Jump to content

Template talk:Music of Canada/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Use a footnote

I saw this on ANI, and spent 5-10 minutes skimming the talk page. But I think the solution is already obvious! Just say "God Save The Queen (unofficial<ref>Blah blah</ref>)". You folks have done a huge amount of research above collecting sources which describe the exact status of this song in Canada. List every single one of them in a footnote, and describe what they say in detail. That way if "unofficial" (or some better word you think of to parenthesize above) is not exactly right, at least the note says how it goes astray.

Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, you can't actually put a footnote apart from the references in every article the template is transcluded to unless you change each article, which is not really an option. That's a flaw I'm willing to accept - besides, the footnote should be mostly a list of references in proper citation format anyway. Is there any reason not to do things this way? Wnt (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a proposed solution. We will get to proposed actions, but we aren't there yet. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. You realize, of course, that this is a template and there's no way to transclude a footnote to every article on which the template is used. My proposal is to keep it out since it doesn't belong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
My impression is that if you have stuff between <ref> and </ref>, it turns up in the references section of any page it transcludes to. Now it might be that the reference will look irrelevant to the article it ends up in... my feeling though, is that if the sources are irrelevant, the fact they document is likewise. Templates are overused on Wikipedia to "advertise" very tangentially related articles, in my opinion. Wnt (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The reference may work, but it's not a note. They are different functions and this is a note, not a reference. See Vancouver Whitecaps FC and notice next to the year marked "n1" and follow it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing with a facilitated discussion

Discussion moved from Talk:Canada

While the request for mediation on this issue was declined because at least one of the parties did not agree to the mediation, I am willing to facilitate the discussion here. Interested editors are requested to present a brief summary (200 words, max) of your reasons as to why GSTQ should be included/excluded in the infobox as "Royal Anthem." Note: Please present hard evidence (rather than opinions). This should be in the form of diffs or verifiable sources. Also, please keep in mind the policies listed in the box at the top of this page. Keep it civil and remember that WP editorial decisions are made by consensus. Sunray (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for inclusion

Raised was the idea that anthems may not belong in this navbox. However, there was no unanimity in favour of the idea; some supported ([1], [2]), some opposed eliminating the national anthem ([3],[4]), and some were ambivalent ([5]).
If the Canadian national anthem holds a place in the navbox, then so too should the Canadian royal anthem. Listing all state recognised and used anthems is consistent (not exclusive) and provides more information to readers about Canada's official repertoire of music. Further, as the royal anthem is mandated by the federal government ([6]) and military ([7]) to be performed as a salute to the Canadian monarch (at various occasions) and forms a part of the salutes for the eleven governors ([8]), it is related to the subject of music in Canada.
Canada's royal anthem is "God Save the Queen", as affirmed by various reliable sources. A law is not required to make it the official royal anthem; GSTQ is the British national anthem, though no law makes it such. The government of Canada asserts that the anthem "is performed officially in Canada" ([9]). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for exclusion

  • "God Save the Queen" is a song used for special ceremonies. Nothing more. Nothing less. The fact that this ceremony happens to be political doesn't seem to have any real bearing.
  • This article should be about the Canadian music industry and no anthems should be listed.

This last argument has already been discounted since most other similar templates include the national anthem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Both "Oh, Canada" and "God Save the Queen", should be excluded from this Template. It's not meant for listing songs & so both the 'National Anthem' & 'Royal Anthem' sections should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • *sigh*. Reason for exclusion: Failure to adhere to NPOV. There are many songs that qualify as Canadian a hell of a lot more than a British song written for the monarch of the former British Empire. If we're going to include songs, then include all Canadian songs. And even then, GSTQ isn't one I'd list. Otherwise, include none. The latter is the better option, since the individual songs don't fit the scope well. Resolute 23:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Pragmatism. Nations United (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I picked up this dispute up on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. One of the main sticking points seems to be about the idea of what constitutes "official". There has never been an act of any legislature singling out GSTQ as "official", not even in England. But that qualification is unnecessary given that your Parliament recognizes the queen as your head of state, thus, giving a de facto legal recognition to all traditions associated with her monarch. Additionally, the links to Canadian Heritage site run by government ministers of culture demonstrate active recognition of this particular tradition by your government, so arguments of non-use are null and void. I looked at a sampling of monarchies and it looks like the worldwide consensus with Monarchy pages appears to be inclusion of a monarchs anthem, where one exists, in the state info box. The same is true of the commonwealth; Australia being the exception in that they chose to display a note [N 1] next to their national anthem instead of spelling it out, but they still recognized it as the note links to GSTQ. It is clear that inclusion fits with consensus use, but perhaps one of the compromises use by other countries could be made here. England uses (de jure) and (de facto) to clarify the distinction. I think that would be an optimal solution here. Dkriegls (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

England? don't you mean United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No. England lists it as their de facto national anthem. However de jure and de facto are not salient points. In England, it's their national anthem for now, and when her majesty meets her maker it will likely become "God Save the King" and at that time, many countries around the world will have to pledge allegiance to his majesty (Charles or William) or become republics. However, this may happen before that time as well. Returning to the point, until the song changes its name again or until Canada becomes a republic, GStQ will remain Canada's royal anthem, not its national anthem. It is a song for Canada's head of state, not a national anthem. It ceased to be its national anthem, de jure, in 1980. I have not found any template of national music that lists songs of honour for the head of state. Template:US music lists the anthem but not "Hail to the Chief". I have asked Miesianiacal to do an accounting of the templates of national music and list them so we can see which list the song for the head of state and which don't. Of course, this would preclude national anthems such as mentioned above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
England's not a sovereign state. It's a part of a sovereign state - United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Monarchy vs. other heads of state is not an equal footed comparison and should not serve as any basis for consensus. Pledges of allegiance are not made to democratically elected heads of state in developed nations nor are they considered the source of governmental power like in Canada (i.e., in the US it's the constitution and ultimately the people). The Queen's Privy Council for Canada acts on behalf of the queen in your country, not on behalf of the people as other heads of state do, their actions are constrained by your constitution, but the legislature is granted the right to govern by the monarch. Canadian laws are enacted on behest of the Queen, with the parliament only acting as counsel and consent: "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:" It would appear that any tradition behest to the queen is a tradition behest to Canada and should be recognized as such by Wikipedia. More importantly, as the citations clearly demonstrate, your government actively recognizes a Royal Anthem for the nation, whether formalized or not. Additionally, I have seen on citations by the Canadian government making official policy rejecting a Royal Anthem, though I may have not followed this debate through all of it's various locals. Dkriegls (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI-England is a country, not to be confused with sovereign state. Though still a distinct entity different from states or provinces. Dkriegls (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Canada is a sovereign state, whereas England is not. We should be using United Kingdom in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As a kind of footnote to my resasons for inclusion above (since they're related, but not central): GSTQ should be restored to the navbox because, prior to this dispute, the consensus (both by silence over the 19 months it was in the navbox uncontested except twice, and by the last discussion on the matter, in December 2010). Also, though it's not a reason to keep the song in the navbox, it's not insignificant that, at last count in this present dispute, there's at least nine editors in favour of having the song in the navbox versus six who want it out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently in the Template or not, is irrelevent to me, while the discussion is ongoing. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Miesianiacal: You are saying that there is no consensus to remove it and, as it was there for many months, there would need to be a consensus to remove it? Sunray (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That is my understanding of the edit cycle (per WP:CONS ("Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus... In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept."), WP:SILENCE ("Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident... it is best to assume that silence implies consensus."), WP:BRD ("The BRD cycle does not contain another 'R' after the 'D'."), WP:STATUSQUO ("If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change."), etc.). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It was always in dispute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Two disputations at six month intervals over 19 months isn't "always". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, both anthems should be excluded along with the anthems sections. This Template isn't meant for listing individual songs, but rather a general descriptive of songs (i.e. Punk, Natives, Rock'n roll; etc). GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@ MIESIANIACAL, silence or lack of removal is only considered assumed consensus if there is no debate. This is a debate, so please stop appealing to non-existence consensus. Lasting for a long time does not make the default position "keep". See Wikipedia:Consensus. "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit"Dkriegls (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say there was consensus now. I said there was consensus before this dispute began and, as I understand it, during a dispute, what last had consensus (the status quo) should remain until it's settled if an edit is to be made or the existing to remain unaltered.
Anyway, as I originally said, this is somewhat of a side issue now. I just want to make sure I'm reading the guidelines and policies right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Monarchy vs. other heads of state is not an equal footed comparison but should serve as a reasonable basis for consensus. The queen in Canada is a figurehead. We may have a constitutional monarchy, but we have an effective parliamentary democracy. If the queen were to demand something of Canadian citizens and the government were to disagree, the queen's reign would be over as soon as the paperwork could be drafted. So while the queen vests authority in parliament, parliament in turn can succeed from the monarch on a whim, and there are several regions of the commonwealth where this is being discussed. In short, the monarch rules because we allow the monarch to rule and as such she is barely a head of state. The fact of headship is recognized by the the presence of her name in the list of current heads of state and government on the Canada row.
However, this is not a political article and as an article on the music of Canada, the music itself, and not the monarch, is being represented in the infobox. The music is not used for anything other than specific ceremony and special occasions and inclusion of this song opens the gateway to other ceremonial music such as "Happy Bothrday" which is the de facto birthday song, and "Auld Lang Syne" which is the de facto song to be sung on new year's eve. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Neither of your examples are recognized by a government agencies as the Royal Anthem. England is not the only example Sweden adds their royal anthem: as does every commonwealth country but New Zealand.Dkriegls (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The United States page has (E Pluribus Unum (traditional)) on it, not our current motto. But more importantly, appealing to outside examples or making claims of consensus will not solve this because neither exist as guidance for this page. Both parties here need to reach their own consensus here. There is no Wikipedia consensus for or against inclusion. It is treated both ways by multiple nation pages. The only solution is finding a Canada consensus. The Australia page had a lengthy discussion and decided to use the note method, England uses qualifiers, and Sweden just has both with on qualifiers. I think the qualifier makes the most sense as it addresses both parties objects. Dkriegls (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, you're using England instead of the United Kingdom. England ceased to be sovereign state in 1707 & it's now a part of the United Kingdom. Per accuracy sakes, use United Kingdom in your examples. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And those two commonwealth countries don't list it as their royal anthem because it's their de facto national anthem. There is no music of Sweden infobox so you are not making a valid comparison. Template:Music of Sweden doesn't list it. And neither does Music of Sweden.
As GStQ is just a song for political ceremony, the political body makes a comment on it. Since the two songs I list are non-political, there's no need for the government to comment on it any more than they need to comment on the top 40 song of the day. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
England is not a commonwealth realm, it's a part of a commonwealth realm. Please folks, accuracy. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out, trying to argue based on outside standards is pointless because both protocols are followed and no consensus exist in the wider Wikipedia community. Even the Template you are debating includes the Arms of Canada: "the official coat of arms of the Canadian monarch, and thus also of Canada". It was not independently legislated on by Parliament. But adopted by royal decree and use is designated by Cabinet positions, not parliament. Arguing from example will not solve this debate as there is no greater Wikipedia consensus. This is a Canada issue and the Canadian government and monarch recognize this song. Both parties need to come to a consensus based on users of this page and what best serves them because there is no appeal to an outside consensus if it doesn't exist. Dkriegls (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, the National Motto was made official by Royal Proclamation of King George V, not parliament. And it is included in this Template.Dkriegls (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop telling is what is and isn't pointless because your opinion is just that. I explained why it's not pointless and actually made a case better than your opinion. If you insist on codifying your opinion I will be forced to ignore everything you write as pointless. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz obviously you didn't make a better case or this debate would be over. I made an outsiders assessment of both of your claims and found that neither side has shown outside Wikipedia consensus or legal precedent (hence pointless). Your appeal to emotion and threats to ignore editors has not had any effect on the debate but to further entrench both sides; calling it "just a song for political ceremony" seems disingenuous as you know that the two songs you mentioned are not official songs of the Canadian head of state. Your claims of legal precedent fall short because the Crest and Motto share almost identical legal status with the Royal Anthem. Different country pages have addressed this in different ways and deletion is not the only answer. If I were you I would try arguing for the "note" solution that Australia used. See if you can't move the other side to compromise. Sincerely your fellow non-monarchist editor only trying to get both sides to see the light of compromise Dkriegls (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The debate is over. Your "outsiders [sic]" assessment is factually incorrect. It is clearly a song for political ceremony. It is not performed in parliament or any legislative assembly in Canada other than when the GG or LGG is present. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does proving it is just for political ceremony negate its inclusion? There is no Wikipedia consensus on this that I know of. Is it used for anything else in Australia where they managed to reach a compromise for inclusion? Additionally, how does your edit summary ("what an arrogant editor you are Dkriegls") further your argument? Dkriegls (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you know where you are. Please look at what you're comparing. You are comparing the article of the nation of Australia with the template of the music of Canada. Our article on the music of Canada at least mentions "GStQ" while Music of Australia doesn't. There is no music of Australia template. The article on our nation does list "GStQ". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I am truly sorry that I didn't make that comparison clear. It likely caused a lot of confusion about my suggestions. I was linking to the country page on purpose. Music nav boxes are not the only template were this debate has arisen. I was referencing the debate over the Infobox at the Australia country page becomes of the resulting compromise. They ended up listing the National Anthem with a hyphenated note about the Royal Anthem. Additionally, the Infobox at the Canada country page includes the Motto and Crest which both seem to have identical legal standing as the Royal Anthem, which is also included. My goal was to show that there is mixed recognition of how to apply usage of Royal Anthems in the Commonwealth. I think it is reasonable to assume that highlighting the difference between the two in the music nav box could only serve to help inform the reader, who, like this discussion, may be confused about the standing of GStQ. I think at issue would be to consider whether it unduly promotes GStQ. Given that it is at the top of the Infobox for the country page for Canada, I don't see how adding it to the music box could be more of a promotion than that. Dkriegls (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First, it has been debated at Canada. Second, the only reason it's on the Canada article is because there's a parameter for it. It belongs there. This is not the place for it and it would set a precedent for a major country and so it does not belong here. It is not music by a Canadian (which the entries here are) it has no legal status in Canada other than being the de facto royal anthem and it's an imposition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that its hybrid use as the first six bars song for the GG and LGG is Canadian specific, but not strongly. More importantly, your suggestion that this would set a precedent for music nav boxes interets me. Are there no other examples of Royal Anthems being added to a Music Nav box? Dkriegls (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you have the time to do this? I don't. I did something similar earlier, but it only looked at commonwealth countries. I suggested that Miesianiacal should do it, but apparently that wasn't appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Legality vs. tradition

Clearly from the above discussion, the Royal Anthem has no legal status, though it is a part of Canadian tradition. The Governor General's "Viceregal Salute" consists of "the first six bars of the Royal Anthem, 'God Save the Queen'. [10]. How important is tradition in deciding on inclusion or exclusion? Sunray (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not. Which is why "The Maple Leaf Forever" isn't listed. It used to be an alternate, de facto national anthem until "O Canada" was made the official anthem. It is the authorized regimental march of The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada and The Royal Westminster Regiment and has been used during two large-scale sporting events. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It is legally recognized, not everything legal is an independent act of parliament: Here is official government recognition of the song as an offical Musical salute to the Royals, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors (as the first six bars of the Vice Regal Salute)Dkriegls (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Tradition isn't relevant to this particular discussion; "O Canada" is a traditional song, having been played and sung in Canada for a hundred years before it became the national anthem, but that is not, I believe, the reason why it's in the navbox. It seems to be there because the national anthem of Canada is associated with the music of Canada by virtue of it being "official music" of the Canadian state, i.e. defined and regularly used by the government, across the country, for a symbolic, nation-related purpose. In that regard, GSTQ is no different; it may not be made the royal anthem by law, but it has been recognised by parliament, the government, and the military as the royal anthem and used officially (i.e. by the government and military) as such, across the country, to honour the Canadian sovereign and the eleven governors. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"GSTQ is no different"? It has nothing to do with codification in law, which in itself is a huge difference, it also does not have the support of the populous as the majority don't even know the song although they may know the melody, and that includes those born in Canada before 1980. It's used ceremonially by those bodies you've mentioned. That's all. Whenever I've seen the two songs listed side-by-side, "GStQ" is always second, and prior to 1980 when it was performed, it was always performed second. Please don't overstate your case.
Here's a typical hansard that coincidentally marks the Queen's Golden Jubilee. The parliament, that you state use it officially, states:
"The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Crowfoot."
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
And who lead GStQ on such a momentous occasion surely someone in the parliament led the singing. No one. Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE (shouting intended). In fact, you'll notice that the recognition of the Golden Jubilee is not the first order of business. It's the fifth.
The song is not usually performed in parliament, only on special occasions. God save the people of Canada from the monarchists and the Anglophiles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say parliament uses it. Popularity isn't relevant. The relevance of law isn't particularly clear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The relevance in Canadian law is 100% crystal clear: "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 How can you be so oblivious of that one phrase when I post it at least once a week? How can that not be clear? Legal status would be what "O Canada" has. Legal status is what "God Save the Queen" doesn't have. That means it has no copyright protection. That means there is no law that declare how and when it should be used. That means no laws of any sort apply to the song. So if I want to write a punk song that mocks the lyrics and the Queen I can do it (and be soundly ridiculed and panned as a derivative of The Sex Pistols). Of course you know that you're just not willing to admit it.
Popularity is only relevant here because this template is about popular music in Canada.
And you have written that it has "parliament's approval" and "parliament's recognition" as royal anthem. Fine. But they don't perform it except for certain ceremonies. In other words, they have no use for it, and neither should this template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Repeating the fact that GSTQ has no "legal status" doesn't explain why "legal status" is relevant in this context.
You're free to release a punk version of "O Canada" and mock Canada ("O Canada" is not copyright protected; mocking the country isn't illegal).
The template is not about popular music in Canada.
GSTQ is played in parliament (parliaments, actually); at ceremonies for the installation of the governor general and lieutenant govenrors, throne speeches, addresses to the legislature by the sovereign, etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Finally a coherent and salient point. GStQ is played in parliament, at ceremonies for the installation of the governor general. So it's a ceremonial song, or a song used for specific occasions. Thanks for agreeing with one of my points.
Music awards, charts, festivals, media, anthem, and then regional music scenes. If it's not about popular music what in the world is it about? Save for the imposition of the anthem, it's entirely about popular music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"O Canada" is a ceremonial song, too. So, of what relevance to your argument is the ceremonial nature of GSTQ?
Popular Canadian music is included in the navbox. The navbox isn't specifically about popular music in Canada; it includes music that doesn't fit the popular music category, plus "O Canada" isn't popular music. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. The question was, "If it's not about popular music what in the world is it about?" Again, you stated what it wasn't about but not what it was about. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's about Music in Canada. Isn't that, at least, obvious? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Elaborate please. Use an adjective. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not that difficult M.
Is it about classical music of Canada? It is one of several genres listed, but nothing else specific to it or any other grenre is listed.
Is it about ancient native music of Canada? Nothing even remotely close to that is presented although current forms are listed.
Is it about the history of music of Canada? No eras of music are listed.
Is it about the production of music of Canada? No music producers or studios are listed.
Is it about the manufacturing of music of Canada? No music labels or manufacturing plants are listed.
Is it about the broadcasting of music of Canada? No music-only radio stations are listed.
Is it about the performers of music of Canada? None are listed.
So it's not just about music of Canada?
Perhaps modern music of Canada or Contemporary music of Canada is better suited.
However I would like you to come up with a term to describe what the template lists, and don't say Music of Canada, because that is not completely accurate, and if you want inaccurate, you might as well keep GStQ out since you think that somehow accurately represents something but can't seem to explain what. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's about music of Canada. If you want to expand it to include any of the above that isn't already included, be bold. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop evading the direct question. What is the template about? Because it is not completely accurate to simply say it's about "the music of Canada". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop dismissing the direct answer. It is about music of Canada; that's why it's called "Music of Canada". What qualifies to go in and/or how it goes into the navbox can be debated, as evidenced by this month and a half long dispute. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While it is about the music of Canada I tried to show how it's not about all of the music of Canada. I don't want a debate, we've had enough of that. I want to know what you think belongs here and what doesn't. That will help me, and possibly other editors, to understand why you're insisting on including GStQ. This is why I believe you're being evasive since you're not answering the question directly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying what I think belongs here isn't the same as asserting what this navbox is about. You're right, it doesn't now include links towards all topics that fall under the umbrella subject of music in Canada (more is missing, actually: for example, where's the Canadian Music Hall of Fame?). I think it should, as much as possible, do the opposite, and do so in the most efficient way, of course (the genres listed in that section of the box could all be replaced with a link to Canadian music genres, for instance). But, these are matters for other discussions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
But what do you think this template should include and what should it exclude? I am doing my best to try to understand you and I have no hidden agenda. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just remove all anthems

Including any anthem... national, royal, provincial... in the template is silly. None of them sync up with the rest of the content, which is music in Canada in the most general of senses. Alternatively, create an article on patriotic music of Canada and include both songs along with Ode to Newfoundland and the like and then link to that -- MichiganCharms (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, this sets a precedent as other infoboxes do include national anthem, but from an industry standpoint, this does make the most sense. If we don't mind creating the precedent I would be in favour of this option. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
We could just do the patriotic music article and link it next to the national anthem if we're uncomfortable with setting precedent. This could be done for numerous other countries with a lot of patriotic hymns and unofficial anthems. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I support the deletion, but also support Görlitz's suggestion that some alternative recognition be considered. Dkriegls (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what should be done - delete both anthems. GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that proposal, as well (though, placing Patriotic music of Canada next to "National anthem" doesn't seem the right way to implement it; a new field could easily be added to Template:infobox music of). However, roux was pretty emphatic in his rejection of the idea of removing the national anthem from the template. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Roux, to be blunt, is in extreme violation of WP:AGF and especially WP:CIV and if a consensus can be reached without him, I don't think there should a problem in implementing it. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You, to be blunt, have no idea what you are talking about. When you are as familiar with Miesianiacal's tactics and POV-pushing as I am, you will understand exactly why there has been zero A of GF--because absolutely none is warranted. AGF is not a suicide pact, and it is certainly not an excuse to be wilfully blind to the actions of someone well known for their obduracy. Unless and until you are actually familiar with Miesianiacal's history (and G2bambino, and Gbambino, I can't remember the rest of his former usernames at this time), I suggest you keep your smug little comments to yourself.
And yes, I categorically oppose removing the national anthem from the template. There is no more Canadian music than our national freaking anthem. → ROUX ₪ 19:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been on this encyclopedia for 5 years and I'm more than aware of Miesianical's history and, yes, I don't think it can be debated that there is a serious monarchist POV on Canadian articles. But that does not give you the right to violate WP: CIV and attempt to impede discussion simply because you don't like the fact that the discussion is being held. This is where we are, we need to work to find solutions. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would have an issue with a patriotic music page and adding a section to the template. I'll happily volunteer to write the sister pages for the United States and United Kingdom and Australia. I'm trying to compromise and create a workable solution so we can move on from this lame little spat. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Impede discussion? You mean the discussion which exists solely because Miesianiacal--as usual--is being obstinate about getting his way and imposing his POV once again, and has therefore forumshopped this around everywhere except Arbcom ffs? → ROUX ₪ 19:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The merits of the discussion aren't up for debate, though. The discussion is happening whether any of us want it to or not. There can only be solutions. If you want to take a stand against POV pushing, come up with a solution that can satisfy everyone while the template NPOV. That is the only way to end this discussion, I'm afraid. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The NPOV solution is to remove a song which has absolutely zero legal or official recognition in Canada. I don't give a tinker's about 'satisfying' everyone. → ROUX ₪ 19:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The assertion that legal recognition matters is your POV, and this debate keeps going, in part, because you keep pushing it. There has also been eight other editors who've, in the course of this dispute, disagreed with your demand that the royal anthem be deleted. The way forward is to find some resolution that satisfies more than just your wants. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No, this debate has been forumshopped around--by you, your use of the passive voice notwithstanding--because you refuse to accept that the extreme monarchist POV you have been pushing for years isn't The One True Way. → ROUX ₪ 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Following the dispute resolution process isn't forumshopping. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deliberately drawing out the process because you aren't getting your way, however, is. Not to mention forumshopping the dispute to pages that have absolutely no place in the DR ladder. It's also extremely educational that you stopped short of ArbCom. Self preservation, obviously, as you know exactly how untenable your behaviour is--the ArbCom spotlight wouldn't allow your usual nonsense. → ROUX ₪ 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Once again, you are a participant in this dispute and you have done your part to draw it out. Indeed, it wasn't you who pursued the dispute resolution process (though, the onus was actually on you, Walter, and UrbanNerd to do so, since your change to the status quo was challenged), I did. Indeed, again, it was you who pointed refused to participate once it hit MedCom. The two places I went that aren't part of the DRP I went to in the hopes of quelling two sub-issues bogging the larger one down: 1) abhorrent personal attacks, bad faith accusations, and obstruction (all of which still continues) and 2) what the original consensus version of this navbox was. You won't find any evidence at either of those two locations of me trying to drum up support for my side of this argument here. And this dispute didn't go to ArbCom because Sunray kindly volunteered to help mediate here. I trust that clears up your confused take on this sad affair. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Your cognitive dissonance--a nicer term than hypocrisy--astounds me; you bitch about 'personal attacks' (there haven't been any; everything I have said has been rather soundly based in your observed and provable behaviour) while attacking my intelligence by claiming that I have 'confusion.' I am not confused about anything, and you know it. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Then report me in the proper location. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To what purpose? So you can yet again draw something out by wikilawyering the fuck out of whatever you can get your hands on until everyone else gives up? Nothing has had an effect on your behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Then be quiet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
When your hypocrisy and wikilawyering stop, I will stop pointing them out. → ROUX ₪ 21:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Then point it out to someone who might care. I'm not interested in your abuse. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Truth ≠ abuse. → ROUX ₪ 07:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

An article of patriotic songs of Canada would be short but appreciated. However, this doesn't explain why Royal Anthem should be included here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry missed "We could just do the patriotic music article and link it next to the national anthem if we're uncomfortable with setting precedent". Got it now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad that "Oh, Canada" will be axed, due to the GSTQ inclusionists. But there's no other alternative. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely another alternative: not giving into the childish demands of those who demand that if they can't have their way then everyone else must lose as well. This is all rather depressingly familiar. → ROUX ₪ 20:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not quite that easy, Roux. You'd have to find a way to bar GSTQ inclusionists from this Template. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually it would be very easy for an adult to realize that GSTQ is about as relevant to Canadian music as Take Me Out To The Ball Game. In fact, the latter is probably more relevant. → ROUX ₪ 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustrations, but only Canadian monarchist editors can control Canadian monarchist editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Such a pity that they--well, one--is incapable of NPOV editing. → ROUX ₪ 20:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to come out as saying that if there can be no creative solution to satisfy everyone, I have no choice but to say no to the inclusion here. It's simply not supported by the template or by any precedent on another article. And I say this as someone who, theoretically as the grandson of a Canadian citizen, supports the monarchy. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I am a first-generation Canadian with dual British citizenship. I drink toasts to HM's health on her birthday, her official birthdays in the UK and Canada, and have watched her annual speech to the Commonwealth every year without fail since I was about ten years old. The last time she was here in Canada I got up early on a Sunday morning (after working a brutal service and not getting out of the restaurant until well after 2am) just to see her--and luckily got the chance to exchange a few words with her. I am very much a monarchist, and would fight tooth and nail against the (relatively inevitable) change which will be coming sometime in the next 50 years or so to write the monarchy out of the constitution. But I am also cognizant of reality, and the fact that the monarchy as such has very little to do with day-to-day life in Canada. → ROUX ₪ 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. This is about reflecting reality and adhering to the aims of the project. I don't even object to the strict constitutional interpretations that prop up as they're supported by custom if not important to the average Canadian, but fighting to shoehorn songs in where they have no business being is just taking advantage. This isn't even about republicanism vs monarchism or anything like that. That's not even a real fight in Canadian politics at this point. It's about what should and should not be on a template for popular music within Canada. I still support a patriotic music article and don't see why national anthems should be on the template, but I'm prepared to accept whatever consensus is reached. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As I've said before, I can see how Canadian anthems can fit into a navbox that's generally about music in Canada (not (yet, anyway) specifically about pop music), but can also buy the argument that they don't belong here either; or, don't have to be named specifically (as Resolute pointed out some time ago, the two anthems are the only two actual songs in the box; "one of these things just doesn't belong here", as the Sesame Street song used to go). Creating a patriotic songs article actually allows one link in this template to lead readers to information about more than one or two songs. It's quite economical, come to think of it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, to me this makes more sense than anything and is a precedent I'd be comfortable in setting because I think it could be adopted on numerous articles. We would leave the national anthem field, as well, so it's option which you would want to use to for smaller countries who might not have more than just a national anthem. But in a country like Canada or the US or UK or Australia or Russia, etc. where there are numerous official, semi-official, sub-national and traditional anthems of this nature, it's an article that makes sense. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with a separate patriotic song list. Though I can just see the wonderful debate in the US about what constitutes a patriotic song :) Dkriegls (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You mean "inclusionists". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I spelt it right. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Then you must have missed this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (not to mention this). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gah! So you did. My apologies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Moxy has changed opinions and simply indicated that discussion must occur. It has. The others were brought in by your polling. You also have a question to answer above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Mounting an RfC isn't polling, Walter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected. RfCs aren't polling M. Now go answer the question above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well again, I accept deleting both 'anthems' from this Template. I do so, to put an end to this GSTQ dispute. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A sourced approach: two in one

I looked to see what external sources might say about this matter. The best source seems to be the Encyclopedia of Music in Canada which is conveniently available online. They have an article National and royal anthems which covers the history of the matter in a comprehensive way. I suggest that we create an article with a similar title such as National and royal anthems of Canada. The template can then link to this. Honour will be satisfied and our readership will get a good link to a comprehensive account of the affair which will list all the various songs and tunes that have been candidates for the role over the years. Warden (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea - but we would need those of us that actually edit history articles over music to get involved. Moxy (talk
Could "National and royal anthems [of Canada]" be a section of Patriotic songs in Canada? I think the latter article, with a wider scope, may be of more use to readers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Again though, it's rather pathetic that we need to create another Template, in order to stop the pushing of GSTQ on this Template. Ya gotta wonder, how many more accomodations must be made, before Canadian monarchist PoV pushers are restrained. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with creating an article on National and royal anthems. Sunray (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, when are we gonna remove the National Anthem from this Template? GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It might work, but then would we remove that material from the Music of Canada article and simply have a short one-liner there with {{main}} to point to this article? Don't want that change to come as a shock to anyone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Check for consensus

It seems to me that there is a consensus to remove anthems from this template. Have I read that right? Sunray (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I think there are a few who would object. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose this. The matter is clearly a significant issue in Canadian culture and politics and so it would be a service to our readers to give them a relevant link. Note also that I am not a Canadian monarchist/republican unlike GoodDay, say, who makes an overt statement about his preference on his user page. The views of activists and extremists should be discounted per WP:SOAP. We are here to provide neutral information in the manner of an encyclopedia and so should look to the usage of other encyclopedia, as suggested above. Warden (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't push a republican PoV. If I did, I would (for example) start an AfD at Monarchy of Canada & would attempt to remove every mention of a Canadian monarchy across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Warden, I don't quite understand your objection. The proposal is not to have this navbox pretend the anthems don't exist; it's to combine the two out-of-place links to specific songs into one link to an article about the two songs (and maybe more). No information is lost and the presentation of the path to that information is both neutral and more economical. (There are other parts of the navbox that could do with receiving the same treatment.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • When Sunray says "remove anthems from this template", I suppose him to mean a complete removal. I have no objection to replacement with a consolidated link, as suggested above. Warden (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Taking into consideration that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, ... [rather] decision-making [that] involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns...", then, I would conclude that there is a consensus to remove the anthems so long as they're replaced with a link to a new article about either just the national and royal anthems or Canadian patriotic songs (the latter being my preference). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is no song more definitively Canadian by any metric than O Canada. → ROUX ₪ 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - I will grit my teeth and grudgingly support the idea of removing both anthems and replacing with a link to nationalistic (or whatever word gets used) songs of Canada if and only if Miesianiacal is permanently and irreversibly banned from editing such an article until the heat death of the universe, thereby avoiding his inevitable POV-pushing on that article instead of this template. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: A legitimate concern has been raised about this proposal (i.e., "O Canada" is an exemplar of Canadian music). Are there alternate proposals that might get consensus? Sunray (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There's only 2 courses available: 1) remove both anthems or 2) remove the royal anthem. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Leaving both anthems is also a possible option. Of course, it seems it too won't get unanimous support. But why did you leave it out? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I left it out, because the royal anthem's inclusion (with the national anthem) is what started the whole dispute. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, its removal (your option 2) started this dispute. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything from this Template. The royal anthem's being on this Template, is the source of the dispute-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say you removed anything from the template.
You may as well extend your logic and argue that the existence of the navbox started this dispute.
None of this is satisfying Sunray's request. One anthem, both anthems, no anthems: these are all possibilities, but have been explored. We've been asked for a new idea, though I can't think of one right now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
My point is, nobody is requesting that the 'royal anthem' stay & the 'national anthem' go. Thus the 'royal anthem' is the core of the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
No, nobody is, nobody suggested anyone was, and, even so, it doesn't mean keeping both anthems isn't an option. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion/dispute will thus continue, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Special treatment for O Canada?

I have not spent much time with music pages on Wikipedia so this is an honest question. I am from the US and think our national anthem is special, so I not trying to be uncivil. But, why is the national anthem the only song on the template? It would seem to me that the compromise offered above for a patriotic music link actually fits the rest of the template, given that there are no other individual songs on the template, only groups. So honestly, why give the national anthem special treatment? Dkriegls (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If the 'national anthem' is deleted from the Template, I won't loose any sleep over it. I mentioned earlier, the Template shouldn't have individual songs listed. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The consensus has been that since it is included on other similar templates it should remain here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the national anthems should be deleted from all Music Templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is that consensus? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm speculating here, but I think the national anthem field was added to the navbox template because there's no doubt a country's national anthem falls within the scope of music in that country. However, I haven't yet seen a convincing explanation of how linking to an article on Canadian patriotic songs, that itself would cover (probably first) the national anthem, in any way defines the national anthem as un-Canadian or less Canadian, if indeed there is such a metric to use. The purpose of this navbox is not to define what songs are Canadian or which is most Canadian, anyway; it is to help readers navigate between articles withint the topic of music in Canada, which would still be achieved (more economically, in fact) by using the one link to an article about multiple Canadian patriotic songs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The royal anthem tends to be viewed as a British song, another likely reason for resistance to its inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Which is why we use reliable sources. I don't get the relevance of your comment to mine, however. I was speaking specifically about the national anthem, since that's what Dkriegls asked about and it's the removal of that song upon which those opposed to the "patriotic songs article" proposal are basing their opposition. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone stopped to consider how WP:LAME this dispute it? Please, flip a coin and move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
These disputes tend to happen concerning the British monarchy in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've said more than once that a vote is likely the only way to resolve this matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Then let's have one and get this bloody debate over with. Nations United (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Seconded -- MichiganCharms (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Voting is not a way to settle disputes in WP and, in any case, there have been several inconclusive polls already. The options were, I believe, correctly stated by GoodDay in the section above: 1) remove both anthems or 2) remove the royal anthem. We do not have consensus to remove both anthems—several editors have pointed out that O Canada is an exemplar of Canadian music. What I am not seeing is a rationale that justifies adding the Royal Anthem to the template. Have I missed something? Sunray (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You haven't missed it. It's never been offered except "she's the monarch of Canada and so we should list it". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm missing a rational for keeping the National anthem, besides that's just the way it is done. Creating a link for patriotic music fits with the templates format of links to song/music groupings and serves neither a pro nor anti-monarch agenda (IMO). The arguments for non-deletion due to how important it is to Canada fail to address why a Patriot Music link doesn't achieve this same end. The royal anthem can be added to the linked page, with caveats explaining its limited use and legal standing in Canada. It's a simple solution, and ends the dispute without loss of content for the reader, which is the most important aspect. Dkriegls (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that many other national music templates include the national anthem and that seems to be the best reason to keep it. Your suggestion seems good, but I would make it nationalistic and patriotic songs. Canada hasn't traditionally been strong on patriotism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


@ Sunray: There's never been a consensus to remove the royal anthem, either (hence, this debate still continues). You must have indeed missed the rationales given for including it; they're in amongst all the verbiage, some specifically here, here (in direct response to your request for a summary of reasons), here, here, and peppered throughout all the discussion above and elsewhere. If one reviews them, I'm sure it can be seen how few, if any, are as simple as "she's the monarch of Canada and so we should list it".
It can't be disputed that "O Canada" is an important piece of music in Canada. However, it remains to be seen how or why this navbox is supposed to determine what is the most Canadian song and demonstrate that by showing it as the sole song in the box. Navboxes are simply supposed to "[contain] links to a group of related articles." As Dkriegls notes, linking to a patriotic songs article does exactly that without diminishing the importance of "O Canada" within Canada's musical repitoire and avoids any bias (from anyone's point of view) in this box. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
GSTQ is a British song, that's likely an underlying reason for some editors wanting it excluded from this Template. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not just a British song anymore. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's never been an uncontested addition either. You bullied an editor to insert it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes you did. We can ask the editor if you would like but the edit history shows what happened.
"O Canada" has a place both in law and in common culture. I have given examples of that before (spontaneous singing in the streets during the 2010 Winter Olympics, crowds singing it during international sporting events during game play, etc.). "God Save the Queen" does not enjoy that legal or and no longer enjoys that popular support. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The histories of the template and this talk page shows I did not.
The relevance of greater popularity and legal status to this debate remains in question; no eludication has yet been given for why anthems, specifically (if anthems are to be included), must meet those narrow parameters that just so happen to be characteristics of one of the official anthems in Canada (thereby favouring it) and not the other (thereby excluding it). Without explanation otherwise, it appears to be deliberate favoritism and exclusion rooted in personal preference, which is contrary to WP:NPOV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yet, insisting that the 'royal anthem' be included with the national anthem, can also appear as being rooted in personal preference - which is contrary to NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. If anthems are to be included, including both official anthems is partial to neither. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be an accurate and/or useful statement if Canada had more than one official anthem. Since the only official anthem is O Canada, a fact with which you are quite familiar by this point, your statement is nonsensical. → ROUX ₪ 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That something is official only when it has "legal status" is your personal definition of "official" and, as such, has no bearing on this discussion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
But your personal definition is different, I suppose? Fuck that nonsense. There is not a single Act of Parliament, regulation, warrant, letter patent, or order-in-council governing the use of GSTQ in an official capacity, notably unlike O Canada (and the coat of arms and the flag and every other national symbol we have). Heritage itself states that there is no legal status and is considered as Canada's royal anthem--which is, one hopes someone old enough to remember the Clinton years will notice, not the same as is. → ROUX ₪ 17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
GSTQ doesn't get the same recognition as the nationa anthem, because GSTQ is a British song. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, both songs should be excluded based on their bigotry towards atheists. Both song are pro-religion. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I use the standard - that is, the dictionary - definition of "official", not my own. It does not say that something is official only when it is created by or given a designation by act of parliament or order-in-council. If what you say is the definition of "official" were true, the UK would have no official national anthem or flag. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. → ROUX ₪ 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Non sequitur. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Except not. You brought up other stuff that is irrelevant to this discussion. Using a dictionary definition to support your position when the government has never said it is official is the very definition of WP:SYN. You know this, of course. → ROUX ₪ 18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then your position is undermined by your own argument since there's no government source saying "O Canada" is official. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The pedantry is entirely yours. O Canada is the national anthem of Canada. There is no such law governing GSTQ. → ROUX ₪ 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The word "official" isn't anywhere in there except relating specifically to the status of consolidations. So, we're back to the "only that which is created or given a designation by law is official" argument again, again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Its lyrics were made official in 1980 and it was then made the only national anthem by Canada's parliament. Sorry that "official" isn't in there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Just as the government says "God Save the Queen" is "played officially". However, neither meets roux's strict requirement that a government source explicitly saying "[X] is official" is needed to make something official, lest one engage in synthesis. Of course, no such requirement need be met, for either anthem to be considered official. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. You're either wilfully wrong, ignorant, or a boldfaced liar. You know that "O Canada" is legally Canada's anthem via an act of parliament, that makes it de jure, as opposed to "GStQ" which is only the de facto royal anthem. No act of parliament has made "GStQ" such. Our own article on the national anthem indicates exactly what I'm saying and has two perfectly good references. There are more but I don't have time to split hairs with you M. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You're not sorry at all, of course. But, I reiterate (for, what, the fifteenth time?) the point neither you nor roux can seem to refute: in no way is the definition of "official" solely "the status of only that which has been created or given designation by law". Denying it doesn't make it less true. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This dispute has gone on for so long, that no matter the result (inclusion/exclusion), it's gonna look like the result of personal preference. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asked, in light of WP:CIVIL, to strike the statement above: "You're either wilfully wrong, ignorant, or a boldfaced liar." However, I'm here instead to clarify that M earlier stated that "O Canada" is the official national anthem when he copied and pasted: "Since the proclamation of 'O Canada' as the National Anthem in 1980". He knows that it's the official national anthem and that it achieved that status in 1980. While he would like us to think that "official" needs to be in the phrase, we all know that when the Queen proclaims something that makes it official, unless he's questioning the queen in which case, God save the queen. While my response may not have been treating this particular editor "with consideration and respect", the actions of that editor certainly don't do so of several editors with whom he disagrees. While I should not stoop to such tactics, I don't feel particularly remorseful for pointing out this editor's shortcomings in this matter and would feel more than welcome to have M strike all of the uncivil actions performed during this debate. In which case I would strike the above comment while leaving this one intact. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said when "O Canada" became the official national anthem. I asked roux for a government source that uses the specific word "official" specifically in phrasing about "O Canada" because that's precisely what roux first demanded I provide for "God Save the Queen", lest I otherwise be declared guilty of performing synthesis; in other words, I put back to him the same request he made to me purely to point out a flaw in his argument. Much of your frustration, Walter, seems to stem from you responding to either comments you invented for me, rather than what I actually said, or those of mine you've taken out of context. You also continue to simply ignore the fact that the definition of "official" is not solely "the status of only that which has been created or given designation by law".
Calling me a dick - even passively within a piped link - is uncivil, BTW. So is calling me a liar. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Read the essay and you'll see why it suits you M. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That's still being uncvil, Walter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not uncivil, but it is a dick move itself. At the heart of this recent discussion is Roux's insistence that you find some government document with the word "official" in. This itself is pedantic. Repeatedly requesting it when we fully understand (read: WP:CONSENSUS) that it's the de facto royal anthem is in itself a dick move. Your response to it is no better, and your response in kind does not change the fact that "O Canada" is the de jure anthem and is itself a dick move. However, none of this, including the disingenuity of the two aforementioned editors, doesn't advanced the topic of the inclusion of GStQ in the template. That should be our purpose not bickering over the use of a single word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Your analysis of what is and is not a "dick move" seems to be based upon a belief that this discussion is about who accepts and who denies what is de facto and what is de jure. It is not. It is still about whether or not GSTQ is an official anthem in Canada, which inherently makes the single word "official" a central subject.
I'm all for advancing (and ultimately wrapping up) discussion on the wider subject of inclusion or exclusion of all anthems or one anthem. But I fear that won't happen until certain demonstrable truths are accepted by certain editors; namely, the definition of "official" is neither solely "the status of only that which has been created or given designation by law" nor "only that which is specifically associated with the specific word 'official' in a government document". Trying to point out the fallacious nature of assertions to the contrary, in order to make this dispute move forward, is not a "dick move". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You've missed the point. Requesting a specific word, in this case "official", is pedantic. Repeatedly doing so is being a dick. And in short, what is and is not legal is the issue where "legal" is a synonym to official. "O Canada" is the legal national anthem. "God Save the Queen" is the legal royal anthem. The former is codified (proclaimed and all that) while the latter is common law (never proclaimed as such but long-standing use has made it such). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the royal anthem equal to the national anthem? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No more than lacrosse is equal to hockey in Canada. Both are official sports (and unfortunately, both recognized in law) but one has popular appeal and the other doesn't. However, fighting over a single word: "official' is just silly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You've been fighting over the song's official status, equating official only with legal, since almost day one, Walter! And now you say both "O Canada" and "God Save the Queen" have legal status? I mean, I somewhat agree (I would just say GSTQ is the royal anthem by convention, not common law, though the two concepts are similar). But, if that is your position now, then why do you still oppose the presence of GSTQ in the navbox (which I assume you do, given the option for the navbox you presented below)? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't take de facto or common law status as opposition to Heritage Canada's statement that it has "no legal status in Canada". My statement is that it is recognized as the de facto Royal Anthem but and Heritage Canada says there is no law compelling its use or protecting the song. That's why it doesn't belong in the infobox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
(The National Anthem Act compels nothing and protects nothing. Regardless,) Why is the existence of an associated statute law the benchmark for inclusion of a song in this navbox? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal anthem headache

I reckon the stalemate continues, with the 'royal anthem' being the root of the problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have noted, above, that I will accept removal of both if and only if Miesianiacal is not permitted to touch the putative 'patriotic songs' article in any capacity whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You'd need a topic-ban to accomplish that. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Music_of_Canada/Archive_2&oldid=1127713629"