text:
Talk:Style and title of the Canadian sovereign

untitled
Common misconception? I think most people recognize that Canada is an independent nation. Maybe a popular urban legend.

 * Dunno. It's not the sort of thing that gets whispered from person to person. ("Hey, did you know that Canada's part of Great Britain? And there was this guy who got his kidneys stolen!") From the discussions I've had with foreigners, Americans mostly, I'd call it more of a vague misconception ("I'm not really sure - is Canada part of the UK? How does that thing with the Queen work anyway?") - Montréalais

 * Well, speaking as an American, I can't say I've ever encountered anyone who didn't know that Canada was an independent country. soulpatch

 * Right, but a lot of people are unsure of just how independent it is. - Montréalais

So, I added this bit about the passage of NAFTA, which I don't have a reference for except my Canadian friend, who confirmed the veracity of this with several friends of his. If someone knows otherwise, I'd be interested to read about it. Graft

Soverignty is the same for Canada, as for England and Australia, i.e."The Queen in parliament"

I removed the following line. and the removal of an unnecessary expense for the Canadian taxpayer.

The suggestion that monarchy is more expensive than republics is actually a myth. Britain's monarchy, for example, costs the average British taxpayer 79p per year. The Irish presidency costs the Irish taxpayer ?1.50, the Italian presidency costs the Italian taxpayer ?1.23 while the Spanish monarchy costs the average Spaniard ?0.45. Additional costs (upkeep of palaces, etc) would, in the event of Britain becoming a republic, remain exactly the same. The only difference is that instead of being described in one line of the state ledger, they would be moved to another, moving from the category of 'monarchy' to 'maintence of historic buildings', which would still be used as most of them are, now, as museums and for state functions. Most of the practical cost of the monarchy goes in wages and in fact is balanced by state income from a royal Duchy which belongs to the monarch but is given to the state, for a yearly civil list payment in return. I think the British government actually makes a profit of approximately £1 billion on the deal, and lawyers have argued that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy, the duchy would become the personal property of Elizabeth Windsor. Of the British Royal Family, only two are actually in receipt of state salaries, the Queen and Prince Philip, via the Civil List. The Prince of Wales is financed totally by the Duchy of Lancaster, a large body of lands run by the Prince of Wales' office. (Charles is currently renovating and upgrading his new London residence, Clarence House at a cost of millions, none of it from the taxpayer. If Britain was a republic, the cost of maintaining that eighteenth century building would fall on the taxpayer. Similarly Queen Elizabeth never actually wanted to live in Buckingham Palace but instead in Sandringham (where she as the owner would pay all the bills!) and commute to London. But the Government said 'no' and insisted she live there, turning down her other choice, the smaller, cheaper Clarence House.) All other royals are paid by the Queen out of her finances, with the taxpayer being paid back any salary cost involved in the Princess Royal, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke and Duchess of Kent, meaning in effect that they and the large number of engagements they carry out come 'free' as part of the package.

In Canada's case, becoming a republic would involve a lot of additional expenditure. Presidents tend to require political advisors, involve costs with state visits, involve major expenditure on former governor-general's residences to upgrade them to full international head of state's palace standard; when Ireland created a presidency, millions had to be spent on the former governor-general's residence, the Viceregal Lodge, to turn it into Áras an Uachtaráin, the presidential palace. In fact the original plan was to demolish the Lodge completely because it was not thought large enough and adequate enough, and build a new presidential palace in the grounds. But with the outbreak of World War II put a hold on the plan. In the end the old building was converted at considerable expense to provide large reception rooms for hosting state banquets, meeting the diplomatic corp, etc. It still is regularly criticised as being inadequate as a presidential residence, with Dublin Castle having to be used for many state functions. So the development costs of a 'President of Canada', the costs of residences and the day to day costs of running their offices would far far exceed anything currently paid for the governor-generalship and monarchy.

That isn't to say Canada should not become a republic, merely that cost is a pretty weak argument, because the cost of having a republic will far exceed by cost of the monarchy, possibly by a factor of three. STÓD/ÉÍRE 19:15 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * Regardless of whether or not you think it is a good argument, it is an argument that is made by people in that context, and therefore should be included. If pro-monarchists argue as you do, state that. - Montréalais

The picture covers the text. Can't that be fixed? The only way to read that part of the text is to click on "Edit this page". Michael Hardy 23:12 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
 * Did that help at all? Sounds browser-specific, looked fine to me before. - Hephaestos

About the NAFTA stuff, does anybody have any other reference? I ask for two reasons: one, I'm not sure about it being the Queen rather than the Governor-General who acted on the advice of the Prime Minister, and secondly, my recollection (which I haven't researched to verify yet) is that it was more than two Senators, something like 6-8? I'll try to verify in the next couple of days. - Cafemusique 12:23 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * OK...found corroboration that it was eight Senators. Also, the Constitution requires the Gov-Gen to advise the Queen in that case, instead of the PM.  I tried to make that clear, without losing the fact that it was the PM who was the instigating force. - Cafemusique 12:55 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure the Senate was expanded to pass the GST not NAFTA. The Liberals conceeded Free Trade after losing the 88 election. SimonP 18:08 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Poked around, does seem to have been done to pass the Goods and Services Tax, although I'm not sure that NAFTA wasn't a bonus. This bit from this link:
 * Using permission from the Queen and a previously unused constitutional clause P.M. Mulroney appoints another 8 Senators, this ensures the passage of the GST in the Senate (1990)
 * Graft 19:27 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I am assured by several Canadians that NAFTA was indeed on Mulroney's mind when he stacked the senate. Still seeking written confirmation... Graft 22:49 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * From the Canadian encyclopedia: "In 1990 the Liberal dominated Senate effectively blocked plans of the Conservative government to pass the legislation for the unpopular GST. This led PM Brian Mulroney to use his power to add 8 senators in order to ensure passage of the legislation in 1990." The FTA was passed in 1988 and NAFTA was passed in 1993, neither had the enlarged senate at the time of thier passing.  I'm afraid your Canadian friends  might be misremembering. SimonP 00:15 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that, just as the United Kingdom is a kingdom, so also is Canada a kingdom? Or should one say that only when the monarch is male? Michael Hardy 00:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)

No. Male or female, a state with a monarch is a kingdom. And yes Canada could be called a kingdom. FearÉIREANN 22:15 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Canada was originally supposed to be called the Kingdom of Canada, but this was changed to Dominion (which itself was eventually dropped) to avoid irritating the Americans. - Montréalais

 * Just wondering, but in what sense does the Canadian monarchy cost the taxpayer anything? Surely the governor-general can cost no more than a republic head of state would (and, as has been pointed out, almost certainly costs less).  Does the monarch herself impose additional costs on Canada in some manner?  If so, how? john 22:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so. FearÉIREANN 22:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

When she visits, we have to foot the bill. user:J.J.

If you had a resident head of state, you would foot those bills all the time, not for a couple of days every couple of years. FearÉIREANN 22:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW last year due to the costs involved in the Jubilee, the British Royal Family last year cost each British taxpayer a whopping £1.51. And the Jubilee earned for the British economy £4.02 per head of population. Figures: BBC. FearÉIREANN 23:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * The period between 2008 and 2009, The Canadian monarchy costs about $1.53 per person. Monarchist League of Canada has a survey that breaks down all the costs and here some quotes from it:

 * “The Office of Governor General representing The Queen of Canada served this country's population of 32,871,400 (October, 2007) at an annual cost of $1.24 per person, a slight reduction from the 2005 survey figure of $1.28 per person, and a somewhat larger reduction when the effect of inflation is considered.”

 * “By way of comparison, the Canadian Monarchy costs Canadians less than the Senate ($2.45 per person), about the same as the National Gallery of Canada ($1.43 per person) and a little more than the Library of Parliament ($1.02 per person).”

 * “The Monarchy costs residents of the United Kingdom (a unitary state of compact size) a total of £38 million in 2007 ($76.7 million, or $1.26 per person). In return, The Queen gave back £201 million ($406 million or $6.68 per person), the surplus revenue from the Crown Estate which HM surrendered to the Treasury at the beginning of her Reign.”

 * the survey can be found at: http://monarchist.ca/en/publications-en Cody Lar. (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This page was incorrectly moved to Canadian monarchy. Though that is a better title, I'm going to delete the moved page and do it correctly. - Montréalais 01:42, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I of Canada
Is Elizabeth I considered the first Elizabethan queen of Canada, or is Elizabeth II the first Elizabethan queen of Canada? If Elizabeth II is the first, then shouldn't she be called Queen Elizabeth of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? --myselfalso 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is accepted that the Canadian monarchy grew out of the British one, even though the two are now separate; the numbering system is sort of a grandfathered-in tribute to that history. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was also ruled in the UK that the Sovereign's title lies within the Royal Prerogative, which means the Monarch can title him/herself as so pleases them; there's no rule that their numerical designation must follow a chronological order. --G2bambino 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "kingdom"
I must be missing something here, because to me the fact that Canada is a kingdom is completely self-evident. The dictionary definition of kingdom is "a country, state of territory ruled by a king or queen". Canada head of state is a king/queen; Canada's constitution clearly says that executive power is vested in the Queen of Canada, and all passed bills are signed into law in her name. Could someone please explain how they arrived at the point of view that Canada is not a kingdom? If this is about how the Queen has not real power, I'd like to point out that she is still the de jure head of state, all laws are signed in her name, and she appoints new Prime Ministers. If this has to do with the title of Canada, I fully agree that Canada does not use the title "Kingdom of Canada" and any use of that word should have a lowercase k (as it already does in the article). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Calling Canada a kingdom is pure fantasy and offence. The K/k diversion is not relevant, since neither sense applies.  The use of section 9 of the constitution to justify an extrapolation from the dictionary is sophistry rather than evidence, since neither the word "rule" nor the word "kingdom" appears in that section.  Indeed, is there anywhere in the various constitution acts where the word "kingdom" appears other than in the expression "United Kingdom"?  To rule would require legislative powers as well as executive powers, and the queen does not have these; she acts "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada" whenever any law is proclaimed.  The queen's role is essentially symbolic; it is not one of rulership, the pretensions of monarchists notwithstanding. Eclecticology (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The word "rule" in this case means "to exercise sovereign power over", and as Canada's sovereign, this is what she does. When describing Canada's form of government, the actual way that things are done is irelivant, we are concerned with the official, legal, process.  Even though she is not the one making the decisions, all of the laws of Canada are her word, the queen is, on paper, the ruler of the country.  By dictionary difinitions of "kingdom" and "ruler", Canada is a de jure kingdom, though not a de facto one.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of this discussion seems to escape me. I always thought Canada was a Dominion, as part of the full legal title. GreenJoe 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Canada's title is a whole different matter, and no one is arguing that Canada's title is "Kingdom", just that the country is, by definition, a kingdom given that it has a queen as de jure head of state. The constitution is a bit vague on whether Dominion is part of the title, it just says that the colonies "shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada".  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any need to use kingdom or dominion at all here?--Gazzster (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case we could get away with rephrasing it to avoid the term, but the issue has come up so many times, it would be nice to have a consensus on whether it is usable in Wikipedia, rather than deleting it one by one from articles to avoid debate. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. About 'Kingdom': it seems that it is used on the basis on one or two references and by a quite small number of users. I agree that the matter should be sorted. --Gazzster (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree to a point with User:Eclecticology in that "kingdom" is a misleading term to call Canada, as it does not at all reflect de facto reality. However, I do think that we should be able to at least mention it in Wikipedia articles given that it is the de jure legal reality and a dictionary-definition truth.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally, when in doubt, I would side with the notional legal form. My preference is Monarchy, or something along that line. I personally see no problem with kingdom, other than it is rarely used to describe Canada. Deet (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing to avoid the term is exactly what was in the change that I proposed in the article space. This would have preserved the use of the word sovereign, in the sense of "independent", with which I have no quarrel. Every other term that may be introduced will have its problems.  I see "monarchy" as virtually synonymous with "kingdom".  "State" is technically correct, but given our proximity to the USA, is prone to obvious misinterpretation.  "Nation" is problematic because the French and English cultural perceptions of the word are in conflict.  "Confederation" certainly has some historical weight.  "Entity" would be somewhat pedantic.  "Dominion" overlaps considerably with "kingdom", but has the advantage of easily documented historical usages that are easily substantiated.  "Country" may be the least controversial term.  The official name is simply "Canada" without any descriptive qualifier.

 * "Dictionary-definition truth" is a problematical concept, and depends on how one views dictionaries, and whether such works are descriptive or prescriptive. In a descriptive environment there is a recognition that definitions can change over time; words also carry culturally influenced connotations as well as denotations.  Ideological baggage can result in opposing parties viewing the same word with different meanings.  Differing de facto and de jure meanings aren't very helpful if you always need to point out which you are using. In the philosophy of science definitions can be neither true nor false, they are only tools and the person using those tools is free to define them as he will.  Of course there won't be much progress if the adversary sees a different definition.

 * I can perfectly understand the concern that this problem will have to played out on every article where it occurs, and I must admit that I found this article far less problematical than some of the related articles. ("Kingdom" was only a problem in one place in this article.)  But regrettably I think that this problem can only be solved one article at a time.... if only because each article is likely to draw its own different community of participants. Eclecticology (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * There certainly is variability in definitions; Canada is not a "kingdom" in the same way that pre revolutionary France was a kingdom. Nevertheless, I think that you would agree that when using the most basic definition of "having a king or queen as head of state," Canada is a kingdom according to the text of the constitution (even though the head of government is doing all of the actual "ruling" and at times acting himself as a head of state).  I agree that it is a bit cumbersome to have to differentiate between the de jure and de facto realities, but I think that is our best solution.  In some cases, we only need to mention one of those realities.  For example, in an article about prime minister's economic policy, we can treat Canada as a parliamentary democracy and the prime minister as both a head of state and a head of government.  In other articles, it provides better encyclopedic knowledge to give the reader both realities, such as in the main article about Canada, wherein the info box defines Canada's government as both a parliamentary democracy and as a federal constitutional monarchy.  In this article, given that it is about the Canadian monarch, I think that the basic de jure reality of "queen ergo kingdom" would be useful to the readers.  That paragraph is talking about whether the monarch rules the UK and Canada as one multi-state kingdom or as two separate kingdoms.  Maybe to help avoid confusion we could either link the word "kingdom" to constitutional monarchy or add a sentence explaining the use of the word.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The constitution of Canada in no place says that Canada is a kingdom. To say that it does is willful misrepresentation of the facts.  In the absence of a reliable source that says "Canada is a kingdom", to say so is original research.  Arguing that it is on the basis of your favorite dictionary definition is sophistry.  The best solution to dealing with your cumbersome differentiation is to leave "kingdom" out entirely.  The concept is not important to the article, which is about nothing more than the Royal Style that Canada has allowed to be used by the queen.  For that matter a statement about economic policy has no need to talk about parliamentary democracy; it would be absolutely wrong to state that the prime minister is head of state.  The "queen ergo kingdom" claim is not useful to the reader when it seeks to impose the tendentious point of view of the monarchists. Eclecticology (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not want you to think that I am promoting a POV argument. I do not consider myself to be a monarchist, but saying that a country is a kingdom when it has a king/queen as head of state seems to be a self-validating statement, like saying that the offspring of a duck is a duckling, or that a box for shoes is a shoe box.  Saying that the constitution does not use the word "kingdom" looks like a debate about syntax rather than about the substance of the argument.  It is possible to avoid using the word "kingdom" or "monarchy", but in a paragraph discussing the sovereignty of a monarch, I don't see why you would want to.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Arctic Gnome and Eclecticology have said things worthy of consideration. But in the final analysis I would have to agree with Eclecticology: the article is about the style of the Canadian sovereign. Since neither kingdom nor dominion are part of the Queen's Canadian title, there is no need to go into the issue. Unfortunately many of the articles about this great nation get bogged down in talk pages over the kingdom/dominion thing. These discussions are often way out of proportion to those notions' significance in the articles. They often become part of the great monarchist/republican debate that rages the length and breadth of the history and politics articles.--Gazzster (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are taking the word kingdom out of that paragraph, much of it needs to be rewritten. That section is discussing the transition from there being one empirical crown to several national crowns, and I can't think of a great way of discussing that topic while not acknowledging Canada's legal status as a constitutional monarchy.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Constitutional monarchy, certainly. But I and Eclecticology are suggesting that if the word 'kingdom' is contentious, there is no need to use it. The constitutional circumstances can be described without using the word. But note the article is about the style of the Canadian sovereign. There is no need to go beyond a statement and a dablink to any other number of Canadian monarchy related articles to explain the constitutional independence of the Canadian institution.--Gazzster (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand why it is contentious. As I wrote above, it looks like a mere issue of syntax; saying that a country is a kingdom when it has a king/queen as head of state looks like a self-validating statement, like saying that the offspring of a duck is a duckling, or that a box for shoes is a shoe box.  If the word is truly tied to a monarchist POV, then Wikipedia will have to avoid it to remain unbiased, but I still think that it is just a legal truth based on a dictionary definition.  If we are going to change it, I agree with Eclecticology that "country" is the least controversial term, though even that one has been used in different ways the way that "nation" has been.--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're sayin mate. I don't think it's really an issue about the technicalness of it, but about common usage. The same issue came up at Monarchy of Australia. The word was excluded, not because Australia is not a monarchy, but because the term is never used. One simply never talks about the Kingdom of Australia. Australians do not describe their nation as a Kingdom. It was decided that 'realm' was descriptive enough. Similarly, it was decided that 'Australian Royal Family' should not be used either; obviously not because the Queen of Australia didn't have a family, but because the term is not in use. Australians do not talk about their Royal Family.--Gazzster (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kingdom of Canada" isn't used here either in a normal context; neither is there such a thing as a "Canadian royal family" except in occasional tongue-in-cheek metaphorical references to a prime minister's family. Only the queen has any sort of official status. Sometimes official wordings are there for a purpose.  "Dominion of Canada" was formerly in common use, but it has been discouraged in recent years.  Conclusions can also be drawn in the change of name from British North America Act, 1867 to Constitution Act, 1867. The queen herself knows her place and has the personal dignity and grace not to push the limits of her role.  She is intelligent enough to know the consequences of doing so.  Those with an appreciation of the balances in Canadian society know better than to insist on push-button terminology, and "kingdom" is a push-button term.  The king-ergo-kingdom argument may very well have a wisp of logic, but it is POV to insist on terminology that few people find acceptable; it's a common technique of propagandists.  Original research (which is even more relevant here) is about drawing unsupported conclusions.  Surely if this syntactic exercise is so valid, it must have been reported before in a reliable source. Eclecticology (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd stick with the Canadian Constitution, concerning the usage of 'Kingdom'. PS: Though it doesn't apply here, a Kingdom doesn't necessarily have a King/Queen (example: Spain 1947-1975). GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll concede that the word kingdom has too much controversy behind it. I kind of like the Australians' use of "realm" for a subject like this, but if that word is also too controversial, country would be our next best option (as someone has already said, the word "nation" has too much weight behind it in Canada).  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, there's no "controversy" behind the use of the word "kingdom" in relation to Canada besides that which a few Wikipedia editors try to raise from time to time. In other words, it is completely manufactured, and doesn't exist beyond a couple of articles in this encyclopaedia. Even the Department of Canadian heritage refers to the country having become a kingdom in 1867! Frankly, a dictionary definition should be a source enough to affirm the use of the term in this, or, indeed, any article. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me state firstly that I decided not to read this lengthy section or get involved in any monarchy-related controversies. I saw a request for comment and decided to post my view here. Canada is not a kingdom but, rather, a constitutional-monarchy. The difference being that a kingdom has a ruling monarch that answers to no one. A constitutional monarchy has the monarch limited in ways by the constitution and has effectively become a simple head of state with ruling power in parliament instead. Cheers! Double Blue (Talk) 03:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide a source for your assertion. Dictionaries, numerous present day kingdoms with constitutions similar to Canada's, or other resources, make no such distinction. --G2bambino (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A dictionary is not a reliable source for the controversial claim that Canada is a kingdom; instead that claim would require a reliable source that says exactly that. This kind of specious argument from a dictionary definition is exactly the kind of thing that the prohibition against original research was intended to prevent. Eclecticology (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon my bluntness, but bull crap it's not. We're not creating an essay with a thesis and arguments here, we're simply asserting two sourced facts: 1) a kingdom is a country headed by a king or queen, 2) Canada is headed by a queen. Further support is added by the Department of Canadian Heritage source. The controversy is all your own creation. --G2bambino (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't introduce the term "bull crap"; I merely said that your original research was specious. If, however, someone wants to call it bull crap I will be glad to agree with him. Eclecticology (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Monarchy" and "kingdom" are completely synonymous terms in the first place, and "monarchy" has the benefit of being both more widely recognized by most Canadians and more compatible with modern conventions around gender-inclusive language (since a good many monarchies, including Canada, are currently reigned over by queens rather than kings). While it's not at all untrue that Canada is technically a kingdom, it's a completely unnecessary and trivial debate since the word "monarchy" conveys that fact just as accurately, and inspires a lot less sniping and bickering. There's simply no remotely practical or encyclopedic need for Wikipedia to ever replace "monarchy" with "kingdom" in an article pertaining to Canada — it's just irrelevant and unnecessarily tendentious nitpicking about words which have no practical difference in meaning. "Monarchy" is a perfectly acceptable synonym which is pretty universally used in reference to Canada; "kingdom" is only necessary in direct quotes or if you're intentionally trying to sound archaic or unctuous. So could we please let this rest and get on to something that actually matters? Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Synonymous they are not, but on a different basis than in the present discussion. "Monarchy" describes a form of government; "kingdom" describes a territory. Eclecticology (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Then you agree "kingdom" is acceptable in this context. No reason to censor a perfectly acceptable term because of imagined, fantastical controversies. --G2bambino (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary in this context. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is? So you feel the sentence would be fine as: Its usage has continued since the country became a in its own right in 1867,[8][9] and after a process of constitutional evolution ending with full sovereignty from the United Kingdom, is now applied to the Canadian monarch? I disagree. --G2bambino (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know damn well that the alternative is Its usage has continued since the country became a monarchy, not Its usage has continued since the country became a (blank). Is there an actual reason, apart from pure tendentiousness, why the word in that sentence has to be kingdom rather than monarchy? Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspected that was the alternative you were thinking of. But, indeed, is there a reason why the word in that sentence has to be monarchy rather than kingdom? It's accurate, it's sourced, it fits, and even by Eclecticology's own argument (regardless of its validity) it's appropriate; so why, again, should we take it out? --G2bambino (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one who changed the word to kingdom in the first place, so you're the one who bears the burden of justifying why the change was necessary. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't change the word from anything. It's been "kingdom" since I filled this article out back at the end of January last year. --G2bambino (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Application of the Royal Style and Titles Act
User:Eclecticology asserts that the Royal Style and Titles Act (RSTA) only applies to Elizabeth II. However, a reading of the 1953 Act doesn't affirm this in any way, and nor does the 1985 Act, which itself does not repeal the earlier Act. Each just says the act "establish[es] for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles..."

By my reading, that might mean the Act locks Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith as the title for all future Canadian monarchs, but something tells me that can't possibly be true. Would Charles really be known as Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, until a new Act is passed by parliament? I highly doubt it. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's funny. Of course, apon Charles' succession (assuming he does succeed), the title would become (for example) Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. PS (just a side note) Charlie prefers of the Faiths. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * One wonders if United Kingdom will be removed from the Style, upon Charlie succession. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I made no assertion about the British RSTA whatsoever. The 1953 Act was repealed and replaced by Section 3 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act. While there was no apparent substantive change in this Act, that was not necessarily the case with many other Acts.  It is a routine process when statutes are consolidated.  The 1953 Act also had the effect of bringing about certain changes to the Interpretation Act, but that is a separate Act, and the more generic events that would happen upon the demise of the crown are covered by that Act.  The big difference between the Interpretation Act and the RSTA is that the latter makes specific mention of Lizzie.  I am speculatively sure that if Lizzie had not stuck around for so damn long we would have had a new Act.  In the interim I'm sure that an adjusted style and titles would would be used for Charlie on an extrajudicial basis, since its only about symbolism rather than something of any real importance. Eclecticology (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Who suggested you made any assertions about the British Act? Where's the evidence the 1953 Act was repealed? So what if the 1953 and 1985 Act refer only to "Lizzie"? Both explicitly say they set down royal styles and titles for Canada, without any reference to a cessation upon the demise of the present sovereign. --G2bambino (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You did! ... in the first sentence of this section by referring to the Royal Style and Titles Act, which is for the UK Act. That Act may very well say as you say.  I neither know nor care.  It's a UK Act with no applicability in Canada. The repeal and replacement covering also a wide range of laws is in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act.  In fact the current Act, despite its name, only establishes the title and not the style.  The style remains established in the Interpretation Act. Eclecticology (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the article Royal Style and Titles Act again; it is not solely for the UK Act, nor even just the 1927 one. --G2bambino (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Doesn't old Charlie want his title changed anyway? I hear he's not too keen on 'Defender of the Faith', for one.--Gazzster (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor "old" Charlie! He'll have a hard time living up to the reputation of his two preceeding namesakes.  Lizzie could even end up outliving him out of the most royally decorous spite.  At least the Kingston Trio's Charlie had a wife to hand him a sandwich through the train window.  I don't think that Charlie will go so far as retaining the style "Charles III ... Queen ...", but even adding the "s" to "faith" could upset a few Brits who are already concerned about the number of Moslems and Hindoos in the country; they could even treat it as blasphemy against British pompery. Eclecticology (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember a line from the bloke who played Prince George in The Madness of King George: 'being Prince of Wales isn't a job; its a predicament!'--Gazzster (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny movie - though Prince George wasn't fat at that stage of his life (1788-89); also, did he actually need Charles Fox to explain to him what a regent was (OK, that was for the audience)? I'm getting off track here; what was the topic? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada and Grenada
When did the distinction between the Canadian title "UK of GB and Northern Ireland" and that of Grenada "UK of GB and Ireland" come about? As far as I know (which is not very far), the BNA Act of 1867 referred to the monarch as that of "UK of GB and Ireland" - when did the "Northern" get added? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050306130913/http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca:80/~HeritageSaintJohn/CorporateSeal/heraldry.htm to http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/~HeritageSaintJohn/CorporateSeal/heraldry.htm

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Style and Titles
The Royal Style and Titles Act makes it clear that it was "establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely:" so I do not believe it sensible to assume that the law somehow simply 'neglected' to include any Royal Styles. In fact, the definition of style is "designate with a particular name, description, or title", in which this act does exactly that. So, in this case the act has said that the "Royal Style and Titles" are:

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

Looking at the definition of Style, there are two components, 1: particular name, 2: description or title. Since the act purposefully breaks out the "Titles" we are left with a particular name and a description. So, "name" + "description" = "Style", and "Titles" = "Titles" as follows:

Name: Elizabeth the Second

Description: by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realm and Territories (by the grace of God, she is equally, in terms of nationality, British, Canadian, and of her other realms).

Titles: Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, and Defender of the Faith

Therefore, the Royal Style and Titles Act clearly outlines the Royal Style (her name, and her description), and the Royal Titles (she legally has three titles in Right of Canada). This is a plain reading of the law based on common language as defined in the dictionary. There is no reason to believe that, unless sources point to the contrary, that the law should not be accepted as written. For example, "Her Majesty" is also referred to as a style of address, but this Act clearly does not cover styles of address, nor does it mention styles of address in any way. Subsequently, "Style" in this case is meant in the plain, commonly understood way as defined in the dictionary. Any interpretation of Style in a very particular way specifically referring to styles of address needs to have a source stating that the common, dictionary meaning should not be used. trackratte (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines a style as a term such as "Her Majesty", "His Royal Highness", "Their Excellencies", etc. So too does the Department of Canadian Heritage. In this article, the 'Style of the monarch' section sticks to that definition, which means the article is now internally inconsistent. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  06:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 * To note Style (manner of address) is not the common or plain reading term, but a specific term more like a term of art. Absent a source saying that the act uses the word "Style" to mean "manner of address", then I see no reason why the law wouldn't be read simply as written. And there is also a difference in terms of Style as a noun and as a verb. Oxford Dictionary defines the verb as "[WITH OBJECT AND COMPLEMENT] Designate with a particular name, description, or title: the official is styled principal and vice chancellor of the university

 * MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
 * If his future wife is styled Duchess of Cornwall, she will be taking his name, since that is one of his existing titles.

 * Well-known atheist, Richard Dawkins, now styles himself as A Devil's Chaplain, the title of a recent book."

 * In terms of the Act, there is no reason to suspect it is not using Style in this way, as in Elizabeth II 'Styled Queen of Canada", or "the official is styled" Queen and Defender of the Faith.
 * The Canadian government doesn't define "style" as a manner of address. It uses the word to mean a specific part of the way a person is addressed. The prime minister is addressed as The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. According to the Department of Canadian Heritage, only "The Right Honourable" is the style.
 * We're also not certain the act uses your definition of style, either. So, it seems like OR to say the full title contains styles and titles and which are which. Further still, the issue of the article's internal inconsistency remains. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  06:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 * What's the source you're using to determine that the government's definition of style in relation to the Act means "the way a person is addressed? As for what style means, it's not my opinion, it's the plain meaning of the word in the dictionary. And yes, the PM is styled (manner of address) Right Honourable, and the Queen is styled (manner of address) as Her Majesty, but the Act does not mention these manners of address at all so it is illogical to assume that the Act is using that word in this very specific way. However, the Act does specifically legislate a Style and Titles. "Her Majesty" is not an option for the meaning of style as it's not present within the act. What is present however, is the plain meaning of style in that the Act legislates a 1) name and 2) description, as well as Titles, which is exactly what the dictionary tells us Style means, is exactly what the Act tells us it's purpose is ("establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles"), and is exactly what it does.
 * The onus here is to find a source to show why we need not accept the Act at face value, and why we have to use an illogical construction to interpret style as meaning a form of address such as "Her Majesty" when no such forms of address are outlined in the Act.
 * This is a problem inherent in relying on a primary source, although in this case a secondary source spelling out that the Act is to be interpreted in its plain meaning, or otherwise, is very unlikely to exist. In such a case a plain reading of the primary source prevails unless a reliable secondary source says otherwise.trackratte (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I provided the link at 06:00, 10 December 2015.
 * I didn't say anything about not accepting the act "at face value". I said we shouldn't be making assumptions about what part of the title is what and there's going to have to be some kind of reconciliation between the titles part of this article and the styles part. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  21:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is making assumptions in that style means form of address, where it clearly doesn't, as no forms of address are present within the Act. Either we use the dictionary definition of style (a name, description, and title) in line with the Act, or we assume that the Act is out to lunch and the people who wrote it messed up since there are no styles (forms of address) in the Act once so ever. The current version of this article does the latter, which quite frankly is improper and not inline with policy. I'm advocating for the former.
 * And I saw that link you put up, Heritage Canada does not make and definitive or broad sweeping definition of what style means in relation to the Act. It's simply a table called "Table of titles to be used in Canada" and says how people will be addressed (styled as a form of address). There is no clear link between that website and the Act at all, particularly as the Act does not deal with forms of address in the slightest. trackratte (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the DCH source makes definitions directly related to the act or not. What matters is that it does define honorifics like 'His Honour' and 'Her Excellency' as styles:
 * "1. The Governor General of Canada to be styled [emphasis mine] 'Right Honourable' for life and to be styled [emphasis mine] 'His Excellency' and his wife 'Her Excellency', or 'Her Excellency' and her husband 'His Excellency', as the case may be, while in office
 * 2. The Lieutenant Governor of a Province to be styled [emphasis mine] 'Honourable' for life and to be styled [emphasis mine] 'His Honour' and his wife 'Her Honour', or 'Her Honour' and her husband 'His Honour', as the case may be, while in office
 * 3. The Prime Minister of Canada to be styled [emphasis mine] 'Right Honourable' for life
 * [etc.]"
 * So, while 'Her Majesty' (the monarchical equivalent of the above) is, by the DCH's logic, a style, that style isn't in the Royal Titles and Styles Act. What, then, in the act is the style, according to what source, and how do we distinguish that style from the other style shown in this article? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've been saying, there are multiple meanings of style in the dictionary. One is "a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed", however, we do not assume the Act is using that definition as it doesn't talk about appearances or design, so to assume such would be nonsensical and OR. There is also Styles of address, as well as Styles of address, also defined in the dictionary under form of address, however, once again the Act does not use any styles of address so making the assumption that the Act is using this definition is as nonsensical and OR as the first example. The only definition of style that this Act uses is the verb, which is to "Designate with a particular name, description, or title". Now, "of Canada" is not a title, it is a description. "Elizabeth II" is not a title or a description, it is a name. "Queen of Canada" is a title. No sources are required as that is what those words mean in plain English, so to require a source saying that "Elizabeth II" is a name would lead us to having to cite every single individual word within the Encyclopedia.

This is what I mean in taking the Act at face value. One cannot say that "Elizabeth II" is a description, "of Canada" a title, and "Grace of God of the United Kingdom" the sovereign's name as all of those statements are simply false in accordance with what the word title, description, and name means. And as we can see from the PCH link, PCH does not dictate that only one meaning (form of address) shall be used to interpret laws, as that would clearly be ridiculous and second, is beyond their authority to do.

So, to say that the Act uses the word "style" to mean fashion sense would require a great deal of reliable sourcing. In the exact same way, to say that the Act means style to mean "Her Majesty" would similarly require a great deal of sourcing. To say that "Queen" is a title however, does not require a source as that is quite clearly what the Act is saying in plain language. Conversely, to say that "Queen" is not a title would require a source.

In this way, the entire section of the article devoted to Styles of address has absolutely no bearing to the actual Act itself as the PCH table of forms of address such as "Her Majesty", "His Excellency", and the "Right Honourable" has no basis in legislation, particularly not within the legislation that is the topic of this article. Logically, it amounts to the same fallacy as devoting an entire section in this space to the Queen's style (fashion sense) because the word style appears in the Act. trackratte (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now the 'Titles of the monarch' section states the Royal Style and Titles Act sets out the monarch's style and title, as the act's name would suggest is true, but it doesn't say what part of the whole title is the style and which parts are the titles. That's because we don't actually know. What you say above is all quite interesting and plausible, but, it's really still OR and so doesn't help us with article content. Then there's the 'Style of the monarch' section. A reader may wonder how it is the monarch's style is "Her Majesty" while the Royal Style and Titles Act doesn't contain the words "Her Majesty".
 * Keep in mind, this article isn't about the Royal Style and Titles Act. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, but when I see the "Royal Style and Titles" I see it as a term of art stipulated by law, ie the Act. I think it would be perhaps beneficial to have the section titled "forms of address" with the lead sentence something along the lines of 'Canada uses the same terms of address as the UK, with the sovereign styled as "Her Majesty"...
 * And you're quite right, the word used in the Act and word used in terms of forms of address actually have different (but related) meanings which is the root of this entire conversation I think. trackratte (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a "style" in the Royal Style and Titles Act, is there any way we can verify what part it is and thus differentiate it from the other style mentioned in this article? Until then, what I said earlier about confusing readers with the article outlining what the style is but that style not appearing in the Royal Style and Titles Act still stands. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 * There is no "if", the law is clear that it is "...establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

 * It doesn't really matter if you discern a difference between style and title, although it is obvious that "Queen" is a title, as is "Head of the Commonwealth", and equally so that "by the grace of God" is certainly not a title. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter which is which. To say that the above is only a title is plainly wrong, the sources says the phrase is a style and titles. trackratte (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"defender of the faith"
Does Her Majesty have any role with regards to the 2 Royal Chapels in Canada? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5qXvz463C?url=http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf to http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mYNpdRLO?url=http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html to http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719154127/http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/pub/doc/swodm-dodm.pdf to http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/pub/doc/swodm-dodm.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The words "Emperor of India" were actually omitted in August 1947 instead of 22 June 1948
A proclamation issued in 18 August 1947 which was included in the Canada Gazette Part I (1947-1997), volume 81, number 35, 30 August 1947, page 21 omitted the words "Emperor of India" for the King's title. All other proclamations issued after August 1947 also did not contain the words "Emperor of India". You may verify that from the archive of The Canada Gazette--203.218.141.177 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The only non-UK Commonwealth realm, to keep the UK in its styles & titles
Now that Grenada has changed its styles & titles. Should we mention, Canada is now the only non-UK Commonwealth realm that has the "United Kingdom" mentioned in its styles & titles? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Heads up/update on this, but a title change is imminent with an amendment to the Royal Titles and Styles Act being added in a draft omnibus bill. Presuming the amendment goes unchanged when it actually is passed, the title will omit the UK and the Defender of the Faith (so Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth). Leventio (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Royal Style and Titles
As noted above, the style and titles has changed to Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. This was included in the government's budget bill. It received royal assent on June 22, 2023, so is now the law of the land. We need to update the article accordingly. I will take a stab at that but would appreciate help from others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 * @Darryl Kerrigan: The act has indeed been given royal assent, but according to the text of the act, that does not change the title. It just allows the King to issue a royal proclamation changing his title, and the royal proclamation hasn't happened yet. We should edit the article to make this situation clear. Indefatigable (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I reckon we're still waiting for Chuck's okie dokie. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that is correct, we are still waiting. But it seems BC jumped ahead using the new styles at least once, whether intentionally or simply by mistake.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Likely a boo boo by BC, to do that Before Charles's permission. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they are holding off on the proclamation so that it can be issued when the King and Queen are in Canada this spring? Indefatigable (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite likely. PS - Oh no, when they visit in the spring, another push to claim they reside in Canada, will occur. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The proclamation has been published on the Canada Gazette. It is dated January 8, 2024. https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2024/2024-01-31/html/si-tr4-eng.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.194.134 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Techno-democracy

Could I suggest the first paragraph is incorporated into direct democracy? This article could reference that in its first paragraph, and that would make this article clearly about techno-democracy. -- Sam
 * Of course, we'd have to change the redirect to democracy (from direct democracy), but I think that's a mistake anyway.

10 October 2002, about 145 hits on Google for the term techno-democracy; term is in use but rare.

 * What about variations of the term? I think it's likely to become more widely used as time goes on. "technodemocracy" actually gets about 225 hits -- we cud move this there. -- Sam

I'm not convinced that this term is as widely referenced as e-democracy. That said, this article has good content that should really go into the e-democracy article. I submit that this content be inserted into e-democracy and the Techno-democracy article redirected to that one. -- Stevietheman 17:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Techno-democracy


text:
Talk:Vulcan (hypothetical planet)

Article
I think we should change this article to Vulcan (astronomy) -- since neither of the two Vulcan's in question are really planets. --Ed Poor

Corrected the paragraph on the perihelion precession of Mercury. Classical perturbation theory was completely capable of predicting the advance itself. The famous 43 arc seconds is the difference between the observed value and the predicted value, and is a high order anomaly. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * "Other than Mercury, asteroid 2007 EB26 with a semi-major axis of 0.55 AU (82,000,000 km; 51,000,000 mi) has the smallest known semi-major axis of any known object orbiting the Sun." - stated in the first paragraph...yet the link to the wiki page about asteroid 2007 EB26 says it has the second smallest known semi-major axis. One of these is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.95.209 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd read the entire sentence at the page, you'd see both sentences say the same thing. --JorisvS (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Vulcan revived section
The first paragraph of this section seems fairly important, as to why it is hard to look at the Sun - should it be nearer the top of the article? Orange Goblin 07:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek and Vulcan
IIRC in the episode of the original series where a spaceman from the late 20th century ends up on the Enterprise, he asks Mr Spock if the latter comes from Vulcan-near-the-Sun. A passing mention of this passing mention could be included here.

Jackiespeel 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC) There are TWO other articles on Star Trek and Vulcan (Vulcan Star Trek & Vulcan Star Trek Planet--so I'm going to delete the Star Trek references as they they come off as totally off the wall in an article about our own Solar System.Warren Platts (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

General Relativity
"This hypothesis has now been rendered obsolete by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity."

General Relativity is a theory,not a fact,it has not been proven,so can the hypothesis be rendered obsolete? Dudtz 10/5/06 7:24 PM EST
 * that is beyond silly for too many reasons to list. --Deglr6328 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * If Einstein's theory of General Relativity is being used to "disprove" Vulcan, where's the math, where's the physics, where's the documentation showing this to be within an acceptable margin of error? If the written proofs cannot be produced, then it is just as hypothetical and hear-say as any other claim and should be removed from the article. Mseanbrown (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it would be useful to have some explanation regarding the observations and General Relativity. Currently it reads like any BBC Science documentary post 2000. "By clever maths it can be shown ... but we're not going to show you the maths." I think it is relevant to this article to have a paragraph or two explaining how the theorized planet's existence was disproved. 85.210.133.10 (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Sam, UK
 * Wikipedia is a general purpose reference for the general public. This article doesn't contain the Newtonian math that Le Verrier used to theorize the existence of Vulcan either. Both sets of math equations would clutter up what should be (and is) a short article on something that ultimately does not exist. As with other Wikipedia articles if you want more details like this, you can see the footnotes at the bottom of the article for further reading. The scholarly article in footnote #1 in this particular article contains the math you require.  --Krelnik (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

SOHO
Shouldn't something be said of the virtual absolute impossibility of vulcan since the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory observations of the past decade have seen nothing in the way of stable orbits inside Mercury's?--Deglr6328 10:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Revived section
"Courten believed that an intra-Mercurial planetoid between 130 and 800 kilometres in diameter was orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 0.1 astronomical unit. Other images on his eclipse plates led him to postulate the existence of an asteroid belt between Mercury and the Sun."

130-800 kilometers... ok, now that just dosn;'t add up, how would it survive that close in.... how big is the earth?--Jakezing (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Astrological/astronomical symbol
Did this have an astrological/astronomical symbol? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * According to there is an astronomical symbol. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Seems to be on at, viewable with  76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Ah, the Fishhook of Doubt. —Tamfang (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * List of Astrology (pha!) glyphs including hypothetical planets, shows a symbol for Vulcan . Sawatts (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Unreliable"
The article is at pains to denominate a larger number of sightings (even by trained astronomers) as "unreliable."

It might be more neutral to say these detections have not been duplicated since (year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 * It is not up to science to prove that something does not exist. Science requires verifiability. -- Kheider (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 * i won't rest until the science community admits there was infact a vulcan planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike Brown today admitted that "If we had had an Alpha Cen Bb around the sun, it'd have been called Vulcan." :-) Alpha Centauri B b, is the first Earth mass planet seen around a Sun-like star, and it is the closest star system to us. Real science is far more exciting than made up Velikovsky-style gossip. -- Kheider (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement "No such planet was ever found, and Mercury's orbit has now been explained by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Searches of NASA's two STEREO spacecraft data have failed to detect any Vulcanoid asteroids." is inaccurate. The main article itself references numerous citings of the planet. Popular Science Monthly / Volume 14 / April 1879/ The Intra-Mercurial Planets published a number of citings as well. That a group within the scientific community has chosen to not accept it does not mean that it has not been found. The verbiage suggested in place of this text allows for the reference to the documented citings while leaving the conclusion open. One wonders why the insistence of changing the verbiage to something that is clearly not accurate nor in alignment with the bulk of the text in the article below? Mseanbrown (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 * 1. Please do NOT remove a reference to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity from the lead that explains the orbit of Mercury and why Vulcan does not need to exist.
 * 2. Le Verrier himself never observed Vulcan.
 * 3. Not everyone accepted the veracity of Lescarbault's "discovery", "Numerous reports — all of them unreliable". (Seeing sunspots does not necessarily mean you are observing an unknown planet. You could be observing a passing Near-Earth object transiting the Sun.)
 * 4. During a solar eclipse objects near the Sun could just be dim Sungrazing comets.
 * 5. Accepted scientific theory is that Vulcan does not exist.
 * 6. Please do NOT add fringe theories / weasel words / original research to a scientific article. -- Kheider (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement of "No such planet was ever found" is not a true statement. At least a dozen citings intra-mercurial objects have been reported. I'm not disagreeing that the established scientific community currently fails to recognized that there is anything there, what I am disagreeing with is your insistence to use words that are misleadingly strong and do not correlate with the main article posted below. I am deleting the "no such planet was ever found" and leaving your explanation for it. Mseanbrown (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Reported and verified are two very different things. You do know that Vulcan does not exist? -- Kheider (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 * No, I personally do not KNOW that Vulcan exists or not, for I would suggest that the evidence that is publicly being cited is inconclusive. I do know that the Vatican owns most of the satellites that point towards the Sun. I also am unable to find any of the documentation of the data and math that uses Einstein's theory of General Relativity to disprove Vulcan. It may be "reported" that Relativity satisfies the aberrations in Mercury's orbit, but have you "verified" the physics of that claim, or can you even point towards the documentation that proves this? If not, your claim that Relativity satisfies the orbital peculiarities is just as word-of-mouth and intuition driven as a claim that a planet documented by more than a dozen astronomers exists. 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mseanbrown (talk • contribs)

 * The physics and math are explained here if you want to read it. This has been well documented since Clemence. Please do not add unreferenced original research to the article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 * This will take some time to read. I think this would be a great reference in the wiki article. This is some of the best 'meat' on this topic. Good citation. Mseanbrown (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 * An article regarding Mercury's chaotic orbit was submitted to the archive at Cornell on October 18, 2012. (A simple model of the chaotic eccentricity of Mercury) It's considerably much more detailed and harder to read than the one you cited. It does not mention any intra-mercurial planets/objects. Paragraph 3.3 addresses Relativity. It'll take some time for me to fully process it, but it is interesting to note this thorough study being so recent. Mseanbrown (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 * The orbit of Mercury and Mars are both chaotic over billions of years. This just means we are not sure what will happen in the very distant future. -- Kheider (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody calculated what. based on Le Verrier's observations, Vulcan would be like: 0.17 AU, 26 day Orbital period; diameter - 1,100 miles (1770 km); density - 6.5; gravity 0.16 G; 26 tide locked day; temperature 1220 degrees F sun side; 950 degrees F twilight area; near absolute zero nightside. Now how this was calculated I have no idea so I didn't put it in the article.--2606:A000:7D44:100:54A3:9E8:58FD:BC1 (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't fool all of the people all of the time
So what was it? What caused people to think naked eye stars next to solar eclipses are planet(s) without checking the catalogs? What could've caused so many nonexistant transits be seen by scientific men? If it was just mistaken identifications, which should cause random "orbit" distribution then why'd it take so long for explanations and rationalizations of the inconsistancies to fall apart? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Article name
Vulcan is not a hypothetical planet, it's a fictional planet. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is hypothetical because it was once firmly believed to exist. Ruslik_ Zero 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, I didn't read the article. I thought it was the Vulcan (Star Trek) article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

gentilic or demonym
As the origin planet for Spock and the Romulans, it would be interesting to have a demonym, an inhabitants'name, to simplify sentences. Example: Spock plays ¤Vulcano¤ lute. (Replace ¤Vulcano¤ by future consensual demonym.) Magnon86 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)magnon86

Reservation of the name
Is there a citation for this?

(And how would it work exactly? A large intra-Mercurian planet is already ruled out. Or is it that if the first vulcanoid asteroid were discovered tomorrow, it would automatically be named "Vulcan"? That would seem to have some poetic justice to it, but again, citation?) Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

'Existence Disproved' heading
Is this an accurate heading for this section? As I understand it, the General Relativity theory accounted for the pecularities in Mercury's orbit, meaning that those pecularities need no longer be attributed to an unfound planet. That does not actually show that a planet inside Mercury's orbit doesn't exist, only that it isn't needed to account for observational data. I am not claiming that Vulcan does exist, but to follow the normal rules of scientific 'proof' shouldn't this section rather be headed something like 'General Relativity Explanation'? Sbishop (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The planet Le Verrier's calculations showed existed actually didn't exist. So for Vulcan, yes, it was disproved by General Relativity. Whether other things exist inside  Mercury's orbit is not the topic of this article, this one is about Vulcan. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per chasing down 's observation below and going through material that was actually buried in the article and further sources it looks to me like it would be better to say Le Verrier's hypothesis was disproved, not the (maybe?) existence of the planet. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article called vulcan is defined by its orbit which explains the mercury orbit in a newtonian cosmos. But in an cosmos described by relativity theory things changed. If the subject of this articles exist as proposed the calculated mercury orbit would not fit to the measurement. If there are any planets in an orbit between mercurys orbit and sun they would not be vulcan. Or in short: a hypothetic planet without hypothesis is a nothing and does not exist.—Hfst (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Lithographic map having wrong date?
It seems that Vulcan was first put forth into the public conscious in 1859, so how is the most widely used map of it dated to 1856, 3 years before it was even hypothesized? Benjaminaventi (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the map is dated to 1846. That's over 13 years before. Benjaminaventi (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Good catch. Looking into other sources show the article and some of the sources are a little wrong, or a little misleading. Searches for an intermercurial planet date back to the invention of the telescope and even the name "Vulcan" predate Le Verrier Some of the information was in the article, it was just out of context. I took a whack at straightening it up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vulcan (hypothetical planet)


text:
Talk:Grand Ole Opry

Untitled
The Grand Ole Opry radio station, WSM, has been around since October of 1925. This stands for "We Shield Millions" and it lives up to its name. The National Life & Accident Insurance Company is the "founder" of this station. The very first group to play on WSM was none other than Roy Acuff and His Crazy Tennesseans. And eighty-seven years later it is the world's longest running live radio station.

History
After Uncle Jimmy, two bands, The Possum Hunters and the Fruit Jar Drinkers, along with the Crook brothers and the Gulley Jumpers got the Barn Dance of to its start in 1925. Uncle Dave did not come on the scene until early 1928. Judge Hay was on tour with the Fruit Jar Drinker in Pennsylvania, late 1926 when they saw Uncle Dave during one of his vaudeville tours and the Judge asked him to join the BarnDance when he finished his tour. My father was one of the Fruit Jar Drinkers. The four bands always maintained their own time slot until their demise. All of this is in Judge Hay's book. - 65.7.67.178 20:28, 10 July 2005

Here is some history for you as I have studied it for twenty two years and have the only copies of everyone that appeared in the Nashville Tennesseean from 1925 to 1940 on each show listing for the Opry each Satruday night.

Uncle Dave Macon appeared for the first time on the Opry April 12, 1926 - the Crook Brothers came on the scene in June of 1926 and the Fruit Jar Drinkers existed before they were given the name in 1928 (starting as an unorganized group of people that changed band members alot beginning in 1926). Dr. Humphrey Bates (died June 12, 1936, the night before the Opry moved into the Hillsboro Theatre) and His Possum Hunters were a very large part of the Opry's beginnings, performing for the first time on a Wednesday night as a fill in for some space they had in October, 1925 (before the WSM Barn Dance got its start in November 28, 1925). Judge George D Hay started naming the Grand Ole Opry on Saturday night December 10, 1927, and that fact is brought out in the Nashville Tennesseean radio listing for Sunday December 11, 1925, which lists the coming week's radio shows that were to be broadcasted for the next six days, clearly naming the WSM Barn Dance "Grand Ol' Opry" for the first time). The possum Huinters and The Gully Jumpers were no longer named on the Opry roster after 1964, when as lot of the band members were pared down from four to two. The Fruit Jar Drinkers lasted into 1982 (and were gone with the death of Hubert Gregory and Kirk McGee), the Crook Brothers lasted right up to the time of the loss of Herman Crook in 1989. They were with the Opry longer than any of the string bands from the beginning era.

Uncle Jimmy, the man on whom the WSM Barn dance started, died on February 17, 1931. He is buried out in LaGauirdo, TN (between Gallatin and Mt. Juliet, TN)where his home still stands to this day.

opryman65@yahoo.com                 Richard W              May 14, 2007

Opry members
I'm planning on creating a category for Grand Ole Opry members. Thoughts? -- Dave C.talk 07:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it certainly sounds like a good idea to me. KevinJRussell 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Elvis paragraph
Nice compromise guys. I like it. Kaldari 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

70'S-80's CONDITION OF THE GRAND OLE OPRY
Your summation of Grand Ole Opry history is grossly in error: it was not in decline during the 1970's - 1980's.

During a 5 year period in the 1970's I performed regularly on the Opry in the bands of Tom T Hall, Tex Ritter and Marty Robbins.

The Opry's 3 weekly (except Dec/Jan) performances at the Rhyman Auditorium were constantly sold out, and it's summer schedule sold out months in advance. It is impossible to label a constantly sold out weekly event as 'in decline.'

The same held true--even with inflated ticket prices that continued to rise--after the Opry moved to the Briley Parkway theme park location, and it's popularity remained constant throughout the 80's and 90's.

However, many of my fellow music industry pro's and I believe the Opry is currently in decline (check out the weekly attendance) due to greed of the parent company plus a degradation of the show's artist roster--far too many questionable 'flavor-of-the-week' artists who have little or no connection to Country Music.

By the way, use of the letters 'W-S-M' came about because WSM Radio's owner in 1925 was a large insurance company with the slogan 'We Shield Millions.'

Tom Wilkerson, Pres., InMusiCo/AcoustiWorks, Nashville TN ... 7/7/06

Mormon Tabernacle Choir
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's "Music and the Spoken Word" is often cited as the oldest continuously broadcast network program on the air. How is that different from the Grand Ole Opry? Does anyone know? Wuapinmon 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Those weekly Sunday-morning broadcasts, originating on KSL, started on 15 July 1929, nearly four years after the weekly broadcasts of the Grand Ole Opry, originating on WSM, started, on 28 November 1925.
 * However, the MTC describes its series as the "uninterrupted weekly network radio broadcasting", using a carefully crafted combination of qualifying words.
 * Yes, WSM began broadcasting the Opry in 1925 -- but only on WSM, not yet on the NBC network.
 * Yes, KSL and CBS began broadcasting the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (MTC) in 1929 -- not only on KSL but also on other stations in the CBS network.
 * That raises at least three other questions:
 * First, when did NBC start to carry the WSM broadcast of the Opry?
 * Second, did NBC ever interrupt its network coverage of the Opry? [And, if so, when and how long?]
 * Third, did WSM ever interrupt its own broadcast coverage of the Opry? [And, if so, when and how long?]
 * Any clues?
 * Doc (a native of Nashville and an avid fan of the MTC, the tabernacle organ, and Music and the Spoken Word).
 * DocRushing (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One of your key questions is answered by the current version of the article: The Grand Ole Opry was on the NBC Red Network only from 1939 to 1956. Thus, as you surmise, Music & the Spoken Word is the longest-running U.S. network radio show; but the Opry is the longest-running U.S. radio show overall. (Ironically considering its radio distinction, the TV version of Music & the Spoken Word is the longest-running U.S. syndicated TV show; but Meet the Press and the CBS Evening News have each run longer on network TV.) --RBBrittain (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Opry TV?
How about a discussion of the television series that originated from the Grand Ole Opry, including the one broadcast on TNN and CMT? B.Wind 06:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And what about the history of tecnology and present technology being used to record the opry ????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazairus (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

List of members
The list of members is huge. Since there is Category:Grand Ole Opry members, perhaps it would be better to make sure everyone listed in this article is actually in the category then replace the list with a link to the category? I'll probably start doing this in the next couple of days, but since there's so many I'd appreciate some help. Adam McMaster 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Doyle Dykes
If I'm right, Doyle Dykes is a member of the Grand Ole Opry. I don't want to just add him, though, because I'm not positive and I have no idea where to verify something like that. Anyone know? KevinJRussell 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bobbejaan (Bobby John) at the Opry 1953
Hi, my father Bobbejaan Schoepen (81 now) gave some performances at the Opry in 1953 (presented by Roy Acuff at the time). Is there any direct contact address to the archives (which ones?) so we can verify if there are some video or audio recordings left? I contacted Opry website but no answer so far. Peeper 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement much?
"In September 2004, it was announced that the Grand Ole Opry had contracted for the first time with a "presenting sponsor" and would henceforth be known as "the Grand Ole Opry presented by Cracker Barrel." Cracker Barrel, a long-time Opry sponsor headquartered in nearby Lebanon, Tennessee, is a chain of country-themed restaurants and gift shops whose market overlaps with that of the Opry to a great extent. Show Choir Nationals is held every year at the Grand Ole Opry Stage."

To me that sounds like blatant advertising. 86.135.252.102 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not so sure, but feel free to re-word it. Adam McMaster (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Name?
What does the actually Grand Old Opry mean? It is a Southern American phrase for something like the "Grand Old Opera"?

Any ideas? I think an explanation of the etymology of the name within this article would help.

 * N.B.: The above two lines were added 21 January 2010 by 86.165.104.201. At that time, a brief exposition on the background of the name was in the article, under "History". On 26 January 2010, RadioBroadcast moved that text to a new subsection, Name, under History. So, this item has been taken care of. NameIsRon (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually the article text still does not explain what “Opry” means. That may be the most obvious thing in the world to English speakers, but not for everybody else. Yes, it is a dialectal variant of “opera,” but I suspect there is more to it, e.g. a colloquial expression for a type of musical show in the American south at the time? --SKopp (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 * As a native of Nashville and a long-time (29 years altogether, long ago) resident of Nashville, I can offer a bit of insight.
 * "Opry" is nothing more or less than a variant pronunciation of the word opera, in which the terminal "ah" sound transforms into a "y".
 * That variant is heard sometimes among relatively unschooled people in rural areas of the Volunteer State, including the Cumberland Mountains, in the area bridging East and Middle Tennessee.
 * For example, I once heard an elderly lady in Ozone, Tennessee, between Crossville and Rockwood, speak of "that wrecker feller over't Sparty" (that is, Sparta, near Cookeville).
 * Sometimes we Southerners poke a bit of fun at ourselves and our speech and other behavior.
 * The word ole, the second word in the name of the GOO, is another variant pronunciation, in which the terminal sound disappears from the word old.
 * Further, the resulting variant "ole", or, better, perhaps, "ol'", often appears in colloquial or other informal speech in the USA, not only in the South but also elsewhere, especially when preceding a name or other noun, to suggest or indicate fondness, acceptance, or tolerance toward the subject person, object, or notion, as in "ol' dog", "ol' Jack", or "good ol' boy".
 * Thus grand ol' opry or Grand Ole Opry is an intentionally humorous play on a combination of two colloquial variant pronunciations.
 * As always, best wishes to all,
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Navbox?
Has a Navbox ever been worked up for the Opry? Any interest in working one up? Thanks.--Artaxerxes (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge opry into this article
Most of the content on opry is about the Grand Ole Opry, and the page is pretty much stub length anyways.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I absolutely concur. The two articles should be merged together as soon as possible.   Lord Laitinen (talk)  02:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the merge-discussion template at Talk:Opry, It looks like discussion should be taking place there. Shearonink (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added "discuss=Talk:Grand Ole Opry#Merge opry into this article" to the merge template to both articles, which directs the "Discuss" link directly to this discussion. North America1000 14:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Support – The content has enough similarities, and the merge would enhance Grand Ole Opry. North America1000 14:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - no brainerBillVol (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - term has no relevance outside the context of the Grand Ole Opry anyway. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for becoming a member
The section on Opry members needs to be expanded to explain exactly how one becomes a member. Is it basically like a hall of fame or is it the same as being cast in a TV show (audition, considered a good fit, etc.). The article does mention a performance quota but I think there should be more detail as to how one becomes a member other than "must be earned." Who decides? And have there ever been cases of major performers losing their membership, either due to not meeting the performance quota, changing their style or for other reasons (i.e. Johnny Cash kicking out the lights), and have any folks regained their membership (i.e. Cash)? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Grand Ole Opry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130831104817/http://www.opry.com/news/2010/08-25.html to http://www.opry.com/news/2010/08-25.html/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Ole Opry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819194325/http://countrymusichalloffame.org/full-list-of-inductees/view/deford-bailey to http://countrymusichalloffame.org/full-list-of-inductees/view/deford-bailey

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Ole Opry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904124044/http://timelines.home.insightbb.com/ol_years.htm to http://timelines.home.insightbb.com/ol_years.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.gactv.com/gac/shows_goo

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Ole Opry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908041736/http://www.radiohof.org/music/grandoleopry.html to http://www.radiohof.org/music/grandoleopry.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103142812/http://countrymusichalloffame.org/grand-ole-opry/ to http://www.countrymusichalloffame.org/grand-ole-opry/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Slogans
I'm going to remove the slogans paragraph from the lead. First, per WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article, and there is nothing about these slogans in the article. Second, they are sourced to the subject's web site, and per WP:V I don't see how that's acceptable. Finally, the "The Mother Church of Country Music" refers to the Ryman, not to the Opry. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Instrumentation
The article talks about how drums and horns were once considered unacceptable instrumentation at the Opry, but it doesn't say when drums became accepted (I can see on YouTube that they are used at the Opry now) nor whether or when horns were accepted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Paid Contributions
Hello,

I'm an employee of Opry Entertainment Group and my team would like to supply some updates for this page. Should I post them here for moderators to review before submitting changes? Want to make sure they are within community guidelines and don't get reverted it. Thanks! Countryfan2427 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grand Ole Opry