Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening Statements

[edit]

Guidelines

[edit]

Please write an opening statement, which discusses both (i) the individualized disputes at hand and (ii) your opinion towards resolving those disputes.

Please follow the following guidelines in writing your statements:

  1. Statements must be less than 500 words.
  2. Discuss only your viewpoint, do not write about other parties' behavior (at least at this stage)
  3. Remember to be civil and open-minded during the process. You have to give a little to get a little during mediation.

Additionally, please remember to watchlist this page so you are up-to-date on the status of the discussions here. Lord Roem (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User: Walter Görlitz

[edit]

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. The current monarch is the queen. The queen's anthem is "God Save the Queen". However that's where it ends. Most Canadians do not sing "God Save the Queen" at functions or events. It is reserved for a few special events. Just because official bodies in Canada such as parliament, legislatures, or military bodies perform it in honour of the monarch or for some other reason does not change the fact that it has no special legal status in Canada, unlike the Canadian anthem. In short, it's a specific song used for specific occasions and has no more special status in Canada than other songs used for specific events such as "Happy Birthday" or a sports team's official song. In fact, those latter songs may have more legal status in Canada: "Happy Birthday" enjoys copyright protection for instance. In short, since it has no legal status in Canada, it should not be included. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it ceased to be an official anthem in 1980.
Since the proclamation of “O Canada” as the National Anthem in 1980, “God Save The Queen” has been performed as the Royal Anthem of Canada in the presence of members of the Royal Family, as part of the Salute accorded to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors and on other occasions. http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/fr-rf/crnCdn/crn_mpls-eng.pdf
page 75 --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:Miesianiacal

[edit]

The template in question is one that's a navbox for Canadian music. Since 1 September 2004, it has included the Canadian national anthem, "O Canada". I added the Canadian royal anthem, "God Save the Queen", on 26 June 2010. It was my thinking then that it was inconsistent to include one official, "state" song - the national anthem - but exclude others - the royal anthem (and possibly the viceregal salute, being the only other two of which I'm aware, though there may be more). I maintain that position today.

It's my strong feeling that it is of no relevance to this matter that Canada's royal anthem is not designated as such by statute law (as the national anthem is) or order-in-council. If we look at the United Kingdom for an example, we see that neither law nor order makes the Union Jack the British national flag nor "God Save the Queen" the British national anthem, yet nobody denies that banner and that song are officially the national flag and national anthem, respectively. This is analogous to the status of "God Save the Queen" in Canada; the parliament of Canada approved "God Save the Queen" as the royal anthem in 1967[1] and today the government of Canada (including the Cabinet, Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Forces, etc.) has designated and uses it as the royal anthem of Canada; the CF has regulations regarding when the royal anthem is to be played and even what version has been decreed by the Queen to be used;[2] the DCH states: "[it] is performed officially in Canada in the presence of members of the Royal Family, and as part of the Salute accorded to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors [emphasis mine]."[3]

It therefore is the official royal anthem of Canada.

However, that said, there is a question of whether or not any anthem or official state song should be included in a template that focuses mostly on regional music, culture, genres, and awards. My inclination is that anthems should be included, but could be convinced that they don't belong at all.

Additionally, there is the procedural matter of maintaining the status quo until a consensus for change is reached. "God Save the Queen" remained in the template for some 19 months and, when its place there was challenged periodically by the one same editor, it each time subsequently received support from other editors, both by being quickly restored to the template and by expressed opinions at the talk page. It should thus now be returned to the template and left until a decision on what to do with it is reached via this dispute resolution process (which has been taken here to MedCab only because the RfC resulted in an absolute tie). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of User:GoodDay

[edit]

Personally, I neither support or oppose the inclusion of GSTQ. I can see a reason for inclusion: I've heard it played 'every year' following Oh Canada at the Remberance Day services & both songs were played at my high school graduation. I can also see a reason for exclusion: Canada rightly/wrongly is seen along with 14 other Commonwealth realms as being less associated with their respective monarchies, when compared to the UK association with its monarchy. Thus GSTQ has a secondary status within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of UrbanNerd

[edit]

Canada has one legal anthem, O'Canada. All other unofficial anthem, songs, salutes, hymns, etc. do not belong in this template or the infobox in the Canada article.

Statement of User:Moxy

[edit]
Dont realy care either way. Would be best to have no songs in template at all. However - It is considered official - yet has no legal status - this position appears to be the same situation in most commonwealth countries. As seen below this has been debated out side wiki for years.Moxy (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christopher McCreery (2005). The Order of Canada: its origins, history, and development. University of Toronto Press. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-8020-3940-8..
    • Ezra Schabas (23 September 1994). Sir Ernest MacMillan: the importance of being Canadian. University of Toronto Press. p. 281. ISBN 978-0-8020-2849-5.
    • Central Intelligence Agency (12 October 2011). The CIA World Factbook 2012. Skyhorse Publishing Inc. p. 595. ISBN 978-1-61608-332-8.

Beginning Discussion

[edit]

Let's begin our discussions here with a general idea of what should be in the template. What sort of standard should be placed on inclusion of anything?

Please look to other similar templates across the WP for your arguments. Be civil, and...begin! Lord Roem (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"God Save the Queen" is recognized as Canada's Royal Anthem. It is generally only performed in the presence of a member of the royal family or their representatives. I understand that it is performed by the military and legions, both of whom are required to pledge allegiance to the monarch as well. It seems that the logic is that since the Queen Canada's monarch that it should be listed, although this has not been stated.
The arguments against are that it is not Canada's official anthem, and has not been since 1980 (which would explain why some remember it being played in school--I performed both for school assemblies when I was in elementary school). Since it is generally not performed in public, the hoi polloi have no affinity to the song and its inclusion is an anachronism of a bygone era. The argument from many in this camp is that since it has no legal status in Canada, which could mean it has no copyright status or it could mean that there is no legal necessity to perform it for any occasion, it should not be listed. There are many other songs that are performed in Canada that could be added and adding this one is a potential gateway to adding those.
The suggestion has been made that the national anthem should be removed as well, as it is not listed in the template of other nations, in which case this discussion would be moot. I am leaning toward this position as the template seems to be primarily about the music industry and the anthem seems out-of-place in it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the first question to clear up is: Should there be or not be any anthems in the template?
As I stated above, I can see cogent arguments supporting either option. (Though, removing all anthems has the bonus of, as said by Walter, rendering moot the question of whether or not the royal anthem should be there.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should remove all anthems. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - if people would like to read about an anthem they can look it up or see info in all the main articles.Moxy (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting a link to the articles on Canada's national anthems be added to the template? Currently Canadian national anthem redirects to "O Canada". The Music of Canada article has a section on the anthems of Canada, present and former. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like this process is going to break the deadlock on the template. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The general agreement is to delete all anthems from the Template. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any parties who oppose GoodDay's suggestion? Lord Roem (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose it, but not all parties are involved in this mediation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this mediation forges a consensus on this question, that would very important in this moving forward. Any specific parties you think may not join this proposal? Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roux hasn't participated, viewing the MedCab as a waste of time. Resolute hasn't participated, due to lack of interest. I'd say deleting all anthems is the way to go. Nobody seems opposed to it. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a waste of time, as is usual for any DR process initiated by Miesianiacal--it is an effort to get his way or no way. I categorically oppose removing the only song on the fucking planet that is actually officially and legally associated with Canada from the template linking to music of Canada. → ROUX ₪ 19:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though the last RfC on the royal anthem specifically came to half the participating editors calling for it to be in and half saying it should be out, I'm personally fine with removing all anthems. It seems taking all the anthems out is agreeable to most of us involved here; Resolute hasn't participated in this branch of the discussion, but the idea of deleting all the anthems was originally his, so I think it's safe to count him as a supporter. Roux, it appears (apart from the personal attack, creative accusations, and uncivil behaviour), is the only dissenter... So far. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no personal attack, there was no 'creative' accusation, and frankly you don't deserve even an ounce of civility given your endless years of wearing people down until they give up. Removing the National fucking Anthem from the template discussing the Music of Canada is bullshit baby-with-the-bathwater nonsense that you are supporting only because you are too childish to say "Oh hey, fine, I'm wrong." → ROUX ₪ 20:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself, please. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make me sick. You pretend to be civil, all the while acting in the most churlish and obstructionary way possible until people give up. Do you not understand the reason people are agreeing to take the NATIONAL ANTHEM (emphasis required, because you seem to be forgetting that) out of the major template dealing with music in this country is because it is the only way to shut you up? There is nothing that this MedCab can achieve that wasn't already dealt with at the template talkpage; nyou merely opened this so you could once again get your way via attrition, the same way you always do. Remind me again how many times I had to ask you for a reference supporting what you were stating? Oh wait.. I'ms still waiting for a reference, from the government, stating that GSTQ has any legal status in Canada whatsoever. You know, as opposed to the reference--from the government--which states unequivocally that it has none. Unlike, you know, the national fucking anthem. → ROUX ₪ 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Jolson Leber (1 April 2002). Easy Activities for Building Social Skills: Dozens of Effective Classroom Strategies & Activities to Teach Cooperation and Communication, Manners and Respect, Positive Behavior & More!. Scholastic Inc. ISBN 978-0-439-16353-8..Moxy (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take your patronizing bullshit to someone who gives a fuck. → ROUX ₪ 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my idea to remove the national anthem. It was a suggestion of Resolute's, and he gave his reasoning for it when he made it. That reasoning was not what you say it was. Others who agree with Resolute's notion are capable of saying on their own why they do.
In regard to the royal anthem, specifically: Can you suggest another path to pursue when the last step prior to this one - the RfC on whether or not the royal anthem should be in the template or not - resulted in an absolute tie?
I never said the royal anthem has legal status in Canada.
If you feel sick, you might want to simply disengage. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be 6 to 1, in favour of deleting both Oh Canada & GSTQ. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VOTE? Before we apply the change, it would be good to discuss on the template's talk page. Agreement here may not equal consensus of the editors on that talk page. I'm sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. In short, this process is worthwhile, but in no way binding: "Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it :( GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth a try. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further: In this case, I can't see how the matter can be resolved by anything other than a vote. Only one or both or none of the songs can be in there; there's no in-between (that I can see). Perhaps that's the vote to hold: "Do you agree with 1) Both the national anthem and royal anthem in the template, 2) just the national anthem in the template, 3) just the royal anthem in the template [likely an option nobody wants, but in for fairness], or 4) no anthem in the template." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa! I leave for a few hours and mass text blocks of discussion ensue! Let's get this straight -- this is not a vote. I would ask those opposing the viewpoint we discussed above (broad non-inclusion of anthems) to present a bullet-ed list of reasons. This will ensure there is some structure to our discussion. Lord Roem (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're assuming that they're participating in the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the personal dispute between some of the editors here continues, I'll be backing out of this MedCab. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - what is needed is an open mind and a general appreciation of others opinions. I think in-general we are moving forward just need to all stick to the facts not insult those we disagree with.Moxy (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your optimism, Moxy, but what is it you think we're moving towards, exactly? I see no consensus to remove or keep the royal anthem (though certain edit warriors have made sure their preferred version is in place, despite it not being the last that had consensus), nor do I see any agreement on removing all anthems. And I certainly can't imagine how there can be a compromise of any sort, given the nature of the content in dispute. I think a straight up vote on four options (see my proposal above) is the only way to resolve this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I have been assuming more people wwould get involed. But after reading how this process works I see its all up to us. I dont see how we here (a very small group) can take out the national anthem if its clearly the norm as seen by other articles and the fact there's a parameter for it. As for the Royal anthem I dont see much agreement to keep it in. I could see it listed as the "former anthem" perhaps but I dont think others will agree to this. As has been mentioned - I believe its the age differences that is the dividing line between us all - as I two grew up with the song in school and in the military.Moxy (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including the 'national anthem' & excluding the 'royal anthem', is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think when the fact is the royal anthem's presence had consensus from at least December 2010 until February of this year and the RfC on the question of whether or not to remove the royal anthem resulted in 50% wanting it in and 50% wanting it out (an even 6-6 split (though, with an additional support for inclusion offered by a user in a vote started by roux but who didn't vote in the RfC, making it acually 7 in favour of the royal anthem and 6 against)), it's a little difficult to believe there's not much agreement to keep it in; there is amongst (just) more than half of the editors who've chimed in on the matter. If there were a clearer agreement one way or the other, we wouldn't be here right now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment seems correct about the other talk and thus the link should remain as per our reverting talking policies - However during "this current talk on this page" that's not the outcome thus far. Seems we need more input for outsiders as this talk seems to small.Moxy (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It don't look like there's going to be any outsider participation. This Medcab has been declared inactive twice (so far) since it was started. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since other articles included national anthems it seems that's not going to fly. I have yet to hear a cogent argument for the inclusion of "God Save the Queen". I have heard that its because some sang it in school before it was removed as an official anthem. The closest I've heard for its inclusion is that we have a monarch and so we should include the monarch's anthem. Is that honestly the reason? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its because of its history as stated in the refs below that I assume all have read by this point. I think the real debate is over "Official" vs "legally recognized" - as all the ref say official(ly). Moxy (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GSTQ is more closely associated with the UK, anyways. Perhaps it's best to exclude it, until Canada gives it national anthem status. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although its the Queens song and she is Canada's head of state - I see your point.Moxy (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those who have been consistently against the inclusion of the royal anthem are a) willfully twisting the definition of "official" to be a synonym of "legally recognised" so as to render invalid the fact that the governments and military of Canada have defined and officially use "God Save the Queen" as the country's royal anthem and/or b) placing arbitrary restrictions on what can and cannot go in the template (anthems made such by law versus those that are not). However, I've seen nothing to indicate that any of those individuals are willing to budge from their entrenched positions. Hence, I still believe that the only way to resolve this whole affair is to call in as many participants as possible to the template talk page for one final vote on the four options I listed above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon it wouldn't harm anything, to go that route. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those monarchists consistently think the average Canadian actually cares about the monarch or its anthem don't understand what "no legal status" means and assume anything "official" should be listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, I don't see anywhere on the template's talk page or here any argument presented that's based on the presupposition that "the average Canadian actually cares about the monarch or its anthem [sic]". Thank you, though, for illustrating my earlier point about those who oppose the royal anthem's inclusion misrepresenting the meaning and importance of "legal status". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that the sic is necessary as the spelling and grammar are correct. Thank you for pointing out how completely pedantic and uselessly formal the monarchists on this list have been, mot notably M. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot passive-agressive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These personal attacks are just a useless distraction. Either refute my points with a fact-based, cogent argument or let them stand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're not personal attacks M. They're observations of your personality. if they feel like attacks, you should consider getting a better personality. You have not refuted our points with fact-based points so there's really no need for us to do so either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stand my points do, then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem & Royal Anthem

[edit]

I don't think anyone can argue that Oh Canada is the anthem that's more associated with Canada. GSTQ, is more associated with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other template boxes

[edit]

I have an idea on gathering evidence for each side before we get into nitty gritty stuff. If parties could look to other templates like 'Music of Canada', to see if there exists a 'norm' of sorts for such templates, that would be very helpful. Lord Roem (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one other "Music of [Country]" template that could be considered similar to that used for Canada. That hardly makes a norm, plus WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm backing out of this MedCab & the dispute over the inclusion/exclusion of GSTQ. The argument should be resolved between opposing sides. Heck, I'm not even listed as one of the participants in this MedCab. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to add yourself to the list. It is not exclusive. :) Lord Roem (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm thinking of moving on from this exercise, as well. The same arguments are being tossed around over and over and the incivility, personal insults, and obstinacy continues without either end or recourse; the same problems that plagued the discussion at the template talk page and which I thought would be at least minimised by coming here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's direct the discussion to several key points. Working through it in a focused way will resolve this much easier. If, however, you feel there is no result coming from this, I suggest working here to craft an RfC that is fair and neutral. I see the past RfC resulted in a tie, but if we could structure some guidelines around a second RfC, that may be the trick to finding a consensus option. Lord Roem (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is not required. Actually listing facts is. Opinion has not solved anything. When we do list facts we should explain what they mean such as "no legal status in Canada" and what "Royal Anthem of Canada" actually means in law and public use. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template boxes of other nations

[edit]
Lists national anthem
Does not list national anthem
  • Template:Irish Music possibly because it discusses both countries on the island and one is part of the UK

There is no similar Template:UK music, it's a nav box, but it does list GSTQ as the national anthem.


Most other commonwealth countries do not have a template. Did not check all countries of the world. The templates above are mostly for non-monarchies and so they obviously do not list a . In short, it's not a good idea to remove the national anthem and since most commonwealth nations that have HRH as head of state do not list "GSTQ" so we would be setting a precedent. The article on Australia only has a note indicating that it's the royal anthem. It's not in template at the top of the page. Granted, they have stronger republican tendencies. In summary, it seems that it would be an imposition on this template as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one template above for a country that also has HM as head of state: Jamaica. It's not clear whether or not GSTQ is the royal anthem of Jamaica; I can find no documentation to indicate that it is.
It does seem to be common to include the national anthem, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_March_2012/Template:Music_of_Canada&oldid=485195714"