Template talk:Music of Canada

Royal anthem

Should the song "God Save the Queen" be included as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada? 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Just because you disagree with the wording of the ref does not mean a government ref has not been provided - I cant believe I am now linking this to - "The anthem 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. So as stated it is "officially" used by the government. You may think this has a different overall meaning - but that just an opinion not a lack of a source. I know asking for civility is fruitless, but nevertheless again we are asking you to be civil please. Moxy (talk) 20:35, 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)

Convention is a weak argument? Convention is what makes "God Save the Queen" the national anthem of the UK and the Union Jack its national flag, Walter.

I don't think anyone's quite clear on why legal status (by which I've always assumed you mean designated by statute) is the criteria for inclusion. It appears to be entirely arbitrary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Convention is entirely arbitrary M. By that logic, which I anticipated earlier when I mentioned this, we would add "Happy birthday" as by convention it is sung at almost every birthday celebration in Canada and everyone has a birthday. Legal status means it has no copyright protection in Canada and it has no status for its legal use. It's legally just a song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, doesn't make sense. Convention is a type of law. It is by that type of unwritten law that "God Save the Queen" is the national anthem of the UK; there is no statute or order-in-council designating it as such, but the British government states that the song is the national anthem and has used and uses it as the national anthem. Ergo, it is officially the national anthem. Canada parallels that: the Canadian government (cabinet, parliament, armed forces) states that "God Save the Queen" is the royal anthem and has used and uses it as the royal anthem. Ergo, it is officially the royal anthem.

If there are to be national songs - i.e. those designated by the federal government for use as symbolic of Canada or Canadian institutions - (though, Resolute raises an interesting question below of whether they belong here at all) then "God Save the Queen" clearly meets that criteria. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:24, 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)

WTF!? This isn't a political article M! Why did you take this discussion to a political RFC and not a music RFC? It seems Resolute was correct when he wrote, "frankly, the only reason I can see for adding it is political". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The topic area is Politics, government, and law; this debate relates to government; official, legal, etc. Media, the arts, and architecture is one of the three topic areas the RfC calls to. "Music RfC" is not an option; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment through talk pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

But there was an option that was not part of politics and yet you chose politics even though this does not touch on politics and you were accused of turning this into a political battle yesterday. I'm sorry, you can be so pedantic sometimes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I chose two other topic areas besides "Politics, government, and law": "Media, the arts, and architecture" and "Society, sports, and culture". And I picked "Politics, government, and law" because it covers government. I can't separate "politics" out of the topic area name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for explaining so it got through. This still isn't a political article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No trouble. I try, but I'm often not confident in my ability to be clear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the royal anthem is not listed at Template:Music of Jamaica. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I want Canada to be cool like Jamaica. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Official Endorsements for the RFC here

The question is: Should the song "God Save the Queen" be included as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada? Please voice your Support or Oppose here:

• Support: GSTQ is the royal anthem. Whether it is "official" or "legal" is beside the point. These are arbitrary requirements. "Royal anthem" is sourced. So it should be included. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per Jonathan Swift - I can not believe all the verbiage spent here belaboring pretty simple matters - no more than Big-Endians v. Little-Endians. GSTQ is played at official Canadian functions. The Governor-General is a specific office. That the final argument is that GSTQ is not even "official" in the UK is a cavil of the first water - just add it, and stop the bickering. (iterated from "unofficial poll" below.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Frankly, I am more and more convinced this is just pro-monarchist POV pushing. But beside that, on a template about Canadian music styles, publications, festivals and awards, this single song is not a useful addition to the template. Resolute 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: So long as the national anthem of Canada is listed, it only seems logical and consistent that the royal anthem of Canada (which we know from various sources is designated by the government as "God Save the Queen"; its "legal status" is irrelevant) be included, as well. Both may not necessarily belong here, however, as Resolute earlier pointed out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The song "has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 In other words, it's just a song and the government does afford it any legal protection or special status. Its designation by the government is irrelevant as the government has clearly stated that it has no legal status in the country. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Duh. I see no reason to restate what I have said before, though I am compelled to echo Resolute's position. → ROUX ₪ 08:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Canada has one legal anthem, O'Canada. All other anthem, songs, salutes, hymns, etc. do not belong in this template or the infobox in the Canada article. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - If the template covered any other unofficial songs of cultural import, there would be a strong case for including it. But as the only specific song mentioned is the legal national anthem (and one might even question the relative importance of that to the nation's music as a whole), it doesn't really fit.--Trystan (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The song is officially the Royal Anthem, though; not by law, but by government designation and convention. It was also included in the template for about a year and a half; it is only not there now because it was revert warred out a little more than a week ago. The appropriateness of the national anthem here is a separate question, but one worth examining. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I got a notification of this RFC on my talk page, and did a little of my own research. Based on the articles The royal visit: So much more than a photo op (Maclean's, July 2011), For republicans, Jubilee a kind of arrested development for Canadian nationhood (Ottawa Citizen, February 2012), No, Canada (Montreal Gazette, June 1980}, and Queen Elizabeth II Presides Over Nation's Birthday Activities (The Ledger, July 2010), it certainly appears that Canada has an official royal anthem, and that it is "GSTQ." Official is official enough for me. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment The question is not whether it has an official royal anthem, it's whether it should be included in the list as such. I believe that only one person here believes that there isn't an official royal anthem. So I'm sorry, you need to address the issue not a different one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but that's what I meant by "official is official enough for me." If official anthems are included, "GSTQ" should be included as the official royal anthem. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: For the reasons that Resolute mentioned. --JonGDixon (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Looking at the references, there are reliable sources that it is the Royal anthem, and I don't see any proposed that say otherwise. That really should settle it. Arguing about the exact officialness of the status is quibbling. Arguing that it shouldn't be included in the list makes no sense to me: it is music strongly associated with Canada (as well as a few other countries, but that does not mean it is not associated with Canada also). DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  That it is strongly associated with Canada is news to me. I honestly cannot remember the last time I've heard it played. And I'm not sure it is played anywhere at all unless the Queen herself comes for a vacation. And lets be intellectually honest here. I don't think there is a place on earth where someone will hear GSTQ and think "Canada". Resolute 20:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is played at events where the Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor General (the Queen's official representative) is present in an official capacity, such as the presentation of medals, order of Canada honours, or during the throne speech. It's also played when any royal is present (it was played at this past summer's Calgary Stampede with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were presented). It's also played at many official military events. It was also played during the week of the Queen's birthday. It's no longer required at public gatherings such as school assemblies or sporting events, the opening of councils or other legislative bodies, and at the end of broadcast days on TV or radio. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In short, its association is tied to the monarchy. I don't think anyone was questioning that. I'm not seeing any connection to Canada. Resolute 21:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, I remain unconvinced that either GSTQ or O Canada belong in this template. Resolute 22:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to remove both. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been a month since the RfC was opened. However, no consensus seems to have emerged, nor is there even a clear majority in favour of any one particular option. What is the way forward on this, then? Should we gather opinions on deleting both the royal and national anthems? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a majority opinion 6-5 opposed to inclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hence I added the word "clear" prior to "majority" in my previous comment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being pedantic but any majority is a clear majority. I'm sorry if you don't understand that. Adding that particular adjective doesn't make it more or less of a majority. However, if you had said "no overwhelming majority" you would have a case to correct me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no sign I even attempted to correct you.

Do you have an opinion on what to do with this matter henceforth? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. No consensus for change so remain with the status quo. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The status quo is what existed prior to the commencement of this dispute over changing the status quo. And the status quo was inclusion of the royal anthem. (Remember, this all began after UrbanNerd removed the anthem from the navbox.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if understand this correctly. In 2004, a few edits after the template was created, the national anthem was added and I didn't see anyone remove it or request that it be removed, although recent arguments for its removal make sense. More than six years after "O Canada" was added someone added "God save the Queen". Since that point, it has been removed regularly. One of the editors who restored it made the final removal with the comment of "consensus for inclusion of false data either".

History of changes

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]

So it is far from consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So, one can gather from the above, plus the record on this talk page, that the royal anthem was there for six months before UrbanNerd deleted it. By five to one, the six month old consensus by silence was then reaffirmed. Six months later, UrbanNerd removes it again and is quickly reverted and it stayed as such for an additional seven months. That's nineteen months the royal anthem stayed in the navbox, giving it a pretty strong consensus by silence on top of the more robust consensus it received in December 2010. Thus, what DJSasso said back at that time applies equally (if not moreso) to UrbanNerd's last deletion of the royal anthem approximately a month ago: "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."

Regardless, I ask again: Is it worth exploring further the idea of removing the national anthem, as well? As I said earlier, I see the logic in Resolute's argument against the inclusion of any anthems. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Not everyone lives on Wikipedia and stalks articles like you and I do. There is no consensus by silence in those situations.

Ask what you want, but I answered your question. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus by silence isn't constrained by any "situations", as far as I can tell from reading WP:CONS. Plus, I'll draw your attention once again the the consensus for inclusion of the royal anthem that was reached here in December 2010. The (19 month old) status quo is quite obviously inclusion of the royal anthem. So, by your answer to my question, that is what you're saying you want.

I suspect, though, you actually mean you want the opposite: the royal anthem to stay out. That's fine. But, you've indicated on more than one occasion here that you see merit in the idea of removing the national anthem as well. Which is also fine (by me, anyway). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The status quo then is your consensus of silence for six whole years. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, consensus changed after I made my bold edit 20 months ago. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You changed the consensus of silence and rapidly suppressed opposition with misinformation. Your change to the consensus of silence has not outlasted the former. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's true the last consensus didn't live as long as the one prior, but that is entirely irrelevant. I made a bold edit and, prior to the latest revert of it a month ago, it remained in place for 19 months, both by silence and, when it was challenged, direct support from other editors (making your bad faith accusations unfounded); the consensus that existed prior to June 2010 changed. UrbanNerd's edit a month ago, therefore, was the bold edit that challenged the 19 month old status quo, just as mine 20 months ago challenged the prior 6 year old status quo. The difference is, mine gained consensus over time and from other editors, whereas his has not yet achieved the same. Ergo, inclusion of the royal anthem still stands as the current status quo. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You're playing with both the dates and the facts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I am at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was revoked. What was the comment that UrbanNerd used when removing it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That was the consensus being challenged. UrbanNerd's comment doesn't override Wikipedia policy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. UrbanNerd and Moxy are not the same editor. So what you're saying is an editor who wished to boldly add material to an article may do so, but an editor who wishes to remove it must remove it immediately or it gains consensus? What a load of rubbish. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

To back that claim. There is is no policy that silence is consensus. There is an essay that states that "Silence is the weakest form of consensus" and another that flat-out states that Silence means nothing. So don't state it's policy when it's not. It has been opposed since it was added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From WP:CONS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." Add or remove, the principle applies.

I never once said WP:SILENCE is policy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How can you have an edit conflict 20 minutes after the last edit?

You implied that it was policy.

Since the edit was both "disputed and reverted by another editor" it doesn't have the consensus you wish to grant it. Just because you bullied it into existence doesn't mean it wasn't "disputed or reverted by another editor" as my diffs above show.

Also, you didn't follow the BRD cycle. You were bold. It was reverted, and then you reverted. No discussion until months later. So don't appeal to a policy that you don't follow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It was disputed by another editor and, at that point, the consensus was in question. However, other editors thereafter disputed the edit made in dispute and support for inclusion of the royal anthem was reaffirmed.

I've done my best to explain the edit cycle and consensus to you. If I'm not making myself clear and you want to know more, go ask other experienced editors or admins about the subject; I'm quite certain they'll back up what I'm telling you here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I"ve done my best to explain the correct edit cycle and consensus to you, M. If you can't understand it and you want to know more, go read the policies. I'm quite certain that you'll eventually become a productive editor on Wikipedia who doesn't twist facts and lies to impose his own will on articles and on other editors. At least, that's my hope. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea why you're reacting like that; I genuinely meant it when I said I may not be making myself clear and you might do better to ask others who could maybe explain the editing cycle and consensus to you better than I. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This article is about the music of Canada - and not about the music of the Canadian nation-state. GSTQ, per sources already cited, indeed is not the anthem of the nation-state of Canada. But, per other cited sources, it is music played in Canada, i.e. at functions and occasions honoring the Queen, who's the constitutional ruler of Canada. (This last statement is a statement of fact that bears no objection. Attempts to claim otherwise are personal points of view). If this was the article on Canada, GSTQ would be mentioned in the text but not in the infobox, since it has no official status in the nation-state. However, since this article is about the music of Canada, GSTQ clearly should be mentioned in both the text and the infobox, per the notability criterion. -The Gnome (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment That's a slippery slope Gnome. If it's about the music of Canada, then by your new criteria "music played in Canada" we could have a very long list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The criterion is always notability. We include the most prominently played and heard music of Canada, in the present and the past: the most notable music of Canada. I'm sure that, if we were to remove GSTQ entirely from the article, the remaining text would be (or should be) constructed precisely with this criterion in mind. -The Gnome (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability would include a great deal of "music played in Canada", and played more often than GSTQ. See above for the example of "Happy Birthday"). It would be clear that many carols, hymns, and songs are played more often than GSTQ. And before you throw the nationalistic flag in (the song must be written by a Canadian) remember that the song you're fighting for is not written by a Canadian. So since you've created a new threshold: "music played in Canada" that is notable (in Wikipedia terms: has an article) the infobox would become unmanageble with songs from every nation on the planet listed. So what exactly are you talking about? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 10 March 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)

Restarting the discussion & summing up

This does not appear to be part of the RFC. This may be a straw poll. If you are here to comment on the RFC please go to the section above

Since Miesianiacal is unable to provide a single source from the government claiming that GSTQ is official in any way, and it is agreed that the song has no more legal status in Canada than Happy Birthday (a song in far wider daily use than GSTQ, and an assertion supported by an actual source from the only organization on the planet able to comment definitively on legal and/or official status), GSTQ simply should not be included in this template. → ROUX ₪ 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Well, duh. → ROUX ₪ 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Support --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Forget the idiocy over the status of the song. It is not an appropriate addition to this template. Resolute 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Canada has one official anthem, O Canada. All other anthem, songs, salutes, hymns, etc. do not belong in this template or the infobox in the Canada article. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   You may want to move this up (this section is dead) - PS I assume you mean legal over official - may want to reword it.Moxy (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   What an absolute disaster this talk page has become. Wow. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

5. Support removing it. Per the Canadian Heritage's Website, ""God Save The Queen" has no legal status in Canada, although it 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." This is a different situation from, say, New Zealand, where it is actually an official national anthem. Could this be any clearer? Why not add "The Maple Leaf Forever" as "original anthem" or "anthem preferred by many"? Ye gads. It's either an official anthem or it isn't. OttawaAC (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per Jonathan Swift - I can not believe all the verbiage spent here belaboring pretty simple matters - no more than Big-Endians v. Little-Endians. GSTQ is played at official Canadian functions. The Governor-General is a specific office. That the final argument is that GSTQ is not even "official" in the UK is a cavil of the first water - just add it, and stop the bickering. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
   • Comment - It's only played at some official Canadian functions since 1980. It is not commonly performed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
   • Just an interesting note (bearing no weight to the conversation): I did find it fascinating to see that its played on the "Carillon " so often along with may other traditional songs Our House of commons program for this month. Moxy (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
   • So the Carillon (a hand-bell tower) plays "God Save the Queen" for five days around the anniversary of the Queen's ascension to the throne. What does that say? It's the equivalent of "Happy Birthday". Should we also list "The Maple Leaf Forever" since it was played twice in February? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
   • Note again! (bearing no weight to the conversation) "Just an interesting note" - best to understand the context - did not mention inclusion - In-fact I have already stated that I dont care either way Moxy (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Dont care either way. That said the claim that no reference by the government has been provided is false as seen above and should be correct in this restart section. No need to mislead our editors - but i guess all will see the refs for themselves and judge them on there merits. Official vs legal are 2 different things here.Moxy (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkpage irregularities

The sections on this page should be chronological with newer sections on the bottom. As editors arrive here to comment on the RFC they will be confused. If none of you can take time away from fighting to fix the page I will. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea. Why don't you look at the page history, and take note of when the section above was created and by whom. Then take note of when the RfC tag was added and by whom. Any glimmers of understanding yet? → ROUX ₪ 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be the order of sections:

1. Template conversions
2. Restarting the discussion & summing up
3. Royal anthem
4. Talkpage irregularities

– Lionel ^(talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Roux started what appears to be a "straw poll" prior to run concurrently with the RFC. The intro to the "straw poll" is biased. This is highly irregular. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Next step

Given the series of events here and the overall failure to resolve this dispute, are those invovled in it willing to either end this by a final RfC on four options for this template or by a trip to formal mediation? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Is an RfC really the next step? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be, if we agree to it being such in the context of this dispute, specifically. Whichever of the four options put forward gets the most support is the one we agree to let stand in the template. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Categorical opposition to such an rfC as being fundamentall unwikipedian. → ROUX ₪ 19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Then do you opt for formal mediation? If not, can you suggest another venue at or method by which this can be resolved? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

RfCs aren't unwikipedia. They're just a request for a comment, which if it goes in M's favour will be used as a weapon against those who are opposed to its inclusion. If it goes against M's favour, will be dismissed by M. and then he will find some other Wikilawyering way to impose his will. That's why I don't really care what the next step is as long as we understand that the next step will be binding (and that the monarchists actually make the only salient point in their argument, which they have to date not made). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)