Talk:Coat of arms of Canada

Ribbon

The blazon seems to omit the ribbon? —Ashley Y 08:18, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

the blazon is original, and the use of a decoration would not normally be blazoned, although as the Order of Canada ribbon is now used for all occassions (not just by holders of the Order) the blazon should (may already have been) updated by the Heraldic Authority garryq 00:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As the edits have gone back and forth on the date that the ribbon was added (1987 or 1994), I would think that this page would settle the matter: www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm. HistoryBA 22:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

all I get is HTTP Error 404, so I go by the official statements in the House of Commons, and have deleted the name of the PM. Careful reading of the paragraph in the first place would have shown that 1987 refers to the date of change, and 1994 was the year the new design was allowed for all uses. By 1995 the new design came into widespread use and the change was advertised by the government. garryq 00:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here's the text: "On the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, Her Majesty The Queen approved, on July 12, 1994 that the arms of Canada be augmented with a ribbon with the motto of the Order of Canada: "Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam". (They desire a better country)." This is from the following page: www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm. If Garryq read the complete Hansard page that he quotes, he would see the following statement from Herb Gray near the bottom: "On the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen approved, on July 12, 1994, that the Royal Arms of Canada be augmented of a ribbon with the motto of the Order of Canada, desiderantes meliorem patriam." HistoryBA 23:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have read it, and have read the article which you keep editing, without changing a second reference.

http://www.gg.ca/heraldry/emblems-canada_e.asp

"This version was approved in 1994, and it replaced the previous rendition, created in 1957 by Commander Alan Beddoe."

So what happened to the 1987 version the House of Commons was discussing?

I have not said the change was not made in 1994, I have said it was changed in 1987 for limited uses, and that 1994 the change was approved for all uses. For several years the Order of Canada had been displayed on the arms in Rideau Hall for several years before 1994

Have a look at the section on armorial evolution, if you insist on changing dates, you may as well change both references --garryq 09:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The question here is one of evidence. The only evidence to suggest that the change was made in 1987 is the statement by one cabinet minister in the House of Commons on one day. But ministers do make mistakes. All the other evidence, including evidence cited by Garryq him/herself suggests the change was made in 1994. This includes statements by other cabinet ministers as well as the federal government internet sites (sites cited both by me and Garryq). So, to summarize the evidence: In favour of 1994, we have (1) the Department of Canadian Heritage (www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm) which says, "On the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, Her Majesty The Queen approved, on July 12, 1994 that the arms of Canada be augmented with a ribbon with the motto of the Order of Canada: 'Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam'. (They desire a better country)." We have (2) a picture of the pre- and post-1994 versions presented by the Treasury Board (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/man_e.asp). We have (3) the Tax Court of Canada (www.tcc-cci.gc.ca/logo_e.htm): "Finally, on July 12, 1994, Her Majesty the Queen approved certain changes, one of which was to add the motto of the Order of Canada: 'Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam' (they desire a better country)." We have (4) the Military Police Complaints Commission (www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/300/3000/2001/c_e.html): "FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, HRH QUEEN ELIZABETH II APPROVED THE ADDITION OF A RIBBON TO THE ROYAL ARMS. THE MOTTO IS THAT OF THE ORDER OF CANADA, 'DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM' (THEY DESIRE A BETTER COUNTRY). THE AUGMENTATION OF THE RIBBON WAS SUGGESTED BY MR. BRUCE HICKS, OF OTTAWA, AND WAS APPROVED ON JULY 12, 1994." We also have (5) a statement by the former deputy prime minister in the House of Commons: "On the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen approved, on July 12, 1994, that the Royal Arms of Canada be augmented of a ribbon with the motto of the Order of Canada, desiderantes meliorem patriam." In favour of the date being 1987, we have (1) one minister (a hapless minister who did not last long in cabinet), who made one statement in the Commons. Is there anythign else that I'm missing? Is there any reason I shouldn't change the date back to 1994? HistoryBA 15:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

a hapless minister and the architecture of Rideau Hall. Please read what I have said. Yes the change was approved in 1994, but it had earlier been approved of for certain uses in 1987.

A search of the library of the House of Commons at http://www.parl.gc.ca/english/hansard/previous/271_95-12-05/271OQ1E.html#17236 notes:-

Yes Bruce Hicks did suggest the change a decade but that was in the 1980s. The change was made in limited circumstances in 1987, as the quote says:-

"In 1987 the Queen approved this change for limited use in Canada. In fact everyone who has been to Rideau Hall will have seen this new coat of arms in the stained glass window near the entrance. Last year the Queen authorized its general use and slowly it is being introduced so as to not cost the taxpayers any money. Last year I sent a copy of these arms in electronic format to every MP and encouraged them to start using them on their letterhead and publications when they reorder. The Minister of Canadian Heritage drew attention to it last month when he unveiled the latest edition of symbols of Canada."

So this is a quote from a different minister MP (Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine). They cannot all make mistakes or be hapless.

Why should not change the date back to 1994? Because my dates are correct, they qualify limited and general use, and are backed up by documents and a stained glass window in Rideau Hall showing that the change took place before the year upon which you seem fixated. --garryq 18:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Garryq is saying that I am acting in bad faith, but several of his statements, if taken together, might suggest that my contribution has been motivated by something other than a desire to solve this dispute. Specifically, Garryq suggests that I have not read what he has said. I have. I have pointed out that some of the evidence supports 1987, but even more supports 1994. Garryq also suggests that I am arguing that all ministers were hapless, which I have not said. I was quite clear in saying that Michel Dupuy was hapless. I made no comment on Patrick Gagnon, who, by the way, was not even a minister, or any other cabinet minister. Finally, he says that I "seem fixated" on a particular date. I don't really care what the date is, so long as we get it right. In fact, I have entered 1994 fewer times than he has entered 1987 in the article, and I have not accused him of being "fixated" on a particular date. All that matters here is that we get this right. That is why I started this discussion and openly provided the evidence from which I concluded the date was 1994. I won't change it again until I can find something further that might settle this. As it stands, however, there is as much evidence to support 1994 as 1987 (if not, more). HistoryBA 23:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

What has become of the images? I tried to revert them to their earlier versions but they seem to persist as a bad rendering of Azure a saltire argent. - Montréalais 22:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! What's with the Cross of St. Andrew? --Alexwcovington 13:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Royal" Coat of Arms of Canada

I point you to the following sources which refer to Canada's Coat of Arms as 'Royal': http://www.imagesoft.net/canada/canarms.html Heritage Canada: http://www.pch.gc.ca/PROGS/CPSC-CCSP/sc-cs/df7_e.cfm The Royal Heraldry Society of Canada: http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/hansard.htm Another site linked to the Toronto Branch of the Royal Heraldry Society: http://www.mad-alchemy.com/hsc/opin-2.htm BC gov't site: http://www.bc-2010winterolympics.com/About_Canada.htm The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust: http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/FactsAboutMonarchy.html A Netherlands site on civic heraldry: http://www.ngw.nl/int/can/cannat.htm

The Arms, which contain numerous crowns and a Royal Helmet, were granted by a Royal Procolmation, and can be altered only by permission of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, as they are the property of the Sovereign. Thus, there is no way the Arms are *not* the Royal Arms of Canada. gbambino

There are numerous (probably more numerous) sources which cite, simply, "Coat of Arms of Canada". This article's very title is one. That a request made by Canada was approved by a monarch does not necessarily imply the title "royal" can or should be used. Otherwise, "royal" would appear in the names of every achievement of government at every level, and apply to everything done which was okayed by or in the name of a Lieutenant Governor, Governor General, monarch, or the monarch's titled family. That practise is not followed, nor would it be practical, even when technically accurate.

The presence of "crowns and a royal helmet" do not of themselves mean a thing is royal. Such emblems are used in commercial goods, logos, patches, etc., but would not fairly be described as royal.

In addition, the sources cited above to justify using "royal" have problems:

1. http://www.imagesoft.net/canada/canarms.html is a broken link. Further, the company is a foreign one (US).

2. http://www.mad-alchemy.com/hsc/opin-2.htm is a broken link.

3. http://www.bc-2010winterolympics.com/About_Canada.htm is a broken link.

4. http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/FactsAboutMonarchy.html redirects to a bookshop. In addition, CRHT (The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust) is connected with the national Monarchy League, seeking to emphasize the "royal" in all aspects of Canadian life. This puts its neutrality in doubt.

5. http://www.ngw.nl/int/can/cannat.htm calls it "The National Arms of Canada" in its title. Beyond the title, it copies text, and the link to that source is broken. Moreover, this page is a foreign site (Netherlands).

If we are to appeal to these sites as justification for "royal arms", evidence argues to the contrary.

As to the arms being the property of the monarch, the above-cited page http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/hansard.htm indicates the contrary. The minister was asked pointedly "To whom does he believe this Canadian symbol belongs, to the sovereign, to the government, to some Liberal backbencher or to the people of Canada?"

The reply from the minister: "It certainly belongs to the people of Canada, all of us, but particular to those who believe in what is written on the coat of arms: 'To build a better country'." 70.49.56.179 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Pass

This is a well-illustrated, broad article that covers the topic accurately and fully. Well done.--dave-- 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mount and Compartment...

In this section, there is mention of a mount and a compartment. To my eyes, it looks like the achievement has never contained either. The supporters seem to be standing on the motto ribbon with the floral emblems placed below that. Can we change this section? Thoughts?--dave-- 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It might not be directly mounted in the latest official arms. But it has been, see this image (from a Halifax administrative building). The motto and floral mount are overlaid there. I guess in time the scroll crept between the mount and supporters. I don't know how accurate the wikiarticle Compartment is, but Canada's seem to fit that description. However, you are right, the issue should be addressed in Coat_of_arms_of_Canada#Mount.--69.19.14.38 15:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, none of the images in the article include a compartment. In each case, the supporters seem to simply be standing on the motto scroll with floral emblems either above or below the scroll. The 1921 blazon also leaves out any mention of a compartment and only mentions a wreath of the plant badges.--dave-- 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More references have been added. --Qyd 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporters

As per the claim that the unicorn wearing a chained coronet is "symbolizing the English domination of the French", the actual article provided to support this assertion states: "Because it holds the ancient banner of France and is gorged with a coronet heightened with fleurs-de-lis in the arms of Canada, the unicorn has sometimes been viewed as a symbol of French Canadians, the chain then symbolizing the subjugation of the Francophone minority to the Anglophone majority.. Though this interpretation is obviously erroneous." Thus, I've removed the false statement. --G2bambino 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada

I'm pretty sure that this coat of arms is just the coat of arms of Canada, not of the Queen in right of Canada. All the sources just refer to these arms belonging to the country, and none of them, as far as I could see, assign them to the Queen in particular. Unless someone can cite a source that justifies the claim, I'd say it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.155.33 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As to the arms being the property of the monarch, http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/hansard.htm indicates the contrary. The minister was asked pointedly "To whom does he believe this Canadian symbol belongs, to the sovereign, to the government, to some Liberal backbencher or to the people of Canada?"

The reply from the minister: "It certainly belongs to the people of Canada, all of us, but particular to those who believe in what is written on the coat of arms: 'To build a better country'."

Without evidence to the contrary, it's fair to edit the reference.70.49.56.179 (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this to rest: The arms are in fact the arms of Canada as nation-state, but as the Sovereign is, technically speaking, the Canadian State, a reference to the monarch is required. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Canada-coa.png

Image:Canada-coa.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal

So am I correct in thinking that although the coat of arms can't be used for commercial purposes, non-commercial purposes are ok? For example if I were to use it one personal website of which did not generate revenue of any sort, would that be legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.129.54.129 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Major issues (these must be addressed before the review can be passed)
• The lead does not currently introduce the article. Please expand with more information on the use, history and development of the coat of arms.
• All sources should be properly formatted, preferably using the citation instructions given below.
• I have added a tag. Please address it.
• Other issues (these are not essential to passing the review, but should be considered by the editors)
• Although not essential for GA, I urge the contributors to reconsider the positioning of the elements of the coat of arms. They seems a little odd on the left there and might look better on the right. Whatever the desicion, this will not effect the GA nomination.
• Sourcing is petty light. Its probably OK for now, but consider being more liberal with sources.
• The see also section contains articles which don't have a great bearing on the coat of arms itself. Look at trimming it.
• The article itself seems a bit patchy. It might benefot from a major restructuring to better illustrate the seperate features, history and use of the coat of arms. Some of these sections, particulaly the latter could do with expansion.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing that this has to be delisted, because i don't think it was too far off. I'm afraid however that since no work has been undertaken in seven days and no one seems to be watching this article and therefore likely to take up the problems listed above, I have to delist this article from GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem will hinder the GA reassessment. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article passes GA reassessment. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards

First modern European emblem

I'm a bit confused about this "first modern European emblem raised by Jacques Cartier" claim. The main issue is the meaning of "modern": modern during Cartier's time, or modern now? The source that PrinceOfCanada provided doesn't make any mention of the modernity of the fleur-de-lis. --G2bambino (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Must you be so pedantic? Modern as in not mediaeval seems obvious. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mustn't, but it helps to make a good encyclopaedia. Anyway, enough personal commentary. The intent of the word was obviously not obvious; it could have meant the first European emblem raised in Canada that remains as a modern emblem of Europe today. I think all that's necessary to avoid any confusion is to say "the first then-modern European emblem," or "the first post-medieval emblem." I kind of prefer the latter. --G2bambino (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Change it as you wish. I was only adding the cite. Try to be a little less abrasive, will you? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I left the cite untouched, and I don't see any abrasiveness, so I've no idea what it is that's upsetting you now. --G2bambino (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

G2bambino, can you please explain your rationale for stating that centering all the images of the components of the achievement, something I have seen nowhere else on Wikipedia, is somehow superior? I made the images conform to guidelines; I can't imagine what reason you would have to change further. Especially since doing so creates lots and lots of the whitespace you hate so much. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you made the images conform to guidelines, but made a mess in doing so. The centring at least keeps things aligned and consistent. If it is terribly objectionable to you, there is another way I can think of to put the section together, but I will have to implement it later as it requires some time. --G2bambino (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A mess? Really? Everything was aligned and consistent. Please state your real reason. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, per WP:BRD, I would appreciate it if you would undo the reversion that you shouldn't have made, and discuss your changes here. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put the images back to the right side after discussing with several other users. I can't find any sort of guideline that discourages the centering of images, but there's several reasons why we don't do it:

• Whitespace: Because pages are set up to display in one column, centered images make HUGE gaps on either side where there is no text. This makes for awkward layouts and big gaps between sections.
• Layout: While this isn't a paper encyclopedia, it's laid out in such a way that images should "face" the "page" they're illustrating. Thus, images should be either right or left, facing their respective paragraphs. Left doesn't work here, so we're left with right facings.
• Convention: This simply isn't done. The only time I've seen a centered image is for a panorama image, which these are not. They're also always at the end of an article, to avoid the weird formatting issues I mentioned earlier. The fact that this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere isn't encouraging either; it's almost as though consensus is to act as though centering doesn't exist so people won't do it.
• Cleanliness: In my opinion, things really look a lot better on the right. That may be personal preference, but in the group of editors I spoke to, it's a pretty widely held personal preference. If a picture runs into another section, we can use {{-}} to fix that. If that makes a huge gap, we can re-order things like I just did. Not a huge deal.

There are probably other reasons I could come up with, but those are the main ones. To put it bluntly, centering really looks dumb, and there seems to be an established consensus to this effect. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)