Talk:Citizens for a Canadian Republic

message: Feel free to discuss it here, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Let go, my Logo

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Common Cause.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please, don't anybody delete this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 talktalk 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 talktalk 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: JJ is a member of the CCR executive committee  Laval (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 talktalk 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not intend sarcasm. I think you are reading too much into things. Laval (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have already nominated the article. Laval (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 talktalk 11:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Though... it says here that CCR was denied intervener status in the case. --G2bambino (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Republicanism in Canada section 

message: #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."
#International character: Member of Common Cause as verified by the Australian Republican Movement press release 
Thus the group meets the criteria for notability --Lawe (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not for deletion 

message: 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 talktalk 15:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Whichever is decided, I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with the article. Time to let go of this campaign, please. --Lawe (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge or no? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 talktalk 12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

text: 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 talktalk 15:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 talktalk 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge into Republicanism in Canada

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified