP:COI.. AnonAnnu (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

By my count you've attempted to remove at least 22 pieces of sourced information. AnonAnnu (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your only substantial edit comment was "removing interpretations of polls or interpretations of media interpretations of polls, many using skewed or simply inaccurate questions/ moving primary sources to ext linkks"[sic]. Do you have a PhD in statistics? Are you an acknowledged expert in polling? If not I don't think you are in a position to pass judgement on polling methodology or determine what is and is not an accurate analysis or an "inaccurate question". If you have sourced information that disputes a poll then cite it rather than arbitrarily removing information you disagree with. AnonAnnu (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Excuse me, but the point was obviously that Wikipedia editors generally don't have PhDs in statistics or are experts in polling. So, if it's lack of expertise you're worried about, you should support the removal of that expanding amount of amateur summarising and analysing and leave the actual polls to speak for themselves.

Drop the presumptuous red herrings, redo your analysis of my edits, and don't worry about me being any part of the Monarchist League (as if it really mattered). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is if you're going to decide a poll doesn't have merit then you need a source to back that claim up. You can't just decide unilaterally that a poll has no merit and remove it from the article -which is exactly what you've done. Please explain how you are leaving the "actual polls to speak for themselves" by *removing* the polling results from 2015, 2013, 2009, 2007, 2005 etc? Doesn't letting the polls speak for themselves involve actually publishing the poll results in the article rather than removing them entirely as you did? AnonAnnu (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact, quite incredibly, you rewrote the section on "polling" so that it no longer contained *any* polling results on whether or not people supported Canada remaining a monarchy! How can you possibly claim to be "letting the polling results speak for themselves" when you've removed ALL the polling results? AnonAnnu (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You continue to be wrong, in many ways, about my edits. Putting aside the inexplicable conclusion I left the polls section without any commentary on poll results, I did not decide whether or not any poll has merit nor did I remove any actual poll from the article. Once again: all the polls remained. I even added two more. Is that clear now?

Why should an article be full of copied and pasted poll results? Not only is it an unnecessary, huge and growing amount of text, but it'd be a copyright violation, as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is what I reverted. Where are the actual poll results? AnonAnnu (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A separate article that lists each polling result called Polling on the monarchy in Canada or something to that effect might make more sense, along with a table. AnonAnnu (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The poll results are in the polls, of course. What a silly question.

My comment on uselessness and copyright violations applies to any separate page full of copied and pasted poll questions and results. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll add: Up to 2012, all but three links are dead. Not one of them, including those for 2012 and beyond, is to an actual poll or report by a polling firm (so, even the links I kept in the article were to nowhere); they're all to media reports on polls, which, obviously, don't allow us to know what questions were asked, how they were worded, the full breakdown of results, etc. The material in the article that uses those links as sources is editors' interpretations of media interpretations of selected parts of poll results. That makes for a high risk of bias, from the reporter and the Wikipedia editor. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The poll results are not in the text of your version of the article, you removed them. It doesn't matter if the links are dead or not as long as the citations are correct and reporting the percentages in poll result is not a copyright violation. You can cite a book or a news article without them being online - there is no requirement for a citation to have a live link or to have any online link at all as long as it's for a reliable source. And it's never been wikipedia's practice to exclude news coverage of poll results since news coverage is considered a reliable source. It's not for you to second guess an article that's been printed in a reliable source. AnonAnnu (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read what I wrote: the poll results are in the polls. At least, I thought so until just recently discovering all the links to the polls are dead.

Inserting the questions verbatim, which we would have to do to be NPOV, and the results would be a copyright violation.

We can't verify if anything's correct if the link is dead, now can we. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

News articles can be verified through Lexis-Nexis, Factiva or other archives and there is no precedent that holds that the publication of poll results is a copyright violation - please see, for example, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012, Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election or indeed virtually any article on opinion polling. AnonAnnu (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"they're all to media reports on polls, which, obviously, don't allow us to know what questions were asked, how they were worded, the full breakdown of results, etc." Irrelevant as long as the media reports are from reliable sources (eg the CBC, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star etc). See WP:RS. As you know wikipedia discourages the use of original research, the use of secondary sources such as a media report is not only acceptable, it's encouraged. And again, on the subject of dead links WP:RS says "an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet" so the fact that a news article is no longer freely available online does not disqualify it from being used as a source and is not a justification for wholesale removal of information relying on that source. AnonAnnu (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYVIO. Note: poll firm publications are "not public domain or compatibly licensed". You cannot copy and paste the exact wording of all their questions into Wikipedia.

Once more, we cannot verify the accuracy of the content of this article if the links are dead. Please deal with that fact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not just have an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the polls section, and a table with all of the poll results. To go on the table, there would have to be a reference to the actual poll itself, and not a media website. The table could simply be divided as "support" and "does not support". I think it would be prudent to break it down into support/don't support the British monarchy and the Canadian monarchy in two different columns, as that is the main issue in polling questions highlighted within the article (and this bias is thoroughly footnoted within the article). In this way we portray the facts using the polls themselves reducing the chance for bias within a clearly emotion-inducing article, and we break down the facts into a clear and readily digestible format (a goal of an encyclopedia). trackratte (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggested a table earlier as a better way of displaying the results. However, Miesianical's position appears to be that publishing the poll numbers themselves are violation of copyright and media articles reporting those numbers are not reliable sources. AnonAnnu (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a place where we can request someone make a table? Also, if there are questions about the practices surrounding citing polls perhaps we can ask editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics to weigh in? I suspect setting a precedent stating that polling numbers are copyright and that media cannot be used as the source for polling results would be of interest to editors in both those projects. AnonAnnu (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The polls aren't as simple as "for or against". They usually different to one another and mostly, if not always, ask multiple questions and have more multi-leveled results for each; i.e. in addition to "for" and "against", there's "unsure", or often there's "greatly oppose", "mildly oppose", "mildly support", "greatly support", etc. Further, the poll questions are very important; we all know the wording affects the results. (Which is also why AnonAnnu's examples above aren't applicable.) It's therefore important that the questions asked in a poll be made known when discussing the results, but especially so for this subject, as the first two paragraphs of the "Polls" section outline. A simple table thus doesn't give enough information to ensure accuracy or neutrality in its content. We'd need to show all the questions in each poll in their entirety as well as the breakdowns of the results for each (usually geographic region, age, sometimes income, etc.), but, we can't do that either because all we have is a media report that doesn't provide the poll questions and other detail or because we can't include all the questions in each poll due to copyright. So, the best option is to simply have links directly to the polls, if they can be found. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the suggestion that quoting polling results (and questions) as published in the media is a copyright violation is simply ridiculous. If this were true you couldn't have multiple media reporting on the same poll in the first place. And while yes, it is preferable to have a direct link to the polling firm itself secondary sources are not required on Wikipedia to be a Reliable Source. You are trying to impose criteria that are simply outside of and beyond wikipedia policy. Let's take the recent Forum poll for example. CityNews reports that "39% favour abolishing the monarchy in Canada upon the death of the Queen". The poll is not the property of CityNews, they did not pay for it yet they are able to report this without it being a violation of copyright. How can that be? Simple, public opinion pollsters publish polls such as this in order to promote themselves and get their name out there. That's one reason you see every pollster in the game releasing polls during election campaigns -they want to get their name out there (and hopefully want to show that their results are accurate) so that private companies will hire them to do market research and the such. That's why polling companies conduct public interest polls and give the results away for free - it's a form of marketing. You claim we cannot publish either the questions or the result of a poll such as the Forum Poll because doing so is a copyright violation. It's not, and the reason it's not is because pollsters release these polls in the form of a press release. The whole point of a press release is it's a document that can be freely quoted without violating copyright. When a company issue a press release they are giving the info away - they want it to be quoted. Don't believe me? Here is the press release regarding the recent Forum pool. Note the big type at the top that says "News Release". I'm sure you don't like these polls Mies, you think they trivialize the monarchy, you particularly don't like them when they suggest that support for the monarchy is declining and I'm sure you dismiss them in your mind by saying polls aren't accurate etc but your dislike of polling or poll results are not sufficient reason to exclude them from a wikipedia article and, frankly, your argument that media reported poll results are covered by copyright (when the fact that the media reports the results clearly means they aren't) or that we can't use media coverage as a reliable source holds no water. AnonAnnu (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You do know the difference between giving a partial summary and republishing material in full, don't you?

You do understand that material published by a polling firm is "not public domain or compatibly licensed", don't you?

You know what a straw man argument is, don't you? Never mind that one, sorry. You obviously do.

Your continual need to try and discredit me personally only highlights your weakness. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Up to 2012, all but three links are dead." Did you make any attempt to fix them before removing them? I've been able to fix a lot of them in just a few minutes. AnonAnnu (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I take it you do not have an answer to my questions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to explain how is it Wikipedia can have dozens of articles consisting of tables of public opinion poll results if your claim about what is and isn't allowable is true. AnonAnnu (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You'll keep waiting as I don't engage in straw man arguments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you at least put some effort into fixing the dead links rather than just removing them? AnonAnnu (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Another straw man. Either that or you've not been paying attention. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A bit less of a confrontational attitude would bode well here, as well as talking more about the content and less about the editors. Anyway, it appears to me that the main objections stated here to the poll data that were removed are a) a number of links are dead, b) they are linking to sources interpreting polls rather than the polls themselves and c) copyright violation. Regarding a) being available online is not a requirement for sources (as stated on WP:RS), although it indicates a need for repairing (and if the source is completely gone, may justify removal). Regarding b) secondary sources interpretating poll data are usually considered reliable, assuming that the sources in question are considered reliable. Regarding c) poll numbers alone are not copyrightable, although poll questions can be, judging by what I can find online. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A NPOV approach, would be to show no poll numbers. AFAIK, Canada hasn't scheduled a referendum on abolishing the monarchy & establishing a republic. Until such a referendum is scheduled, I see no point in showing polls numbers of any kind. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think such an approach is problematic because a) it would annoy and frustrate the reader and b) it would actually lead to more POV writing, not less. If someone were told "support for X was a bit higher in 2015 than 2014 but was still less than support for Y" that only leaves people wondering what the numbers actually are - and leaving out the numbers may be misleading since it leaves the level of support/lack of support to the imagination. I've never seen a reference to polling data that doesn't have some numbers. In any case, a number itself is not a point of view whilst the way you describe a number can be. If anything having no poll numbers as suggested by GoodDay would lead to more POV writing than a simple statement of the data eg "Twice as many Canadians believe Elvis is alive in 2015 than did in 2014" sounds impressive if you're not told that the numbers involved are 4% and 2%. AnonAnnu (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed almost all the broken links at this point. If there are more please tag them as rather than removing them or, better yet, try to fix the link either by using archive.org or by doing a google search to see if there's a new live link. I'm going to remove the blanket dead links notice. AnonAnnu (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Point c) above presents a problem: as I've said, if we're going to have poll numbers, we must have the full questions asked in those polls. Again, the wording of a poll question is very important, especially with this topic, as the first two paragraphs of the "Poll" section state. If we can't republish the full questions because of copyright, we can't discuss the results without a good risk of violating WP:NPOV. For example, in the article there's a statement: "Opinion whether it was the right time to abolish the monarchy was more evenly divided, with 43% disagreeing and 41% agreeing." That's sourced to EKOS's poll, but, the question doesn't use the words "right time" or just "the monarchy"; it actually asks "Is it time to abolish the monarchy in Canada?" The "monarchy in Canada" can imply the monarchy is like a guest in Canada, impermanent, whereas the "monarchy of Canada" speaks of something of the country, more permanent, ingrained. So, the wording of the actual question likely had an impact on the answers to it, as all poll questions do. Another is: "In June 2011, a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion found a decline in support for republicanism, with just 33% in favour of abolishing the monarchy." Except, the poll actually asked "Should Canada sever all ties with the British monarchy?" There are more. Also, so many references to polls in this article ignore the unsure element, as well as any breakdown of results by age.

Media sources are also problematic. The following is in the article: "A 1997 poll by Pollara found that the plurality 41% of Canadians favoured abolishing the monarchy when the present Queen dies and having a Canadian head of state, 39% thought it really made no difference to them, while 18% opposed abolishing the monarch." Aside from poor wording, that claim is sourced to a media article, not Pollara's poll. So, how do we know what questions Pollara asked that got those results? Did they incorrectly use the word "British"? Did they use loaded terms like "ties" or "sever"? Were "attachment" and "abolish" the reporter's chosen words? Another example is the assertion "In June 2010, a national poll by the Association for Canadian Studies found decidedly lukewarm feelings about the concept of monarchy." That's also sourced to a media article that doesn't itself use any term like "decidedly lukewarm" and does use words such as "sever", "ties", and "British crown". Did the survey use those, too? We don't know. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source outlining your arguments for why the polls or the media reporting of them is problematic? If not, you're engaging in original research. If you do have a source then simply add material to the article and cite your source. AnonAnnu (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

My only point regarding the table was to remove the bias, so it wouldn't matter if it was strongly support or oppose, as all of these poll responses boil down to the same thing, support or don't support the monarchy. And as you say Mies, using questions like "Do you think it is time for Canada to have a Canadian head of state?" are severely bias as we known Canada does have a Canadian head of state and phrasing the question like that is obviously going to receive a very lop-sided response. Unfortunately, we have no fair and clearly defined way for us to simply "throw out" clearly biased (or factually incorrect) questions. What about GoodDay's response, and just get rid of the polling section all together and avoid the issue, after all this is the debate on the monarchy, so why don't we just outline the points of both sides of the debate, acknowledge that there is a debate, and leave it at that? If a reader was truly interested in having fine-grained details on the ins and outs of polling results, they can simply Google it, and come to their own conclusions about the fairness of individual polls themselves, as Wikipedia certain cannot do it for them. And yes, media articles in this case are not sufficiently reputable for an article like this. trackratte (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my suggestion that the polling information be moved to a new article e.g. Polling on the monarchy in Canada leaving perhaps only the most recent 2013/2015 polling results in this article and a general description of trends over the years. Polling is relevant so it shouldn't be excluded entirely but it is not the debate itself. However, as I said earlier, referring to polling without giving actual numbers more likely to result in POV writing, depending on the words used to describe the results, and is frustrating to the reader who would prefer to know the actual numbers. AnonAnnu (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, but polling is not the topic of the article, nor does it even change or inform the core debate, but is only a measure of public opinion of a normally small sample at a given point in time, often based on misleading or faulty questions (not new, see Quebec Referendum). If the polling section must be maintained, I think it best to move it to a new article page, and we can discuss the way forward on how to make it as clear and unbiased as possible on that talk page. I don't think any polling data needs mentioning here, only a "for information on polls conducted on the monarchy in Canada see (Wiki page). trackratte (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Throw out? I suggested no such thing. Quite the contrary. While I do believe strongly we should avoid the whole matter of the specifics of poll questions and results and POV and copyright in this article by having (sourced) general commentary on poll question tendencies and opinion trends and otherwise have links to the polls themselves so that readers can be led there to find the questions and the results, I said if we're going to have poll results here, we need to have the full questions to accompany them precisely to avoid possible NPOV violations like the examples I provided. The only issues are: 1) Is taking the full questions from a poll and republishing them here copyright infringement? And 2) media reports on polls don't give us the questions (and therefore we don't know if the polls used the words the media article does or not).

I think the question of whether or not the subject of polls stays here or gets its own article is incidental. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Debate on the monarchy in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ipsos-reid.com/search/pdf/media/mr020203.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316202830/http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020401eng.pdf to http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020401eng.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Debate on the monarchy in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708012006/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2001/opinion.htm to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2001/opinion.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111206105106/http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_news/polls/0905%20GMCTV%20September%2026%20GG.pdf to http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_news/polls/0905%20GMCTV%20September%2026%20GG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829172459/http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/ARS_Monarchy.pdf to http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/ARS_Monarchy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304032127/http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/2008.03.12_Monarchy.pdf to http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/2008.03.12_Monarchy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

John Manley's opposition to the monarchy not mentioned in the text

At present the article shows a photo of John Manley, who is probably here as a representative anti-monarchist. There is nothing about John Manley in the text of the article, to explain why a picture is included. Searching for his name in other articles, I found this mention in Republicanism in Canada: ..on Victoria Day 2001, Manley said on CBC Radio that he believed that hereditary succession was outdated, and that the country's head of state should be elected. I suggest that a mention of Manley's views should be added to the present article, using this as a reference. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Debate on the monarchy in Canada. 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/20120217112938/http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may99/smith.pdf to http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may99/smith.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217112947/http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may99/valpy.pdf to http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may99/valpy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923060531/http://odesi1.scholarsportal.info/webview/index/en/Odesi/ODESI-Click-to-View-Categories-.d.6/Public-Opinion-Polls.d.28/CANADA.d.29/Ipsos-Reid.d.717/1990s.d.718/1993.d.722/National-Angus-Reid-Poll-January-1993-Canada-.s.ir-1-555-40-E-1993-01/Royal-Family.h.13F1/Regarding-the-Monarchy-in-Canada-/fVariable/ir-1-555-40-E-1993-01_V11 to http://odesi1.scholarsportal.info/webview/index/en/Odesi/ODESI-Click-to-View-Categories-.d.6/Public-Opinion-Polls.d.28/CANADA.d.29/Ipsos-Reid.d.717/1990s.d.718/1993.d.722/National-Angus-Reid-Poll-January-1993-Canada-.s.ir-1-555-40-E-1993-01/Royal-Family.h.13F1/Regarding-the-Monarchy-in-Canada-/fVariable/ir-1-555-40-E-1993-01_V11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923061015/http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/documentation/Gallup/sep1999.pdf to http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/documentation/Gallup/sep1999.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923060907/http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/webview/index.jsp?study=http%3A%2F%2F142.150.190.128%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2Fcipo-E-1999-09&node=0&mode=download&v=2&analysismode=table&top=yes&language=en to http://odesi2.scholarsportal.info/webview/index.jsp?study=http%3A%2F%2F142.150.190.128%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2Fcipo-E-1999-09&node=0&mode=download&v=2&analysismode=table&top=yes&language=en
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=462c1fbb-fae6-43e9-9d82-5dc77dfdb07d&p=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124221027/http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4819 to http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4819
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5o4XQi18u?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.parl.gc.ca%2FSites%2FLOP%2FInfoparl%2F27%2F2%2F27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003102014/http://www.ops.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4c4f7726-bc9c-497c-ac85-158c1b8c8d9d to http://www.ops.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4c4f7726-bc9c-497c-ac85-158c1b8c8d9d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Debate on the monarchy in Canada. 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/20150521124231/http://www.monarchist.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2003/11/177.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2003/11/177.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427000732/http://www.monarchist.ca/en/node/136 to http://www.monarchist.ca/en/node/136
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Finch's theory

I'd argue with Finch's theory. The lack of engagement, interest, awareness of the Canadian monarchy, is that institution's strength & not its potential downfall. Not to mention the high bar the Supreme Court has put in place, to abolish the monarchy. Now, if only we had some sources, to counter Finch's theory. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Synth in the 'Polls on "British" monarchy' section

This section is based on wp:synth. None of the sources talk about referring to the monarchy as 'British' relative to the debate sounding it. I don't understand why this important or anything other than irrelevant minutia—blindlynx 22:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Original research

The majority of the 'the debate' section of this article is a collection of random quotes and newspaper articles as direct evidence from claims. There precious little in terms of actual reliable sources—blindlynx 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)