Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Coat of Arms

Given that the unofficial user rendition of the arms are offensive to some, and simply a poor representation to others, I propose we simply use the official 1957 rendition of the Sovereign's Arms in it's place. In the small text, we could simply put "1957 rendition" instead of the "unofficial rendition" that is there now. For users who wish to see the current rendition, they simply have to click on the Arms blue link immediately below the image. I think this would give a far more accurate and dignified depiction as it would be an official rendition approved by the Sovereign, as opposed to a widely disliked caricature. Lastly, I think the improved image would simply make the article look more professional and presentable honestly. trackratte (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a "bold" edit so you can see how it would look in comparison if you just check the history diff. trackratte (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why we'd show a version of the arms no longer used. While the rendering of the current arms may not be "official", in the opinion of some, it's at least current. For an encyclopedia, I'd say it's better to have an "unofficial" accurate and current representation of the arms used by the sovereign than an out-of-date "official" version. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So your issue is why would we show arms no longer used? Why then would we show Arms which have never been used?

And the user rendition is not simply 'unofficial' in the opinion of some, it is not official point blank as a matter of fact as that user rendition has never been signed off and approved by the Sovereign.

The user rendition is not an accurate depiction. There are a million differences between the official approved depiction, and the user generated image. We're not talking about blazonry and what could be correct in heraldry here. We're talking about a very specific corporate image, in the exact same way that a Canadian flag with a "natural" looking maple leaf depicted instead of the official one would be an entirely correct interpretation based on the blazon, but that's not the point, there is only one correct depiction of the Canadian flag and the same applies to the Arms. trackratte (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, by that logic, this design of the Canadian flag would be perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia, as it is a perfectly accurate depiction. However, as the Canadian Encyclopedia notes: "when the proportions and stylization of the leaf are not respected, the flag loses much of its beauty and impact". Once again, the same principles apply to the Arms, an entirely new depiction which does not respect the stylization and proportions loses it's "beauty and impact" as it is no longer the same image.

Lastly, the Government of Canada is very specific on what exactly the Arms are, as there is only one correct depiction of this symbol of state. Once again, hobby heraldry has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. trackratte (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So, in the absence of an argument explaining why we should use outdated arms, are you arguing there should be no arms shown?

I see you're in the camp that believes the user-created arms are absolutely unacceptable because they weren't drawn by a herald. That is only one opinion, though, as I'm sure you're aware. The agreement reached earlier was to show the "unofficial" arms and describe them as such, so a copyright-free version of the current arms could be used and readers wouldn't be led to believe it's "official". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about absence of argument? I gave three reasons in the first paragraph and another two afterwards. And no one said to get rid of the Arms, so I don't see how that could possibly be your takeaway.

And no, I don't care who drew them, which is the second time you've gone after things I have never said, or have constructed arguments on my behalf.

Do you honestly believe that we can display this image of the Canadian flag here on Wikipedia instead of this one? trackratte (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've looked again and all I still see is expression of why you think the user-created arms are terrible and so shouldn't be used. That isn't an argument for why arms that are no longer used should be the replacement. They are, after all, more different to the current "official" arms than you say the user-created version of the current arms are. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

My point is at least they were the actual arms, as the arms of Canada are a very precise and specific thing, no other rendition is the Arms of Canada (although blazon based renditions are good to go in heraldry, they are not accepted by the state that the Arms represent and who actually have ownership over them). Although I do see your point, why would we use the old Red Ensign just because it was the flag of Canada before. However, the red ensign compared to the current flag are two completely separate and unrelated images. However, the 1957 Arms versus the 1994 Arms the difference is really only the circlet. Although they are both stylistically slightly different, the 1957 Arms are still much more stylistically closer to the current Arms than the user generated rendition, and the 1957 Arms are in fact the real and actual Arms of Canada from 1957. The user-generated Arms don't have any connection at all to the state, and were never approved by it. My last point, a subjective one, is that the 1957 Arms look much more professional on this page, as the user rendition looks cartoonish and amateur, due to style yes, but a lot to do with the bright cartoony colouring.

So when you ask, why would we use the old Arms? My response is because it is a far better than displaying Arms that were never used at all, were never approved, have no connection with the entity in question, and because the Arms are a very specific depiction as approved by the state which the user depiction is not, with the ancillary note that the user generated rendition (as has been noted by many other editors) looks unprofessional and cartoonish.

Now, is your main sticking point your desire to defend the use of the user-generated caricature of the Arms, or that it is unacceptable to use an older version of the actual arms? trackratte (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you there because I see the user-created arms as following the blazon and therefore aren't inaccurate, though they may be a rendition not approved by the Queen. The differences between the 1957 arms and the current version aside, they simply are no longer used by the sovereign and so shouldn't be in the infobox as though they still represent the monarch. I'd rather see an accurate "unofficial" depiction of the arms presently used than a version of the arms no longer in use (and therefore not reflective of the blazon). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

1. This conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the blazon, is not a conversation about heraldry, and is not related to any heraldry article. The fact that an image could be considered an accurate depiction of what is outlined in a blazon is 100% irrelevant here. We are talking about a very specific corporate symbol, which by definition to be the Queen's personal representative symbol, must approved by her (both the design and image).

2. The fact that the 1957 Arms are no longer used by the Sovereign is not a reason to exclude them in favour of the user-rendition, as after all, the user-rendition is most certainly not used by the sovereign either. So, your statement that they are not "used by the sovereign and so shouldn't be in the infobox" absolutely applies to the user-rendition.

3. When you say you'd "rather see an accurate 'unofficial' depiction of the arms" you are saying that you would rather see something used which in fact is not the specific corporate symbol at all, but instead is a hobbyists caricature. And as an aside, if the user-derivative was not caricature but in fact was "accurate", it would then fall under "Marks and designs similar to the official symbols are pursued as a copyright or trade-mark infringement" (Government of Canada). IF it truly was accurate enough to be used, it would fall under Crown Copyright and not be allowed here. If it is not accurate enough, then it shouldn't be used on this article at all.

At least the 1957 version is actually the symbol in question as approved by the Sovereign (of which this article is about), because as you say 'arms not used by the Sovereign shouldn't be in the infobox'. The 1957 Arms were used for 37 years, and were approved by the topic of this article to be used as a specific symbol to represent the topic of this article in question. The user-generated rendition was not, and never has been. trackratte (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The blazon is relevant if we're going to talk about accuracy. The user-created image follows the blazon. The 1957 version does not. I think I've been clear enough: an accurate but "unofficial" version of the arms in use is superior to an "official" version of arms no longer used.

If you wish to continue pushing for the change, it seems clear we're going to have to move to WP:3O, as neither of us is going to convince the other and there's no compromise other than no arms at all (which I think neither of us want) or the one reached earlier but you find unacceptable. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

How is the blazon relevant? I'm not talking about heraldic practices, but a specific image. One image is different than the other. One represents the Sovereign of Canada (as they personally signed the image making it so), and the other doesn't. One has been used to represent the topic of this article, and the other has not. One is professional, the other is not.

You haven't addressed any of the issues in points 1 through 3 above, merely brought up a non-relevant textual description once again, which no one is disputing or even talking about. trackratte (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This argument has been rehashed a hundred times, particularly at Talk:Canada; some people say if the image follows the blazon, it is a proper representation of the arms of Canada, while others say only the version created by the Heraldic Authority and approved by the monarch are the arms of Canada. I'm not going to deny the "official" version is a better rendition; but, I don't hold that we can only use that version to illustrate the Canadian coat of arms, especially given there's no alternative allowable in Wikipedia (outside the article on the arms itself). The note below the image in this article's infobox suffices to let readers know it isn't an "official" depiction of the arms.

On top of that, the 1957 arms are not used any more and that is reason enough not to have them in the infobox as though they are the monarch's coat of arms. That's all that needs to be said on the use of that version.

Perhaps you can come up with a fair use argument for the copyrighted image in this article. Otherwise, it really does appear there's two options: drop the matter or proceed to WP:3O. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement that "if the image follows the blazon, it is a proper representation of the arms of Canada" is correct, if we were talking about heraldic practice and what is 'good to go' in accordance with rules of heraldry, which we are not. We are talking about the two symbols authorized by the state and shown in the "Technical Specifications" section of the Federal Identity Program, ie two very specific approved images. Not the finer points of heraldry. So, this argument is not a rehash of arguments about what is heraldically correct, it is a completely separate debate: what is the best symbol to represent the topic of this article is the issue at hand. Which is why any mention of a blazon is irrelevant.

This would really go a lot easier if you actually addressed the points brought forward instead of pushing for 3-O.

If the fact that "the 1957 arms are not used any more and that is reason enough not to have them in the infobox as though they are the monarch's coat of arms" is true, then it is equally true for the user-rendition, as the user-rendition 'has never been used and that is reason enough not to have them in the infobox as though they are monarch's coat of arms'. Except that the 1957 Arms are still in use (point 4 below).
If the user-rendition is in fact accurate enough to be used instead of the Arms, it would then fall under the Government of Canada clause that "Marks and designs similar to the official symbols are pursued as a copyright or trade-mark infringement" (Government of Canada), making the user-rendition a copyright violation under Canadian law. If the user-rendition is not accurate enough, then it shouldn't be used on this article at all.
You agree that "the 'official' version is a better rendition", so why don't we use it? You've already accepted the use of an image which was never used to represent the topic at hand, so why not simply use the "better rendition", especially as it is an approved symbol still in use and is actually used to represent the topic in question, as...
The 1957 version of the Arms are still in use, see the Government of Canada Official Symbols page, the 1957 Arms are still an official symbol of the Canadian State (bottom left of Figure T-105 of the Federal Identity Program). The "revised 1957" Arms were in use on the covers of passports until 2002, and on cases of the Canadian Forces Decoration until 2005 even though the now most commonly used version was approved in 1994. The 1957 version is still in use in the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP as a badge of authority, and perhaps elsewhere as well. The "revised 1994" version never superseded the 1957 version, but was used along side of it, as is still the case today. trackratte (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your points; or, the pertinent ones, anyway. I know you feel otherwise. Hence, I said WP:3O.

To your question of why "I" don't "use" the "official" version: I thought that was clear: It's copyright protected. But, as I said, maybe you can come up with a fair use argument for its use in the infobox here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You realize the 1957 version is one of the two official versions still in use right? And you have not explicitly addressed any of the four points addressed above, but have only deflected by referring to an irrelevant blazon, deflected by advocating for 3-O instead of addressing the points, and refuse to acknowledge that the 1957 Arms are in fact still in current use to symbolically represent the topic of this article.

You've freely admitted that "the 'official' version is a better rendition". The 1957 and 1994 revisions are the only two official images in current use. The latter cannot be used, but the former can, therefore the 1957 version is the only actual image of Arms of the Queen of Canada that can be used here. You have also stated that it "is reason enough not to have them [the Arms] in the infobox as though they are the monarch's coat of arms", which the 1957 Arms are the monarch's coat of arms and are in current use, but the user rendition is not, and never has been.

By your own logic we should not use the user-rendition (as is it not the actual image used to symbolically represent the Canadian monarchy), and should use the 1957 version (as it currently is). trackratte (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1957 version is not used anymore; it is no longer the coat of arms of the reigning monarch of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is still used by certain federal agencies, as above, and as per the Arms parent article. Even if it were not, which it is, the 1957 Arms were never superseded by the 1994 revision, but continued to be used in conjunction with the 1994 version for 22 years now. Yes, it has been gradually replaced by the 1994 Arms over time, like the passport in 2002 and Canadian Forces decoration in 2005, however it has not been completely replaced in all agencies, and most importantly, the 1957 Arms are still maintained as an official symbol by the Government of Canada (unlike the 1921 Arms), and is still legally protected as such as you can see by the refs above. trackratte (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: My revert of the IP's deletion of previous version, wasn't a endorsement of said version. I've no interest in which Coat of Arms is used, merely reverted a passer-by IP :) GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1957 version is not used. It may remain on old documents and depicted in old courtrooms, etc., but, that's no reason to use it any more than the same is a reason to use the 1923 version or the 1868 version. The 1994 arms are the current arms of the Canadian monarch. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is still in current use. Why do you refuse to acknowledge all the evidence brought forward? Every branch of service in the Canadian Armed Forces just completed amending rank insignia, which continue to use the 1957 Arms to represent the Queen of Canada's granting of Royal Warrants, as does the RCMP. Second, the 1957 Arms are still an official symbol of the Canadian state, as I've shown you multiple times through reliable sources. There is no proof of the 1957 Arms ever being superseded, in fact there is much proof to the contrary. So far you have simply ignored the links and evidence, and have continued based on nothing but your personal opinion, even in contradiction to your own stated preferences for the official rendering. The only reason for the user-rendition you have brought forward is that the 1957 Arms are no longer in use, which has been proven false, and even if it were true that is not a logical reason for the use of this user-rendition image, as that image has never been in use at all, which by your own logic means that the version you keep putting up should not be used.

In summary, you have not addressed a single point brought forward for the use of the actual Arms, and you have not brought forward a single point for the use of the user-rendition. The only two points you have actually brought forward is in support of the 1957 Arms, making it all the more mystifying why you insist on using an inferior image (which you've already admitted) which has no connection to the subject matter as it was never used by the Canadian monarchy (a point which you say means that it cannot be used here). trackratte (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Break

Fake coat of arms makes the article look non credible....people will ask themselves what more in this article is fake or user generated. I know the article is good..but seeing the wrong image right off the bat will leave people wondering about the whole article. -- Moxy (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarify - Which one is the "fake" one? GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Moxy is using the word "fake" in the sense of "a specific image which has never been approved and adopted by Canada as an official legal symbol representing the nation or the state yet still appears as such", ie an image of the Canadian flag or the Canadian arms which are not, in fact, the "real" (meaning "legally approved and adopted by Canada") flag or arms of Canada. The fact that you had trouble distinguishing the two is proof that the "fake" image, as defined above, is "similar" and "so nearly resembling as to be likely be mistaken for" the actual copyrighted image, which is to say is then a copyright violation under Canadian and American law. Either that, or you were taking issue with the use of the word "fake", however now that it's been defined, we should have no misconceptions of what we mean when we use the word. I've included a table below to make it easier to see the "fake" vs "real" Arms and Flag. trackratte (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification :) GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Real" (specific image used and approved by Canada) vs "fake" (image which is not the specific symbol used and approved by Canada)
Arms of Canada, revised in 1957 (current official symbol of Canada)	Not the Arms of Canada (Arms never used nor approved by Canada)
	May be heraldically correct, but still not the Arms of Canada.
Current National Flag of Canada (current official symbol of Canada)	Not the National Flag of Canada (Flag never used nor approved by Canada)
	Is heraldically correct, but is still not the National Flag of Canada.
Current Flag of the United States	Not the Flag of the U.S. (Flag never used or approved by the United States)
	May be heraldically correct in that it more closely aligns with the blazon of the Arms, regardless it is still not the Flag of the U.S.

To note: In order to be the actual Arms or Flag of Canada, the image itself, in addition to the text, must be personally signed and approved by the Queen of Canada, as you can see in the top left corner of the image below. Both "Canadian flags" are heraldically correct as they both perfectly correspond to the blazon ("Gules on a Canadian pale Argent a maple leaf Gules"). However, as we can plainly see, the flag above right is not the National Flag of Canada and cannot be portrayed as such in an Encyclopedia in the same way as the Arms. Whether or not an image is correct in terms of the principles of heraldry and conforms to a blazon is entirely irrelevant when it comes to specific national or state symbols. The symbol itself is a very specific and exact legal image. Further, any "Marks and designs similar to the official symbols are pursued as a copyright or trade-mark infringement",[1] and where "No person shall adopt...any mark...so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for...the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada",[2], which is simply to say that any user-rendition of a coyprighted image that is "similar" and "so nearly resembling as to be likely be mistaken for" the actual copyrighted image is a copyright violation under Canadian law, ie if the 1994 Arms are copyrighted, similar user-renditions of these Arms are equally copyright violations, however the 1957 revision is both considered free-use by Commons and is also still currently an official symbol of Canada, making it the only suitable Canadian state symbol available for use on Wikipedia (as there are only two "real" state symbols, one is copyrighted the other is not, and any similar rendition of the copyrighted image is both "fake" and a copyvio under Canadian law).

trackratte (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the Canadian flag image shown, here are one, two, and three other Canadian examples of the need for the Queen of Canada to approve a specific image prior to becoming a legally authorized and official symbol used to represent the state or a state institution. This applies to any image that shows the Royal Crown, in which case the "personal approval of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" is required. Which is the same practice in the UK, as can be seen here, and here, as well as in New Zealand as can be seen here. As you can see, each time, a very specific image/rendering created by a professional herald is legally approved for use and adoption at any given time, and any other rendering not legally adopted and approved is simply not the symbol in question. Any revisions to an already approved image must be personally approved again by the Queen prior to being adopted for use, as can be seen with this 2005 registration which explicitly states that the newly revised rendering of a previously approved symbol was legally approved by the Queen of Canada in 1994, although they don't show a copy of the signed 1994 document itself, but examples can be seen at the links above. So, as we can see in the centre of the legal letters patent for the National Flag of Canada shown, there is only one specific National Flag of Canada image or rendering, and as we just saw, any revised rendering of the Flag image would have to be formally approved by the Queen of Canada prior to then becoming the new National Flag of Canada, and as we can see above right in the table any alternate renderings of the specific symbol, although correct in terms of heraldry, are simply not the National Flag of Canada and the same applies to the Arms. trackratte (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That has only affirmed my earlier point about the 1957 arms still existing on old documents. That doesn't make them any less a no longer used coat of arms. It certainly doesn't make them the current coat of arms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that the revised 1957 Arms are not a current official symbol of Canada and not currently in use (created three months ago)? trackratte (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And as you can see in this 2016 document, Ministers of the Crown still use the 1957 Arms. The fact is that both official and legally approved renderings are still both used concurrently today, which is why Canada still maintains both on its official registry of state symbols. trackratte (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the '1957' version, as it appears to be the 'majority' preferred one. PS - If it gets reverted? Ya'll can work it out on your own. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

At the moment 4 or 5 (Moxy, trackratte, GoodDay, and the two different IPs, which may be the same person, thus 4 or 5) people support the 1957 Arms either through the Talk or by putting them directly into the mainspace, and one person objects based on a point which has been proven false (the Government of Canada says the 1957 Arms are a current official symbol, and the modified Canadian Armed Forces insignia published three months ago use the 1957 Arms, as does the RCMP, so are thus still a current and legal official symbol of Canada). Since the point of the sole dissenter has been taken into account and addressed, and 4 or 5 users are in favour, by definition consensus has been achieved, although as always, is subject to change. trackratte (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What I have been saying is quite clear. If you'd like to propose Canada has two coats of arms, that discussion belongs elsewhere. If it's established that's the case, then we can revisit this matter. Otherwise, I will only keep suggesting you take the next step in the dispute resolution process. (Any claim the IP who kept reverting me supports the 1957 arms is a gross assumption; the individual reverted more than just the arms and made no remarks about any content, either here or in an edit summary. Based on his record, GoodDay will likely change his mind by tomorrow (though he does also seem to enjoy holding any position that's contrary to mine...) Only you and Moxy certainly favour at least not using the user-made rendition of the current coat of arms.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"GoodDay will likely change his mind by tomorrow (though he does also seem to enjoy holding any position that's contrary to mine...". If that's not totally blowing up WP:AGF? then I don't know what is. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to my straight forward question above at 15 March 14:55. And it is established that this is the case, Canadian governmental agencies continue to use them, and the Government of Canada retains both the 1957 and 1994 revisions of the Arms as official symbols of Canada and enforce their protection as such. Your carrying on reverting others for a reason which has been proven invalid by reliable sources based on nothing but your own opinion is disruptive. I've provided the legal source a dozen times, as well as proof of their use by Crown agencies.

You have reverted or removed the 1957 Arms seven times now against four to six different editors:

trackratte (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

From a place situated not far from the Queen's London residence, I previously agreed with comments reiterated above by Mies.[3] (in a discussion opened by track. a year ago) and I see nothing in the above which alters that. The proposal to display the arms of 1957 by asserting that a representation of the current blazon is not identical with an image representing the "official" copyrighted version looks more emotive than rational (which is sometimes desirable, but not here), even if external sources calling it "cartoonish" were produced. If choice were not inhibited by copyright, obviously the copy of the "official" represenation would be preferred. Qexigator (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your argument against using the official Arms of Canada as revised in 1957? Or are you agreeing that they should be used?

Your characterization of the argument is not one that I am advancing, so unless you're setting up a strawman, I suggest you review the argument. To make it easier, the Flag and Arms are specific images approved and adopted by the state, an encyclopedia should not use a flag or arms to represent a country that are not in fact the symbol in question, such as the flag above right, or this rendition of the American flag to represent the U.S., even though it is actually more in line with the blazon of the Arms on which the canton is based. The user-rendition image is actually irrelevant to the argument, only the actual Arms should be used, just as only the actual American Flag should be used, just as the actual National Flag of Canada should be used.

And what has changed since the former discussion you bring up, is proof that specific renderings are approved by the Canadian state individually, so any rendering which has not been approved are not, in fact, the symbol in question, as you can plainly see from the rendering of the National Flag of Canada above right. In addition, revised renderings also must be similarly approved by the Canadian state as can been seen above. Second, the 1957 official rendering is still an official symbol of Canada maintained by the state, as you can see in the source above, and is still in current (although sharply diminished) use, once again as can be seen above. Third, there is no evidence that the 1957 Arms were ever superceded, as can be seen by the Government maintaining both the 1957 and 1994 revisions as official symbols concurrently today, and by the fact that Canadian passports and certain decorations still used the 1957 version of the Arms well into the mid-2000s, showing once again that the 1994 revision did not supercede the 1957 one, but that they were both in fact used concurrently, a state which is still ongoing today as can be seen most recently with the CAF's redoing of all three services insignia using the 1957 Arms published just three months ago. trackratte (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no remark with the time stamp 15 March 14:55.

I have replied to everything that's pertinent. The 1957 arms are not currently the arms of the monarch of Canada. If they are, and so too are the 1994 arms, then Canada has two coats of arms. As I've said, that's a discussion for another place and, if it's determined Canada has two or more coats of arms, this article's infobox can be revisited (as will a number of other articles; particularly Arms of Canada). I am now only repeating myself. And here I go again: go to the next step in dispute resolution. You don't have a consensus for your change (no matter how you cling to a drive-by anon serial reverter who hasn't participated once to any discussion and ergo is a disruptor, not a contributor). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment is at 10:55 am yesterday, different time settings. The following pertinent points haven't been responded to at all:

Where is your proof that the 1957 Arms are not currently an official symbol of Canada? The Government of Canada says they are. And the article you refer to says that both the 1957 and 1994 revised Arms are official symbols of Canada. Thus far all you have done is contradict legal sources using nothing but your own opinion, and have removed this current Canadian official symbol seven times now. You have failed to address this point, simply ignoring the sources and proceeding on continual reversion based on your own unsourced opinion.
Second, you state that consensus was achieved not to use the 1957 Arms, where is this consensus located? Because I'm not aware of it. You have not addressed this point.
Third, whether or not the 1957 Arms are currently in use, which sources prove they are, is entirely irrelevant to the current discussion, as the image you keep inserting has never been used by Canada. If the reason you keep removing the 1957 Arms is because this image is not in current use, then by your own logic, you should be removing Arms which are most certainly not in current use (the user-rendition) as they have in fact never once been approved nor adopted by Canada. You have so far failed to address this point at all.
Fourth, according to American and Copyright law (linked above), any image derived from a copyrighted image is a copyright violation. Thus, the image you keep on inserting is not suitable inline with policy (or law). And it is clear it is a derivative and not based solely on the blazon, as it copies elements from the copyrighted image not present at all in the blazon, such as the maple leaf mantle, maple leaf on the gorge of the helm, the green colouring of the inside of the helm, etc, etc. You have not addressed this point either.
Fifth, how is it acceptable to use the flag above right on the Canada page for example? As using the Arms above right here is the exact same thing.
So finally, why not use an official symbol of the Canadian monarchy to represent the article on the Canadian monarchy? The 1957 image was approved by the Canadian monarch to represent it, the user-rendition was not. The 1957 image is currently used and maintained as an official symbol of Canada, the user-rendition is not (and this point is proven by sources). The 1957 image has the advantage of being non-offensive (in the same way as using the Flag above right would be offensive, regardless of heraldic accuracy), is an official and legal symbol of the Canadian monarchy, is currently an official symbol of Canada, and as such is a professional image made by a national expert and professional herald, and is free-use. The user-rendition has none of these advantages, and instead has all of the reverse disadvantages, primary of which not being the actual Arms of Canada approved and adopted by Canada.

Also, you're right, IPs should not be borderline edit warring and should participate here, and as you can see I already issued a 2RR warning to the first one. trackratte (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Moving aside the straw men: You are arguing there are two coats of arms for Canada; one that follows the 1957 blazon and the other that follows the 1994 blazon. As such, the onus is on you to prove that to be true; I am not required to prove a negative. The statement at Arms of Canada is cited to the link you just gave and nowhere does it say the 1957 and 1994 versions are both the arms of the monarch; copyright protection does not make something the heraldic symbol of the Queen. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left space above for you to respond to the five points. The source above states: "These technical specifications (T-105) explain the legal protection of the official symbols of the Government of Canada." "Official government symbols: Arms of Canada as revised in 1994, Government of Canada signature, Canada Wordmark, Arms of Canada as designed in 1921 and revised in 1957," --> The Arms of Canada, revised 1957, are an official symbol of Canada in the same way as the Arms, revised 1994. The CAF and the RCMP currently use the 1957 Arms. The 1957 Arms were used on decorations governed by the Queen of Canada, and the 1957 Arms were used on Canadian passports until a decade after the approval of the 1994 revision.

I have thus shown ample proof and sources that 1) the 1957 Arms are currently an official symbol of Canada, 2) That the 1957 Arms were not superseded as they were both used concurrently as the Arms of Canada, and 3) That the 1957 Arms are still in use by certain state agencies. You have as of yet shown nothing save for your own opinion. Show proof that the Arms of 1957 were superceded, that the state was mistaken to use them on passports and decorations, and that the state is still mistaken in using them today in official material published just three months ago. I'm not asking you to simply prove a negative, I am asking you to substantiate your opinion in the face of several official and legal sources which show your unsubstantiated point to be in error. trackratte (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As you stated above, no one has advocated for removing the Arms parametres entirely from the page, so there is certainly no consensus for it. If you wish to remove something which has been part of this article since 2007, I suggest it be brought up here first. I don't think unilateral removal of something which has been here for nearly a decade is particularly helpful. trackratte (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you continue to insist (here and by way of reverts) Canada has two coats of arms, but provide nothing but WP:OR to back it up, I shall have to do your job for you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Um...alright. I've made a total of two reverts regarding the Arms, one of which was to restore an edit you made. You've removed the 1957 Arms seven times now, reverting four or more people. I've also put forward sources, and asked for you to address points in the discussion, both of which you refuse to do. You've also just inputted that the 1957 Arms were superseded in 1994 without any source, and despite the four references to the contrary provided here that you've already read. trackratte (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Why should we display a misleading graphic at all?

since both give a false impression and the real depiction is only one click away at Arms of Canada ? BushelCandle (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think all involved would prefer the most recent and commonly used revised 1994 Arms, however an admin ruled that it can only be used at the Arms of Canada page. However, as we can see, I think all the editors involved so far here feel that it should be allowed here as well, as it is the direct and most commonly used symbol of the Monarchy of Canada in all capacities (legislative, executive, and judicial). However, all I'm saying is that the 1957 Arms represent a good second choice (and as the current first choice is not allowed unless someone changes it, is the best choice left available), as the 1957 revision were the most commonly used symbol, were legally approved for use by Canada, are still officially used to some extent, and are still legally an official symbol of Canada (so are thus still a "real depiction" in the sense of having been "approved and adopted for use by Canada"). I think no Arms at all would be a disservice as they've been here since 2007, and are the best image as the direct symbol of the article topic, but getting rid of them altogether would be my third choice. trackratte (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone write to Her Majesty or the Canadian Government and ask for formal permission to use it in the user box along with the appropriate copyright symbol and "used by permission" ? BushelCandle (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia does allow copyrighted images under a "Free Use" justification, as can be seen for the 1994 Arms at the Arms of Canada page. As you can see here, that's exactly what we tried to do, with an editor adding a free-use justification to the file in question. However, a user reverted it based on this discussion here. It would be my hope that this decision could be revisited for this article specifically, as the admin's judgement, while perhaps applying to the other articles regarding the argument about the blazon, that argument does not apply here, in the same way you cannot use an "alternative version" of the Canadian flag (such as above right in the table above) in the Canada article. Which is all to say that we don't necessarily need permission from the Canadian Government, just a new RfC and admin decision to allow their use here. trackratte (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Mmmmm, the deletionist dragons have certainly misunderstood the position in relation to Crown copyright in Canada: "Permission to reproduce Government of Canada works, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, or for cost-recovery purposes, is not required, unless otherwise specified in the material you wish to reproduce.
A reproduction means making a copy of information in the manner that it is originally published the reproduction must remain as is, and must not contain any alterations whatsoever.
The terms personal and public non-commercial purposes mean a distribution of the reproduced information either for your own purposes only, or for a distribution at large whereby no fees whatsoever will be charged."BushelCandle (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha, deletionist dragons. Perhaps something could be added at the relevant WikiDragon page. Although yes, largely an issue of an internal EnWiki stance rather than being expressly prohibited. trackratte (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

I've gone ahead & inserted the 1957 image, into the infobox. From what I'm understanding, there's only been one objection to it. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My change was reverted. It would really help, if folks would chime in here & clarify beyond doubt, which image they think should be used. 1957 or 1994? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Consensus has been established on numerous occasions, most recently at the Arms image talk page, that only legally approved and official state logos are suitable for an encyclopedia. In this case, either the legal and official arms approved for use and adopted by Canada should be used, or nothing at all. trackratte (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's good to see that everyone is in apparent agreement with the version you've recently inserted :) GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)