Talk:O Canada/Archive 2

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

Disagree. That defeats most of the purpose of this article. Also if you look at the page on the Star Spangled Banner you will see the lyrics of it including pre-civil war versions. Canada is fortunate to have a national anthem that when sung simultaneously in different languages is uniquely beautiful. This isn't something that needs to be hidden under a rock. Zen-in (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the article is to inform about the song, not provide the lyrics. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The lyrics are the core feature of the song and also show the evolution of things? What would be the benefit to our readers to remove the info - why would we make them look somewhere else? We are here to inform our readers not to prevent vandalism. Anyways it would be odd if this article did not have them like other articles on anthems - It is the norm see List of national anthems.Moxy (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When I wrote articles about national anthems for featured article, lyrics must be included. However, what Wikisource can do is where we put all historical versions, multiple versions, translations, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking about how this article is breaking a policy: WP:NOT, and the only argument against it is inconvenience of readers of the article. Seems like including the policy in the heading wasn't obvious. And arguments based on other articles that break the policy are simple: after we remove them from this article we can remove other offending articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:NPS: "If out of copyright, shorter texts - such as short speeches (the Gettysburg Address), short poems ("Ozymandias"), and short songs (most national anthems) - are usually included in their article." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you M. We now have a guideline saying it could be OK going against a policy saying that it's not OK. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a wider interpretation of the policy, especially in light of the guideline the policy itself directs its readers to for additional information. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. So now we have someone who thinks they're above guidelines and policies who has "wider interpretation". You're kidding right? THis is a lame justification for inclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense would dictate we have "LYRICS" for anthems (and is why GA and FA articles have them- not a hard one at all to conclude.Moxy (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense would dictate we follow policies such as WP:NOT, or would you rather have anarchy? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Best to ask for more input - as all here seem to think inclusion is warranted but yourself. O Canada is not copyrighted nor is the lyrics an unreasonable length. Common sense dictates we do whats best for our readers not blindly follow a policy. Are we to remove the  lyrics from all the articles or just this one? If just this one why not the others? Do we remove the lyrics from all the GA and FA article because you found WP:NOT and interrupt it to mean "NO LYRICS" despite it not saying this? Should we remove the "LYRICS" it from the  Lord's Prayer aswell? Moxy (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about other articles, we're talking about this article and a specific policy. Also, the Lord's Prayer was not originally a song. You could add many other things that are not songs that we later set to music and call them songs, but their original purpose was not to be a lyric. I am currently in the process of applying WP:MOSFLAG to a specific situation: soccer rosters. The same argument was made to restore a format that doesn't correctly follow the policy. In fact, there were other, better arguments than this. We don't break a policy in one place just because it's being broken in others. We fix it in one place and then apply it to the others as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok lets be clear about this as the policy does not say "NO LYRICS" anywhere -  in fact for  anthems we do add the LYRICS - Pls read Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources  - If out of copyright, shorter texts - such as short speeches (the Gettysburg Address), short poems ("Ozymandias"), and short songs (most national anthems) - are usually included in their article.Moxy (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was already mentioned and dismissed. Guidelines are below policies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dismissed by who? Your policy you point to does not say "NO LYRICS" in fact it says "Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length" - The guidelines on the other hand your dismissing clearly mentions  national anthems specifically and inclusion of lyrics if not copyrighted or to long. What is the real motivation for the removing the info? Is this all based on your interpretation of the policy?15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By whom. By me, above. Feel free to read it. Now that you point-out the clear mention of national anthems I see that it appears covered. Just clarifying with the policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I realy do like the debates we have from time to time (I happen to like this aspect of WIKI). Do you think we should change the policy page to reflect the guideline? We could bring up this discrepancy on the policy talk page. As I 2 was not sure about all this till I looked into it deeper.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Point-out the clear mention of national anthems..." You mean unlike when I pointed out the clear mention of national anthems? "Just clarifying with the policy", rather like when I said I interpreted the policy with the guideline in mind? I wonder how surely you can now accuse me of being "someone who thinks they're above guidelines and policies". --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editors who watch that article pointed-out that the salient point of the policy is that song articles should be "should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on" and not merely the lyrics. In that sense the guideline and policy are in agreement. See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as POINTY and as a misread of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is full of articles about songs. Listing the lyrics of every rock song, alternative song, rap song, blues song, jazz song, pop song, etc etc would be problematic for several obvious reasons, not the least of which would be an "indiscriminate collection of information". National anthems, however, are not just "songs" and it is ridiculous to try to group them in with commercial creations of the music industry. Taroaldo (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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


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

The Inuktitut version still clearly has different lyrics as none of the lines repeat as the last two lines do in the English and French versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.170.72 (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Tamil version
I saw a tamil version of this national anthem. is it appropriate to add that detail in this article, since tamil is neither a recognized nor official language? I do think that the anthem will be in other languages of canada's diverse population! Thanks.-தமிழ்க்குரிசில் (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, mostly because Tamil isn't an official language in Canada. Also, unless it's an approved translation, it shouldn't be listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would add it to Wikiquote, to be honest. The only languages that should be here for the anthem is English and French because those are the two official languages in Canada. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Inuktitut is an official, legal language in Nunavut, but that translation is unofficial and could probably be safely removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Best to only have official versions as recognized by the FEDERAL government. In the Northwest Territories the Official Languages Act declares that there are eleven different languages. This would just be nuts for this article that is in English. "The Buchan version" should be removed as per the same reasoning. The National Anthem Act of 1980 authorized two official sets of lyrics English and  French  - no other -  including the   Bilingual language versions is not official  at the federal level.Moxy (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done as two separate edits. The first was to remove the unofficial Inuktitut version and its transliteration (which you've got to admit is pretty cool nonetheless) and the unofficial bilingual version. I moved the literal translation of the French up to be where the Inuktitut version was. I then removed the Buchan. It is listed at http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/anthem-eng.cfm if anyone wants to dig further, but as per WP:EL, I removed it from the EL section as it's used as a reference. Feel free to revert any or all references, provided that there's no personal attacks in the process. Just being WP:BOLD. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Criticized by secularists"
Two users have readded a reference by an author, Ted Byfield, who is not criticizing the anthem on secular grounds, but rather that the anthem is not secular. It does not support what is being cited. Why shouldn't it be removed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the article is just a commentary about the non-secular nature of the anthem, and does not actually criticize it (in the sense of pass negative judgment) or discuss criticism by secularists, and so I agree that it doesn't support the sentence preceding the reference. Thus, I agree with deleting the reference (the other reference is sufficient as a citation). isaacl (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

overlink in lede
Canada should not be linked in the lede since it goes against the WP:OVERLINK guideline that states "In particular, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, the following are not usually linked" The rule of thumb is that if one links in the lede, you're expecting the reader to divert to that link immediately to gain further information. Why would someone come to the article on Canada's national anthem and expect to click through to the nation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "the names of major geographic features and locations"
 * Your argument is completely countered by WP:UNDERLINK, as the country of note is a most "relevant connection to the subject" ... and particularly since the country's name is integral to the anthem name. Really? Desist. 70.54.134.84 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all countered by UNDERLINK as it's a national anthem, which is linked, and almost every reader on English Wikipedia will have a sufficient understanding of the nation of Canada that no further connection to that subject is required to understand that this is its national anthem. Hence OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wrong -- in fact, this is a rather idiotic argument, as it is with other national anthem or similar articles you have tried to assert your opinion on (e.g., Australian and American national anthems). Is it not odd that NO link to the country is in this article otherwise? Hence UNDERLINK. You also incorrectly contend that a visitor may not want to visit the article for the country about which an anthem is about, particularly if they did not get there by visiting the 'Canada' article to begin with. 70.54.134.84 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Star Spangled Banner was not linked to the United States until you did so. It was correctly reverted here by another editor. The same guideline that unlinked that article was applied here until an anon liked it a few days ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And then you proceed to delink at Advance Australia Fair, despite the link being in place for some time, in an attempt to do the reverse. Also, you haven't really addressed the argument above regarding underlinking. But your link at SSB demonstrates that someone else restored that link in the lead -- so it is fairly clear that this is an issue. Really, per above, can any editor persuasively argue the merits of not linking AT ALL to a particular country's article (in the lead, let alone elsewhere in the article) of this or similar articles while citing WPOVERLINK in the same breath? 70.54.134.84 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did unlink it, per the appropriate guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But just to clarify, you made the argument that the American national anthem was a place on which I tried to assert my opinion (on which guideline should be used). However, I was countering that I was not the only editor who holds that opinion there and that you are edit warring over that there as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Losing battle - the word will get linked over and over and over again - no point in fighting over a link the average person will think should be there.Moxy (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Walter, without criticizing any of your interpretations of the relevant guidelines, I think Moxy makes a good point. If we don't allow it to be linked, we are going to end up with reverts and accompanying discussions all the time - which can be avoided for one, minor wikilink.  Given that WP:OVERLINK is a guideline, not a policy, I think WP:IAR should apply, and the wikilink should stay (keeping in mind that Walter's interpretations of the relevant guidelines is reasonable). Singularity42 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim...
In the section, Lyric Changes, there is this sentence:

"Weir's original lyrics from 1908 contained no religious references and used the phrase "thou dost in us command" before they were changed by Weir in 1914 to read "in all thy sons command".[1][9][10][11]" The first link does not support the claim made (no mention of it), the second citation is to a book, not a link, and the third and fourth links are dead. The first link gives the full original version by Weir, for which the fourth verse is "Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer, Hold our dominion within thy loving care; Help us to find, O God, in thee A lasting, rich reward, As waiting for the Better Day, We ever stand on guard." Which contradicts the claim that the lyrics contained no religious references.77Mike77 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Historical refrain
I was watching the 1979 Wales Conference Finals Game 7, between the Montreal Canadiens and Boston Bruins at the Forum. The article states that historical refrain is this:
 * O Canada, glorious and free,
 * We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee!
 * O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

Roger Doucet, however, sings these lyrics before the game:
 * O Canada, glorious and free,
 * We stand on guard for right and liberty.
 * O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

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

Doucet must have been making it up. No such version.77Mike77 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Canadian anthems
Category:Canadian anthems is repeatedly being removed on account that it is "subsumed" within category:Canadian patriotic songs. Category:Canadian anthems is a subcategory of Category:Canadian patriotic songs, so if anything, at least per Wikipedia:Categorization, it should be in the former and not the latter, since the former is more specific than the latter. However, I have no problem with it being in both categories. But I don't understand the desire to remove it from Category:Canadian anthems, the more specific category. It's a category that is directly on point, after all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Canadian anthems is repeatedly being added despite it being the parent category for Canadian patriotic songs, which was already present. While I think it makes more sense to have the anthems cat more than the patriotic songs cat, it's proper to add the deepest category, not the one highest up. It should not ever be in both categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like both of you are in agreement with including this article in the most-specific/deepest category. As "Canadian anthems" is currently a sub-category of "Canadian patriotic songs", this would mean placing the article under the Canadian anthems category. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I don't understand. I agree with the rationale User:Walter Görlitz is setting out, but he seems to be applying it bass ackwards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I clearly need more sleep. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be confusing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Title
We are going to need a source for the new section below...I will look see what I can find -- Moxy (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment lots of evidence for the vocative bit.
 * "You know right from the start that Canada’s anthem is in trouble, because it starts with a vocative sentence." [brucebyfield.com/2012/06/29/dissecting-o-canada/‎ 1]
 * "both of Canada’s anthems are entitled “O Canada.” Many people erroneously spell “O” as “Oh.” In reality the “O” is used as a vocative to apostrophize Canada and rather than as an exclamation. But most people prefer it as an exclamation."
 * "Also, the first word is "O" (used as a vocative, to apostrophize Canada), not the exclamation "oh"."
 * The most interesting part to me is that in other languages which have a vocative case, the name of the country has to change, so it makes more sense. To pick two examples which were once widely spoken in Canada, in Scottish Gaelic it becomes Chanada (ch= throaty "h" sound from Bach or loch) in Ukrainian its Kanado.
 * I simply dont understand the text added to the article or what you have just written above. I cant find any reliable source for this so will let others comment as phonetics is something I have NO knowledge of in any capacity. -- Moxy (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The last bit is a digression, since Gaelic and Ukrainian aren't official languages. Moxy is pointing out that the anthem is being sung "to" Canada. This becomes obvious when the words "thy" and "thee" appear later, but it isn't like, "Yoohoo, Canada, psst over here!" It's a very formal poetic device, addressing the concept of Canada in the abstract, almost like a hymn to the spirit of the nation.77Mike77 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A digression in in the eye of the beholder. And you mean that I (Kevlar) am pointing it out.  And the point which I am making is that it's a common misperception that the title is "Oh, Canada" as in "Oh my goodnes, Canada is so... (great/terrible/etc.)".  Actually the title means "Hey, Canada, I'm talking to you".  Now can we put the section back in or waste more keystrokes? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What's wasteful is in the eye of the beholder. Asking for sources for certain claims isn't a waste to me. Nor would re-writing the paragraph to remove much of the unfounded and subjective language. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to the addition that is essentially WP:OR regardless of how correct it may be. I didn't understand the addition either and not because I'm obtuse, rather it was opaque.
 * Let's stop trash-talking other editors. Discussing by stating waste or digressions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the only part that could stand is "[by singing "O", the singer is directly addressing Canada", since it's pretty self-evident. But, whether that's even worth mentioning is questionable. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is that the "only part that could stand"? I'm curious. If nothing else the part about "O" being a vocative marker needs to be in there to explain why it's not *Oh Canada! (which is an extremely common mistake!). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Inspired by Mozart?
"It has been noted that the opening theme of 'O Canada' bears a strong resemblance to the 'March of the Priests' from the opera The Magic Flute, composed in 1791 by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and that Lavallée's melody was inspired by Mozart's tune."

The first half of the sentence is uncontroversial enough, given the 1st, 2nd, and 4th notes being identical to Mozart's 1st, 2nd & 3rd notes. Does the cited source actually elaborate on the second claim? Sparafucil (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Request a quote from the book. I pared the section back a while ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No quote provided, so removing that bit. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hymn Version Removal
The author of the hymn version, Albert Durrant Watson, died in 1926. It should be public domain so no copyright problem I think. — Strongjam (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently published in at least 1922, if not earlier -- pretty sure that makes it safely PD. I'm still not convinced it belongs in there, but if you are, feel free to revert. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think it's undue I'm fine with that being the reason for removal. I don't feel that strongly about it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic "Controversy" section
As I said in my edit summary, the "Controversy" about some guy making his own statement concerning racism is not a controversy concerning the anthem as such, merely a storm in a teacup in the news involving the anthem. And being all over the news for a day or two doesn't make something encyclopedic. The real controversy at the moment concerns whether to change the official words from "all thy sons" to "all of us". Awien (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Awien. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it is too recent to fairly judge if this event has sufficient significance for inclusion in this article. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? What would more time do? The only thing that time could possibly do is if the Tenors actually kick out the "lone wolf" from the group for good. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias cover events of enduring nature. Although often it can be clear that an event will be notable in ten years, sometimes it is not. As there is no rush to include information in Wikipedia, the inclusion of dubiously notable events can be postponed until there is more evidence of long-term significance. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And kicking the lone wolf out would still be off topic to the article because it wouldn't affect the anthem itself in the slightest. What would be on-topic would be if parliament decided to incorporate his words into the official version, which is clearly absurd. Awien (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ^Exactly, which is why I said that would be the only thing time could possibly tell us, which still wouldn't be relevant. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of the anthem as a sort of protest made very publicly makes it on-topic. However, it's minor in relation to the history of the song and the detail about who's in or out of the group is totally irrelevant. (Plus, I'm sick of reading that over-used trope "lone wolf". It's certainly not encyclopedic.) -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia writes about encyclopedic things. We determine if subjects are encyclopedic based on reliable sources. We make exceptions for Routine news reporting, which does not apply to this content, should not be included. It's certainly not breaking news. It has been an ongoing topic of discussion for several days and mentioning it in a brief paragraph is appropriate. I appreciate the removal of "lone wolf" and the the opinion about what that means, and the current form it takes is appropriate. If it grows to be larger, I would protest. If it were reduced, I would not object strenuously. However, if it were deleted, I would object. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, but why the incorporation of the section into adaptations? It's not an adaptation. It's an alteration by one person and hasn't been publicly adapted. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it was placed in 'Adaptations'; though, I'd guess it's because it was his own adaptation.
 * I considered moving it to 'Performances', but decided to leave it where it was. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, the phrases that were replaced were not "With glowing hearts we see thee rise, the True North strong and free", as the group performs the unofficial bilingual version, based on the CBC news interview that I saw, so it would have been "Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, Il sait porter la croix!". See http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/tenors-respond-lives-matter-cbc-1.3677761 and http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/724764739722/ 0:20 to 0:25. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ^ Good point, they were singing the French version. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 02:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggest a reference that the first 4 notes were used by the Centennial Train
There are a few possible sections that may be appropriate for it but may I suggest that a reference be made that the Centenial Train that crossed Canada in 1967 used the first four notes of the anthem, replacing the standard train horn. This could also be mentioned in topic Canadian_Centennial.

A train's whistle is supposed to sound long short-short long and this matches the anthem's notes for the opening "O Canada". I remember reading an article (Macleans?) that somewhere remote in the BC forest the horns to make the tones were developed. The train used it through its trip across Canada.

Yes, obviously this is off topic to the origins of the anthem itself but, under Performances or Popular Culture I believe it has a reasonable place.

And then I looked it up and read this which (please excuse) pissed me off! http://www.nfrm.ca/galdisp.php?resultpage=3&pagesize=4&TitleID=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.100.92 (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

{Henri Socha} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.100.92 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Government recording of O Canada
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=O_Canada&oldid=prev&diff=783487918 this edit]: this was discussed earlier. Recordings of O Canada can be copyrighted; the recording of O Canada that was added to this page comes from this government web site. The terms and conditions link at the bottom of the page specify the ownership of all files on the site, and expressly do not permit commercial reproduction. This contravenes Wikipedia's policies for reuse, since it must be possible to copy Wikipedia for commercial use. Thus as previously discussed on this talk page, the file cannot be used. isaacl (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your saying File: Instrumental version of the Canadian National Anthem Copyright-free (on the basis that it not be changed in note or pitch) is from the gov wedsite?--Moxy (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes; the link on the government site matches the link in the description for the audio file. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This should not be raised here but at the file itself. If the copyright is not compatible, it should be deleted from File:Instrumental version of the Canadian National Anthem Copyright-free (on the basis that it not be changed in note or pitch).ogg. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I accidentally thought the file was on Commons, not English Wikipedia. Regardless, the file should not be linked to from any article. isaacl (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is. I nominated it there and pointed it back to the discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Commons guidelines and policies, so only initially sought to address the policy issue I am aware of on English Wikipedia. Thanks for adding the nomination. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are no further comments, I will restore the previous rendition of the anthem in the infobox, as well as in the Canada article. isaacl (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the deletion happens, we could restore it then, because then it's clear that the copyright was not correct on the file. However, the inverse is also possible: if the file is not deleted because its copyright is compatible with one on commons, we can add it back in. I'm OK either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the previous version. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Of Midi vs Proper Harmony
The version currently in the article is a simplistic, unappealing midi version - if the reader has any musical education whatsoever, what he would get if he got to a piano and played (or simply sight-sang, if that's within his talents) it. The US Navy Band version is far from being polyphonic. It of course has some passages were voices other than the melody are embellished or play an independent line - an acceptable (and much appreciated) practice in harmonizing a tune, as one can see in, for example, Bach chorales. Polyphony would sound more like the following organ or choral arrangement of a chorale by Bach: see comment in wikitext. Compare with setting of same tune in a stricter Four-part harmony style by Bach again:.

As for nationalistic issues - irrelevant, a totally subjective criteria and Wikipedia is supposed to offer global viewpoints, not merely what a bunch of highly outspoken editors think. Also, a quick look at List of national anthems reveals that most pages, even of other English-speaking countries (UK, Australia, ...) have a US version as well without it posing problem. Even French wiki has US version for O Canada. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about nationalism, it's entirely the wrong harmonization (or chord structure) if you will. I don't know the Australian national anthem but I do know "God Save the Queen", but I don't watch those articles and I don't care which version is present there. I can only speak to the version here. If you'd like to find a version that meets your criteria of complex, and yet meets the criteria of not sounding foreign, then feel free to upload it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it a 'wrong' harmonization? It's maybe different from others one has heard - which is quite a reassuring thing: if all where the same, ... Anyway, it does display use of plenty of nice musical techniques, for example by delaying the resolution of chords at the end of phrases (i.e. end of second phrase) or by embellishing those to provide for better continuity. Furthermore, the National Anthem act does not provide for any "standard" harmony, clearly stating "The words and music of the song “O Canada”, as set out in the schedule, are designated as the national anthem of Canada." and then placing it in the public domain which is just a nice legalese way to say "copying, editing, ... expressly allowed". So there's no wrong version, simply different versions of different musical quality. As somebody pointed out long ago above, "I don't believe that having a different orchestration from the original is an issue. [...] Different arrangements can suit different sets of instruments." It being "different" from what you usually hear is again not an objective criteria: maybe you have heard the wrong version? Furthermore, if the US Navy Band version isn't perfect, then the simply midi file currently in the infobox is objectively worse and it's a disgrace that it's currently sitting there because of a consensus which hasn't moved in years, partly because of unwillingness to discuss again - it's really much better having a foreign edition than a computer generated one. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Canada/Archive 26 for a more recent discussion on the audio files in question (though essentially covering the same ground as the previous discussions). Because only a small number of people weigh in each time this is discussed, no new consensus has been formed to replace the existing audio file. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For something like a national anthem, I would prefer the basic melody in articles - it seems more encyclopedic to me. I can't see any reason not to include the US Navy version with the other listed versions, though. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Along with the others would be fine. First, would not be because there is a common chord structure and the Navy version does not use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It's already included along with the others - I just commented it out there and replaced the version in the infobox with it. "Common chord structure" - citation needed and per what I said of the National Anthem act, none of those is official so we are free to include whichever is of higher objective quality. Currently, the recordings we could choose from (those in the article) are:
 * 1. Computer generated melody (i.e. infobox)

2. a 1937 version with lyrics which have since been slightly altered 3. 1918 version with French lyrics 4. 1927, carillon bells and then God Save the Queen 5. 1916 instrumental 6. 2000s US 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing 7. 2000s US Navy Band. 2 can be discounted since it's not the official variant of the lyrics. 3 can be discounted because it is not representative (a bilingual version would do better than either French or English). 4 and 5 can be discounted for sound quality. At this point, this leaves us with 1, 6 and 7. 6 and 7 are pretty much the same, except for the slightly faster tempo of 7 and the fact 7 has timed text with the lyrics, so we're down to 1 and 7. Objectively, we have two choices: 1. A simple computer generated version of the melody 7. A harmonized version interpreted by a military band The harmony is maybe unfamiliar to you, but harmony does not a tune make and the tune remains clearly recognizable. In fact, audiences will usually recognize a tune no matter the underlying harmony, assuming the latter has some logical basis (which it does) - I have heard renditions with a clearly different harmony and that does not make them any lesser interpretation of this tune (or of any tune, for that matter), example: see wikitext Of course, such "extremes" as that example should be avoided for reasons of clarity and encyclopedic purpose, but the US Navy Band is far from that and I don't see why one would prefer 1 over 7 - the melody is as I said clear in both of them and 7 is a superior rendition in all other aspects. Regarding the small number of people, maybe a relevant wikiproject could be contacted or maybe (though we don't want to blow this out of proportion) an RfC could be initiated. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (By the way, that edit wasn't me but ignore it) If you disagree, would you please not just ignore the talk page discussion? Do you find my arguments at fault? Or is it just the same kind of stubbornness I have already met for other apparently minor issues but which ended up requiring an RfC? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no WP:CONSENSUS to change the version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, more properly: there is no consensus which version should be in there - we're just deferring to what is in the article as the prior stable version, but with only weak consensus (given the multiple attempts to have it changed). Would you mind answering my two questions, above? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your arguments for which to include are fine.
 * No citation is needed for "common chord structure" as there is no actual score for either. One would need to compare it to the score approved by Parliament to verify this.
 * Are there some other hoops you want me to jump through before you take us to another needless RfC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what's approved by Parliament as being the National Anthem - no chords (only melody + French and English lyrics) - obviously not a problem adding any, for example (see wikitext - O Canada starts 1:25 mins in the video ) that, sung at Parliament Hill in Ottawa. "Your arguments for which to include are fine." - I dislike having to assume things from what others write (since miscomprehension is always a risk) - is that yes (change) or no (status quo)? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And you can hear the poorly recorded version is different that the navy version.
 * Sorry you don't like having to assume about what I mean above. We're in the a similar boat here. I have to assume you're not a sockpuppet or evading a block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Different isn't bad - that was just an example to support that we have no reason to favour one or another variation... Therefore sticking to other factors is sufficient. When I spoke of "assuming", I meant assuming unclear or ambiguous meaning, no reason to start with bad faith speculations... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. Different isn't bad. It's the common version while the Navy one is therefore incorrect when heard by Canadian ears. Again, if you can find the Canadian Brass version, it has very different orchestration, but the underlying harmonies are the same as the one performed on Parliament Hill. I can't link to it due to copyright violations. There's a version by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir that has this same harmonization. I just did a simple Google search and found these and there are many with this harmonization. Due to its inaccuracies, I'd like to have the two military band versions deleted from commons, but that's not going to happen. I also don't suspect you're going to stop pushing those two versions anytime soon, but I'll keep responding with a no to including it in the infobox every time you come up with another angle to try to push at it. Essentially, let's waste each others' time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, let's dig a trench, place a few machine guns and some barbed wire and stay there for a couple of years. Oh, and you can keep promoting the piano melody as the version that should be included. I'm gonna try to find another path to better judge consensus (since obviously we're not the only ones with an opinion in this matter). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So let's talk about your battleground mentality to which I responded in kind. You have made it clear that no version other than the US navy version is acceptable to you despite being told that it does not sound correct. I have tried to show that, but still you want that version. You have tried to paint me into a corner instead of actually saying why that unrepresentative version should be promoted to the infobox. So go ahead an get dispute resolution. I don't mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have given plenty of reasons why the US version is objectively better, despite it's "foreignness" or it not sounding correct to your ears (be open minded, no?) - a fact which I think is irrelevant, per the multiple examples I gave of "different harmonizations of a tune still being ok". Yes, I did make it clear that objectively, there is little grounds for including most of the other recordings presented in the article, since they fail in some way or the other of being representative of the current national anthem as set out in the National Anthem Act; and/or their sound quality is lacking - if presenting arguments in a calm and structured way can be construed as "battleground mentality", then it might be time to cool down and take a break from the discussion here - it's much better to go at this cool-headed - at least that way we're both sure the disagreement is real and not just the result of emotions blown out of proportion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the mere existence of a possibly better version is no reason for not taking the best we've got for now. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What you call foreign is what I, and anyone who has musical training, and has lived in Canada for any length of time, would simply call wrong. And that's the problem. It's not foreign, it's wrong. I did not reference those other versions as a possible better version either. I did so because they are correct. So if there's a wrong version, it's clearly not better. So we take a simpler version that's correct. That's what other editors have stated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have the choice between trusting you or trusting whoever was in charge in making that arrangement for the US Navy band - obviously you're not the WP:RS. Saying that it's "wrong" - ignoring the fact that it's a disguised appeal to tradition (and applying the term 'wrong' to a musical interpretation usually requires very good reasons - of the kind "the musician lacks competence" or "the tempo is way off", not just because 'I don't like the chord structure which is different to what I am used to' - I personally find the different chord structure refreshing and more interesting, definitively not wrong) is, well, just wrong... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is what we call an enthymeme, specifically a truncated syllogism, where you essentially state, without stating, that the arranger for the US Navy is a reliable source. Do you know who the arranger is? Prove the arranger is a reliable source! If you can't, neither I nor the Navy recording is a reliable source. For the record, I never stated that I was. It's not that I don't like the chord structure, it's that it's not the one commonly used in Canada. I never stated it can't be used in the article, just not in the infobox as it's not representative.
 * In fact, you yourself state that only the melody is approved by parliament, and so it's not an official version according to your earlier logic and so only the simple melody should be provided, and that's what the midi is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My logic is that "neither the US Navy harmony or the common harmony is official, therefore we are free to use, in the infobox (never talked of the remainder of the article), whichever we happen to have a better recording of available presently". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bilingual version
I do believe some of the commonly-heard bilingual versions of O Canada (that is, ones that switch between English and French lyrics) may be notable enough to include in this article, but am unsure of the right criteria to use to determine their notability. Any suggestions? isaacl (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Use http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/MP3/O-Canada-bil.MP3 ? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot that this is currently discussed in the performances section. Any opinions if examples of full lyrics should be shown in this article, or if the discussion in this section is sufficient? Also, I suggest that if the lyrics are shown, they be placed in a different section than the official lyrics, since the bilingual version is not official. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel the version is notable enough to go in the article because it was the version than Nicki Yanofsky sang at the opening ceremony for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics which the whole world saw and it is also listed on the PCH website with the other 3 versions. Oddbodz (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I've noticed it's locked, but shouldn't the bilingual version be considered 'official'? It's identified that way on a Citizenship and Immigration document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.154.153 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Senate approval but not royal assent
Should we request a change in the lyrics until it receives royal assent? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It shouldn’t technically be changed til then. AjayTO (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How about the current official lyrics are kept but a note added immediately below the English lyrics, stating that the National Anthem Act was amended to change the lyric to "in all of us command", pending Royal assent? isaacl (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree as well. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * agree--Moxy (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 February 2018
The change of lyrics is not official until the Governor General of Canada signs the bill into law. As such, the current version of "O Canada" as listed on this site is not accurate as the replacement lyrics have not yet been approved. Realstuart (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be changed SOON, but NOT NOW. The locked in version in locking in a known error. This should not be the case. I know there's a Wikipedia joke about protecting the wrong version but the current protected version is black and white wrong. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ I tend to agree, but we'll need to get consensus before we make the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. You know that, and I know that. The lyrics have not changed until the legislation has been given assent. But this is a losing battle -- facts don't matter. The incorrect lyrics will undoubtedly continue to be reflected on this page no matter your efforts. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That’s exsctly the reason I tried to edit it back. Yes, that is completely correct. It is not official until the GG has signed it into law. Which will happen, no doubt because one, the Governor General takes the advice of the PM and two, she was appointed by Trudeau.

Anyways, the changes aren’t technically put through yet and thus, it shouldn’t have been changed on Wikipedia yet. AjayTO (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I realized my mistake too late, but you did not supply an edit summary and it appeared to go against the sourced changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

As per the discussions above, the vague source was interpreted to imply that the lyrics had already been accepted as law, but one step further is needed. Please restore the lyrics to "In all thy sons command" with the following note: the National Anthem Act has been amended to change the lyric to "in all of us command" and is pending royal assent. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur. The (as of now incorrect) version that is currently in the article is the result of this non-consensus edit which was somehow not reverted. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Can full protection just be dropped, now that an approach has been agreed upon? isaacl (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't someone just fix it? The current page is Just Plain Wrong. Msauve (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you didn't correct the "Unofficial bilingual version" or add the note about pending royal assent as we've agreed. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't see a mention of the unofficial bilingual version, so I didn't think to look there. Edit ✅. My first edit summary references Walter's request which includes the desired note, and my second references yours. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

All of Us lyrics
The “All of us command” lyrics aren’t officially part of the song yet. The bill that recently passed through the senate needs to receive royal assent first. Therefore, the article should still list the older “all thy sons” lyrics. —-Joseph123454321 (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , please see the section above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Note on pending lyrics
As per discussion, can the note referred to by "nb 1" be moved to within the "Official lyrics" section, immediately below the Official English lyrics? And can the reference to it be moved to the end of the lyric "True patriot love in all thy sons command."? isaacl (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, given there was just one edit by a logged in editor that went counter to consensus, can the protection level be dropped to semi-protection rather than full? isaacl (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think as regular editors, we’ve reached an agreement. The protection should just be a semi protection from IPs and new users. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 23:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we can try that, at least. One second... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! isaacl (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This! 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The O Canada music and lyrics are owned by the queen of England. The official lyrics still use "In all thy sons command". The Canadian government actually has no jurisdiction over what the lyrics are. Please change back to correct lyric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:F8B5:3000:1598:1F1C:E26F:2E7D (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The monarch of Canada is currently the same person as the monarch of England, but the two roles are not the same. The monarchy of England doesn't have any say of what happens in Canada, but the monarchy of Canada does.
 * Also, it's my understanding that when a bill is accepted by the office of the Governor General of Canada, that the Queen accepts the bill, making it law. Royal assent was granted for the lyrics bill on February 7, 2018.
 * So I'm a bit confused by you make claims. Could you please provide a source to support the claim or stop spreading misinformation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018
For some reason it says us, it's in all thy sons command. Cpelchat1000 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the sources given there and you’ll see it was officially changed. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 03:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the official lyrics it has the newly legislated lyrics. The other mentions occur when the article discusses the original lyrics. Is there a specific location where it should be changed? If so, please indicate the original line, what it should be changed to and why. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018
We need to recognize calixas middle name. I want her legacy in this edit - Marcusthehockeyguy (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ToThAc (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think he's discussing Calixa Lavallée, whose full name, according to his biography, is Calixte Paquet dit Lavallée. Why do we need to include his middle name? It's available at the other article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Formatting of lyrics (TOCcolors version)
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=O_Canada&diff=848570374&oldid=848568957&diffmode=source this edit]: I believe in the interest of accommodating narrower windows/devices, it is preferable to limit the number of side-by-side columns. Personally I think two is probably better; three (as it was before) is probably not as good, and four seems too many. what do others think? isaacl (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I could agree to that. However, only under the condition that a TOCcolors format is restored to the remaining 3 columns for the sake of standardization (pinging ). In the interest of providing a debate, I'll argue as a counterpoint that many other anthem-articles have much more than 3 columns and the issues or rendering such have seldom been considered and/or acknowledged as significant. Perhaps, instead of it being an issue with the amount of columns or table-class, it's an issue of how the lines are divided? -User:Учхљёная(talk,relevant directory,edits). 02:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC).
 * I'd be fine with removing one or both of the last two versions; I don't agree with restoring the bright red bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with moving the "parliamentary translation bureau" and the bilingual version to their own lines, but the red bar with the French title is simply wrong.
 * The issue is the width required for each column to be comfortably legible; just narrow your browser window and you can see the effect. Floated divs would be a better approach to adapt to different window/device widths, but trickier to get alignment between the headings for each version.
 * I don't agree that there is any standard method for marking these up (changes that you've made to multiple articles don't establish a standard in itself). I don't see a need for a different background colour for the lyrics; to me it impedes legibility of an extended passage of text unnecessarily. Personally I would have preferred leaving the original section heading in place, as this discussion is a general one regarding the formatting of the lyrics. isaacl (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Having the 4 versions of the lyrics float is not difficult to do. The garish colours are not standard, despite Учхљёная's crusade. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Floating them is not hard, but I'm not sure there is a good way to ensure the start of the lyrics below the headers align, in a way that supports arbitrary-width windows/viewports. isaacl (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They're floating now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes! isaacl (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Inclusions required
1906 - T.B. Richardson's translation details "O Canada! Our fathers' land of old,/ Thy brow is crowned with leaves of red and gold." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:F941:AFEF:A09E:CC18:B86B:C056 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. First, why is the inclusion of these two lines from this version required? No other lyrics from that version are included. Second, do you have a source for this wording? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

new gender neutral sheet
the music sheet for O Canada is outdated, due to the gender-neutral change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM5Pedia (talk • contribs) 16:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated removal of content
has removed content on several occasions. This is, apparently,. The editor stated that "", which is incorrect since it wasn't Trudeau who put forward the motion, and it was introduced by Bélanger and the bill passed in the house with a vote of 225 to 74, much larger than the ruling party could have achieved on its own. The editor later complained that the new lyrics have " and reverting to the former lyrics "does not need much explaining", which is utter nonsense., and I have all reverted. When I reverted, the changes were unexplained. Canax is now at WP:3RR and only vague reasons for the change have been supplied, none of which fly in the face of facts. Does anyone else have any comment to make? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Instumental Mililtary Rendition of O Canada
It's hard to believe two foreign military bands rendition of Canada's national anthem is considered superior to this: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/themes/defence/caf/militaryhistory/dhh/music/naden-band-o-canada-vincent-roy.mp3 The Naden Band is an official band of the Royal Canadian Navy. As stated here: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/showcasing/music/o-canada-military-band-version.html "O Canada is Canada's national anthem. This authorized military arrangement is available for public use." If I knew how to add it I would. Or consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEblEHxkuNs Canadian contingent "EYES RIGHT!" - 'nuff said!

Macadavy 06:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Macadavy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macadavy (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is clear that "This arrangement is Crown Copyright and users shall comply with Crown copyright rules for commercial and non-commercial reproduction." I believe that cannot upload it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

True so far as it goes, but please consider this: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/intellectual-property/crown-copyright.html#permissionnotrequired Not that I think anyone would abuse it, but Wikipedia is not responsible for how others abuse our contributions to the general welfare, IMHO.

Macadavy 07:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Macadavy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macadavy (talk • contribs)