Template talk:Music of Canada

Royal anthem

User:UrbanNerd has three times deleted the Royal Anthem from this template with the reasoning that Canada has no official royal anthem. That's the same basis for which he argued at Talk:Canada that the Royal Anthem should be deleted from the infobox at that article, but the position was roundly defeated as reliable sources were provided confirming that "God Save the Queen" is indeed the Royal Anthem of Canada as established by the government of Canada. If UN has some other reason for removing the song from this template, I'd suggest he either present it here for discussion or leave the template alone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal has a long history of adding POV nonsense like this. It was this user who added GSTQ to this template, I reverted his edit. He feels because his edit was able to last for 6 months somehow it is now solid fact. The only reason it was able to last 6 months is because this template is seldom edited and no one probably noticed it's addition. This user regularly engages in edit wars and refuses to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. GSTQ is not an anthem of Canada. In fact it was purposely taken out of legislation in parliament. I am in risk of 3RR if I revert his attempt at edit warring again, but I will wait the allotted time and revert it once again. I suggest this user use this talk page and not continue to edit war. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada indeed has a royal anthem, I heard it at my High school graduation & at every Remembrance day ceremony I attended. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And that makes it an official anthem ? Perhaps GoodDay's public school determines what's an anthem or not. Interesting. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The length of an edit's existence doesn't establish any facts; but it does mean that the edit has gained consensus through silence and the WP:BRD cycle instructs us to leave the status quo while any dispute is worked out. What establishes facts are reliable sources, and plenty were provided at Talk:Canada to establish that Canada has a royal anthem.

Threatening to continue to edit war doesn't reflect well on you; I suggest you retract that warning and not follow through on it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that whenever Miesianiacal gets in an edit war GoodDay always mysteriously comes to back up his argument. That may be something worth looking into. It is also odd that GoodDay always seems to state that he is a "republican" yet always shares the same POV monarchist ideologies and never that of a Republican. Hmmm. Also in no way does an edit remaining for 6 months on a seldom edited article equal consensus through silence. Please refrain from making up your own theories. Once again I will remind you not to engage in edit warring. Thank you. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're suggesting sock-puppetry? open an SPI. Otherwise, I'm just a strange fellow. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit rich for one who lectures others about edit warring to himself threaten to further edit war. Regardless, the guide isn't my invention: WP:SILENCE. It is the weakest form of consensus, but consensus none-the-less. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE does not apply. I reverted your edit. I was not silent. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were Bold in reverting my six month old edit, I Reverted your edit almost immediately, and now we Discuss. I'm afraid, though, it's not your place to say when WP:SILENCE does and does not apply; the guideline speaks for itself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE doesn't apply anymore as there's 3 of us here discussion the topic-in-question. So far, it's 2 to 1 who favour inclusion, as I'm the WP:THIRD in this. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about when UrbanNerd made his first revert. Not now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Any edit remaining on any article for a extended length of time which 6 months surely is, gains consensus through silence. Your revert would have been the bold move, because if others had not agreed with the previous edit they would have removed it long ago. So the others were correct in reverting you back to version before the bold edit. I would also counsel you to stop getting hostile with other editors and issuing edicts about edit warring while you are doing so yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's DJSasso. again. Haha UrbanNerd (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Grow up. Comments like "I am in risk of 3RR if I revert his attempt at edit warring again, but I will wait the allotted time and revert it once again." show that you do not understand 3RR. You can, and will, be blocked if you continue to edit war. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Get a clue ignoramus. An article that is barely ever edited happened to have an edit last 6 months before it was noticed and reverted. You clearly don't understand WP:SILENCE, or are you to decide how long an "alloted amount time" is. Quit following edit too or will you will be reported. And you will be blocked from editing. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things, its a highly visable template, so how often it is edited is irrelevant. Secondly I wasn't following anyones edits, I was part of the discussion of this topic on the Canada talk page. However, looking at your history now it appears you were following mine. Secondly. Read up on WP:NPA. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, happens to be on my watch list. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude is becoming a bore. Cool off. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again you add absolutely nothing to the conversation. Take a hike. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The royal anthem stays. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The royal anthem entry should stay, for the reasons stated above by other users. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. As such, the leader of our country is the Queen. We therefore have a royal anthem. However, "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931. So I trust that its removal will not cause any further concern or debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually not at all as both sides keep showing the same references for there arguments. "God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" although it is considered as the royal anthem,". Will this ever end can we get more people to this tlak page. Talk:Canada/Archive 19#royal anthemMoxy (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any good reason why the words 'no official status in Canada,' or similar, cannot be appended? → ROUX ₪ 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just a template. Not enough room for a long phrase like that. There are many other songs that have no official status in Canada that are sung at public gatherings, none of which are mentioned.

As for Moxy's comment, I only see one reference here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No one should add to the archive but I didn't see any references there. So do we have one reference anywhere to indicate that "God Save the King/Queen" has any official status in Canada? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The government has cearly given it official status. The references for that fact have already been provided. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The government has done no such thing. In fact, the government has unequivocally stated that GSTQ has no official status. Unless you have a reference stating otherwise, in which case please provide it. → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry M. I mist agree with ROUX and request said reference as it's not provided here. Perhaps you were thinking that it was listed elsewhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can either of you show us where the government stated the anthem has no official status? I see only where it has said the song has no legal status. It is clearly recognised by the government, armed forces, governors, etc. as the Royal Anthem and there are government and military issued protocols on when and how to play the song, which indicates the song has an official status.

Furthermore, what is the point of determining whether or not it has legal or official status? The template merely states that "God Save the Queen" is the Royal Anthem of Canada and that fact has been established. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What a piece of wikilaywering. It has no official status. Do you have a link to indicate its legal status? There are many other songs that have no official status in Canada. It is just a royal symbol as it has no official status in Canada. None. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please answer either of the questions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your questions either have been answered or don't need to be. Status is your word and you can't provide a single source to support its status. You can't provide a single reference to indicate that it has official status in Canada, simply that it's a "royal anthem". That doesn't give it any more status than "Happy Birthday" in our country, the latter of which is sung more frequently. It has no more official status than "The Hockey Song" which is more recognizable. It has no more status in Canada than "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" which has similarly gone out of fashion at celebrations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For those who seem to have missed the sources provided in the earlier discussion at Talk:Canada:

• Department of Canadian Heritage: "'God Save The Queen'... is considered as the royal anthem."
• Department of Canadian Heritage: "...[T]he playing of Canada’s Royal Anthem 'God Save The Queen'...(p.54) 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.(p.I)"
• The Canadian Encyclopedia: "'O Canada' and 'God Save the Queen'/'Dieu sauve la Reine' were approved by Parliament in 1967 as Canada's national and royal anthems."
• Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia: "[T]he Royal Anthem, 'God Save the Queen'..."
• Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan: "[T]he Royal Anthem, 'God Save the Queen'..."
• Department of National Defence: "Royal Anthem: The music of 'God Save The Queen' is considered the royal anthem of Canada... [T]he royal anthem, 'God Save The Queen'..."
• The Grand Orange Lodge of Canada: "'God Save the Queen' also serves as the royal anthem for most Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and Canada."
• Government of British Columbia: "Royal Anthem God Save The Queen"

And a few more:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: "God Save the Queen remains the royal anthem of Canada."
• Governor General of Canada: "The Viceregal Salute is composed of the first six bars of the Royal Anthem, 'God Save The Queen'..."
• Department of Citizenship and Immigration: "The Royal Anthem of Canada, 'God Save the Queen (or King)',...
• Maclean's: "God Save the Queen, our official royal anthem..."
• Ernest MacMillan: The importance of being Canadian: "In Canada's centennial year 1967, 'O Canada' with its French text, was approved as the Canadian national anthem and a year later an amended English version of a somewhat free translation by Robert Stanley Weir was also adopted. 'God Save the Queen' was made the official royal anthem."(p.281)

The song is obviously Canada's royal anthem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously Canada's royal anthem. That's not an issue. The fact that it has no official status in Canada does. Also, why would we look at another article for references? Not one of these indicates that it has any official status. Seems that our monarchists are out of luck here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't start with personal commentary and focus on the sources and the template.

I'll ask again: Though the song is obviously officially the royal anthem (does the parliament's approval of it as the royal anthem mean nothing?), of what real importance is that to this template? The template does not say "Official Royal Anthem" after "God Save the Queen"; it merely says "Royal Anthem". It makes no claim that isn't supported by a slew of sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Every entry listed has an official standing. It's either a recognized genre, organization, or other category. The national anthem is listed because it has an official status. The royal anthem is not listed because it has no official status.

We could just as easily list songs related to our national sports as they're unofficial. We could list theme songs of nationally syndicated programs there. There's no demonstrated need to add it and so it makes no sense to add it. If it had official status, supporting its addition would obvious. The fact that we are a constitutional monarchy (that doesn't recognize the song as official) and we happen to have a royal anthem for said monarch are not an issue in this template. It's lack of official status in the country is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The MMVAs do not have official status. Official status is therefore not a benchmark for inclusion. However, even if you want to pursue that line of argument for anthems, it's ridiculous to claim that a song recognised by parliament, the government, the armed forces, and the govenror general and lieutenant governors as the royal anthem is not officially the royal anthem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the word 'official' used once, by Maclean's. I don't see it used by any other source. The preponderance of evidence is that the song is not official in any sense of the word. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The MMVAs (Much Music Video Awards) do not have official status? Since when? Their status is inhered from the channel than hosts them.

I should correct my position: GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem. However the royal anthem has no legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem." Yes, it does. This means you must have reversed you earlier standard for exclusion of the song: "The royal anthem is not listed because it has no official status." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Except it does not. One reference from 55 years ago, balanced against multiple references which are silent on the subject. This is just more monarchist POV-pushing. → ROUX ₪ 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So, recognition by parliament, the government, the armed forces, and the governors (general and lieutenant) is not equal official? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not without violating WP:SYN and WP:OR, no. Show me where the govt says it is official. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You believe it's synthesis to claim a designation by government is an official designation? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see where the government has designated GSTQ as official. → ROUX ₪ 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's likely to be revealed through your yet-to-come answer to my question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You will not get an answer to any of your questions because it has a no legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking Roux. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And I'm answering. You're expectations are unreasonable and not at all polite. Your question does not have an answer and our question to you does: GStQ has a no legal status in Canada, and oddly you can't change that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait for Roux's answer. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You won't get an answer so don't bother. You should not expect an answer any more than we should expect an answer from you on its legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You should let Roux speak for himself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I answered your question. No, the song is not official without you violating WP:SYN and WP:OR. I am still waiting for you to show me where the government says the song is official. → ROUX ₪ 05:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Roux, you answered a question, yes. But not yet this one: Do you believe it's synthesis to claim a designation by government is an official designation? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

When there is not a single government source--a position I am forced to adopt given your typical refusal to actually provide a reference--stating it is official, yes. Do you have such a source, yes or no? If so, provide it, and stop your usual avoidance bullshit. If not, admit that no such source exists. This constant dance you always do when you don't have sources to back up your POV is fucking annoying and wastes everyone's time. → ROUX ₪ 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

He actually did provide sources but the only one of note is the one that says that it has "no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 That is official and it's from the the government. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Walter Görlitz for explaining that there are sources (just have to look) - Would be nice if we could keep this conversation civil and replies that are informed intelligent answers. Now that we all see there are source shall we move on.Moxy (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single source from the government stating that the anthem is official. Unless you have one, stop pretending as though there is. → ROUX ₪ 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very politely asking a simple question; not a ridiculous request. Your frustration appears to be stemming from my not letting you avoid answering it; "Provide a source that says the government says it's official" is not the answer to "Do you believe it's synthesis to claim a designation by government is an official designation?" Or, put another way, "Is a designation by government an official designation?" Things would progress much easier if you'd simply state which of the two options - yes or no - you feel is the correct one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered that question, twice, so here's a third; perhaps you will read it this time: in the absence of a government source stating the anthem is official, yes it is synthesis to claim it is official. There. Now where is your source from the government stating the anthem is official? → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't answered it; you're answering this question: "Do you believe it's synthesis to claim 'God Save the Queen' is officially the Royal Anthem of Canada if there's no source in which the goverment used the words 'official' or 'officially the' before the words 'royal anthem'?" That's very obviously not the question I asked. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Since that is the question at hand, that is the question I answered. Do you have a source from the government stating that the anthem is official? It's a yes/no question. → ROUX ₪ 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I will answer yours just as soon as you answer mine. I just clearly outlined how you've been answering a question other than the one I asked. --Ħ

You are so fucking childish it makes me want to put you over my knee and give you a proper spanking. "Neener neener neener, I'm not answering your question until you answer mine." Claiming X when the only organization with the power to make X true has not stated X is a violation of either WP:OR or WP:SYN, depending on the specific circumstances. In this case, it is WP:SYN, because you are claiming X via inference without a source. Now answer the fucking question: do you have a fucking source from the fucking government that states un-e-fucking-quivocally that GSTQ is officially the royal anthem of canada? YES OR NO. For fuck's sake, I've answered your goddamn fucking question multiple fucking times, your pretended inability to comprehend written fucking English notwithfuckingstanding. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. SOURCE. YOU HAVE ONE. YES OR FUCKING NO? → ROUX ₪ 19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me answer it for you: recognition by parliament, the government, the armed forces, and the governors (general and lieutenant) does not make it at all official. It has "no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 That is official and it's from the the government. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's the royal anthem does not give it any legal status in Canada. I have not changed my position, just clarifying it. If you read my first post to this discussion you would see that I recognized it as the royal anthem then. However, it has no legal status in Canada regardless of the number of groups nor the nature of the groups who sing it. If M would like to take this up with the government, that's his choice. Until it has a legal status in Canada, we should exclude it along with other songs that are sung at large gatherings and are recognized by those bodies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For you, it first had to have official status ("Every entry listed has an official standing... The national anthem is listed because it has an official status. The royal anthem is not listed because it has no official status."). You've hence agreed it is officially the royal anthem, but have subsequently switched the inclusion criteria to: it must have legal status. That's called shifting the goalpost and it's awfully disingenuous. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Please don't start with personal commentary and focus on the sources and the template." I --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Until it has a legal status in Canada, we should exclude it along with other songs that are sung at large gatherings and are recognized by those bodies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I said the tactic of shifting goalposts in debate is disingenuous (read the linked article). Back to the main point: You said official status was required for an anthem's inclusion ("The national anthem is listed because it has an official status."). Since you've accepted "God Save the Queen" has an official status ("GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem"), it meets your criteria for inclusion. Except, you've suddenly changed the criteria. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No goalpost shifting. Until it has a legal status in Canada, we should exclude it along with other songs that are sung at large gatherings and are recognized by those bodies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You said only a moment ago it only had to have official status. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh foolish me. I'd strike it if it mattered. What really matters is that it has no legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your flip-flop is noted.

Why must a song have legal status to be included? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not changed my position. I merely noted that it is the royal anthem and that it has no official status. I explained why it should have legal status to be included. Why should the monarch's hymn be included since it has no official status in Canada? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"I should correct my position: GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you equate clarification for your benefit with changing. I'll try to be more precise in the future. I was correcting your understanding, not changing my position.

I notice that you didn't answer my question even though I've answered both of yours. Allow me to re-post it in case you missed it the first time: Why should the monarch's hymn be included since it has no official status in Canada? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, changing, whatever you want to call it, you said "God Save the Queen" has official status as the royal anthem. Now you're back to saying it doesn't, as well as claiming songs need legal status to be included. I've just reviewed all your comments and can't find where you explained why a song needs legal status for inclusion in the template. Can you point directly to where you said such a thing?

If by "monarch's hymn" you mean the royal anthem, it should be included because it's the official royal anthem of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter, I've had the displeasure of dealing with Miesianiacal and his following of monarchists. He seems to go from article to article "british-ing" them up, when confronted he will go on and on with progressively more obscure excuses to justify his edits. He'll even go as far as to bend your words to make you sound not credible, or focus on something as trivial as a spelling mistake. I've tried to explain to him that GSTQ has no official status in Canada but his answer is always ends the same, "I want it on". UrbanNerd (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading between the same lines that you have UrbanNerd. You should have seen the battle a few editors and I had trying to get him to stop changing the size of references because of a line spacing problem that he had in his browser. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"God Save the Queen" does have official status as the royal anthem, but that doesn't give it any legal status in Canada. So what's the deal? I stated that "We could just as easily list songs related to our national sports as they're unofficial". So without legal status in Canada, we would be endlessly adding songs that people sing in public locations.

I apologize for using poetic license to refer to "God Save the Queen" as the "monarch's hymn". That is actually "Jerusalem" not "God Save the Queen", or is "Jerusalem" the national hymn of England. Please substitute "royal anthem" for all cases of monarch's hymn: Why should the royal anthem be included since it has no official status in Canada? It is the exact opposite of the question you're forcing me to answer.

It's not the official royal anthem of Canada because it has no official status in Canada. It's just the royal anthem. Nothing more. No more important than "Happy Birthday", "Snowbird", "This Land is Your Land" (the Canadian version) or a thousand other songs in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It has official status as the Royal Anthem of Canada by the fact the government (and its institutions) has stated it is and used it as the Royal Anthem of Canada. I'm not certain if you are, but I hope you are not confusing "legal" as a synonym for "official". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Walter. Are we to add every song with no legal status to the template ? I'm sure "happy birthday" is the official birthday song in Canada. Should we add it ? Is "take me out to the ball game" the official baseball song in Canada ? UrbanNerd (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

M says, "It has official status as the Royal Anthem of Canada" and the government of Canada says "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931. Legal status does not equates with official status. Legal status supersedes official status. If you take UrbanNerd's excellent response into account, should we add the official seventh inning stretch (I should clarify that, sorry. That's a baseball term and that's an American sport) song used by the Blue Jays as well? The song has an official status but no legal one. "Happy Birthday". "White is the Colour" All songs with official status of some sort (using your logic at least) in Canada, but none have legal status. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, legal status is being raised as a red herring. We're discussing its official status, not legal status. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, "official status" is being raised as a red herring. We're discussing it's legal status because of the issue above. Nice bait-and-switch though. It's official status is not an issue for me at least. Its legal status (none) is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then, the red herring is yours, since you first raised the subject of its official status, asked whether or not the song has official status, said it had to have official status to be included in the template, and then said it does have official status, then it doesn't, and then it does again. Now you're saying it doesn't matter anyway, since official status was just a red herring and legal status is the benchmark songs in this navbox have to meet. Your bar for inclusion is arbitrary and constantly shifting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hope people are still not talking about Official? I Dont think official is the problem here at all (easily sourced just have to look) legal vs official is something different and what we should be taking about. It clearly has "official status" when it move from our national anthem to our royal anthem as stated by Person in 1966. God Save The Queen was in the public domain so no need to copyright it by way of legislation. See here

More refs below Moxy (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• • 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.

You're the only one still fixated on official. It has "no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 Official is moot. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually i was replying to the post before my post by Roux - I see it was misplaced - should have been below his post sorry. PS thanks for that link I dont think any of us have seen it yet Moxy (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah sarcasm. I'm sorry to continually re-post it, but it's the only salient link as it indicates the legal status of the song in Canada. Perhaps when you've read it, understood that "no legal status in Canada" means that under Canadian law, it has no more status than a radio jingle. The fact that it has some form of "recognition" (whatever that means in legal terms) or that it is officially the queen's anthem doesn't mean that any ordinary Canadian should honour it more than any other song. It also doesn't mean it should be listed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

radio jingle? Thats a very simple view - no other song was our national anthem before nor is any other song our royal anthem. Cant deny is part of Canadian heritage unlike any other song. Got to remember it was our/the anthem till legislation in 1980 to change things. All that said I dont care either way if its in or out of the template - I am simply trying to get the facts right. So thus far we all agree its official but has no legal status. So the argument is that only the legal song should be listed right? Thats actually seems logical to me I guess. Its amazing how Persons "Canadianism" have work so well over the past 5 decades. Moxy (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple view, indeed. According to that line of thinking, "God Save the Queen" has no more status in the United Kingdom than a radio jingle. Basically, it fails to take into account the place of convention in the Westminster system; rules that exist and must be followed but aren't set down in acts of parliament or order-in-council. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Convention is a weak argument. It has no legal status in Canada so now you fall back on convention? I don't have a problem acknowledging it as the royal anthem, but not in this template as without any legal status in the country, it's just a song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point

I won't lie, I gave up reading the section above after the second or third bad-faith accusation. However, all of this talk about the status of the royal anthem is pointless. England's queen is technically also Canada's queen. It therefore stands to reason that GSTQ would also be her royal anthem as monarch of Canada. However, this template is about Canadian music. So the questions that need to be asked are: Does this song represent the topic of Canadian music? Is GSTQ an article that someone looking for information on Canadian music would likely be looking for? In my view, the answer to both questions is no. GSTQ is not a Canadian piece, it is not reflective of music in Canada, and frankly, the only reason I can see for adding it is political. The purpose of such a template is to link the reader to related topics. GSTQ is not a related topic. Resolute 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC) lol, I just realized this is a bump of a two year old thread Resolute 01:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. But, by "not a Canadian piece", do you mean "not composed in Canada or by a Canadian"? It has been deemed to be the royal anthem by the parliament and government of Canada and, for Canada, has its own unique Canadian tweaks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be the royal anthem, but "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 So it's not a Canadian piece. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Legal status" does not equal "Canadian". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions - Does it have legal status as the royal anthem anywhere? Do the other commonwealth countries that use this as there "royal anthem" make it official or do they all have the same no legal status? Its clear the reference used to say its not official does say "is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors." Is this the same everywhere? Moxy (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it's the Royal Anthem of Australia by proclamation of the governor general. It does not have "legal status" in the UK except by convention, just as in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect guys, if you want to keep bickering over legal status, do it in the section above. Doing it here only detracts from the question of whether the song is relevant to the template's scope. Resolute 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Miesianiacal, I am saying the song has no relevance to the topic of this template. Templates exist to link readers to relevant, related articles. GSTQ isn either. If you want to promote GSTQ as the royal anthem of Canada, go to a page where that is relevant, such as Monarchy in Canada. On a template that focuses on Canadian music festivals, publications, awards and styles, the inclusion of this song is at best misguided, and at worst, an attempt at pushing a monarchist POV. Truth be told, I'd also remove O Canada. While the anthem is undeniably Canadian, we don't list any other single songs, and O Canada likewise does not mesh well with the remaining links. Resolute 01:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both your recent statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I realy have to disagree with O Canada being removed. Its the most famous Canadian song and its well mentioned in the article. Its not the template we should be looking at for what should be listed - what the parent article talks about is what the3 template should represent.Moxy (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, as I read what you wrote, the question came into my mind: Well, what of the national anthem? But, then my eyes came to where you addressed that. And... fair enough. While I'd consider official Canadian anthems as Canadian music, I can also see how they're somewhat out of place amongst the other content of the navbox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template conversions

When I recently converted this template, I added to this version the image from the previous version. I did this mainly for decorative purposes, but also to avoid anyone complaining about anything going missing in the conversion. As well, this image makes a handy space filler until someone can find an image that's more representative of Canadian music. If anyone wants to change it, please feel free. LordVetinari (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What would be more representative? Anne Murray doing a shot of maple syrup? Celine Dion eating tourtiere? → ROUX ₪ 06:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)