Jump to content

Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

RfC: Coat of Arms of Canada

Responding to a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. The clear consensus is that there is a single coat of arms (the 1994 version). (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the monarch of Canada currently possess, in the federal jurisdiction, one (by 1994 blazon) or two (by 1957 and 1994 blazons) coats of arms, or is there one set of arms with two different versions? 01:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • One--the arms according to the blazon from 1994 onward. The 1957 arms were superseded by the 1994 arms; though the 1957 version may still appear on old documents and in older courts, they are not the current arms of the monarch of Canada. The appearance of the 1957 version of the arms on Canadian Forces epaulets does not mean the 1957 arms are currently the arms of the sovereign, nor does the fact the 1957 version is under Crown copyright. Further, there cannot be two concurrent versions of the same arms: saying the contrary requires arbitrarily excluding the 1923, 1921, 1905, and 1868 versions of the arms. There is one version of the arms representing the monarch at one time, and presently it is the version created in 1994. Any claim the monarch is represented by more than one set of arms or the monarch presently uses two versions of one set of arms to represent herself requires a reliable source saying so, not original research. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no reliable source that shows that the 1957 official symbol was legally superseded in 1994. But there are a variety of different reliable sources published by the Canadian state which show that they were not superceded, but instead continue on as a current official symbol of Canada. [1][2][3][4]. trackratte (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • One Given that the object in question is a copy of an image of a representation of a blazon in respect of a single current "officially" authorised and copyrighted representation of the same blazon for the federal jurisdiction, the information in Track.'s 3 and 5-11 and other argumenation, does not alter that, and of the two, the 1957 version or the unofficial rendition of the 1994 version, with link to Arms of Canada, the 1994 rendition is better suited for the infobox. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • One - Use the 1994 arms, being the current version and representative of today's nation. The older version(s) may still be used by some government agencies, but it's like a portrait of the Queen, she looked fabulous in 1957, but well, you know… --Pete (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, even more fabulously radiant and, well, you know, the long reigning monarch of so many peoples. Qexigator (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
But hardly Canadian, or Australian, or Papua New Guinean… Very, very English. --Pete (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Let each one of the several peoples in Canada and every other realm, from aboriginal inhabitants to European or other immigrants, regard every other of them free to hold her in esteem and respect for the service to them all she dedicated herself to at the beginning of her reign and has honoured ever since, irrespective of flags and coats of arms under discussion here. Qexigator (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
There would be very few Australians who would regard themselves as living in a kingdom. At some point, reality kicks in: the Queen is a symbol of the UK, rather than any nation over which she notionally reigns. --Pete (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The Queen is a symbol of the commonwealth .. The Commonwealth is a connecting link between England and nearly fifty other independent countries and their heritage...thus way each country is different Where does all this guess work come from?-- Moxy (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This has little if any relevance to the present discussion, but it is pretty widely known that the federation of Australia has always been known, locally and globally, as "Commonwealth", and in Wikispeak, is one of the Commonwealth realms. Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we all agree that there is only one set of Arms, and that the legal 1994 rendering is best.
And as you say, it is generally best to use the most up to date official portrait of the Queen. However, in this case, the "most recent portrait" is off the table due to an admin decision. Instead of a characature of the Queen's likeness, or creative rendering of the portrait, perhaps in such a case it would simply make more sense to replace the most up to date official portrait with the next-most up to date official portrait when an admin says the former can no longer be used. trackratte (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • One I still don't see the point of this RfC as there's no evidence this number issue has even come up as contentious among editors before this RfC was launched. It is quite clear that Canada (Sovereign in Right of Canada) only has one coat of arms "as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957" and "as revised in 1994", and it is equally clear that there are currently only two legal renderings of the Arms (state logo) currently constituted for use by the state as Official Symbols of Canada.[5] Both legally approved and official renderings are in concurrent use today, and are used interchangeably by state officials and ministers of the Crown, for example, in this 2016 document using the official 1957 rendering. Cabinet and Treasury Board documents also continue to use the 1957 rendering to this very day. To date I have seen no evidence that there are more than one set of Arms, nor that there are any other legally authorised renderings of these arms except for the two listed and maintained by the Government of Canada as official state symbols. trackratte (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It has been you arguing there's two coats of arms, or, at least, two versions of one coat of arms. That's why you believe it's okay to put the 1957 arms in the infobox; they're still a current heraldic symbol of the monarch/Canada/the state.
So, you believe there is one coat of arms that has two different versions. The reason you hold that there's only two versions of the one arms appears to be based on a personal opinion, though. Not all symbols of Canada are Crown copyrighted and not all Crown copyrighted items are symbols of Canada, unless you can prove otherwise with a reliable source. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
1) No, that's not what I believe or have argued. 2) Why are you talking about Crown copyright? 3) This RfC isn't about putting images into the infobox. 4) Do you believe there are one set of Arms but unlimited versions? 5) The Government of Canada says that there is only one set of Arms "as designed in 1921" and that for the arms there are two "Official government symbols" the "Arms of Canada as revised in 1994...and revised in 1957" (0972257 and 0970442 within Technical Specification 105). You've seen the reliable source, it's here. Or are you saying that the Canada is wrong about its own official symbols? If so, who could possibly be better placed than the Canadian state to determine what Canada's official state symbols are? And if you do disagree with the Government of Canada, where is your contradicting source to back up this opinion? trackratte (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
We're not talking about symbols of the government of Canada; we're talking about the coat of arms currently used by the sovereign of Canada. The 1957 arms may be used as a symbol of the government of Canada, but that doesn't make them the current arms for the monarch; they do not follow the blazon as written since 1994. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
"The government is defined by the constitution as the Queen acting on the advice of her privy council".[6] So yes, we are absolutly talking about an official and legal symbol of government, which, by definition are the actions of the sovereign. Ie "government as the physical manifestation of the state". Government of Canada: "In Canadian English, the term can mean...specifically the Queen-in-Council",[7] which is to say the "monarch acting by and with the advice and consent of his or her privy council".[8] In the executive sense, the government of Canada consists of the Crown (Queen), prime minister, and the cabinet.[9] Which is why all government decisions and offices such as the prime minister, leader of the opposition, auditor general, etc use the Arms as their official symbol of office, as we can see here with this 1995 order in council using the 1957 state symbol of government, and this 2014 Cabinet document that also used the 1957 Arms. trackratte (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Putting together what sources say on different matters to prove your own conclusion is the definition of original research. You require a source saying the arms that follow the 1957 blazon (but not any arms prior to those) can still today be considered a coat of arms of the reigning monarch in the federal jurisdiction. (I.e. either the Canadian sovereign has two coats of arms or two versions of a coat of arms used concurrently and interchangeably.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
What original research? The only Arms that are an official symbol of Canada are those which were "designed in 1921" (sourced fact from Government of Canada). There are only two official symbols of Canada involving the Arms of Canada as designed in 1921, the specific image "as revised in 1957" and the specific image "revised in 1994" (sourced fact from Government of Canada). Both these official symbols are in current use (sourced fact from Cabinet document, sourced fact from federal ID program document, sourced fact from second cabinet document). Those are the only statements I've put forward, and each one is a simple fact directly referenced to a reliable source. trackratte (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm going to get dizzy soon, what with the constant going 'round in circles happening here.
What you have proof of is two coats of arms being designated as official symbols of the Government of Canada, along with the wordmark, signature, and emblem. As emphasised, those are symbols of the government, not Canada; the wordmark, signature, and emblem do not represent Canada. It is original research to say a source shows the 1957 arms as a symbol of the Government of Canada and the constitution says the government is the Queen acting on the advice of the Privy Council, so the 1957 arms are a symbol of the Queen. Even if the original research issue weren't there, you've presented no proof that the 1957 arms, despite being shown as one of a number of symbols of the Government of Canada, is actually used as a symbol of the Government of Canada beyond an order-in-council issued less than a year after the 1994 arms were created and a solitary Treasury Board document. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Right, a 2014 legal document as well as an order-in-council (defined as "An order made by the Queen") both issued by the "Queen's Privy Council" and both using the current official symbol of "the Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada" to represent the state's authority. And your takeaway from all of that is that none of this has anything to do with the Queen. All I have provided are factual statements directly linked to reliable sources. You have provided, as usual, nothing but your own personal opinion which I can't even say is original research as there simply isn't any attempt at research at all. trackratte (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
What you're providing is original research. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No, several "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" (WP:OR) have been shown in that there are multiple published sources explicitly stating the revised arms to be an official symbol of Canada (ie the fact that these are the official arms of Canada is both attributable and not an original thought). Second, your accusations of original research here on this talk page are highly questionable, in that not only is it not original research since the claims you are attacking are all directly attributable, but even if it were OR, the "policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". And you have yet to present a single shred of evidence to back up any of your claims once so ever. Perhaps it would be best to focus on the topic instead of accusing me of impropriety. trackratte (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No way should we be using a "rendition" of an official symbol here in an encyclopedia. We are not a kids book making up images... we are the first destination for learning. Does not look credible having a fake image in the lead....very bad for all. -- Moxy (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not what the RfC is focused on. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No it is not, although it makes sense why it was brought up in that two other editors did so as well for some reason. A discussion for a different RfC on the infobox. trackratte (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good for them. They also stated which arms are currently used by the monarch. Moxy did not. The rest of your comment comes across as though you haven't actually read the RfC question. I've already remarked on a possible revisiting of the use of the user-created rendition in the infobox. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The RfC question asks if the Queen of Canada has one or two coats of arms. Any other topic mentioned by users, such as their preference for a given photo, is simply something said in passing on a tangential subject, as this RfC is not about images or an infobox, as you've just said. So as far as I can see, we're both in complete agreement, so have no idea why you accused me of not having read the question, which I clearly have. trackratte (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not what the RfC asks.
Other people appear to be grasping what the RfC is asking and that's what's important. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Your questions is: Does the monarch of Canada currently possess one or two coats of arms, or one set of arms with two different versions. Which, as I said, boils down to does the monarchy have one or two arms. Thus everyone answering the question with a number. If that isn't what you meant your question to be, then you should have worded it differently. trackratte (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • One - In 1994, the pre-existing arms were augmented with the annulet of the Order of Canada as the Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada. However, the annulet is not a required component of the arms (unlike the escutcheon, crest, and supporters), therefore the continued use of components of Her Majesty's Canadian Government and the Canadian Forces to use the arms without the annulet does not mean that there are two sets of arms. Also, while the arms of each province and territory are not recorded as the "Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of (insert name of province/territory here)," the practical use is the same; they represent her authority as Sovereign over the province/territory. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point about augmentation, which I hadn't ever thought about. According to Christopher McCreery all members of the Order of Canada have the right to augment their arms with the circlet of of the Order, which was done for the Sovereign. However, if one were to be removed from the Order, such as recently happened to Conrad Black, he would have had to remove the augmentation from his arms if he had had any.
Chapter 8 of this handbook says that augmentation is a form of differencing, similar to abatements which are marks of dishonour on ones arms. The dictionary defines it as "an addition to a coat of arms granted as a mark of special honor", which then means it could just as easily be removed by the sovereign. This random site says "An augmentation is not registered as a change of armory; instead, both the underlying arms and the arms with augmentation are protected. Therefore, the underlying armory can be changed while keeping the augmentation the same (assuming no style problems result). Augmentations are usually registered by the College of Arms in the form "[Blazon of device], and as an augmentation, [blazon of augmentation]". trackratte (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any sources affirming augmentations are optional or even that the annulus is an augmentation? The blazon makes no mention of augmentation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: The Letters Patent state, "As assigned ... on the 19th day of November 1921, and as augmented ... on the 12th day of July 1994." The blazon will rarely state that there is an augmentation; some augmentations are added to the escutcheon and are merely stated in blazon, while others include the annulet for an Order and are usually not included in the blazon (e.g., see the arms of Her Excellency Michaël Jean, which does not specify the annulet in the blazon despite the fact that as a former Governor General, Mme. Jean is an extraordinary Companion of the Order of Canada). The reason the blazon for HM's arms specifically include the annulet is because any changes to the Royal Arms must be approved by HM; therefore, unless there is a public announcement that the annulet is approved, it should not be used even though she is Sovereign of the Order of Canada. Anyone appointed to an Order is entitled, but not required, to display the appropriate insignia of that Order with their arms; augmentations to the escutcheon, crest, or supporters become an integral part of the arms and cannot be removed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then; thank you. But, where is it stated augmentations are "optional" in renderings of the arms? And, even it they are, are they optional in the most current rendering, or is an earlier, pre-augmentation rendering acceptable as the "option" without the augmentation?
This is all moving quickly into the realm of original research again; we seem to be trying to piece together different sources discussing different matters to find justification for a pre-determined conclusion. Still no source stating the 1957 arms remain current arms of HM right along with the 1994 arms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
A current and legally approved official symbol of the Monarchy of Canada, to be more precise, given the article's topic.
The fact of the matter is a great deal of attributable evidence has been given by Jkudlick to support their point, and absolutely nothing has been presented against it. Second, accusations of original research regarding whether or not the annulus is an augmentation or not (both a legal document and an academic book have been presented showing it is), and what an augmentation means (three sourced definitions), are uncalled for as both are directly attributable to the sources presented here. Third, the "policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". trackratte (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • One as argued by User:Miesianiacal and User: Jkudlick. Adding an augmentation does not make an entirely new CoA. Neither does the existence of more than one artistic rendition. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • One. While older versions are still in use (such as the 1957 version on the CPO1/CWO insignia), the 1994 version is clearly the coat of arms of Canada as it stands today. I would also like to point out how pointless this debate it... it's the coat of arms, and to the best of my knowledge we still don't have a good free version of it. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
As Jkudlick outlines above, the 1957 and 1994 official logos are actually the exact same Arms, the only difference being the augmentation which itself does not constitute any change to the Arms themselves. There are currently two legally approved and official renderings of the Arms (logo). As you mentioned, there are the 2016 Canadian military badges that use the 1957 rendering, but in addition the Queen's Privy Council (Cabinet)still uses it as can be seen in this 2014 legal document, as well as by ministers of the Crown as can be seen in this 2016 document. Which is why both are still maintained as an official and legal state logo, as both official renderings of the one Arms of Canada are used concurrently and interchangeably today, one with the annulus of the order of Canada, and one without. trackratte (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@The Gnome:, there's a discussion about the use of the "official" rendition at File talk:Coat of arms of Canada.svg#Fair use. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, as you, Gnome, BushelCandle, and Moxy, have all stated, and others have also alluded to, only a legally approved and official state logo should be used in an encyclopedia to represent that state or nothing at all, as can be seen at at this discussion as well. trackratte (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It's good to see that the latest inserted version, has apparent agreement among everyone :) GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

  1. What is the goal of this RfC in reference to the mainspace?
  2. It is quite clear the Queen of Canada has more than one Coat of Arms, the Canadian Monarchy has 14 or more of coats of arms including all of the Provinces and Territories, so it seems an extremely odd stance to take in saying that she cannot have more than one set of Arms, as she quite clearly can and does. Miesianiacal has since changed the RfC question to only encompass the "federal jurisdiction". However, quite clearly Miesianiacal's assertion the "There is [only] one version of the arms representing the monarch at one time" is false. trackratte (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. The Government of Canada specifically maintains a legal set of Six Official Symbols, which are "Figure T-105: Official government symbols: Arms of Canada as revised in 1994, Government of Canada signature, Canada Wordmark, Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957, flag symbol, and federal emblem used from 1974 to 1987", so as we can see the 1957 Arms are still an Official Symbol of Canada, with the diagrams at the link. We can also see that they clearly note when a symbol ceased to be used in the "federal emblem used from 1974 to 1987" statement, however there is no similar 'arms of Canada from 1957 to 1994' statement, as the emblem is in fact, still in use.
  4. Speaking of WP:OR, Miesianiacal hasn't presented a single source to back up their opinions that the Queen cannot have more than one coat of arms, nor that that the 1957 Arms were ever superceded.
  5. As you can see at the Canadian Passport Gallery, all Canadian passports used the 1957 Arms until roughly 2003, nearly a decade after Miesianiacal thinks they were superceded, so either the Government of Canada was in error for a decade, or the above editor's unsubstantiated opinion is ill-placed.
  6. The Canadian Forces Decoration used the 1957 Arms until roughly 2005, once again, either the Government of Canada was wrong for over a decade, or the above editor is mistaken.
  7. The Canadian Armed Forces, having just published this structure three months ago, still uses the 1957 Arms to represent the Queen's authority (those who wear that badge receive the Queen's Warrant).
  8. The RCMP still use the 1957 Arms as a badge of the Queen's authority in recieving the Queen's Warrant in the same way.
  9. As we can clearly see in the Government of Canada official symbols page, the 1921, 1923 or whatever other versions that were brought forward above are not, or no longer, official symbols of Canada, so their being brought up here is entirely irrelevant. However the 1957 Arms are quite clearly stated as currently being an official symbol of Canada.
  10. Canadian Courts make no mention of the Arms being superseded in 1994, but however refer to both the 1957 and 1994 version as simply the Arms of Canada: "Finally, on July 12, 1994, Her Majesty the Queen approved certain changes, one of which was to add the motto of the Order of Canada...The Arms of Canada are used on federal government possessions such as buildings [1957 and 1994 revisions], official seals, money, passports, proclamations and publications [revised 1994 version]. They are also reproduced on the rank badges of some members of the Canadian Forces [revised 1957 version]."
  11. It is unclear to me what the point of this RfC is, as there is no discussion of all the Queen's Arms at this page, nor does it delve into the distinction between the 1957 and 1994 version of the Arms, nor into the topic of the possibility of the Queen having more than one set of Arms, so seems largely irrelevant. Unless this is an attempt to address the above topic in a roundabout way? In which case a new RfC would need to be started as this RfC doesn't address the issue of the infobox at all, nor is the infobox question about whether or not the Queen has multiple coats of arms.
So while the Queen most certainly did "approve certain changes" in 1994, the 1957 symbol was not simply discontinued in 1994, but carried on being used for decades, and to this day is still maintain as an Official Symbol of Canada and legally protected as such by the Government of Canada, and is still used today by certain state agencies to represent the Queen's authority. Yes, the 1957 version has been gradually replaced by the 1994 version (such as passports in 2003), but they clearly continued to be used after 1994, and are still clearly maintained today, although less and less. Presumably, one day they will be removed from official use like the 1923 Arms were, however that day has most clearly not yet arrived.
  • So the question isn't "Can the Queen have multiple Arms" (the answer is clearly yes, she has at least 14, not including other derivatives such as seals or badges), but instead is really "are the revised 1957 Arms used as a symbol to represent the Canadian state?" --> As we can see above, 1) the Government of Canada's statement is clear that the 1957 Arms are legally one of the current official symbols of Canada, 2) the Arms were continued in official use post-1994 on Canadian passports, awards, decorations, and elsewhere, and 3) the Arms continue to be used to represent the authority of the state in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Armed Forces (two state agencies), and perhaps elsewhere as well, all of which resoundingly points to the answer that yes, this symbol has been and still is used to represent the Canadian state. trackratte (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - Wouldn't an updated set of arms supersede any previous? Just like a flag, you set the old design away with all respect, but you hoist the new one up the flagpole. Surely this is the same sort of thing? --Pete (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Good question, as that assumption is really the core of the proposal I think, and I admit, as a simple assumption makes sense. However, as we can see when we delve into the actual reliable sources above, the Arms were not superseded as soon as the newest rendition was approved, but continued to represent the state on passports, etc for over a decade, and by virtue of the 1957 image still being legally maintained as an Official Symbol of Canada today according to current state documents. We haven't seen any evidence that the Arms were superseded or officially "removed from service", but instead a great deal of reliable evidence pointing instead to the contrary. Even if we didn't have the three official reliable sources above showing their continued use today, we would still know (via the passport amongst others) that the Arms continued to be used for well over a decade, so it would then still be unclear exactly what date they were superseded, as it certainly wasn't in 1994. And as for the actual RfC question itself, whether there are two sets of Arms or one set of Arms with two versions, I don't really see what difference any such distinction would make, as either way both images are still Official Symbols of Canada. Unless we reason that the Canadian state is wrong about their own official symbols, but that is like person 'A' telling person 'B' that they have been pronouncing their own name incorrectly their entire lives. Which is to say, if the Canadian state is wrong about its own chosen official symbols, who could then possibly be right? trackratte (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that is the case, though I don't have at hand a source saying so. I'm speaking in the context of the government, of course; what arms appear on official government documents, websites, and the like; none made after 1994 use the 1957 arms. The military and RCMP have their own policies on uniform design. (I don't think anyone would argue crossed swords or gold maple leaves are heraldic symbols of the monarch.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
No, but the Arms of Canada are. Specifically the Arms represent the bestowing of the Queen's Warrant to those who wear it, and thus the exercise of the Queen's authority. CWOs wear commissioned (Queen's commission) officers' accoutrements as a result. The RCMP and the military have not had the authority to govern their own badges since the establishment of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. In the military's case (and I assume similar for the RCMP), things like badges which use the Arms or the Royal Crown are staffed through DHH to Rideau Hall for approval by the Sovereign. Six examples of this, the Queen signing "Approved. Elizabeth II" on the image proposals, are located in the section above. trackratte (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Arms of Canada

Why is this RfC here? should it not be at the Arms of Canada article? Is this a question about this infobox?...if it is its not clear ...are people trying to get fair use here?--- Moxy (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

All good questions, but all equally redundant.
The Government of Canada, in legislation enacted, has given the non-commercial English Wikipedia permission to depict the current Arms of Canada in this article as long as they are not modified and Crown Copyright is acknowledged. If the ignorant admin can not be educated then we need to write to the government for permission. BushelCandle (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the above RfC question makes no reference to the infobox or about using any specific images in this article, so it would seem to be a random question that belongs at the Arms of Canada article.
I also agree that only legally adopted and approved symbols of state should be used, and that ideally the official 1994 rendering should be used here. trackratte (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that whatever consensus emerges from the RfC will affect what's shown in the infobox. If there's currently only one coat of arms for the monarch (federally) and that's the arms that follow the 1994 blazon, it's a depiction of the arms that follow the 1994 blazon that goes in the coat of arms field in the infobox. Whether or not to use the user-created image of the 1994 arms was settled before; you know this, as you were involved in the discussion. If either you or trackratte would like to revisit that matter, it's within your rights to do so. Though, I'd think you'd have to explain your reversal. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Not obvious at all....can we even use the 1994 one here and why is the rendition one here after all the previous talks? Plus no mention of the rendition one in this RfC. So perhaps someone should re-do the RfC. - I am sure all will agree no way we should be using non-official symbols in an encyclopedia (as per previous talks you mentioned)...so what is being asked ...reevaluation of fair use...or a new RfC if people will use the fake one? - Moxy (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Mies, when was the issue settled? And there is no reversal here. trackratte (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
If "no way" then none at all, but there is no way the present rendition in the infobox is unacceptable while the "official version" to which it links is not available for the infobox. Its as plain and simple as that. Qexigator (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Qex, you can see the official symbols being used here (1995 OIC) using the revised 1957 state symbol, and here with this 2014 Cabinet document using the revised 1957 symbol once again. The "official version" of the Arms is available for use in the infobox. trackratte (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Track., you may see such specimens as clinching the argument for that version in the infobox, but for my part, I do not see they alter the position for 1994 version (+ link to "official" 1994) or none if not Wiki-permitted. Qexigator (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I am confused ....are people arguing that it is ok to use old versions or non-official user renditions here? I can see an old version. But not a user rendition...thats crazy we cant mislead our readers in that fashion...as the last RfC concluded. So we are repeating all this again....old RfC too old? --Moxy (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
trackratte is arguing an older version can be used here. Whether or not a user-created rendition of any arms can be used is a separate question (though, as I just mentioned to you today, one already considered a little while back; a discussion you were part of). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
And to which we never agreed, and to which consensus was never achieved. Second, that revised 1957 symbol is only older in the sense of when it was approved, as they are both current official symbols used in official documents and badges in the present day, as you can see in the 1995 and 2014 official documents linked in my comment immediately above. trackratte (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
"[T]o which consensus was never achieved." That is false. You may go back and check the discussion to be sure. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps if I knew what discussion you are referring to, and where within it everyone agrees that a user's creative drawing should be used instead of the actual image of the Arms. trackratte (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It's here. You were part of it, too, and part of the effort to add the "unofficial rendition" caption to the infobox. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Right, so absolutely no consensus for a creative user-made drawing. Moxy's last comment as far as I can see was that it is "no ok to have home-made versions". My last comment was "If we can't show the real thing, then nothing should be shown at all". So, regarding the image in question, it was left with Qex and Mies one on side, and trackratte and Moxy on the other, ie not consensus. The only thing agreed on was that wherever the creative user-made drawing was used, it should say "unofficial rendition" or something to that effect, not that it was acceptable for use here. trackratte (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've no idea what discussion you looked at, but it can't be the one I linked to. You yourself contributed to setting up what's in the article now; that's evident both in the aforementioned discussion and the edit history of this article.
Regardless, this is OT. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The one you just linked to obviously, and where I pulled the last quotes from the two objectors showing them to be against inclusion of the creative user, non-professional, drawing, ie 2 v. 2. Now that it is clear that there was no consensus for that image, but instead for the labelling of it, continuing to state that there ever was a consensus behind the specific image is purposefully disingenuous in the absence of quoted proof that all four editors agreed that that specific creative rendering was the most suitable image for this infobox. trackratte (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You cam say there was no consensus all you want, but the fact remains there was a consensus in favour of using the user-created image with a caption stating it is an "unofficial rendition" and you made attempts to implement that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
And you can portray a 2 v. 2 argument as "consensus" all you want, that simply does not make it so. And looking at the actions today here and at File talk:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, there are obviously several editors unhappy with the use of the user-made creative interpretation, and the current consensus is clearly in favour of the official symbol. By my count, I see you, me, GoodDay, Moxy, JKudlic, and Bushel in favour of the official symbol over that of the creative user-made interpretation, and zero people advocating against the official symbol. The "consensus" you are citing is only that whenever an unofficial rendition is shown it must make it clear that it is an unofficial rendition, not that it is the best, most suitable, or should be used symbol here or anywhere. This kerfuffle is based on your denial that the unaugmented official arms are somehow not official, against all sources to the contrary, which baffles me as even if your argument were true, the user-rendition is certainly not official, so by your own argument should not be used. Anyways, despite my being opposed to your argument regarding the unaugmented official arms (or actually I'm in favour of your argument as your argument is really that the official arms should be used, I just disagree with your refusal to recognise the government of Canada's explicit list of what those symbols are) we are clearly both in agreement on what actual image should be used here. I suggest we stop bickering about what our second, third, or fourth choice should be, and focus on working together on what our first choice both is, a choice which so happens to currently have unanimous consensus behind. If this current (unanimous) consensus cannot be implemented, then we can revist the matter through a clear RfC regarding which image (or none at all) should be used in the infobox here in the absence of the augmented official 1994 image not being available for use. trackratte (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This is indeed a pointless argument. The user-created image with the caption has been there for months now; regardless of the consensus reached during the last go-around with this, what's there also has consensus by silence. You have the right to make a change, but, so, too, does anyone else have the right to revert it, per WP:BRD, and the status-quo remains until a consensus, if any, is established favouring a change. And here you are trying to form that consensus. So, why a past debate is so important to you, I have no idea. There are other, current matters to attend to.
Now, of course I prefer the CHA's rendering of the arms. But, most of this discussion (as well as all of the last one) was centred on finding a way to include the arms with the belief the CHA's version was absolutely inadmissible. We've always been looking for the last-worst alternative to the CHA's rendition. It seems this time focus is shifting to the restrictions on the use of the CHA's depiction of the arms. I hope that's successful, but, still realize we may find ourselves back here again, anyway. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The past debate is not "so important" to me, the only reason it has been brought up is because you used it as your justification to put the user-image into the article seven times against four or more objectors. And it's a bit of a bizarre situation as the image wasn't changed due to consensus, but due to an admin's decision yanking it out. And don't cite WP:BRD as you're the one to revert four different people on seven occasions, and now the page is protected, so I think we're passed that. There is obviously no consensus by silence, if such a thing even exists, as it has been contested multiple times now since the appropriate image was forcibly removed against the wishes of all those involved.
Now hopefully that's the last that has to be said about it for now, and we can concentrate on working together towards implementing the best solution we all agree to. trackratte (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please re-read my words. I've addressed those questions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Real" 1994 arms

Rather than continue pin-dancing, wouldn't it be more productive to expend some effort in getting permission to use the real 1994 arms (or overturning the ignorant admin's crown copyright conditions-flouting ruling)? BushelCandle (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

ok, BC. how do you propose that should be done? Qexigator (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor (preferably Canadian, resident in Canada and prepared to give a real name and address) emails copyright/droit_d'auteur@bac-lac.gc.ca explaining our quandary and seeking explicit permission. I'd do it myself were I not Canadian, not resident in Canada and valuing my anonymity...
(It's a pity that the procedure was decentralised in 2013: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/index.htm )
These sites are also informative: http://canadiancopyrightlaw.ca/how-to-obtain-permission-to-use-canadian-government-content/
Last modified 2016-02-15: http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1454685607328 ) BushelCandle (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please will such a volunteer as BC describes go ahead. (I'd do it myself, but not resident in Canada and valuing my anonymity). Qexigator (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Would that make a difference? What would any response offer other than what we already know about the permissions for using the "official" rendition of the arms?
To my mind, the potentially more successful route is to try to gain consensus that there is a valid fair use argument for placing the CHA's version of the arms in this infobox. I tried to do so, but it was almost immediately reverted, though I could not understand the reverter's justification. I requested clarification at the file's talk page. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I've said all along that the most suitable way forward is to use the actual 1994 COA image, all we've debated about the image is whether we should go with the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th option, and since absolutely everyone actually supports the first option, essentially amounts to a debate over which option we think is least bad, not which one is best.
I already emailed the Government of Canada Crown Copyright Office a couple years ago and had posted their response at Commons. Their stance is obviously that the image isn't fair use and that "no renditions of the Arms of Canada are released into the public domain" (which includes the revised 1957 image, but that's a separate issue). From my understanding we don't need specific permission to use the revised 1994 image here, as we clearly already do under fair-use policy. Although I suppose an email stating that their stance is that the image may be used for the specific purpose of this article could not hurt. Regardless, the closing admin's conclusion from three years ago is slightly flawed in that according to the close's logic if the flag of Canada were copyrighted, it would only be allowed in the Flag of Canada article and be barred for use at the Canada article, leaving us with the conclusion that it is perfectly acceptable to use this flag to represent Canada throughout the entire Encyclopedia, which is clearly unacceptable and against the consensus from three years ago (which Alanscott summed up as "the consensus was that there is no other official rendering of the AOC...also that whenever the Pedia represents the AOC pictorially, it should use the official rendering").
Whether we email a Gov of Can representative or not, I think there is ample justification, supported by broad consensus, for the use of the actual 1994 COA image here, and where I support Mies attempts at the talk. trackratte (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

Is this Rfc recommending which Arms image to use? If so, visual examples of the options would be helpful. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC question is: Does the monarch of Canada currently possess one or two coats of arms, or one set of arms with two different versions.
As it is generally unhelpful to have multiple RfCs ongoing at the same time for an article, an RfC regarding the use of a specific image could be launched afterwards. Although the core issue extends beyond this page, so should probably be posed elsewhere. trackratte (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Succession

An English translation of the court ruling in Motard and Taillon is now available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Bmx-GRZeVueG5hQS0yaEc1SEIwekQtRlRCOFpLck1DQ3dN/view?usp=sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.255.179 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Succession to the Canadian throne

Tavix added a link to Succession to the British throne at the top of this article's Succession section. Likewise, he did the same at Monarchy of Australia. At the moment, one editor objected/reverted the addition here, while another (@StAnselm:) has chosen to support the addition at the Australian monarchy article. As a compromise, I've created redirects for this & the Australian monarchy article. What's the views of folks here? GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with this addition, as succession to all the thrones of the Realm is the same, and this point is touched in the succession article. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The succession laws of the UK, Australia and NZ are the same. Each country has enacted identical succession laws. In the other realms, their constitutions mandate that the monarch is the same person as the king or queen of the United Kingdom. They do not have laws that determine the succession, although Canada has a law that acknowledges the succession. TFD (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: first monarch

Should we list the first monarch in the infobox? I haven't checked the infoboxes of the Commonwealth realms, to see how they've handled it. Note: If we do so, it would be George V. Contacting @Peeperman: & @Miesianiacal:, as they're the immediate disputees. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Canada, at least as defined in this article, came into existence in 1867, Victoria would be the first monarch. Igoring her would be bizarre considering how often she is mentioned in the article, including the statement that the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were "in 1867 confederated by Queen Victoria to form Canada as a kingdom in its own right." Read what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said in a case appealed from Lower Canada, "When the King of England became King of Canada, the natives of Canada became his subjects. (Donegani v. Donegani, 1934&1835)[10] I suppose George VI was picked because he was King when the Statute of Westminster 1931 was enacted. Some editors argued that the Act domesticated the succession laws, but neither the government nor the judiciary of Canada agrees. TFD (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned George V, because of the date 1931 is being used in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, numerous courts have ruled the succession laws are part of Canadian law. (It's professors, lawyers, and historians who argue the Statute of Westminster made those laws domestic law, not Wikipedia editors.)
Regardless, I thought there was a decision to avoid a foundational year in the infobox, since there were too many differing opinions on the matter. It follows then that the same approach be taken to the first monarch.
If we're going to re-open that debate, I'd say there's a difference between monarchy in Canada and the monarchy of Canada. Monarchy in Canada may date back to the 16th century, as the article states, but the entity we know today as Canada was formed in 1867. It would therefore follow that the monarchy of (the Dominion of) Canada came to be in that year and Victoria was the first sovereign. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your second and third paragraphs. Disputes about when the King of England/Great Britain/UK became the King of Canada or whether French rule should be considered are too complex for the info-box. I have not seen any arguments that the succession laws are part of Canadian law, other than the arguments against the Canadian approach to the Perth Agreement. Can you cite any? I think they argued that the succession laws were imperial laws that were received into Canadian law and because they related to the office of the monarch required a constitutional amendment to change. But the courts decided that domestic law was that the British monarch would be the monarch of Canada. Anne Twomey disagrees and I accept that courts can be wrong, although I think it is wrong to assume that the Canada and Australia are identitical in their situations. TFD (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
In agreement with Mies. This article is suppose to be Monarchy of Canada, not Monarchy in Canada. I wouldn't oppose using 1867 & Victoria in the infobox. If memory serves me right, we had those in the infobox for quite awhile, until there was a push for pre-1867 info. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
If we say Victoria was the first monarch, doesn't that conflict with the 1534 and 1931 dates? Why not just remove them altogether? TFD (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Today's Canadian monarchy has its roots in the British monarchy, not the (now defunct) French monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to change the article which says, "Elizabeth II became the second-longest reigning monarch in Canadian history (preceded only by King Louis XIV)... After the Canadian colonies of France were, via war and treaties, ceded to the British Crown....the Treaty of Paris ended the reign of the territory's last absolute monarch, King Louis XV. Since the days of King Louis XIV, the monarch is the fount of all honours in Canada and the orders." Canada was ceded from the King of France to the King of England, but retained French civil law and the French language. Neither has been defuncted. TFD (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd remove the stuff about the French monarchy. The Canadian monarchy's roots are in the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The Canadian government includes it. It is relevant because Canada was ceded to the King by France, hence there is continuity between the different crowns. When George III became King of Canada, he did so as the successor to Louis XV. To Canadians, the only initial change was the person who was king. There was no change to the office. Any law or contract written before the conquest that referred to the king would be read as referring to the British king rather than the French king. TFD (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
My choice would be to disregard it. In the meantime, until a founding year is agreed to? it's best we leave that & the first monarch entry as blank. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Peter Boyce's observation

Though I agree with Boyce, I'm neutral on whether we should or shouldn't mention his observations about the Perth Agreement, in this article. I do however recommend, that ya'll discuss inclusion/exclusion here, rather then have a slow-edit war. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason for excluding Boyce (he is an Australian constitutional scholar) does not make sense. This article is skewed toward a viewpoint that the Queen of Canada is as separate from the Queen of the UK as the King of Great Britain was once separate from the Elector of Hanover. Note that the comment in the article that the Statute of Westminster 1931 disallowed the UK from legislating in relation to succession in Canada is false. Whoever is sovereign in the UK is sovereign in Canada. Whether or not we quote Boyce, we need to reflect current mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think first of all it is relevant to the Canadian monarchy as the Canadian monarchy is one of the monarchies he is explicitly talking about (his book's title is The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand and it is already cited in this article several times so clearly it has been accepted that his observations apply to the Monarchy of Canada. Secondly, the relevance of this quotation to Canada has been recognized by Canadian scholars who use the quote in the article "If the Queen Has No Reserve Powers Left, What Is the Modern Monarchy For?" published in the Canadian academic journal Review of Constitutional Studies/Revue d'études constitutionelles the article can be found here. Thirdly, I think inclusion of the quote is needed for balance/NPOV reasons as it differs from the arguments that predominate in the article that claim the Canadian monarchy is equal to the British monarchy rather than subordinate. It has been removed because it is claimed it is "not relevant" to the page. I've provided supporting evidence that it is. As for TFD's the claim that he should be excluded because he is an Australian scholar, that is irrelevant and that has been shown by the fact that he is already widely quoted in this article and by the fact that Canadian scholars quote him. Indeed, there are a number of non-Canadian scholars quoted here, it's never been a problem before (not even, as I've mentioned, in the case of Boyce himself). Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't belong here because it's an opinion about the project to change the succession rules and the realms in general, not just about Canada, specifically. Hence, the opinion has been moved to Perth Agreement. There may be a place for it at Commonwealth realm; I'm not sure. It is also a fringe opinion. It therefore shouldn't be given undue weight. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope ya'll can work it out, among yourselves :) GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not my claim he should be excluded because he is Australian, that was another editor.[11] Boyce opinion is not fringe, but mainstream opinion confirmed by the Canadian government and the courts. I see no reason either to exclude the comments because they apply to other countries as well. TFD (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies TFD for misreading your comment. In response to Miesianiacal, Boyce is not a fringe scholar but a respected expert. His view may be a minority view but it is not"fringe". For the sake of balance and NPOV minority views should be included. Their mere inclusion does not constitute "undue Wright". I'm not suggesting paragraphs on the subject but a simple quote - that is not undue weight at all. You're suggesting giving Boyce no weight at all which is not what "no undue weight" means. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"Fringe", "minority", there's no difference, especially when it comes to WP:UNDUE.
Boyce's opinion being included at Perth Agreement puts to bed any claim his interpretation has been given no weight. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

His comment, that the Canadian crown is "derivative, if not subordinate" is the current opinion of the Canadian government and courts. If you remember, some people thought that succession in Canada was determined by the Succession Act, which as imperial law had been received into Canadian law and had to be amended, either by federal statute or constitutional amendment. But that turned out to be incorrect, since Canada's sovereign is whoever is king or queen of the UK, hence the Canadian crown is "derivative, if not subordinate." TFD (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have an actual government souce stating so, feel free to present it. It would be interesting to place it next to all the government sources, including court rulings, that say the opposite. And, please, no personal interpretations. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to find in Boyce's book any claim by him that the non-UK crowns are subordinate to the British one. It's also curious how he could've written in 2008 about the changes in succession law that were initiated in 2011. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's on page 23 and he's not talking about the Perth Agreement specifically but generally to the fact that the initiative for change remains, to this day, with the British government. It is the Canadian scholars Hazell and Morris who refer to Perth on page 18 of their journal article ie that Boyce's view was borne out by the fact that the Perth Agreement was the result of an initiative by the British government of David Cameron. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh; I see it now. Thank you. It's hardly a fact the initiative for change is solely within the purview of the UK; no document or convention says so; a coincidence doesn't prove anything. However, Boyce's words are his words. I'd still, though, caution against giving them too much weight vis-a-vis all those that've said the opposite since the 1920s. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
It is a fact that only the British government has initiated a change in the succession rules. Despite the fact that Catholicism is the largest denomination in Canada and that the ban on Catholics has been the subject of a lawsuit and is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights no Canadian government has attempted to initiate a change to the monarchy that would remove the Catholic ban, nor has Australia despite its large Catholic population. Nor has any other Commonwealth country attempt to initiate a change away from make primogeniture before Cameron, despite the fact that gender equality has bee an important principle in many countries for several decades. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What can we do to bring more people into this discussion? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Open up an Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Monarchy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada/Archive_17&oldid=955552633"