Talk:O Canada

GAN on hold

(Version reviewed)

Completed items

• Can you please move all free images/sound to Commons
• "The first lyrics that were composed for the song" - rmv that were
• Is the one ref in the lead needed?
• Also, expand 2nd paragraph?
• Ref 3 publisher needs italics, check others
• "most Canadians were surprised to learn that it did not already have such status." this sentence needs a specific ref
• "and all kinds of versions were submitted." - bah..."multiple versions"?...all kinds is just non-professional...
• "based on Alfred, Lord Tennyson'" - fix punctuation here based on actual article title (here)—reads awkwardly at the moment
• "Two provinces have adopted..." - rmv spaces around em dashes in this paragraph
• Merge short paragraphs in Performances section

---

• Any more referencing would be good...

Leave me a note when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete French Lyrics

This is a bit of a request, but clearly there are some extended French lyrics missing, as evidenced by the 1918 clip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.68.171 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• The complete French lyrics are at fr:Ô Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Native Land

Just wondering, but why does it say "Our home and native land" when it isn't actually the native land for any canadians bar the Yupiks, Inuits, and Aleuts. 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Just a note that we have far more indigenous people than Inuits, Metis, Stolo, Haida, Mikmaq, Cree, Iroquois (Canada isn't Alaska...)...... and I agree with the commentator below. It has many meanings, and I'm fine with the various variations of the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.249.99 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because "native" has more than one meaning? See [1] for twenty-four options, some more relevant than others. fishhead64 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Native can refer to the land you are born in, instead of the land of your forefathers. For many who sing it is not their native land but is their home, and for Canadians abroad or who renounce citizenship they may still sing it as respect for their native land, but not their home. I would personally rather see "home or native land". Home and/or would be more accurate but I don't know how to incorporate 'and/or' into song. To be honest, I think is a minor issue in regards to controversial lyrics in the song. I take more issue with 'god keep our land' and 'true patriot love' and 'in all our sons command' and 'true north' and 'we stand on guard for thee'. A lot of these things infer things about Canadians, or have them singing about things they don't actually do. The french version is much less problematic in this way, the only problem is a minor thing about 'cross-bearing' really relating to Christianity subtly, but 'bear a cross' is also a general expression regardless of origins so I don't care so much. Tyciol (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a typo ... it should be ... Our home on native's land! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.56.52 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wiktionary: "Native. 1) Belonging to one by birth. eg. 'This is my native land.'" Anyone born in Canada as a citizen is a native Canadian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.247.195 (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To play the devil's advocate, no one is indigenous to Canada on a long enough time frame. Even the First Nations and Inuit migrated here. They were just here first. I don't think "native land" means you have always been here. Because, really, few peoples anywhere would qualify on a geologic time scale. Where you are born or live is your home by definition. Where you were born is your native land, again, by definition. I understand and appreciate the political argument being made, but this is a matter of semantics.204.65.34.232 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nunavut translation

Could someone go about translating "Inuktitut lyrics"? Obviously it is difference because Nunavut appears in there and I'm betting it says different stuff. Since the french is translated I think it would be valuable to have this new version too. Tyciol (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note here... 'nunavut' simply means 'our land' in Inuktituk. So far as I know, this version is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hevato (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Playing at NHL games

I took out "along with games that involve teams in the United States that are located near Canada" where it talks about playing the anthem at NHL games. I couldn't see anything that said this in the referenced article, and I've never heard of it. If I'm wrong, put it back in, but could you show a reference that says so? Thanks. (Priester -- not signed in) 192.104.67.122 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the Buffalo Sabres play "O Canada" before "The Star Spangled Banner" at every home game, even if there are no Canadian-based teams involved, because they have so many Canadian season-ticket holders. However, I'm not about to put forth the effort to find an article to reference it to and, frankly, I don't think it's significant enough to bother mentioning it in this article.Djob (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical refrain

I was watching the 1979 Wales Conference Finals Game 7, between the Montreal Canadiens and Boston Bruins at the Forum. The article states that historical refrain is this:

O Canada, glorious and free,

We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee!

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

Roger Doucet, however, sings these lyrics before the game:

O Canada, glorious and free,

We stand on guard for right and liberty.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

Was this version more common and does it merit inclusion in the article? Video is available here [2] --Pgp688 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of lyrics

I don't see any compelling need to format the lyrics differently, and using inline style elements. I propose removing the inline formatting. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's done on other articles (see The Star-Spangled Banner (though it now has an unfortunate mix of fonts)); it makes the lyrics easier to read, highlighting them from the surrounding prose text. I'm not yet finished giving the article a go-over, and will get the other, old lyrics in the same font as soon as possible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe any additional highlighting of the lyrics is required as the surrounding white space is more than sufficient. The use of a serif font amid the sans-serif text is jarring. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jarring sounds a little strong. Regardless, guidelines seem to call for quotations to be made recognisable as such in some manner, but advises neither for nor against the use of font to do so. I can ask at WP:WPMU and WP:LYRICS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to concerns with good typesetting practices, using inline styles can pose accessibility issues for those who are attempting to use their own custom stylesheets. See Wikipedia's general guidance on formatting issues for a bit of additional discussion about avoiding custom formatting. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No responses so far to your inquiries. I propose that no special inline styles be used to format the lyrics, and that no special formatting be applied, to avoid accessibility issues and following Wikipedia's general guidance on formatting. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Any further comments from anyone on this proposal? Isaac Lin (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100 percent it makes it harder to read...But other articles do it...I guess old browsers use the old default bigger font for this text face ...Moxy (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your co-operation! Isaac Lin (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry; I forgot to comment here after removing the formatting. It turned out that most articles containing song lyrics didn't use a different font for them. Given that and the statements above, it seemed logical to undo the formatting here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

German Immigrant Version

A historic German language version is known to have existed as can be seen at http://www.mhsbc.com/news/v11n02/v11n01p15.htm

The lyrics are a rather close translation of the English original.

O Canada

O Canada, mein Heim und Vaterland Wie gluecklich der, dem hier die Wiege stand! Das Herz erglueht, wenn wir dich seh’n Du Nordland, stark und frei, Wir halten Wacht, O Canada Wir halten Wacht dir treu. O Canada, O Canada, O Canada, Wir halten Wacht dir treu.

It seems to have been in use by German Mennonites which came by the hundreds of thousands to Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.122.182 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

German-speaking Mennonites. These appear to be from Russian Mennonites. There's no indication of "use by" the groups but rather one hand-written copy found in one the belongings of one member of one boatload of refugees/immigrants. Having grown-up in a group of Russian Mennonites, we never sang O Canada in German. This may have been different in the 40s. One further thing, Mennonites, particularly Mennonite Brethren, have very little allegiance to the states of which they are citizens. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian Mennonites were Russian Empire citizens of German ethnicity, conserving and actively speaking their German language at least within the family and the community for generations and also upon arrival from Russia on Canadian shores. I will not doubt there were groups of russified Mennonites speaking Russian who eventually even might have written their own version of the Canadian anthem. There have been Germans on Canadian soil for generations at different times from the beginning to today, in history many of them in the services of the British monarchy fighting the Americans, as volunteers as well as pressed into service and sold to Britain by their German dukes. Not all of them were Mennonites. As there is such a version og the national anthem written in the German language, I strongly doubt that it was written just for translation rehearsal purposes among some groups of people who generally were very much down-to-earth, not highly educated but loyal out of gratitude towards the ones who gave them a safe asylum. I do not doubt that there were groups of Mennonites who never sang 'Oh Canada' in German but it does not exclude the possibility of groups of ethnic German Mennonites who stuck with their ethnic language translating and singing that hymn in German. This would be an interesting topic for scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.122.182 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All that this proves is that one person, for some unknown reason, translated the song into German. There's no indication that it was sung. It certainly was not in a hymnal so cannot be presumed to be a hymn. There's nothing of interest in a single, hand-written copy of some lyrics. For all we know, it was an exercise in translation, or a request from a non-English-speaking member of the community to understand what was being sung. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be of interest to the Wikipedia community to get to know what you, obviously speaking on behalf of "the Russian Mennonites" in Canada, have to add to this discussion about the cultural achievements concerning Russian Mennonites (i.e. Russian speaking or ethnic Russian Mennonites) in Canada in their relationship to Canadian citizenship. Judging from your own growing up within an illoyal cult community within Canada does not mean you have bought the rights to speak for all the other Mennonites of German descent in Canada.

"There's nothing of interest in a single, hand-written copy of some lyrics" ... If this is true, you as well can use your oriental bible as toilet paper as too much of it bases on single hand written scripts where the authenticity, authorship and validity cannot be proven at all.

"For all we know, it was an exercise in translation, or a request from a non-English-speaking member of the community to understand what was being sung." Who is 'we'? And what makes you so sure about the two conclusions? The second one would suggest the anthem has been sung in German at some time within Canada... I just suggested solutions; you state your ideas as proven truth. Something went dead wrong there.

I suggest we leave this topic to real scholars then, my ridiculous internationally acknowledged MA title seems not sufficient for this discussion with a professor of an exotic cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.122.182 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find your tone insulting, and that comes from someone who has been warned about the tone of his edits. I don't speak for all Russian Mennonites in Canada any more than you speak for all Internet users in Berlin or all MA holders with an attitude. Your parallel to manuscript fragments of scripture at best laughable. The fact that one copy of a book of the bible is found in a cave is meaningful since there are so many other fragments and fully extant copies. Your reference is merely a single copy of a German translation. That's all. I won't comment on the use of your MA, but I will suggest you look at WP:OR. I'll also suggest that you understand that talk pages are not forums. This isn't really the place to request scholarly work be performed on a document. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And please stop slandering Mennonites as an "illoyal cult". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

'illoyal cults' are the ones which do not fully and loyally stand behind the constitution and the people of the country they live in. You just mentioned this yourself, written above. I do not have to agree with you as you are not the only one permitted to write the Wikipedia. I will not bother replying to the other slightly amusing remarks you made. Feel free to use your personal world view mennonite Wikipedia pages furtheron as your personal playgrounds then, Herr Prof. div.gratiae Goerlitz. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.122.182 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That does not describe the Mennonites, Russian or otherwise. I am not claiming ownership of Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder where in the article the anon feels it would be appropriate to mention the existence of this singular translation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Links to geographic areas

Just to clarify my earlier edits: general Wikipedia consensus is for a reference to a city+larger geographical setting to only link to the city (of course, only when making the city a link is appropriate), with the reader able to navigate upwards from the city's article. Regarding my removal of the province, since Toronto is a relatively well-known international city, I don't believe a reference to the province is necessary, just as I don't believe the reference to Montreal needs to have any qualification added. I also think Ottawa is sufficiently well-known as the nation's capital. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a good point Isaac. The high-value links in this article are somewhat diluted by the density of blue. Tony (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sound clip of national anthem

Is there any reason we can't have a superb modern performance of the anthem rather than that crappy 1915 performance, which appears to have no historical notability? It makes the piece sound dreadful. A modern performance is awaiting promotion to featured sound status, but cannot be passed unless it is included in an article. Tony (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean can we have a crappy American performance of the anthem rather than a neutral 1915 performance of the anthem? How about I get the Simon Fraser University Pipe Band version of the American Anthem and see who that annoys? It's a nationalism issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the size of the article, I see no issues with having both recordings. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent solution. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes in the gallery is fine - Is there a date for this new version this is kind of a requirement for GA articles (that is proper info for sounds).Moxy (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

According to http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20030504023804/http://www.navyband.navy.mil/anthems/national_anthems.htm the oldest date of the recording is approximately 2003. I had OTRS permission since 2006/2007 for these recordings. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving personalities aside, I believe the United States Navy band version is a better performance and recording than the 1915 recording, and so support its use in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I will say the recording quality is better, but it takes liberties with the melody adding harmonies into song that are not official. Also, it's only a single verse long while the anthem, and the recording is three verses long. Finally, the drums are personally repulsive. It makes it feel like a Sousa march or military processional and Canada is not as militaristic as the United States is, and hopefully never will be. Couple these faults with the nationalistic bent and proud sense of heritage and you have solid reasons for not making the navy band version the lead version of the hymn. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The dynamics in the 1915 recording are unusual—a large jump in volume in the second verse, a bit lower at the start of the third, and then fading out at the end. (Technically speaking, the official lyrics are only one verse.) The softer instruments are somewhat muffled, and so some of their detail is lost. I'm not sure if you mean to say the Navy band version does not follow the melody line in places; I did not detect this. I'm not sure what nationalistic bent and proud sense of heritage you are attributing to the 1915 recording; I think the Victor Military Band was an in-house band for the Victor record company in New Jersey. In any case, though I'm not highly opinionated about which recording to link to in the infobox, I think the quality of the recording should be given greater weight than the origin of the recording. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the oldest version - preferable by a Canadian version - should be seen first. Do we have an older version then 1915/16??. Much more interesting to hear an old version (historical in nature) then some random version from the 2000s (that we could find thousands of including some from Canada). So i would say historical value over quality of sound is more inline with an encyclopedias content. In fact how does this new USA clip even merit a FA class - i see no historical reference and no ones even sure when it was made - its only attribute is sound quality. Moxy (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If the version was notable for a specific reason, then I might agree. However I see no particular historical reason to prefer a random version from a 78 rpm record over a random version from the 2000s in the infobox. In the list of different performances, I agree that having the oldest available version that Wikipedia editors can find helps illustrate how the anthem has been performed over the years. The list of performances allows the article to satisfy both historical interest and to contain a high-quality representation of the anthem; we do not have to choose one or the other. isaacl (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote "takes liberties with the melody adding harmonies" I meant just that. They have changed the chords of the actual song. The "lead line" is not changed. Out of curiosity, do you have any musical training? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that having a different orchestration from the original is an issue. For example, the 1915 version contains trills and grace notes; I don't know if the original arrangement had those, but if not, I wouldn't object to linking to the Victor Military Band version on that basis. Different arrangements can suit different sets of instruments. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But the chords are different on occasion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not unusual for someone creating a new arrangement of a piece; the arrangement for a recording where the brass will predominate can favour different accompaniment lines than the arrangement for a full orchestra, where a wider variety of instruments will take the spotlight. isaacl (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is why the bagpipe version for the American anthem (in E flat) would be a great addition to the Ameircan page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how adding performances of different arrangements to the list of performances of an anthem relates to the question of the relative merit of the quality of the recording linked to in the infobox. But certainly a few different arrangements of a given national anthem from different periods and possibly different styles may be of historical interest (of course, subject to the consensus reached by interested editors on what set of recordings is sufficiently notable). isaacl (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When you hear one arrangement all your life and then a military band from another country plays a very different arrangement, literally changing the chord structure of the music, it is offensive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get an alternative version then a bilingual, public domain version is available at http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/MP3/O-Canada-bil.MP3. I would add it myself but I can't get it from .mp3 to a supported file. if anyone can then that would probably be the best version to have. Oddbodz (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no found out how to do this and the file is up. I have put the disputed version in the listen section. Hope the biligual version is ok. Oddbodz (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bilingual version

I do believe some of the commonly-heard bilingual versions of O Canada (that is, ones that switch between English and French lyrics) may be notable enough to include in this article, but am unsure of the right criteria to use to determine their notability. Any suggestions? isaacl (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Use http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/MP3/O-Canada-bil.MP3 ? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot that this is currently discussed in the performances section. Any opinions if examples of full lyrics should be shown in this article, or if the discussion in this section is sufficient? Also, I suggest that if the lyrics are shown, they be placed in a different section than the official lyrics, since the bilingual version is not official. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel the version is notable enough to go in the article because it was the version than Nicki Yanofsky sang at the opening ceremony for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics which the whole world saw and it is also listed on the PCH website with the other 3 versions. Oddbodz (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Date Format

This article began 2001-NOV-01 with mdy format. This 2011-APR-03 edit changed the date format without prior discussion. Per retain, I will be restoring mdy format. The only date format with any claim to being having strong national ties to Canada is YMD (the same format that appears at the bottom of every article page & every talk page, even though it is not included in the MOS) --JimWae (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I assume the format for the date at the bottom of the page is determined by the setting under "My preferences", since for me, it appears in DMY format. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Canada has no official WP:STRONGNAT date format and either format can be used, but the format in use after the article is no longer a stub should be kept. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules and Laws copyright violation

I'm not sure how to explain this accurately in the deletion comments, but the whole section is a copyright violation from the Government of Canada website. Am I wrong? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think gov't publications are granted free-use license public domain. It's still a copy & paste, tho'.--JimWae (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The web site claims copyright, but provides a license for non-commercial reproduction (with attribution conditions). isaacl (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So, the National Anthem Act specifies the melody. There's no act specifying the lyrics? No action by the gov't need be taken to change the embarrassingly exclusionary lyrics? Groups can decide for themselves to sing a more inclusionary lyrics?--JimWae (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no laws governing how "O Canada" is performed, and copyright law on performances does not apply, so groups can sing whatever lyrics they want. Also, since the anthem is in the pubilc domain, anyone can create and publish any derived works, changing the lyrics or melody as they wish. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the source says the Act specifies O Canada to be the national anthem. I do not see the source saying any act specifies the lyrics. I do see "official lyrics" mentioned, but not which act actually specifies them, though one might presume it to be the same act. --JimWae (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See the National Anthem Act. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link --JimWae (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Media farm

Ok so lets talk about what all the media is about --this is not a media farm for listing ever version we have (thats y we have wikicomons). What version should we keep - i see a few that could be dumped. We should be taking about the ones listed not simply listing every one we have with no mention of there context. So i suggest we mention 3 or 4 of them in the body of the text an keep those one - wheil dumping thoses we can (or) dont realy know about. Moxy (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal view on the order of priority for including recordings is the following:

• High quality instrumental version, so those unfamiliar with the anthem can learn to recognize it.
• Versions of historical or cultural interest; the version played on the carillon bells is an example.
• High quality versions with vocals; English, French, and both

The recordings from the Canadian Heritage site are good choices to meet the first need, and, if deemed necessary, the third need. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But the recordings by Canadian Heritage are under Crown Copyright, so we cannot really use those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they CR o well - do we have more info on other versions so we can write about them in the text - this way we actually mention them in the body of the article giving credit were credit is due etc...Moxy (talk)

A license for non-commercial reproduction is provided, with attribution conditions. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: the copyright notice states "personal or public non-commercial use". Wikipedia is deemed a commercial use because it may be mirrored or forked for commercial purposes. Unless media from government sources is public domain or licenced for any use, it cannot be used on WP. Mindmatrix 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok then i guess we should be actively requesting them for deletion?Moxy (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for a specific guideline, see WP:FAIRUSE and its explanation on commercial licensing. Guess the newly-added recordings will have to go out. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

well i guess this solves the clutter problem Moxy (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I like Moxy's idea where we can cite the bi-lingual version to the mp3, but not upload the mp3 to here. We can always have a 30 second clip of it too. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics

Honestly, I want to limit the article to the two official languages of Canada. Other languages could be added, but I think it would be best to add them at Wikisource. However, if you decide to keep the Inuktitut language, use http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr1/blms/1-2-2c.pdf as a source. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Would be hard to include all the Official languages used across Northern Canada i think - there is a few of them ...Canadians#Languages .Moxy (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So that is why I wanted to include only the official national languages; we can have translations at Wikisource and make a mention in the text saying official translations are present in x, y, and z. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree: official languages, French & English, only. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we have the official lyrics section which contains English and French and then a recognized lyrics section for Inuktitut and any other native languages. The bilingual version could go in either but I think it should stay in the official section because it is on the Canadian Herritage (PCH) website along with English and French. Oddbodz (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the bilingual lyrics should get their own section. I am still not sure about the native languages, but given the size of this article, it will be pretty much nearly half are going to be lyrics. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 12:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, since the bilingual version is not official, I believe the lyrics should be moved to the Performances section. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Song title

My apologies for my edit to the song title in the infobox; there was no intent to vandalize. Since the page for the sound in Wikimedia commons did not list an explicit title, and the sound was placed in the public domain, I felt that shortening the title would avoid an unduly distracting title in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I apologise for my odd form of Wiki-dyslexia, which causes me to see diffs backwards! I thought you'd added the extra text, not deleted it. Your edit was right; the title of the song is "O Canada", not "O Canada on a Piano". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Performances

I added the notation about "O Canada" being performed at Watkins Glen International and New Hampshire Motor Speedway. This information is from personal experience. I have been to NASCAR races at both tracks and the Canadian National Anthem was performed before the "Star Spangled Banner" at both tracks. I asked a NASCAR official about this and was told that it was a requirement due to the proximity of Canada and out of respect and appreceation of the Canadian participants and fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.131.166 (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We need a reference. Proof that those are the only two races where it's done and also for the reasons stated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I also added the notation that for the race in Montreal at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, the notation that "O Canada" is performed after the "Star Spangled Banner" I cannot give a proper reference, however, as it was a television broadcast; however, the manner to which it is done is the same as a a US pro team playing in Canada.DelandSIV (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Try http://www.google.com/search?q=Canadian+anthem+site:nascar.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=o0S&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&ei=969aTs_bD-WssQK8urHBDA&start=20&sa=N&biw=1024&bih=602 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

4 Verses

Can someone include all four verses of O Canada, instead of just the first one?

99.234.60.11 (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are only four official verses in French. I don't know if there are four official verses in English. See http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/anthem-eng.cfm --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the lyrics per WP:NOT#LYRICS

It seems that the lyrics shouldn't be added to the article but rather included at Wikisource. This might also avoid some of the vandalism that occurs here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. That defeats most of the purpose of this article. Also if you look at the page on the Star Spangled Banner you will see the lyrics of it including pre-civil war versions. Canada is fortunate to have a national anthem that when sung simultaneously in different languages is uniquely beautiful. This isn't something that needs to be hidden under a rock. Zen-in (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to inform about the song, not provide the lyrics. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The lyrics are the core feature of the song and also show the evolution of things? What would be the benefit to our readers to remove the info - why would we make them look somewhere else? We are here to inform our readers not to prevent vandalism. Anyways it would be odd if this article did not have them like other articles on anthems - It is the norm see List of national anthems.Moxy (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote articles about national anthems for featured article, lyrics must be included. However, what Wikisource can do is where we put all historical versions, multiple versions, translations, etc. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about how this article is breaking a policy: WP:NOT#LYRICS, and the only argument against it is inconvenience of readers of the article. Seems like including the policy in the heading wasn't obvious. And arguments based on other articles that break the policy are simple: after we remove them from this article we can remove other offending articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NPS: "If out of copyright, shorter texts - such as short speeches (the Gettysburg Address), short poems ("Ozymandias"), and short songs (most national anthems) - are usually included in their article." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)