Talk:Coat of arms of Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Coat of arms of Canada is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
 |
Coat of arms of Canada (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
