Talk:Rideau Hall

Chateau Laurier

I've removed this from the list of other official residences. I haven't researched it, but my gut feeling is that while Bennett may have lived at the Chateau Laurier, I doubt it would be what we consider an "official residence." If it was, it has to be inserted in a way that makes clear that it was formerly an official residence (since the others on the list are current). - Cafemusique 09:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monarchial residence?

While it might be true that Rideau Hall is an official monarchial residence, this is such a relatively small part of the Hall's functions that it is not sensible to mention it so prominently, as if it were on par with the place's being the Governor General's residence. Visits to Canada by its monarchs from England are rare, and mostly spent touring. Regardless of what may be the case officially, practically the role of monarch's residence is slight. Even the referencing of this supposed fact, that the Hall is the monarch's official residence, is weak: It is mentioned in passing in an article about the 1939 visit by George VI. Authors sometimes get such details wrong. No official material that I can readily find makes any mention of Rideau Hall's being official residence of anyone besides the Governor General. If nothing else, this goes to show that the Hall's role as monarch's official residence, assuming it truly exists, is regarded as being of very slight importance -- too slight to bother mentioning. All considered, a mention lower down in the lead is generous. -- Lonewolf BC 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it the official residence of the Queen of Canada in Ottawa? Yes. Does the frequency of the Queen's personal presence affect this? No. Hillsborough Castle is resided in primarily by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, yet it remains EIIR's official residence in NI. The referenced text states: "...When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence..." [italics mine]. This was written by Gustave Lanctot, the official historian of the 1939 Royal Visit, and Dominion Archivist; I think he can be regarded as an authoriative source. I can also find somewhat less authoritative but still reliable sources that refer to Rideau Hall as the Queen's Canadian residence: Rideau, a company that has worked for the Office of the Governor General since 1912, calles Rideau Hall "...the official residence of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II..."; In 1996 Monarchy Canada magazine published an article by John Aimers in which Rideau Hall is described as "...The Queen's Ottawa Residence..." Further, by simple logic, if the Governor General is the Queen's direct personal representative, and lives in a home owned and paid for by the Crown, then the house is the Queen's main Canadian residence.

The present wording places the Governor General's use of the palace before the Monarch's; I think that is sufficient to impart, if it was even necessary to do so, that the Governor General is the primary user of the Hall. --G2bambino 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I might propose the following wording for the opening sentences, if they are to be altered:

Rideau Hall is a royal residence in Ottawa; it is the official seat of the Canadian Monarch in the national capital, but is primarily the official residence and principal workplace of the Sovereign's representative, the Governor General of Canada, having served as such since Canadian Confederation in 1867.

--G2bambino 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks seem somewhat to miss the point: There are two linked issues here, which I think I had better distinguish more clearly. The first is whether Rideau Hall is really the official Canadian residence of the monarch. The second is, assuming the first to be true, how ought that be treated in the article.

The first is a matter of fact and determination of fact. Although I tend to think that it is true, I have some doubts about it, and would like to see it better referenced. Let us examine what sourcing has been given: In the referenced article by William Galbraith, he twice, in passing, calls Rideau Hall the "official Canadian residence" of the monarch, and once quotes Lanctot who likewise wrote "Canadian residence", though without "official", seemingly also in passing, though this is hard to judge surely from the brief quote. It does not necessarily follow from this that Rideau Hall is truely the official Canadian residence of the monarch. That was 1939; things could have changed since. The article is only peripherally concerned with the standing of Rideau Hall as a monarchial residence, and peripheral details are liable to be gotten wrong by any given author. (For that matter, sometimes a particular author is wrong even on some central point -- you can't believe everything you read.) Perhaps "official Canadian residence" merely reflects Galbraith's opinion on a moot point. Perhaps Galbraith's opinion is even biased or idiosyncratic. Perhaps either or both are true of Lanctot. Perhaps it is significant that Lanctot does not say "official". Perhaps he just means that the royals stayed at Rideau Hall during their visit, and were as at home there. (I don't think that is what he means, but it might be, given only the quoted bit.) All this is only to show that the article is not all that strong as a source for the putative fact. I do not suggest that it is probably wrong. On the contrary, if I had to bet on the matter, I'd put my money on its truth, not its falsehood. But I do say that its rightness is not as securely established as would be best. What is really wanted is an authoritative source that directly says that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the monarch (at least when the monarch is in the country), in the course of describing what Rideau Hall is (as against mentioning such a thing in passing while covering some other subject). As for the other two sources you give, one is by a hard-core monarchist, so it plainly cannot be taken as objective. The other is a corporate webpage that says that Rideau Hall is a monarchial residence, without even mentioning the Governor General. This highly idiosyncratic presentation strongly suggests a likewise biased source.

The second issue is editorial: If Rideau Hall is, among other things, the official Canadian residence of the monarch (at least when the monarch is in the country), what weight and prominence ought be given to that in an encyclopedia article on Rideau Hall. Standard authoritative sources on Rideau Hall don't bother to mention any such aspect; they say straightforwardly that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Governor General. Practically, the Queen (and her father before her) have rarely ever been there. The Governor General, by contrast, actually resides there and ordinarily carries out duties there. Both standard sources and practical realities say that the monarchial-residence aspect is of slight importance beside the ordinary functions of the Hall, because it so rarely comes into play. Putting it up by the principal function of the Hall, that of being the Governor General's residence, implies a comparable importance. Putting it before that principal function, as you've done here and on other WP pages, is even worse, of course. The fact is interesting, but not very important in relation to Rideau Hall. So it deserves mention, but further down in the lead, and otherwise in such a way as does not inflate its importance.

This is of a kind with the "Canada is a kingdom" issue you stirred up with your inaugural edit as Gbambino06. It's not just a factual matter of whether the statement is true, but an editorial matter of how to present that fact in the article so as not to create false impressions about it. -- Lonewolf BC 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem a tad bit odd to put the Governor General before the Monarch - way before the Monarch? The GG occupies Rideau Hall beacuse s/he is the representative of the Queen in Canada; the Queen doesn't stay there when in Ottawa because it is the GG's house. Thus, the sentence now reflects the constitutional order of things - Queen first, GG second - yet gives sufficient weight to the fact that the GG is the usual occupant. It could be further finessed, of course. Perhaps something like:

Rideau Hall is a royal residence in Ottawa, being the official seat of the Canadian Monarch in the national capital; as such, and because the Monarch usually resides in the United Kingdom, Ridau Hall is primarily the official residence and principal workplace of the Sovereign's representative, the Governor General of Canada, having served as such since Canadian Confederation in 1867.

--G2bambino 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Official website of the Goverment of Canada describes Rideau Hall, as the 'official resident of the Governor General' (not the Queen's official residence). As this site takes precedence over others, for the Canadian Government; I'll make the proper edits. GoodDay 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See this link Government of Canada, lists Rideau Hall as the GG's official residence (only). GoodDay 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's the Governor General's official residence; stating that it is the Monarch's residence does not preculde this fact. --G2bambino 18:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's official residence is Buckingham Palace. Governors-General residences throughout the Commonwealth Realms are her 'quest residences'. I'm really too disinterested to argue though, so I won't revert. GoodDay 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace is one of Elizabeth II's official residences. She cannot be a guest in any of her own countries. --G2bambino 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If there were any substance to this "official residence of the monarch" stuff, it would be mentioned somewhere in official materials, not just in, for instance, webpages written by a former Grand whatever-he-was of the Monarchist League of Canada. The low quality and extreme scarcity of any reference to such a supposed fact, and the complete lack of any mention of anything of the kind in any official source indicates that it is a crank opinion. Wikipedia does not include crank opinions as if they were facts. Statements such as "She [the Queen] cannot be a guest in any of her own countries", are obvious "original research". -- Lonewolf BC 02:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Three cites that meet WP:RS state Rideau Hall is the residence of both the Monarch of Canada and the Governor General of Canada; as such, the content meets WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. For all your bombast about "official sources," you haven't looked through any besides what's on Government of Canada webpages - hardly a detailed search. Until you can prove that Galbraith (a Gov't of Canada information officer), Lanctot (Gov't of Canada head archivist and Canadian historian), and Aimers (head of the Monarchist League of Canada, who's piece, by the way, was originally published in a regularly issued, edited magazine) are all either wrong or unreliable, then you have no grounds on which to remove the particular text. --G2bambino 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Government of Canada' official website, is the most aurthoritive website on the Canadian Government. It describes 'Rideau Hall' as the GG's official residence (not the Queen's). Let's go with the 'most' authoritive source. GoodDay 15:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Government of Canada' official website, is the most aurthoritive website on the Canadian Government. Personal opinion.

It describes 'Rideau Hall' as the GG's official residence Which is not in dispute.

...not the Queen's. Because they leave out a fact doesn't mean we have to. --G2bambino 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

..Leave out a fact...? That's your opinon, not the Canadian Government's. Shouldn't the Canadian Government decide for itself, who's official residence Rideau Hall is? You're now arguing, the legitimacy of the most 'authoritive source'. GoodDay 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The authors of the three sources we currently have do not opine on whether or not Rideau Hall is a monarchical residence, they assert its role as the Monarch's home in Canada as a fact. The Gov't website doesn't mention this; thus it neither confirms nor denies it. I'm therefore not arguing the Gov't website's legitimacy at all. --G2bambino 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All three of us agree, that RH is at least the official residence of the Governor General, let's go with that. What's the point of having the article protected (do to edit wars), and having valued editors (G2bambino and LonewolfBC) blocked for 'continued reversions'. This UK, first among equals VS All are equal conflict among Commonwealth related articles, has got to end. GoodDay 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why suppress facts supported by cited material? Is that not censorship?

This has little to nothing to do with the equality of the Realms issue. --G2bambino 16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy 'edit warring'. GoodDay 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay, permitting all of Lonewolf's edits while denying all of mine is the exact opposite of a compromise. C'mon. --G2bambino 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not denied 'all' of yours. I accept your view, that the RH is the GG's official residence. However, try this ..official residence of the Governor General of Canada, the Canadian Monarch's represenative... After all the GG is the Canadian Monarch's represenative. Note- I didn't say 'British Monarch's' represenative (I'm sure Tharky, would like that). GoodDay 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I considered that earlier, but it still represses the point that Rideau Hall is also the monarch's residence in Ottawa.

Lonewolf's main beef originally was that though the house is the home of the monarch, the monarch is there so infrequently that the fact somehow doesn't deserve to be mentioned. I attempted to address his valid point about the GG being the primary occupant while still pointing out the palace is the Queen's home in Ottawa, regardless of where else in the world she is; would my cottage, if I had one, cease to be one of my homes because I only live there a couple of weeks a year? Thus, I thought I had put forward a compromise. Now, however, Lonewolf's sole mission is to censor the fact that Rideau Hall is EIIR's residence in the Canadian capital. How can we compromise on that? --G2bambino 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, my compromise edit lasted 'roughly' a minute (is that a record, here?). Seriously though, happy 'edit warring' - posterity has noted, I tried to help, but was unsucessful. Sorry, for letting you guys down. GoodDay 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but it didn't address the issue at all and still censored information. --G2bambino 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll wait and see if 'LonewolfBC' accepts my compromise (afterall, he deserves a 'say' aswell). GoodDay 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What you offer isn't a compromise. It's a rehashed version of what Lonewolf wants: suppression of facts. --G2bambino 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We haven't heard from LonewolfBC, yet. Be patient and comment afterwards. GoodDay 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Lonewolf is more than welcome to chip in. But, let's not confuse the debate by calling something what it isn't. --G2bambino 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually (dare I comment), LBC prefers to not mention the Canadian Monarch. You prefer to mention the Canadian Monarch (prominantly). I've taken the 'middle road' - mentioning the Canadian Monarch in a 'secondary style' (which seems to lead back to, your phobia of UK, firs among equals. GoodDay 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me then. My motivation is not to see any arbitrary mention of the Monarch, but instead mention of the fact that Rideau Hall is the Monarch's home in Ottawa, albeit primarily used as the GG's home. Your attempted "compromise" merely elaborated on the GG's role as vice-regal while removing mention of the Hall being the Monarch's residence all-together.

I'm not completely against mentioning the monarch second (though it does seem odd), but all proposals have either completely removed any mention of the sovereign, or creatively asserted the Queen stays as a guest (as though she were subordinate to the GG!). --G2bambino 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::Now, that looks better. GoodDay 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC) ::OK, that looks even better. Still waiting on LwBC's opinon. GoodDay 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Protection' was inevitable & needed. As I've 'harped' before, edit warring doesn't solve a thing. GoodDay 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sure. But does your scratching out of your previous comment mean you now don't approve of the current wording? --G2bambino 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've chosen to give 'both' opposing editors a chance to work things out. Here's my 'last' compromise edit proposal - for you & LwBC to consider - Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Canadian Monarch's represenative, the Governor General of Canada. PS- The sooner both of you 'agree', the sooner this article will be 'unlocked' for everyone.

Nope; that again ignores the cited fact that the house is the Monarch's residence in Ottawa. The sooner people stop simply ignoring referenced material because they don't like it the sooner this article will be unblocked. --G2bambino 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Wikipedia is suppose to be the 'laymens' Encyclopedia; whenever the Canadian Prime Minister & cabinet resigns ,followed by the swearing in of the newly appointed Prime Minster & cabinet, these events are discribed as occuring at the GG's official residence (not the Queen's). GoodDay 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

All assumptions aside; so what? --G2bambino 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Using my 'edit' (which is straight forward & simple), would be more presentable to the 'unfamiliar' reader. GoodDay 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But we don't edit Wikipedia to conform to the ignorance of others. I'd imagine people don't come here to read about what they already know. --G2bambino 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're determined to describe Rideau Hall as the Canadian Monarch's official residence. LwBC (who's apparently decided -discussion- is pointless, by not commenting), is determined to keep Rideau Hall from being described as such. Such conflicting PoVs has condemned this page to being locked from other editors. Congradulations, both of you. GoodDay 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But, of course; that's what other knowledgeable people have said it is. Please stop speaking as though this is some kind of invention out of my own head.

As for Lonewolf: his original problem seemed to be not that the house was described as the Queen's Canadian residence, but that this fact came before mention of the GG's occupancy. The article has been altered to address this, perhaps valid, complaint. Thus, to me, the problem's already solved. --G2bambino 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel dispute between you & LwfBC has ended, request 'unprotection' for this page. GoodDay 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to; but I think we should give it time. A couple of days at least; I certainly don't think it should last the full two weeks. (At least, I hope not!) --G2bambino 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me as I prey please LwfBC accept, please LwfBC accept, oh wait, I'm atheist. A couple of days it is. GoodDay 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, time, of which I lack enough to do all that I might wish.
This is mostly just to register my continued interest and, sorry to say, disagreement. I don't have time for much more just now, but I want to dispell any notions to the contrary that might be creeping in. Sorry, but the article had better stay locked for the time being. I'm sure that this can be sorted out before long, though.
Just as a general comment, meanwhile: Please try to look at these discussions less ephemerally. We're supposed to be producing an encyclopedia, not settling a bar-room bet. Stepping away from the blow-by-blow of a discussion briefly (yes, briefly, on a properly longer-term view) should not be construed as a loss of interest or as aquiescence, especially in one who has contributed very substantially to the discussion in the form of a few thoughtful, longer posts. -- Lonewolf BC 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be 'unprotected' (on August 10) for the sake of other editors. Meanwhile, G2b and LwfBC can continue to 'discuss' on this talk page (making no further reverts) their -proposed- edits. GoodDay 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds promising, but I have my serious doubts. --G2bambino 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime - should a 'reversion' occur- I'll re-add my 'compromise edit' (which should remain, until the opposing parties reach an agreement at the talk page). It's best the article remain stable (with compromise edit), instead of jumping back-and-forth (with opposing edits). It'll only be 'until' the two of you reach an agreement. GoodDay 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay - your "compromise edit" isn't a compromise at all, and your adding it will simply inflame the situation. I realise you're trying to be a peace broker of sorts, and I appreciate your input, but with this particular edit of yours, you're actually working against me. --G2bambino 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Try this ..is the residence of the Governor General of Canada, represenative of the Canadian Monarch... Note - By leaving out official, I'm neither claiming it's the GG's or the Queen's official residence. GoodDay 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not much different to what you proposed earlier. Again, my concern doesn't surround the use of the term "official"; it is over the mentioning of the fact that the house is the Queen's residence in Ottawa.

Where I suspect this will come down to, when Lonewolf decides to join the conversation again, is where the fact should be mentioned. My opinion stands as: instead of disjointedly separating the two points about the GG and Queen, with the GG coming paragraphs before any mention of the Queen's claim on the Hall, the two facts, being correlated, should follow one another. As the GG is indeed the primary occupant, I can accept that he/she come first, followed by the fact that the Hall is EIIR's Ottawa residence. This flows better and makes more sense, in my opinion. --G2bambino 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the best I can do. I'm gonna add it when the page is 'unprotected' (if reverted, I won't re-add it). The rest is up to the two of you. PS- if the 'compromise edit' bothers both of you, just have the Administrator revert it (no need 'wasting' a revert on me). GoodDay 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do as you please, I suppose. But I wonder: if you know your insertion won't be accepted, why bother? --G2bambino 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if it is or not, that's up to you guys. GoodDay 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Locked

I have locked the wrong version for two weeks in the hope that the edit-warring on this article will stop and suitable time is available for y'all to reach some form of consensus. Good Luck! -- Avi 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, with the article locked, perhaps now the disputing parties LwBC & G2B can 'iron out' a resolution. My 'compromise version' wasn't helping. GoodDay 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, should G2b & LwfBC begin 'edit warring' again, after this page is 'unprotected', they may both have to be 'blocked'. Even if they don't make more then 3-reverts within 24hrs (which 'blocking' is possible as they were previously blocked for 3RR breaching). Sorry guys, innocent editors shouldn't suffer from your 'head butting'. GoodDay 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Edits

Since we've got 'til August 22 - to try an iron out things, here's my originally idea. Let's respect the 'layman's' understanding & avoid the legal mumbo jumbo. This is my re-introduced compromise -
..official residence of the Governor General of Canada, who's the represenative of the Canadian Monarch in Canada...
Example: Harper was sworn in as Canadian PM at the GG's official residence NOT the Queen's. Take it or leave guys. GoodDay 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said: leave it. 1) Hides the fact it's the Queen's residence in Ottawa; 2) unnecessarily elaborates on the GG's role, which isn't really relevant to her house; 3) laymen don't dictate Wikipedia content. --G2bambino 16:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's being left alone (until page unprotection). 1)Actually it's the Canadian taxpayers residence in Ottawa; 2)Does elaborate correctly the GG's role (PM & cabinet transitions example); 3)legal beagles, constititional scholars don't dictate Wikipedia content either. PS- there's more 'layman' readers out there, then scholars. GoodDay 17:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Well, in a sense, yes. But then so is 24 Sussex Drive, and any other official government residence. Ditto for Buck House in the UK. So, this doesn't dismiss the fact that it's the Queen's residence in Ottawa.

2) It's correct, certainly. But is it necessary? I'm quite ambivalent if it stays or goes, but it seems to be being suggested as simply a way to fit in the word "monarch" without addressing my actual point r.e. the mentioning of Rideau Hall being the Queen's residence in Ottawa.

3) No, we, of course, dictate Wikipedia content. However, because something is commonly known or said doesn't mean it trumps other little known facts. If that was the case Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom would be Elizabeth II of England (there's even a redirect page there!). This is why I now agree that the monarchical part should be present as a brief mention second to the GG's occupancy, which is exactly what sits in the article now. --G2bambino 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have dropped this for a spell, but I cannot do everything at once, and am less prolific in post-numbers than many other editors. I have not lost interest.
I would accept GoodDay's "compromise" edit, as an interim measure, until a proper consensus can be reached, for the sake of getting the article unlocked and available for other editing. I would not wish to see the article's lead become fixed in that form, though. It would need to be clearly understood and agreed that no one (especially not myself or G.) would edit the lead back to any form substantially the same as one of the versions put forward by either "side" of the dispute, unless and until there is a consensus. Meanwhile the interim compromise would stand. -- Lonewolf BC 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all I'm asking for. My compromise is just a 'interim edit'; it's purpose is to allow the page to be 'unprotected' while you guys iron out a resolution. My edits aren't written in 'stone' (in fact no edit is, since there's millions of Wiki editors). Come on G2, it's only 'temporary'. GoodDay 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the 'protecting' Administrator, to insert my interim compromise edit (the recent edit is 'too disputed'). LonewolfBC & Myself have accepted it as an 'interim' edit. GoodDay 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter; any edit will only be an interim edit. --G2bambino 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite true, considering there's thousands of Wiki editors. GoodDay 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking

As it seems that y'all think you can now approach this article on a more even keel, I will unlock the page. I will have it watchlisted, however -- Avi 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember guys, no edit warring. GoodDay 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Applied

As this is my last edit to the article (concerning this topic) -- I hope it's non-acceptance as a permanent solution (by G2bambino & LonewolfBC), will further encourage them to seek a resolution on the talk page. Remember folks, no edit warring (where've I heard that advice before?). GoodDay 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Describing this last edit as a "compromise" is actually extremely disingenuous. Far from a common, non-partisan edit, it actually achieves Lonewolf's later (revised) goal without him actually having to make any changes to the article himself. This sets things up so as to make it appear that any edit I make will be one that breaks this misnamed "compromise."

Just so it's clear, what I next insert will be what I see as something that actually does take a number of Lonewolf's concerns - at least those he originally expressed here and those he has brought up elsewhere - as well as my own. I will not be reneging on any compromise at all. --G2bambino 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

G., there is a difference between a thing's being unsatisfactory to you and its not being a compromise. The compromise-edit is not satisfactory to me, either.
That aside, your understanding of my views and aims is seriously in error, so that any edit you made that purports to address my concerns would certainly fail to do so. Plainly, under the circumstances we need to work this out on the talkpage before making edits to the article. Meanwhile the compromise should stand as an "armistice term", not really satisfactory to either of us. -- Lonewolf BC 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As you tend to act much more than you communicate, I must extrude your desires from your actions. Though your first concern - expressed above - was that the monarchical aspect of Rideau Hall was given undue prominence, your following actions were to repeatedly remove mention of the house being the Monarch's Ottawa residence all-together. That is exactly what GoodDay has done, and thus it seems his "compromise" has achieved your goal.
If you now purport to not be opposed to the presence of mention of Rideau Hall's status as a royal residence, then the conflict between your actions and your spoken concerns does indeed leave me very confused. --G2bambino 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I communicate quite well and thoroughly. The trouble is that you tend not to pay attention, or at least so it seems from your non-responsive replies.
As you'd know if you had read my remarks up to this point for comprehension, at first I thought that "monarch's residence" was just being given too high a profile in relation to its importance among the Hall's functions, although it might be true. That's "might". I've never been convinced that it is true, although on cursory examination of the thing, I was inclined to think that the putative fact was obscure and unimportant but technically true. Having looked into the matter further -- the scarcity and poor quality of the sources (as sources on this particular point, at least), and the lack of mention in official sources and standard reference works, and the giving of contrary information (see Makepeace's post, below) in the official Rideau Hall website -- I think that "monarch's residence" is just an eccentric claim made by monarchists, deserving of no more than a footnote saying that some authors have made the claim, while noting the counter-indications. -- Lonewolf BC 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the record here stands; you made few comments and many reverts. I paid good attention to the comments and what was reverted; hence I already stated what you just repeated above. It seems, though, that your sporadic comments in edit summaries and on other talk pages are at least starting to gel here, in one place. Which is a step, at least, in the right direction.

In response to what you've just spelled out, I'll say exactly what I did in an earlier reply to you at another talk page: The sources meet WP:RS. As such they can be used as sources for the information being inserted.

Other sources do not mention the same fact. Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying these sources matter more than the ones I have because you think they do, and because they don't mention the fact my sources do, the fact therefore isn't true. Well, again, you are deciding what work is more valid than the others. I rather think that's your POV, and I also doubt that a website necessarily trumps published parliamentary journals or historical accounts written by official historians and archivists. Perhaps those who put together the websites you refer to don't know the royal role of Rideau Hall, or, maybe don't want it to be known. That doesn't mean what the sources I've provided say is wrong.

I'll add to that the fact that JDM's website doesn't contradict anything at all.

I have no problem with pointing out in the article that Rideau Hall's status as the Monarch's residence in Ottawa (or, perhaps the more ambiguous term "seat") is a little mentioned point. But given the reliability of the sources, the point cannot be censored. --G2bambino 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My record is what it is -- and there it is, only a little above (plus in the usual user-history pages, etc.). Other readers can form their own impressions of it. Your impression of it is cock-eyed, in my opinion. There's no use in our arguing the point. Please avoid these sorts of ad hominem tangents. You are free to think badly of me, of how I've gone about things, or of both, but please keep such thoughts out of the editorial discussion. Focus on the issue, not the person. This is not (or oughtn't be) a contest to see who can cast whom as the greater villain.

Your sources do not meet the requirements of "reliable source" with respect to the particular point in question. Your saying that they do does not make it so. Neither does my saying that they do not make that so. Instead, we must examine them, and determine whether they do or do not meet the requirements. I suggest that we also invite outside opinion, as we may never agree, between the two of us alone. Meanwhile your insistence that your sources are reliable ones on this particular point merely begs the question.

By the way, I'm glad that you've moved this discussion to here, from Official Residence, whereas this is the best place for it. I was going to do the same myself, but you've been swifter. (You seem much more prolific in your WP-doings than I am in mine -- indeed, more so than most others; I sometimes wonder how one person manages it.)

-- Lonewolf BC 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You first go on about how seriously I misunderstand your aims; and yet, when I explain that your aims are misunderstood because you previously haven't communicated them through much more than curt summaries to your straight deletions, your response is to accuse me of resorting to ad homonyms? To the contrary, behaviour and attitude has been a central - if not the root cause - of this dispute (and others); less of your holier-than-thou attitude and more cooperation would have led to a much different result. As privately expressed comments and concerns about your actions that aren't sugar coated enough for your palette (could they ever be?) are simply shoveled off to your infantile "toxic waste dump," there's no choice but to express myself publicly. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

As WP:RS: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The publications are trustworthy and the authors are authoritative (though I will grant you that the Aimers piece is the least of the three, but still meets WP:RS requirements). The subject is Rideau Hall and its royal associations. The sources speak of Rideau Hall and its royal associations. The sources are being used to support one particular sentence in the article; they are not being used as the sole sources on which this article in its entirety is built.

If you want to start and RfC about this, be my guest. But, I don't think it's worth your while to attack the validity of the sources; to my mind this is a compositional matter and time is better spent authoring a sentence or two that will communicate all the information succinctly, accurately, and with due proportional weight - which is why I, some time ago, tried to start to recompose the opening sentences to accommodate the then expressed concerns. As I've said elsewhere, I can see it as maybe worthwhile to explain the infrequency of the mention of the fact that Rideau Hall is the Queen's Ottawa residence - or home, or seat, or what-have-you. Perhaps we can be specific with who exactly has said it is the Monarch's house in Ottawa. I'm not precisely sure just now, but that's what I think needs worked out. --G2bambino 19:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It has now been 7 days since the non-compromise "compromise" edit was done, and 6 days since the main objector's last contribution here. Given this stagnancy, I will move to make an edit that addresses Lonewolf's valid (or, at least those proven as such) criticisms. --G2bambino 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

G., a few days is not "stagnancy". Please wait till we've finished examining the sources. In essence, as you should know, I don't think there good reason to suppose that any of them are reliable on the supposed status of Rideau Hall as an official monarch's residence. I hope to find the time this weekend. -- Lonewolf BC 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Six days is not a few days. Still, I hope what I've done is satisfactory to most people; it now says that the hall has been described, though rarely, as the Monarch's official Canadian residence. The sources provided certainly back up that statement. --G2bambino 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking my silence, I'm in agreement with G2's edit. Nobody can argue that RH has been 'rarely described' as the Canadian monarch's official residence (Ps- I've also agreed with G2's edit at Official residence article). GoodDay 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources for G2bambino's edits were very old. Being sarcastic does not help. --Dlatimer (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Then stop being sarcastic. Once you've done that, read all the sources. And, once that's done, point us to Wikipedia's expiry date for sources. --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Subtantial debate continued

The Governor General's Web site[1] states: "The Queen, other royal visitors and foreign heads of State stay at Rideau Hall when they visit Ottawa." (emphasis mine) Jonathan David Makepeace 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, during the dissolution of the 39th Parliament (on Sept 7,2008)? Rideau Hall was never described as the Queen's official residence. It was described as the Governors General. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)