Jump to content

Talk:Rideau Hall/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Archiving 7 discussion(s) from Talk:Rideau Hall) (bot
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 14:08, 5 May 2024

Archive 1Archive 2

"The Queen's Official Residence when in Ottawa"

It is probably worth mentioning that it is the official residence of the Queen when in Ottawa, but probably not in the intro. The reference "A crown of Maple's" says that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Queen "...when in Ottawa". Also if it is not on the signage at Rideau Hall or the brochures from Rideau Hall or mentioned by any of the tour guides, I would think this is a trivial fact and not notable enough for the lead. I remain open to discussion on this.

From [MOS:LEAD]

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Entrance to Rideau Hall near visitor's centre
Entrance to Rideau Hall near visitor's centre

Dig deeper talk 23:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It being the head of state's residence is hardly trivial. The lede says it's the residence in Ottawa of the monarch, which implies it's her residence when in Ottawa. The lede is fine as is. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this ties into MOS:LEAD, however Rideau Hall is known more for being the Governor General's official residence. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
This has all already been covered under 2, 3, 10, and 11 above. trackratte (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You shrunk the image I posted. At 100 pixels it is quite impossible to make out the writing. Kindly leave it at 1000 pixels. I can reduce the size when the discussion has run it's course.
So If you look at the website for Rideau Hall, they call it "The Governor General's Residence". Nowhere on their website do they call it the official residence of the Queen." Perhaps those who work at Rideau Hall are ignorant of this fact, or perhaps they dislike the Queen. Nevertheless, this contradiction makes Wikipedia look unreliable. To maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, the lead should be changed. The little known trivia about it being the Queen's official residence when in Canada can be elaborated in the body.

[1] Dig deeper talk 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a rehash. Official government publication clearly state, for example, "Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall", which is referenced for the statement within the lede in question. Your image, by the way, does not refute this in any way. An omission or simplification for a welcome sign in no way means it is not verifiable information, as it is clearly well-referenced. Further, as the very purpose of Rideau Hall as a "Government House" is as the sovereign's "official residence in Canada...occupied by the Queen's representative" it is clearly central to the argument and naturally will be placed in the lede. Particularly as an official definition of what it is, which is two sentences long, clearly mentions this fact at the very beginning, and there is every reason for an Encyclopedia to follow suit. trackratte (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't let the Australians hear ya say that at Government House, Canberra. There's no mention of the Australian monarch being an official resident there ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
They don't speak Canadian English in Tunisia either. trackratte (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


It's not just Australia...
Government House, Hong Kong "... was the official residence of the Governor from 1855 to 1997"
Government House, Wellington in New Zealand "is is the official residence of the Governor-General of New Zealand..."
Rashtrapati Bhavan the former governor general's house in India (now presidential palace) was mentioned as "The completed Governor-General's palace"
Government House, Antigua and Barbuda "...is the official residence as well as office of the Governor-General of Antigua and Barbuda...."
Government House, Belize "...the residence of the Governor General, the Queen's representative in Belize."
Even King's House, Jamaica is referred to as the residence of the governor general
and even the broad page Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth "... is the name given to some of the residences of Governors-General, Governors and Lieutenant-Governors in the Commonwealth and the British Empire. It serves as the venue for the Governor's official business"
The government publication "Self Guided Tour of the the grounds of the historic home of Canada's Governor General" states that Rideau Hall has been "..the home and workplace of every governor general since confederation...." and following confederation it became a permanent viceregal residence" While it mentions the Queen several times nowhere does it state that it is the official residence of the Queen. The commonly distributed pamphlets from Rideau Hall do not mention this (ditto for brochures from the Citadelle of Quebec), and we have not yet seen a diplomatic crisis from the signage (clearly visable to the Queen and her family when visiting); let's follow their straightforward example in nomenclature. Some writers may have other opinions, which can be discussed in the body, but the lead should conform to the mainstream and commonly used name/title. The apparent contradiction reflects poorly upon Wikipedia.

Dig deeper talk 01:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also Government House, Saint Lucia "...is the official residence of the Governor-General of Saint Lucia"
Government House (Saint Kitts and Nevis) "...is the official residence of the Governor-General of Saint Kitts and Nevis"
Government House, Barbados "...is the official residence and office of the Governor-General of Barbados"

Canada's Government House wikipedia page is the only one among commonwealth countries to that indicates that their government house is an official residence of the Queen. Is Canada somehow unique among all these commonwealth countries? Dig deeper talk 01:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources saying that those residences are the official residences of the monarch of those respective realms, then yes, that would make Canada unique. Given that this article is specific to Canada and to Canada only however, I do not see any need to personally investigate all of those other articles. The fact remains that Rideau Hall (and all of the other Government Houses in Canada) are reliably and verifiably sourced as the official residence of the Canadian sovereign. It is for an encyclopedia to record facts, not to impliment conformity across all topics, nor for editors to decide what should or should not be included based on whim or preference alone. trackratte (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
There is simply zero need for the image to take up 3/4 of the talk page. The point of it was taken.
When it comes to what other articles state (or don't), refer to: Other stuff exists. The principle extends to websites outside this project. Just because information is missing from a website doesn't mean that information shouldn't be here. And a lack of information elsewhere doesn't make a contradiction; this page still says Rideau Hall is the residence of the Governor General of Canada, just as the Governor General's website does.
The fact Rideau Hall is the Ottawa residence of the Canadian monarch is supported in a way that meets Wikipedia's core guidelines of WP:V and WP:RS. It also meets WP:REL and the brief mention in the lede conforms to WP:LEDE. So, there's no reason to remove it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
If I understand Dig deeper, a change to the lead reflecting that the Canadian monarch doesn't reside in Canada (but rather the United Kingdom) would be more accurate. For example: "Rideau Hall is the Canadian monarch's official residence when he/she is in Canada". This would be a more accurate description of the situation, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The fact that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Queen of Canada is a status that does not change based on the Queen's location. When the GG is not physically located at Rideau Hall, it still remains the Governor General's official residence, same with Buckingham Palace, etc. The point is it is an official residence, i.e. which according to WP: "An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state, head of government, governor or other senior figure officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual conducts work-related functions or lives." For example, the current official residence of the Prime Minister of Canada is 24 Sussex Drive and this continues to be the case, even though the current Prime Minister has never actually lived there. Thus, the lede is clearly factual, accurate, and well-sourced, and the fact that the Queen does not actually or usually live there is completely irrelevant to its being an official residence in the exact same way as 24 Sussex Drive and the Prime Minister. trackratte (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Digdeeper, is pointing out however that the Canadian monarch resides in a country other then Canada, unlike the Canadian Governor General & Canadian Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
She has resided in countries other than Canada. She has resided in countries other than the UK. Yet, Windsor Castle does not mention it is an official residence of the British monarch when in Britain. She also has multiple residences in some countries, Canada included. So, it is not correct to say "Rideau Hall is the Canadian monarch's official residence when he/she is in Canada." La Citadelle is another of her residences in Canada, as are the various provincial government houses. It's as wrong as saying "Buckingham Palace is the British monarch's official residence when he/she is in the United Kingdom," which ignores Windsor, Hollyrood, St James Palace, etc. When she is residing at Rideau Hall, Buckingham Palace doesn't cease to be her official residence in London. Conversely, when she is residing at Buckingham Palace, Rideau Hall doesn't cease to be her official residence in Ottawa. I feel we've covered this already. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ol' Liz lives in the United Kingdom, not Canada. Digdeeper suggests that this be mentioned in the opening paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Must've been a Liz doppelganger that's been seen here in Canada, then. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Elizabeth II lives in the United Kingdom. She visits (or use to) Canada from time to time, like she visits (or use to) the other Commonwealth realms. Digdeeper merely wants to point this out in the intro. Such info can be added, while maintaining her official residency at Rideau Hall. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You used in the article the word "resides". Here, you're using "lives". Perhaps next you'll shift again to arguing about where she "exists". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have resized the image back to 1000px so that others may see the text on the sign. The size is not the original size of the photo and is not at all unreasonable. 10 cm of image height out of 576cm is 1.7%, a far cry from 75%. Altering another editors images could be considered by some to be a violation of WP:TALKO. Kindly refrain from altering the image. If the additional 1.7% usage of screen height is an issue, I can shrink it after the discussion has run its course.

With respect to the claim that it adheres to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:REL, I'm not thoroughly convinced. I took a closer look at the 4 references provided. Two come from the same pamphlet and is by no means academic in nature. It lacks references and is comparable to the pamphlets given out at Rideau Hall/the citadelle. The second reference is a biography on the Queen, a book on Rideau Hall would be more ideal. Last reference is a CPAP video. The lead of this video says "the home and workplace of every governor general since confederation" which actually adds strength to my argument. The lead of the video ends at 1m37sec and there is no mention of this being the queen's official residence. I think we should follow the example of the 1st and last reference you have provided and mention this little known, trivial "fact" in the body of the article rather than the intro. I'm not convinced that this is factual (given those other Wikipedia article I mentioned), but the body is where it belongs. Given the fact that the controversial statement about this being the Queen's official residence is not elaborated upon or discussed in the body, the article's lead does not conform to WP:lead, as was suggested.

Criticism without offering an alternative is not productive, therefore I offer the following specific alternative. I would like the first sentence to read "Rideau Hall (also known as Canada's House) is the official residence and work place of the governor general of Canada, the federal representative of the Canadian monarch.

As an aside, as per WP:OTHERNAMES "Canada's house" should be bolded and a redirect created to this article. Also as an aside it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead that this is one of 2 official residences for the governor general in Canada (the other of course being Citadelle of Quebec in Quebec City).

Note that Other stuff exists and Relevance are both essays. Useful for summarizing an editor's position, but not considered authoritative.

Dig deeper talk 15:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

People can click on the image to enlarge it if need be. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Arthur Bousfield; Garry Toffoli (September 2002). Fifty Years the Queen: A Tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on Her Golden Jubilee. Dundurn. pp. 28–31. ISBN 978-1-55002-360-2.
  • Canada House
  • WP:IMAGESIZE
--Moxy (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If you scroll up on the page, you will see that WP:IMAGESIZE falls under the category of "Adding images to articles" not talk pages. WP:TALKO is a more appropriate guideline for talk pages.
There is also Canada House (Berlin). Not sure what your point is.
Fifty Years the Queen is not an ideal reference. 150 years of Rideau Hall would be more reliable. With respect to references, context matters.
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable


With respect to the wording of Rideau Hall being the queen's residence in the lead section (and no where else in the article), does anyone wish to contribute to the discussion?
To summarize my argument. Rideau Hall is commonly referred to as the official residence of the governor general. The signage outside the Rideau Hall explicitly states this. Similarly the walking tour map, the tour guides, the interpretive centre, the official website of the g.g. all mention that it is the governor general's residence and not once is it written or mentioned that it is also the official residence of the Queen. The intro of the CPAP video my opponents use as a reference mentions in the introduction that this is the official residence of the G.G. The lead for this article should follow this example. The Wikipedia pages for government houses in all the other commonwealth countries refer to them as residences of the governor general (never the Queen).

The lead for this article should follow this example. The references provided by the opposing argument are a pamphlet (with no references), a documentary video (where mentioned btw?) and a 50 year biography on the Queen (not Rideau Hall). Not very compelling evidence. Perhaps this would be acceptable for a brief, equivocal statement in the body, but not in the lead. Anyone who visits Rideau Hall and then visits this page would think Wikipedia is off the mark.

Unless this article can clearly explain in the body why Rideau Hall is also the residence of the queen, this unusual and awkward phrasing should not be in the lead. 

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.- from WP:Lead 3rd paragraph

Dig deeper talk 01:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Queen of Canada is a legal person (office) and is, constitutionally speaking, Canada. Where the office holder (natural person, i.e. Elizabeth) is physically located is entirely irrelevant to the office and where it is officially housed. This in the same way as any office, such as the Prime Minister, Leaders of HM Loyal Opposition, the President of the United States, the Queen of the UK, etc.
Second, the official book on the Crown in Canada defines Government House as: "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall", thus Rideau Hall is according to its official definition two things 1) the Queen's official residence, and 2) occupied by the Queen's representative. Rideau Hall is the Governor General's residence because it is the Queen's official residence, as the Queen's representative the GG has no authorities, status, or claim beyond that of the office they represent.
Finally, all of the material that states that Rideau Hall is the home of the Governor General is not wrong, and does not contradict the fact that Government House is the official residence of the Sovereign. As the GG actually occupies the place on a near permanent basis, it is perfectly natural for most material (and the house itself) to focus in on this fact.
We have reliable and official sources that state Rideau Hall is the sovereign's official residence as a matter of fact, and that this residence is also occupied by their representative, the Governor General. We have zero sources that state the Rideau Hall is not the sovereign's official residence.
As for Canada's House being bolded and redirected, it's a quote and a description in the same way as the "Maple Crown". Also, Canada House is a specific thing, and the phrase "Canada's House" or "Canada House" is used for Canadian embassies around the world, in addition to Canadian military recreational houses around the world starting in London during the Second World War and continued today in every location Canadians are deployed to. It is a generic term, used for Rideau Hall but not specific to it. trackratte (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be helpful to readers, if we were to clarify in the lead of this article, that the governor general occupies the place on a near permanent basis, where's the sovereign doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It is already covered under "Function". It is important to remember that Rideau Hall is not simply a domicile in the normal sense, and that "An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state, head of government, governor or other senior figure officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual conducts work-related functions or lives". Whether or not the sovereign lives there, how much time they spend there, and how much time the governor general lives their is irrelevant to the question of official residency. When we go to the "Function" section of the article, that is the proper place to speak about day to day functions. We could mention there the shared nature of the person of the sovereign and thus the role of GG as representative, etc as we do in many other articles, even though this is repetition, if the consensus is it must be outlined a bit more clearly within that section. trackratte (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
So if I understand your argument correctly, you feel that the 3 sources mentioned are adequate and appropriate and "official". You feel these sources justify having the unusual statement in the lead and that it does not require any discussion or support in the body. I disagree. Nobody introduces Rideau Hall as the official residence of the Queen. Even your sources did not mention this in their intro's. Maybe it is an official residence, maybe it isn't. Being true is not the only qualifier to being in the lead. The WP:BURDEN remains with you to find better sources which actually state that and indicates that this is notable and worth mentioning in the lead (not just some interesting bit of trivia). The burden also remains with you to explain in the body that, contrary to popular belief, it is also the official residence of the queen.
To again summarize my argument. Rideau Hall is commonly referred to as the official residence of the governor general. The signage outside the Rideau Hall explicitly states this. Similarly the walking tour map, the tour guides, the interpretive centre, the official website of the g.g. all mention that it is the governor general's residence and not once is it written or mentioned that it is also the official residence of the Queen. The intro of the CPAP video my opponents use as a reference mentions in the introduction that this is the official residence of the G.G. The lead for this article should follow this example. The Wikipedia pages for government houses in all the other commonwealth countries refer to them as residences of the governor general (never the Queen).

The lead for this article should follow this example. The references provided by the opposing argument are a pamphlet (with no references), a documentary video (where mentioned btw?) and a 50 year biography on the Queen (not Rideau Hall). Not very compelling evidence. Perhaps this would be acceptable for a brief, equivocal statement in the body, but not in the lead. Anyone who visits Rideau Hall and then visits this page would think Wikipedia is off the mark.

Unless this article can clearly explain in the body why Rideau Hall is also the residence of the queen, this unusual and awkward phrasing should not be in the lead. Dig deeper talk 17:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about being called "the official residence of Canada's Monarch" in the first sentence

Should the "Lead" section describe Rideau Hall as the Monarch's (Queen Elizabeth II) official residence? Dig deeper talk 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose This phrasing does not belong in the lead. See my 12 points of rationale below. The statement may be true, though the references in the article are not great. The primary question though is whether it is notable enough to mention in the lead. Dig deeper talk 18:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Not sure how anyone can think Arthur Bousfield who is chairman of The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust and edited the periodical Monarchy Canada for years is not reliable. Remember the Daniel Lafond incident... Arthur Bousfield; Garry Toffoli. Royal Tours 1786-2010: Home to Canada. Dundurn. p. 163. But the alleged insult resulted in the media noting, correctly, that Rideau Hall is, in fact, the queen's house, not the governor general's. Not sure how brochures or plaques are more reliable here? As for Canada House....this is a rare media term like Canada's white house. For Canadian's Canada House has a different meaning then headlines grabbers. Government of Canada, Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada. "Are you interested in visiting Canada House?"..--Moxy (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not a vote, and WP applies. The phrase in question is a verifiable fact supported by reliable sources, including two or three published books that are clearly referenced within the article main body. There is absolutely zero sources that dispute this fact, and thus there is no reason inline with WP for the removal of this fact from the article. This, particularly as what Rideau Hall is (which as defined by the Government of Canada is: "Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall") is clearly central to explaining what this article is even about, and as a result must be included within the article's lead sentence. And as has been noted numerous times on this talk page, an "An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state, head of government, governor or other senior figure officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual conducts work-related functions, or actually lives", and thus any discussion revolving around where Elizabeth II personally spends her time is completely irrelevant to the status of official residence, which remains unchanged regardless of where the office holder lives in the same way as Canada's current Prime Minister has never lived in the Prime Minister's official residence, yet it still remains the Prime Minister's official residence regardless. trackratte (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The refs clearly affirm this is the Ottawa residence of the Canadian monarch. The fact Rideau Hall is a residence of the country's head of state is very much notable enough to be in the lede.
Claims the monarch doesn't "live" in Canada are a distraction. "Lives" is a vague term, especially when dealing with a monarch who has multiple residences, official and private, in multiple countries. The article thus does, and should continue to, avoid the subject, as all the articles on other official residences do. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Most independent reliable sources (including the government's official website) only seem to mention it as being the official residence of the governor general. Out of all the sources covering Rideau Hall the ones describing it as the monarch's official residence are clearly in the minority, and their independence is also dubious, as they generally seem to be written by pro-monarchist sources who have a vested interest in reinforcing the monarchy's connections to Canada. I'm not opposed to "teaching the controversy" (e.g. source A says X, source B says Y), but it definitely shouldn't be unequivocally described as the monarch's official residence in the opening sentence. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Well supported by references. I don't like the following wording While the equivalent building in many countries has a prominent, central place in the national capital (for example Buckingham Palace, the White House, and the Royal Palace in Amsterdam), Rideau Hall's site is relatively unobtrusive within Ottawa, giving it more the character of a private home. This sentence seems unnecessary. We don't need a comparison to other equivalent buildings which 1) aren't really equivalent, 2) don't build on the summary given in the preceding sentences and reads like a tour brochure. I've removed it and would be happy if it were reworded if someone feels the need to restore it. Edaham (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • More detailed discussions for and against below here please

My rationale for proposing a removal of the phrase are as follows...

1. In Canada, it is very unusual to refer to Rideau Hall (also known as Government House) as the Queen's official residence.

2. None of the other Wikipedia pages on other Government houses in the commonwealth countries have this phrasing. Australia, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, etc all refer to their respective government houses as residences of their governor general.

3. Even the broad page Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth "... is the name given to some of the residences of Governors-General, Governors and Lieutenant-Governors in the Commonwealth and the British Empire. It serves as the venue for the Governor's official business." No mention of it being the Queen's residence.

4. The signage outside Rideau Hall refers to it as "the official residence of the Governor General" (no mention of the Queen). Despite visits from the monarch, there has been no diplomatic crisis as a result of this signage.

5. The tour guides of Rideau Hall always refer to it as "the official residence of the Governor General" (no mention of "the Queen's residence" ever)

6. The website for Rideau Hall (https://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=94) refers to it as the official residence and workplace of the governor general.

7. The self guided tour brochure refers to it as the home and workplace of the governor general.

8. The intro of the CPAP tour video refers Rideau Hall as the "...home and workplace of every Canadian governor general since Confederation"

9. There is no mention in the body about why it is also the official residence of the Queen, despite widespread belief that it is only the official home and workplace of the Governor General. (see WP:LEAD)

10. The sources that my opponents use to support inclusion all mention this briefly in passing. From WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable.

11. My opponents insist that it should appear because it is true. Given the references and arguments used so far, I'm not convinced that it is true. Regardless, it is not notable enough to be in the Lead. If it were notable, it would have been mentioned in the sources I listed above.

12. At worst the phrasing is inaccurate. At best it is awkward and unusual. Either way, this phrasing in the lead section weakens Wikipedia's credibility.

I would like the first sentence to read "Rideau Hall (also known as Canada's House) is the official residence and work place of the governor general of Canada, the federal representative of the Canadian monarch.

Dig deeper talk 18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple sources clearly stating that Rideau Hall is the sovereign's official residence, and that it is occupied by the sovereign's representative. These references are not in passing but are central to the topic, and include the official book on the Canadian Crown published by the Government of Canada, as well as published books specifically about the Queen of Canada written by experts on the topic.
You have provided zero contrary sources that state that Rideau Hall is not the Queen's official residence, and thus there is no evidence that this verifiable fact is even in dispute beyond your personal opinions and perceptions. More to the point, you cannot remove clear facts verified by reliable sources simply because you do not like it.
If there were sources contradiction other sources of equal reputation and validity, then even that is not a reason for the removal of the fact but is instead a reason to explain the controversy as matter of factly as we can giving due weight as required.
Subsequently, there is no valid reason to expunge this clearly central and verifiable information, and in fact doing so would be contrary to WP. trackratte (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The references are mediocre and comments definitely made in passing. This is quite obvious, yet you continue to insist they are sufficient. Are we still talking about the 3 references associated with the sentence?
Zero contrary sources? The burden of proof rests on "...the editor who adds or restores material". Next I'll be presented with 3 lame references saying Rideau Hall is made of cheese. Will I be forced to find contrary sources that says it is not made of cheese? This is an unreasonable request.
Not everything that is true needs to be in the Lead. The reference to "the residence of the queen should clearly demonstrate that this "fact" is not notable enough for the lead.
Dig deeper talk 22:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear here you thinks its best not to mention whos house it is in the lead... are you also suggesting we remove mention of this fact from the body of the article (that you keep claiming is not there)? Can you explain why we would leave our readers in the dark about this fact that is easily sourced?--Moxy (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
My opponent is using a loaded question (again). Is my opponent saying the folks at Rideau Hall, all the other government house throughout the world, and even the CPAP video listed as a reference are all "keeping people in the dark"? Clearly my opponent is grasping at straws here.
My opponent's own poor references (which my opponents keep using) also "keep people in the dark" by not mentioning it in their respective introductions. This is trivial information at best, certainly not mainstream. If it is indeed factual, it merits discussion in the body. Why does my opponent keep avoiding my questions? I have made 12 strong points why it should be removed. My opponents at best provide 3 weak arguments for why it should stay:
1. But it's true and you can't prove that it isn't

2. Our 3 sources (a 50 year history on the Queen, a CPAP video and a pamphlet) mention it briefly in passing, so it must be both true and notable

3. Even though it isn't explained anywhere in the body, it should be mentioned in the lead because we feel it is important.
Have I summarized my opponents points accurately?
Dig deeper talk 23:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Poor sources? - Arthur Bousfield chairman of The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust and edited the periodical Monarchy Canada for years with 14 works in 62 publications with 4,974 library holdings vs a plaque and brochure. Pls read article again.....as its metioned in the body......lets quote for you
Rideau Hall's main purpose is to house the offices of the Governor General of Canada and his or her household, including the Canadian Heraldic Authority. It is also the Ottawa residence of Canada's monarch

When King George VI and his consort, Queen Elizabeth, arrived at Rideau Hall on 19 May 1939, during their first royal tour of Canada, official royal tour historian Gustave Lanctot stated: "When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence, the Statute of Westminster had assumed full reality: the King of Canada had come home."
--Moxy (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A poor source does not necessarily mean an incompetent author. A biased one perhaps. Regardless, I would like to see more discussion on this in the body before putting this unusual phrasing in the lead. And by discussion, I mean more than an editorial from a historian saying "the king had come home". Most people would consider it the governor general's house. To say it is also the Monarch, without explicitly providing some explanation is confusing to the reader. The 3 references listed on the lead sentence do not provide much help to the reader. So the reader comes to Wikipedia after visiting Rideau Hall and sees "monarch's official residence and the reader wonders "where does this comes from?". This was never once mentioned at Rideau Hall. Very strange. Why would everyone at Rideau Hall keep everyone in the dark? You would think they know better than anyone. Reader looks down the page and looks up the references, not much help. Even on the talk page, the reader doesn't see a clear explanation of why this is.

Dig deeper talk 00:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait a sec are you saying you cant see this source? It explains well in the last section of the page. --Moxy (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
OK one more reference has been added to the article by Trackratte. This is a little better, thank you. Some of what is mentioned here would probably be useful in the body. Can someone explain to me why the author says it has been "the Queen's home since 1951?" Why 1951?
Dig deeper talk 13:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Because the Queen (then a princess) conducted a Royal Tour of Canada in 1951 on behalf of her ailing father, the King, during which she took up residence in Rideau Hall. trackratte (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
So must a Monarch actually stay in the residence in order for it to become a "royal residence".
Dig deeper talk 14:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not a personal residence but an official residence (i.e. where an "office" officially resides, not the natural person). As I mentioned before, our current Prime Minister has never taken up residence at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, regardless however, it remains the official residence of the Prime Minister.
I have also added two more books as inline citations supporting the lead sentence.
I would rather get rid of the "Canada's House" bit in the first sentence, as it appears to be extremely rarely used, is confusing as Canada House is almost universally associated with the building in London and to Canadian military "Canada Houses", and finally it seems very much ancillary to the topic. If it was in common use it would be another story, however we already have the official name (Government House) and the common name (Rideau Hall), and as we can see "Canada's House" is very much not a common name. trackratte (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I just consolidated all of the refs into a single note to avoid cluttering the lead, as clearly several sources are required here as this same issue has been brought up on this Talk three of four times now, however WP is that leads should minimize refs so I think this is the best of both worlds. trackratte (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Clarification that the monarch doesn't live in Canada, would be helpful. It would explain the existence of the Governor General, as well. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
As stated, this is already done within the article under the "Function" heading, second this is an article about a building with the relationship about the Monarch and GG stated in several other articles all of which are already blue linked in the lead paragraph for those wishing to explore those topics. We should not add too much details about other topics as readers will be looking to this article for specific information on Rideau Hall. trackratte (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It won't do any harm, adding a brief descriptive in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If "Canada's house" is to remain, it should be set up as I have outlined above, more or less. If it is an uncommon phrase and should be deleted, then let's delete it.
I understand that an official residence can be different from actual residence, but I can see how some readers may not.
I'm not clear over the 2 arguments here. On the one hand I'm hearing that Rideau Hall became the Queen's residence in 1951 because she stayed there. On the other hand, I'm hearing that it is her official residence because she is the Monarch. Which is it? Is it considered her official residence as a matter of convention or respect, or is it in law?

Dig deeper talk 18:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Absent proof that the term "Canada's House" is in fact in common usage it has been removed from the lead sentence.
2. The term "official residence" used within the lead sentence is blue-linked for that very reason, so any reader that is unsure can either click it, or if on a computer can just hover their mouse above the link and the definition of "official residence" pops up on their screen.
3. There are no two arguments. As the lead states, it has been the official residence of the sovereign since purchased for that use. It has been the current Queen's residence technically since she became Queen, which is not mentioned in the article and neither is the 1951 date, nor should it be (i.e. discussions of the current monarch are not really relevant, as it is the official residence of the Canadian monarch generally, which is to say property of the Queen in Right of Canada, not Elizabeth II as a private person).
4. It would be the residence of the Canadian monarch as both a matter of convention and law in that the Queen is the legal owner, and how the sovereign officially puts the property to use is a matter of discretion (convention). trackratte (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Re. point #1. OK "Canada House" is a rare description. It shouldn't be in the lead. This has been my argument for removing "monarch's official residence". It's trivial and confusing to the reader. One might also argue it is overly WP:TECHNICAL. See also WP:EXPLAINLEAD
Re. point #3 Yes there are 2 arguments here (or perhaps 1 argument presented poorly). One is saying when the Queen visited the Royal residence it became her home the other is saying it has always been a Royal residence (since 1867) and thus it became the Queens house in 1852 when she became Queen. If it is the latter, we shouldn't be using sources that are being poetic to defend a position.
Re. point #4 makes no sense. With that same reasoning 24 Sussex Drive should also be considered the Queen's official residence, because it's a residence and the crown owns it. Owning it does not make it an official residence.
My comment in the tag that explains the cluster of references has been reverted. I'm not clear why providing some context would justify a revert. It said" With respect to the residence being referred to as the Monarch's official residence, see the following references"
Dig deeper talk 20:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It has always by law been one of the monarch's official residences. It became so in practice when King George VI resided there in 1939. This was documented by Gustave Lanctot, the official historian of the 1939 royal tour, who called it the King's "home".
Your addition to the references was POV and unencyclopedic. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Dig deeper, Re pt 3, you need to make the conceptual distinction between the Queen as a legal and natural person. It has always been the sovereign's home (a legal person who never dies), and has been the home of Elizabeth (natural person) in practice since she took up residence there. I would suggest reading up on the concept of the corporation sole.
Re pt 4, the Queen owns all government buildings and lands (i.e. Crown assets). 24 Sussex is not the Queen's official residence as it is not designated as such, so of course one can own a variety of different properties without them all being one's home.
Your comment in the tag was counterfactual and therefore inappropriate as Mies states above. trackratte (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Counterfactual? So now you're saying it is not the "Monarch's official residence"? or that your references do not support this? Perhaps "counterfactual" does not mean what you think it means.
Re the response to point number 4, you say 24 Sussex is not the Queens residence because it is not designated as such. This implies that at some point Rideau Hall was designated as such. When and by whom was Rideau Hall "designated" as the Monarch's official residence?Dig deeper talk 22:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rideau Hall. 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:

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) 16:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Rideau Hall. 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:

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) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Placement of images

Howdy @Miesianiacal: (who's increasing his visits to Wikipedia lately, after being away for a few years) & @Leventio:. Best you both straighten out between yourselves 'here', the placement of images on this article. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the issue of image sandwiches is an MoS issue, so I don't see how that would be negotiable (sandwiches are problematic for users reading this article on mobile desktop mode, which is why we have that as a site-wide policy against such image placements). We should avoid creating sandwiches if and whenever possible.
In any case, I only really had two issues with Miesianiacal latest revision, just being the placement of the long gallery img (it created a small sandwich with the porte-cochère), and the left orientation of Tent room image (which I thought I would sidestep this issue of image placement entirely by placing it in a multi image stack to the left). Other than that, I actually have no issue with Miesianiacal latest revision. Leventio (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. Realized that sounds like I'm absolutely resolute to maintaining placements, I'm open to moving images whereever pertinent if you want to discuss that, I'm really just concerned about the sandwiches.
Just didn't want yas to get into any kinda edit-war. Miesianiacal might have to be careful though, not to be seen as owning the article. Hope things work out between yas. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Leventio, my immediate question is: what size of a monitor are you using? I'm only on a laptop and see zero issues with sandwiching. A wider question would be, at what point do we have to stop catering to individuals' screen sizes? WP:SANDWICH offers no guidance. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I actually run a dual monitor set and I usually check both of them. My primary monitor is 1920x1080, the secondary monitor (my old monitor) is 1600x900 (so standard resolutions for 1080 and 720p screen). Leventio (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC) P.S.: Disregard the second monitor monitor part, thats actually the standard reso for 900p.
Well, I have genuinely been perplexed by the continued claims of sandwiching despite my best effots to take the concern into account. Whenever I hit 'save', I saw no sandwiching in the preview; I made sure of it. Even now, the Long Gallery image, for instance; from what I see, it should move left, per Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right and could easily do so without causing sandwiching. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Majority of people images, should be of governors general, not monarchs

On the subject of images, why are so many of them monarchs? Should be more photos of governors general. After all, it's the governors general who actually reside at Rideau Hall. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to swapped images around so long as their pertinent to the section they're in. In saying that, I think the image choices that we have now are moreso a reality of whats available in the Commons.
With regards to the privy council image, there aren't that many historical photos from the 1950s to 2000 on the Commons I could find that feature the GG; and its one of a few image in the Commons that depicts something discussed in the section. As for the Victoria portrait, its one of only two images I could find in the Commons where a piece of art is the focal point (besides the inukshuk). The other image being a portrait of GG Stanley (File:Rideau Hall 42.jpg). I personally wouldn't be opposed to its use, but I think the angle its taken from was why the Victoria image was used over the latter (also it is brought up in the article). I mean, if were pressed to change it though, I'd imagine a wide shots of rooms with the art in it would suffice.
As for the 1939 image, I'd think an alternate image for that section could be found in the Commons if one dug through it (I'd imagine there be more free images of Rideau Hall from that period). I don't really have a preference for what image we use so long as its pertinent to the sections they're in (and like... sandwiches). Leventio (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Out of 23 images, two have monarchs in them. One of those also includes a governor general. Four images depict a governor general. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
They actually both feature the GG (unless your referring to the Victoria portrait). I was actually gonna change the caption from highlighting Diefenbaker to highlighting Massey but sorta wanted to bring it up here first in light of these discussions. Leventio (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't even notice Massey in the Cabinet photo! I think the captopn needs more honing; I just realized it doesn't even mention the most important aspect of the event: the first time a reigning Canadian monarch met with her full Cabinet. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
One image of the current monarch will do. Official resident or not, she hasn't spent a lot of nights in Rideau Hall. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
In line with above, it seems there is only 1/23 images that depict a monarch without a GG. Given the status of the residence I don't see any issue here. trackratte (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Disagree. Of the six photos-in-question, three have a monarch in it. That's too many, when considering that the monarch doesn't actually reside at Rideau Hall. We shouldn't be giving the false impression that either George VI or his successor Elizabeth II, or their common ancestor Victoria, lived at Rideau Hall. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of references within the article itself, for example, one published by the Government of Canada stating "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen (when in Ottawa) and her representative in the federal jurisdiction — the Governor General".

Further, Official Residence is defined here as: "An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state, head of government, governor...officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual conducts work-related functions or lives".

I fail to see any issue here. There are ample sources, and by definition the location at which an individual lives has absolutely no bearing on the status of an official residence. trackratte (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The monarch doesn't actually reside at Rideau Hall, though. Therefore, having just one image of a monarch, will do. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision for Non-Canadian readers

In places, this article is very difficult to understand for a non-Canadian reader. I suggest editing to clarify language that requires specialized understanding of the Canadian system of government for understanding. --Zeamays (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rideau_Hall/Archive_2&oldid=1222347961"