User talk:Trackratte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Provincial monarchy articles[edit]

I think it's unnecessary to go into so much detail about the two requests for the monarch's involvement in the legislative process in either of the two articles you've recenlty been editing. Both instances and the later debate between the two academics is already covered at Monarchy in the Canadian provinces#Parliament. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if it's going to be discussed at all in either the B.C. or Alberta articles, a link should be provided to this passage in the Monarchy in the Canadian provinces article. This whole thing arose in the original entry being vague and unsubstantiated, with the only ref link being broken. Trackratte (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why - the events are already mentioned in their respective provincial monarchy articles and the debate isn't at all significant to the history of the Crown in either province - or how. The text was always supported; a reference with a dead link is still considered a reference (hence, we're told not to delete citations with dead urls). But, thank you for finding the updated url to the journal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I meant unsubstantiated as in the "constitutionally impossible" quote isn't referenced or explained in the 'NO' article from Monarchist News. So, even in the reference itself, it isn't clear on why the decision was made in the 1950, nor who even made the decision, that I saw anyways. Not terribly important, but I was curious. Trackratte (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended [1] to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Trackratte. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal Style and Titles Acts[edit]

Do you have any sources that say the Royal Style and Titles Acts distinguish between styles and titles and what distinction they make. I think a point could be made that the style and titles differ from the office, so the Act has no bearing on the Queen's offices in Canada. TFD (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Act distinguishes between the two in naming both of them apart, ie saying Style and Titles, as opposed to just Title. Also, look up royal style, it does not have the same meaning as title. Lastly, the constitution of Canada governs the office of the Queen. The Royal Style and Titles Act has no bearing or authority on or over the office. Any such changes require a constitutional amendment according to the applicable amending forumla outlined in the Constitution Act, 1982. trackratte (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You are claiming that because the Act uses the term "style and titles" it must be referring to two different things. But nowhere in the act does it make that distinction. It is a redundancy similar to "null and void", "cease and desist", "will and testament", "aches and pains", "nook and cranny." Do you have any sources they say the Act is referring to two different things? (I have been unable to find any and the Wikipedia article on "royal and noble styles" is unsourced.)
The Act says, "The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." It does not say that part of it is a style, while other parts are titles. Presumably the purpose of the act is to tell people what to call her in Canada.
And I already said "the Act has no bearing on the Queen's offices in Canada", so there is no need to remind me of the fact. George III became king of Canada when it was ceded to him in 1763, even if the royal style and titles did not explicitly mention Canada until the 1950s. TFD (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
User:The Four Deuces It makes a distinction in using two different terms. Null and void actually mean slightly different thing, "Null" being empty or zero, and "Void" meaning no longer valid, so the expression "Null and void" actually means two different things, whether or not two have now come to be used more or less interchangeably in modern speaking. Similarly, "Cease and Desist" ("cease" means stop doing something you are already doing, and "desist" means do not do something you have yet to start"), "Aches and Pains" (a dull ache vs a sharp pain for example, one cannot say a sharp ache), and "Nook and Cranny" ("nook" is a "corner or recess" and "cranny" is a "a small, narrow space or opening"). So, your conception of redundancy, while maybe used interchangeably in informal, modern discourse, are actually words which have slightly different meanings, which is why two words were used in the first place.
Similarly, a Royal Title is a label for a specific office or function. A Royal Style is what a sovereign is referred to as. As you can see, a style includes titles. To use Game of Thrones as an example, "Daenerys Stormborn of the House Targaryen, the First of Her Name, the Unburnt, Queen of Meereen, Queen of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Breaker of Chains, and Mother of Dragons":
"Daenerys Stormborn of the House Targaryne, the First of Her Name, the Unburnt...Breaker of Chains, and Mother of Dragons" are not titles, but all form part of how she is addressed, ie what I just mentioned is her Royal Style. Queen of Meereen, Queen of the Andals and..., Khaleesi... are all titles. So, these Titles are incorporated within the Style. I'm sure you can see how the above example translates to the Style and Titles of the Queen of Canada. "of the United Kingdom, Canada, and her Other Realms" is not a title in the same way as "of the House Targaryen, the First of Her Name" is not a title. However, Queen of Canada, and Defender of the Faith are titles, in the same way as Queen of Meereen and Khaleesi are titles.
In legal texts, words which may seem to mean the exact same thing to the layman are actually used for a very specific reason for the purpose of absolute clarity within a legal context. So, how someone is referred to vs. the name of their function may seem like the same thing in common parlance, but in reality there exists a legal distinction, and such a distinction is used for a reason. trackratte (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked if you had any sources, so I take it that you do not. I do not understand by the way how "Queen of the United Kingdom" is not a title, while "Defender of the Faith is." "Queen of Canada" only differs in that it relates to a legal office of queen of Canada, which dates back long before the King's title made any mention of "the British Dominions beyond the Seas" in 1901. Does that mean that Victoria had no title in Canada, because her title in England did not mention her position as queen of Canada? Would you claim that "Prince of Wales" is not a title outside the principality? And of course Wales, unlike Scotland, ceased to be a realm centuries ago. (Have not actually watched Game of Thrones.) TFD (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Queen of the United Kingdom" is absolutly a title, and so is "Prince of Wales". However, neither of those titles have any legal standing within our system. The Prince of Wales has official standing by virtue of its use, and the Prince's personal Canadian flag. However, there is no legally defined role or title for a Prince of Wales in Canada. The key being the difference between official and legal. Queen Victoria's role predates the piece of legislation we're discussing, and she ruled over Canada as a colony, so I fail to see any relevance.
As for sources, it's the English language. It's akin to you asking me for a source stating that the "Act for the Prevention of Crime and Abuses" is talking about crime and abuses and not just crime. I mean, if you don't understand the meaning of the words used within the source, then you'll find me at a bit of a loss, which I'm sure you can understand. But in an attempt to help:
In the case of "the Royal Style" style is being used as a noun, which is defined as "A particular procedure by which something is done; a manner or way" (Oxford dictionary), so in this case denoting the 'manner or way in which the sovereign is addressed'. "Titles" is also used as a noun in this case, being "A name that describes someone’s position or job" (Oxford dictionary).
So, as we can see by simple virtue of the accepted meaning of the terms used within the English language, "Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" are the only titles actually legislated within Canada. The actual title "Queen of Canada" is an official title holding legal validity by virtue of her legally being titled "Queen", and her legally being titled "Queen" of an independant and sovereign country known as Canada makes her legally the 'Queen of Canada'. Nowhere does it say that she is legally titled "Queen of the United Kingdom". On the contrary, it only says that she will be styled ('manner in which she shall be addressed') as "Elizabeth the Second, ... of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Other Realms" ie denoting that she is of the UK, Canada, and the 14 other realms, of in this case speaking to nationality. Being of Canada would usually mean from Canada, or put simply, being Canadian. But in her case, she is equally Canadian as she is British, as she is Australian, as she is Kiwi, etc. In the same way as the above Game of Thrones example, "of the House Targaryn" is used within that Royal Style to denote that that fictional Queen is a Targaryn, in the same was as saying that Queen Elizabeth is of Canada and the UK means that she is Canadian and British in her Royal Style.
Thus, once again, the name of this particular piece of legislation being the "Royal Style and Titles Act" (to insert the dictionary defintions for you: 'The particular procedure or manner in which the sovereign is to be addressed, and the names that describe the sovereign's position or job Act'). trackratte (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Using the defintions of "style" and "title" to determine which parts of the "style and titles" are style and which are titles is synthesis ("combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") If you are right, you should be able to find a reliable secondary source that connects the dots. I have tried but been unsuccessful, and I assume you have as well.

Again, I think your position on the Queen in Canada is wrong. " it is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not. The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue....In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867."

So the sovereign of the UK was always sovereign of Canada in Canada, not sovereign of the UK. Following your reasoning, the monarch had no title in Canada until it was enlarged to include the "British dominions."

TFD (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing a different argument now. We were discussing the Royal Style and Titles Act, its meaning, and how it does not legislate any such thing as the legal title of "Queen of the United Kingdom" within Canadian law. I also brought forth dictionary definitions to illustrate to you the meaning of the words used, as you had miscontrued their meaning to something completely different.
Now you are bringing in the constitutional role of the sovereign over Canada by cherrypicking a statement made by Kerr, LJ, where May, LJ and Lord Denning clearly state that prior to 1931, at the latest, the Crown was considered one and indivisable (Crown of the UK over Canada), whereas afterwards, not due to legislation but to convention, the Crown was seen to be divisble and thus the gradual emergency of a distinct Canadian Crown in conjunction with the emergency of distinct sense of Canadian independance. The constitutional role of the sovereign prior to 1931 is a different argument than the legislated title of Queen Elizabeth II according to the Royal Style and Titles Act. So, if you are purposefully attempting to erect strawmen, or throw out red herrings, I suggest you stop. And if you disagree with the meanings of the words used within the Act established by source such as the Oxford dictionary, then there's not a whole lot anyone can do about it. If you ask me for a source to prove that when someone says 'rock' they mean 'rock' and not 'paper', and I provide you with the dictionary reference for the meaning of 'rock' and for 'paper', and you disagree with them, then I'm not sure what more you want from me. If you've convinced yourself that 'rock' and 'paper' both mean the same thing, then we've hit the wall here. trackratte (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You said Kerr "clearly state[d] that prior to 1931, at the latest, the Crown was considered one and indivisible", since I just quoted Kerr as saying that in Canada they were separate by 1867. (May said by 1931, while Denning said by 1926.)[2] Since the issue was whether they were separate in 1982, the difference in opinion was moot. But the House of Lords has accepted Kerr's reasoning that they were always separate.[3] TFD (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay. trackratte (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

About Special:PermanentLink/615882554#Same issue as CBSA Badge above[edit]

If a user uploads a file such as c:File:Flag of the Canadian Army.svg using an obviously bogus tag, such as {{PD-ineligible}}, the file should of course be nominated for deletion, which I see that you have done. If a user is doing this repeatedly, or is repeatedly trying to use WP:CSD#F5 to delete unfree images while posting them to Commons with a bogus tag, then report the user to WP:ANI (for inappropriate actions on Wikipedia) or c:COM:ANU (for inappropriate actions on Commons). If I find a file on Wikipedia which is listed as unfree but which seems to be free for some reason, then I mark the file with {{subst:ncd}} so that an administrator finds the file and either accepts the copyright tag on Commons or nominates the file for deletion there. Doing it in any other way would be gaming the system. See for example c:File:Leavenworth Times logo.jpg which has an original upload log telling that it was originally uploaded as unfree to English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Stefan, thanks for the input and once again for the advice. It's good to have a friendly assist to make sure I'm on the right track. Thanks again! trackratte (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Canadian badges[edit]

I'm confused about your reverts of my actions on File:Royal Canadian Mounted Police.svg and File:Canadian Coast Guard crest.png. The first badge was created in 1954 (see RCMP website). The badge is crown copyright, and published before/in 1964 and therefore it's copyright has expired. Per {{PD-Canada}} this would be correct. I've read the Commons page that you linked in your revert, but nowhere in that multiple blocks of text does it give reason why this badge would not be in the public domain. The second badge is also crown copyright and published in 1962. (see CCG website) What is the deal? TLSuda (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for hitting up my talk page. Please don't take my putting the licences back in there personally.
If you look at the link on the RCMP crest page, you can see that the RCMP is enforcing their copyright as of 2010, where one of the conditions on recieving authorisation to depict the RCMP crest is the display of the 'Copyright Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada...' notice. I just think it somewhat dubious to disregard copyright simply because our layman's reading of the primary document leads us to believe that what the RCMP is doing is effectively illegal, especially when governmental organisations such as the RCMP and National Defence have 'armies' of lawyers to advise them on matters such as these.
My second concern is that the outset of Section 12 of the Copyright Act has a 'notwithstanding clause', namely that nothing within Section 12 has any effect on the 'rights and privileges of the Crown'. Section 17 of the Interpretations Act states that "No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment", which the Copyright Act does not do, in fact it does the opposite by reaffirming these rights. As you can see from the Commons link I provided, the "rights or prerogatives" mentioned in the Interpreations Act and reaffirmed in the Copyright Act are used in the creation of Crown arms, badges, and flags, particularly those depicting an image of the Crown itself ("...Royal Prerogative powers, it is generally accepted that, in Canada, these powers include: ... grants of coats of arms, flags and heraldry ... [and] use of the Crown in symbols"; "The granting of armorial bearings or coats of arms is the prerogative of the Sovereign"). And where, again from the sources in that Commons link, "The royal prerogative ... is not subject to the usual statutory copyright term. The royal prerogative is referenced at the start of section 12 of the Copyright Act",[7] where "a right to certain works by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection".[10]
So, the law and the case law are much more nuanced when it comes to the application of the 50 year term when it comes to Crown copyright through personal prerogative. In fact, experts within the field are quite clear that such copyright can legally be perpetual, once again through the case-law developed over the past century, and through statutes such as Section 17 of the Interpretations Act and Section 12 of the Copyright Act.
Again, thanks for taking the time to reach out on my talk page, and I hope you did not take my restoration of copyright tags personally. It's just that governmental (Crown) organisations clearly are under the assumption that these works are still copyrighted, they are actively enforcing this copyright (in the case of the RCMP, the national police force are the ones enforcing the copyright on the RCMP crest), and this assumption of copyright and its subsequent enforcement are completely legal under the above two acts in conjuntion with secondary expert and academic sources. trackratte (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to change the tags back, as I've now seen, through your contributions here and on Commons, you simply drop a ton of text that basically says nothing. Just because someone, even a governmental organization claims copyright, does not make it so. This is regardless of what armies of lawyers these organizations have, as I'm sure there are much better lawyers employed by the corporate world (read $$$). There are also many cases where corporations, organizations and government entities across the world attempt to claim copyright, even when they cannot, simply to prevent others from using works, or at least not using them in bad taste. As for your arguments on Royal Prerogative and the two acts that govern such, it seems like at most, the copyright can stay "perpetual" as long as the monarch says it so. I don't read this as forever, and I hardly see a case where the monarch, or a direct representative of the monarch have claimed copyright over any of these badges. One organization claiming copyright (could be incorrectly so) does not mean that the copyright is extended perpetually due to the wonky laws/acts saying that a monarch has royal prerogative.
As for your last paragraph, I don't take any of this personally, it just seems rather absurd. Your arguments are based on some major assumptions, your personal interpretation of these acts, and some unnamed "experts in the field." Once again, just because these organizations "assume" the works are copyrighted, and they are attempting to enforce it, does not make it so. Truly though, unless and until it is challenged in court, we will never fully know what is truly covered under copyright law, and what isn't. TLSuda (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Is your argument that the latter part of Section 12 (50 year term) overides the former (notwithstanding rights and privileges of the state)? And maybe Canadian legislation does result in "wonky laws/acts" in your opinion, but these 'wonky laws' continue to apply regardless. And the "unnamed experts in the field" as you say, are actually all listed at that link for your review. To name a few examples:
  • Judge, Elizabeth (2005) In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law, Irwin Law, pp. 557
  • McKeown, John (2010) Canadian Intellectual Property Law and Strategy, Oxford University Press, pp. 247
  • Vancise, Majeau, and Theberge (2012) Collective Administration in relation to rights under sections 3, 15, 18 and 21 (Crown Immunity), Ottawa: Copyright Board of Canada, pp. 15
  • Smith, David (2013) Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 77
The first and second being experts within copyright law published within legal texts, the third being legal experts (amongst them lawyers) passing judgement (Copyright Board), and the fourth being one of the top 3 constitutional scholars within Canada.
These aren't simply my personal opinions, but expert primary and secondary sources.
Statements to the effect of "Crown copyright under the Crown prerogative is wider in scope and duration than what section 12 provides", and "The Crown prerogative, unlike rights under the Act, continues in perpetuity and is not limited to the term specified in the Act" to name just two, make it quite clear that the term of Crown prerogative copyright is wider in scope than the 50 year term. The sources clearly state the very opposite. And even if all of these experts in Canadian copyright law were somehow wrong, then why bother including the 'notwithstaning' clause at the outset of Section 12 at all then? I'm merely saying that there is no reason to assume that what Canadian state agencies are doing is illegal, and there is no reason to assume that our non-expert opinions trump those of sourced experts.
At the end of the day we might not like what the experts are saying, we may not like what the owner of the works are saying, and we may not like what the Canadian police are enforcing, however, there is no source which can credibly override all of the above sources stating definatively that these works are in the public domain.
I'm sorry if you don't like my long replies, I simply like to lay-out the argument as clearly, with as much detail, and with as many of the accompanying sources as I can. Please don't take my reply as abrasive, as that is certainly not my intent. A little dialectic discussion can go a long way. trackratte (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to note that anyone can claim copyright on anything. For example, I could claim copyright on my shoe, all Wikipedia content or the Canadian flag. This does not necessarily mean that I hold any copyright in the thing on which I am claiming copyright. If I wish to enforce my claims in a court, I would need to present evidence that my claims are valid, and the court may reject my claims if the evidence is insufficient. If the Canadian queen sues me for violating her copyright, then she would need some very good evidence to support her claim, should I demonstrate that the work was published more than 50 years ago. I don't know anything about the statements by the legal scholars or the claims about perpetual Crown copyright, so someone else will have to figure out what, if any, implications it has. It is my understanding that a Canadian government work can't enter the public domain in Canada unless it was published more than 50 years ago, essentially giving perpetual copyright to unpublished government works. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Stefan. Yes, there are several sources (including a lot of University copyright FAQs) which state that Crown copyright in unpublished works is perpetual. The 50-year term only starts at the moment of publication, not of creation.
And I'm 100% on board with the fact that simply having a copyright claim does not, in itself, constitute copyright.
An issue is that some users seem to only read the last half of Section 12 of the Copyright Act (50-year term after publication), while completely ignoring the first part of the section (the term of Crown copyright is made notwithstanding the rights and prerogative of the Crown (state)). That, in conjunction with 3rd party expert sources making statements such as "Crown copyright under the Crown prerogative is wider in scope and duration than what section 12 provides", or that 'Arms depicting the Crown are created using the personal prerogative of the Crown'.
So, all I'm saying is that yes, a claim itself does not constitute proof necessarily. However, saying a Crown prerogative work is PD simply because it was created (which actually doesn't matter, only the publication date is relevant) more than 50 years ago is equally not proof of PD, since the law, and 3rd party legal and academic experts all support how a Crown prerogative work published more than 50 years ago could still be legally copyrighted.
In the grand scheme of things, this relatively unknown aspect of Canadian Copyright law would only apply to Canadian state Arms, Flags, and Badges depicting the image of the Crown, on the whole only affecting the smallest handful of images. Even so, I still think it important not to cherrypick a single passage from a piece of legislation, apply our own interpretation of it, and use that interpretation here in isolation of the rest of the legislation and 3rd party credible sources. And again, I hope people are taking my attempts here in good-faith, I'm not trying to tell people they are wrong here, I'm simply trying to help illuminate a poorly understood cranny of Canadian copyright law. trackratte (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Stefan, yes it is, thanks very much for asking. Although, I'm trying to discuss the closing admin's decision here on his talk page, as the decision to keep ignores all evidence of copyright in favour of the assumption that the badge was previously used (no evidence), and the assumption that it was published (no evidence). I would obviously like to keep the Wikipedia version until the issue is fully resolved if at all possible. trackratte (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added a comment to that talk page. If this is in the public domain, then it shouldn't be deleted under WP:CSD#F5. If it is unfree and ends up deleted, but you find out that you need it again in the future, then a request at WP:REFUND should work in most situations. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Purdy's Chocolates logo.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Purdy's Chocolates logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)