Talk:Order of Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Update

• I have added in the strange story of Conrad Black in the non-canadian's section of the article. Since he is in the order but is no longer a citizen of Canada. If anyone has a better way of putting in this data please do so User:Dowew May 17, 2005

Question

How official is this seal used? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When someone is entered into the order they recived a large framed certificate written in both english and french describing the order, its importance and symbolic meaning. That image is in the center of it. Dowew 12:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I also found a better picture of the Companion award: http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/content/collections/cmdp/images/cc-l.gif. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found some more. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found more at http://www.whatsupwithmen.com/order_medal.jpg and http://www.benheppner.com/images/awards/GovGenMedal.jpg. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question

Do you think the content from http://www.billcasselman.com/wording_room/latin_canada_motto.htm should be placed on here, in a small section or just a link? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahenakew's membership

This is relevant to the main article to some degree, and it might be worth investigating: there's been a minor degree of controversy over anti-semetic remarks made by First Nations leader David Ahenakew, and his resulting trial for promoting hatred. The relevance is that Ahenakew has been a member of the Order of Canada since 1979 (see the article on Ahenakew for more), leading to many calls for him to be stripped of the honour, especially if convicted. Furthermore, several members within the Order itself have vowed to stop wearing their medals until Ahenakew's membership in the Order is removed. I think it's worth a look. TheProject 03:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erm, oops, I somehow missed that the first time when I was reading the article, I didn't see you'd already included it. My sincere apologies. By the way, a judge is due to rule on Ahenakew's fate on June 30th. TheProject 05:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is alright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MC Ribbon

Shouldn't it be CM Ribbon ? Is this a typo or is it ment to be like that ? Dowew 01:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Typo. My apologies. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 12:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silver Jubilee Medal

All Members of the Order of Canada as of 1977 recieved the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal automatically. Is there someway this article can mention this Dowew 02:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 12:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I spoke to a man at the Royal Canadian Regiment Museum today and according to him the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal was also given automatically. I am going to edit the text according. Dowew 02:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question about upgrades ?

I am curious, when an individual is upgraded from Member to Officer, or Officer to Companion - does that individual have to surender their previous medalion to Rideau Hall or may they keep it as an heirloom ? Dowew 22:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know they keep their new medal, but I do not know of anyone who was promoted from various ranks. So I do not know if they keep their old medals, but since each medal has a serial number on the back (on a small plate above CANADA), it will be hard to reuse. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under the Constitution of the Order of Canada, when an individual is promoted from one rank to another, they must surrender their insignia from the first appointment. --64.228.42.39 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should add an example of a rare occasion when the Order is not presented as Rideau Hall. The best one I know of is Gordon Lightfoot. The CC was presented to him shortly after he came out of a coma brought on from a life threatening abdominal hemerage in a ceremony at a Toronto Hospital .[1] [2]

Dowew 10:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It actually is more regularly awarded outside Rideau Hall. Clarkson has on more than one occassion held entire investiture ceremonies in Vancouver and other cities, not just in individual cases.

Calls for Removal

What process must be gone about to get an individual stripped from the Order of Canada ? How is the process initiated ? I ask because I really think Conrad Black should be removed from the Order - If not because he is no longer a Canadian the because the recent legal problems he is facing in England - A Judge Ordered him to not remove any files from Hollinger's headquarters and he was photographed the following day bringing boxes to his car !) Does anyone know the answer of should I try e-mailing Rideau Hall Dowew 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Based on what I followed from the Ahenakew case, the Order presumes innocence until proven guilty. Once the person is guilty of an offense, the Order Advisory Council will get together and make a decision. We will see in a few days about Ahenakew's status, since a judge will rule in his case. But hey, if you think Black should be removed from the Order, be my guest. I cannot send anything, due to my citizenship (American here sadly), but tampering with evidence is a felony in the States. Fraud is also a felony, and one was removed from the Order due to it. So your chances of asking for Black's removal will be a good shot. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got an e-mail from Rideau Hall today saying that my request for information regarding Conrad Black's status has been sent to the Chancellery of Honours. Hopefully this will speed up Lord Tubby's exit. Dowew 02:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boy, image the press coverage about Wikipedia if you get Black removed from the Order. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that Chancellery meets on Canada Day. As far a publicity goes, as crazy as Lord Black is he a guy I would rather not have as an enemy. well...hopefully he will just be booted soon. Honestly, it should have been done back when he surendered his citizenship in 2001. Dowew 15:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this also cause the Chancellery to add a section in the Constitution about Holders surrendering his/her citizenship. Because of it, maybe he could not loose his Order. However, his legal issues can make him lose it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Canadian Constitution will never been changed. see the disaster called the Meech Lake Accord for more info on this. I would think that the Order could just make their own rule as to eligability. What would be great is if Black lost his membership in the Queen's Privy Council for Canada which allows him the real peak of a diplomatic passport and the ability to live in Canada for an indefinate period of time, even though he is not a Canadian. Dowew 20:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Order Constitution, not the actual Canadian Constitution. Sorry. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yukon Order of the Polaris

I've been adding images to the territorial medals but I don't think the Yukon Order of the Polaris has an official site (kinda stange) . I did however find this page [3] [4] and it looks like It does not include postnominals. Dowew 02:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could it be in working stages? Most provincial orders have not been created until recently. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Some were created earlier than others. I will try to create ribbon bars pictures as soon as I can. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Levels in the Order

"Upon its creation, the Order only had Companions. On July 1, 1972, all members were made Officers and the level of Officer and Member were introduced." . according to the Canadian encyclopedia this is incorrect

"When it was created in 1967, there were 2 ranks, Companion and Medal of Service. " [5]

Dowew 02:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will make the change. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also have a question: why has the number of appointees per year different from what is presented from the official Order website? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand, do you mean the maximum number of commanions or something User:Dowew

From said website: "There are now 3 levels of membership, in which the number of appointments is limited: Companion (not to exceed 150 at any one time) for "outstanding achievement and merit of the highest degree"; Officer (46 appointments maximum in any year) for "achievement and merit of a high degree"; and Member (92 appointments maximum in any year)." On the official website of the Order: "Companion 15* (not to exceed 165 living Companions at any given time), Officer 64, Member 136, Non-Canadian (Honorary) 5; Total 220. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see, I don't know. Pherhaps that website is old and the numbers have since been changed ? Dowew 05:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am going to stick with the official numbers from the Governor General, unless this warrants another email. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - stay with the numbers currently listed on the Rideau Hall website since that is the current best official info. My guess is they gave out the Order in great quanity and came dangerously close to the maximum number (like I suggested below). I did a search on the Torono Star Online for the year 1988 ( the year of the W&S show) but didn't find any angry editorials. - I do know around the time of the Meech Lake accord Mulroney had 6 new seats added to the Senate, if that is any indication that things were getting bigger :) Dowew 05:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also answered your questions on my talk page. I tried to do a Google search on the Medal of Service, but nothing yet. If there are historical versions of the Order, I want to present them. I know there is one, which I need to take a clip of. This part will be introduced in the insignia section. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

K. I have added the info about multiple recipients like you suggested but it could probably use a bit of rewording. Have a great night, I am going to bed now :) Dowew 05:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I beat you to it. I wrote: Multiple people who have committed the same honourable act or deed are eligable to receive the Order. An example of this is the members of the Canadian band Rush been appointed Officers to the Order (Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart). Because of that, I removed your addition, since it was a duplication. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just added an image of the Aga Khan with the CC to the Non-Canadian Appointments section. I was just thinking pherhaps it would be a good idea to put the years on the non-canadian appointments ? Dowew 11:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at that Canadian Encyclopedia article again and I noticed it says "Companions may be appointed only when a vacancy occurs." - I take this to mean that at the time of the articles writing the Companion Class was full and the allotment has since been increased (although its pretty full now).

Only two more appointments can be made, unless other C.C.'s pass away. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I assume that they would have to keep two spots open for then next Governor General and his or her consort. Dowew 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frquency of distribution

Is anyone Aware of any controvery in the late 80's regarding how many medallions were being distributed ? In 1988 Wayne & Shuster made their last tv special "Once Upon A Giant" in which Johnny Wayne as Lester the Jester grabs McDermitt the Hermitt who responds by yelling "Please, your bending my Order of Canada!" . I am going to try doing a serch of the Toronto Star archives for any articles on the Order Dowew 02:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have not, but I am sure someone would have made a note of it by now online. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honorary Appointments

I just read the news release from 2000 about The Queen Mother getting the CC [6] and it says "Today's announcement marks the fifth honorary appointment to the Order of Canada. Past recipients include Nelson Mandela and John Kenneth Galbraith." - however Galbraith was born in Ontario ! - I assume this must be a typo of some kind. Dowew 12:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

more Bizarre, they did it in 1998 when Mandella got the order [7] "Today's announcement marks the fourth time since the creation of the Order of Canada that an honorary appointment has been made. Past honorary recipients are: John Kenneth Galbraith, O.C., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., James Hillier, O.C., Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A., and Charles Édouard Dutoit, O.C., Montréal, Quebec.". - There must be a difference between "Honorary appointment" and "Non-Canadian Appointments". Dowew 12:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Charles Dutoit article, although he has lived in Montreal for 25 years, he is not a Canadian Citizen and the only "the only non-Canadian citizen to be a Grand Officer of the Ordre national du Québec. - Strange, as this would be an honouary placement as an Officer, not Companion. Dowew 12:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then we should have a section on honourary appointments, and if a foreigner is involved, we list their nationality. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Medal of Courage

I think the Canadian Encyclopedia called the "Medal of Courage" the Medal of Service". See Cross of Valour for more info. Dowew 12:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will make a ref/note template for that. Plus, I am putting all external links as the ref/note, as per WP:FAC requests. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Medal of Courage and the Medal of Service are different things. The Medal of Service was the original second grade of the Order of Canada (retroactively converted to Officer in 1972 when the Order was reorganized). The Medal of Courage was a component of the Order of Canada when the Order was founded in 1967. It was never awarded and was replaced by the Canadian Bravery Decorations established in 1972 (which are not part of the Order of Canada). --64.228.42.39 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

5000 inductions

I did a search of the Order and it came up with 5054 inductees either living or dead in all categories. I am going to change the number "4000" to "5000". Dowew 02:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

Should there be a reference to the Order of the British Empire? Before the Order of Canada wasn't this the main honour given to Canadians? See this link [8]. --YUL89YYZ 16:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promotion

As of 18:09, 26 June 2006, the article was promoted to Featured status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's get ready folks

The article is going to be Featured on the front page tomorrow for 24 hours. Good job yall and let's stop any vandals. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Appointments sub-section

It would seem that there isn't any criteria set aside to add people into the sample list. There is a category for a complete list Category:Members of the Order of Canada and it would seem unfair to only list a few when all are deserving to be recognized of such a prestigious honor. The note for the category is also at the end of the Non-Canadian appointments, that may be a bit misleading.

We can add the Category section to the top of the article. The names I have included on here were originally posted from the article before I touched it. Others have added names to the lists, but I think if it get's too long, then we can prune it down. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

My opinion is that only widely notable individuals should be included. Although this is very subjective, the Member that was added today, Andrew Simone, is not very notable. --YUL89YYZ July 5, 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Then, once this article is done being on the front page, we can try to prune the listing down a bit. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Ahenakew stripped of Order of Canada...

I was thinking we should include something about this event in this article, to describe the process for having the Order of Canada stripped. Does anyone know how many people have ever had their Order of Canada stripped or is Ahenakew the first person to have their Order revoked?

Ahenakew is the second.

What exactly should be included?

That members can be removed from the Order, but I have no clue on what has to happen for a person to even be considered having their Order removed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Book on Order

The Globe today referenced a book titled The Order of Canada: Its Origins, History and Development by a Christopher McCreery. It seems to have been just been published and it would be good if someone could get a hold of it and add anything interesting in it to this article. - SimonP 01:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I wish I can get my hands on it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Simon, the book will come out in September, and I am thinking about getting it. 350 pages of good reading. See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802039405/qid=1121316761/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-8986555-0548630?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing how one can get 350 pages on this subject. Our 3000 words is fairly comprehensive. - SimonP 12:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wish I can get more words in here, but I am affraid of overloainding this. The fork I created yesterday is already on VFD, so any chance of that happening is gone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

New device

I found out that Governor Generals wear a special neckwear of the Compaion Grade. I found a few photos, but I need to write the section a bit later. Also, should we branch off the section on the removal of the Order into a separate article? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure that this chain is a seperate entity for the Governor General of Canada ? I have never seen Adrienne Clarkson wear it and I have never heard of this ? I have a sneaking feelin that perhaps this is really the Royal Victorian Chain. Dowew 18:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The chain worn by the Governor General is the Chain of the Chancellor of the Order of Canada. It is not the Royal Victorian Chain ...which only two Canadians have ever received, both Governors General (Vincent Massey in July 1960, the year after he left Rideau Hall, and Roland Michener in August 1973, in his last year as Governor General). 22:55, 17 December 2005

See the picture we have in the article, and also, I can find pictures of her wearing this chain. She wears this chain during the Order investure ceremonies. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I notice you removed the photo. I found that the same photo was used on a Canadian Postage stamp after Michner died in 1992. [9]

No more Companions

With the appointment of the new GG and her husband, that will bring the Compaion total up to 165 Companions. Unless my math is wrong, there are no more Companions that can be appointed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Correction, after these appointments, four more can be appointed. Since there was no appointments in 2005, GG Clarkson can appoint 5 people this year, thus having only 1 appointment in 2006, unless someone dies or resigns. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the constitution, all GG's and Viceregal Consorts don't count towards the total number. See section on Companion appointments Dowew 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this legal

Ok, I found some guy selling lapel pins of the Order of Canada ranks. They are at http://www.defencemedals.ca/Lapel Pin.htm. While the Order says that insignia cannot be sold, but, is the lapel pin a legal item to even wear? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, something must be legal, since I have found other websites selling minature copies of the Order (all grades) and the ribbon coming with it. I wonder if this is mainly for collectors, but I wonder what are the penalties for someone faslely claiming they were presented the Order. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the constitution of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador which was passed by the Newfoundland Government there is a fine of "not more than $2000" for someone who falsely claims to be a member, falsely uses the insignia, or falsely uses to postnominals. Im not sure if there is an equivalent for the Order of Canada Dowew 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Order of Canada higher than the Victoria Cross

I am curious, is the OofC higher than the VC? Or is the OofC the highest award in Canada, that can be awarded to civilians and military, and the VC is the highest military award that can be awarded in the British Commonwealth? Can someone sort this out for me, please, or have I gotten it correct?

• The VC is higher than the Order of Canada. The VC is worn first, then the Cross of Valor, then the Order of Canada. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

useless links

Why on earth splash blue around the page when it's of no use to the reader? Why link 1967? That's REALLY useful.

Each link makes the text slightly harder to read. Tony 00:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was told to link the years and other things that are important, like people, places and things. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignore that advice, please; ask yourself what possible use a link to a whole year, or decade, or century would be to the reader. Each link makes the text slightly harder to read, and encourages the reader to divert. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked: Wikipedia articles, in my view, are typically overlinked. Tony 23:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think ZScout has applied Wikipedia policies and common sense in good measure. Not every date is linked, but because 1967 was the year the Order was created it's probably the most important date in the article and should be linked. I can definitely see myself using the link to quickly jump to the 1967 article to see what other events occured that year to help give this article context. I agree that many articles are overlinked, but this definitely not one of them. --NormanEinstein 01:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Honourary Members

Okay, this is confusing - for once and for all what the heck is the difference between a "Honourary Appointment" and a "non-Canadian appointment". Adrienne Clarkson's most recent batch of appointees included "Honorary Member" Francis H. Cabot for horticulture. [10] I did a quick search for him and found that he is considered one of the best garden designers in the world and has done work in some large houses around the Sr. Lawrence River (probably Rideau Hall as well). However - I cannot determin his nationality - but he also has the National Order of Quebec. - This is made even more confusing by some Rideau Hall press releases (see above). Dowew 18:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think he is a Canadian. His award for the National Order of Quebec is also in the foreign section (see http://www.ordre-national.gouv.qc.ca/membres/nominations_etrangeres.htm#higginson). The bio says he was born in New York descendants of Quebecers and he was left with some land when his relatives died. That's his Canadian connection. He used the land as his garden. --YUL89YYZ 18:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• • I am also surprised that Peter Jennings was not considered as an honorary member (I was surprised he was even appointed). Jennings became an American citizen a few years before his tragic death, unless he somehow was allowed to keep his Canadian citizenship. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I have created a stub article for Francis Cabot - Jennings became and American Citizen in 2003 but retained his Canadian Citizenship therefore he was eligable - Althought it his appointment is a little suspicious so soon after his death. Dowew 01:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone correct the spelling in the title, please. Tony 23:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pherhaps we should finally change the "non-Canadians" section to "Honorary Appointments" - if the other three or four are considered honorary appointments we should divide the section into its own components ie Compantion, Officer & Member. Dowew 01:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done it - pherhaps someone would like to change the wording around as admitedly it is a bit of a hack job edit Dowew 01:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have tried in the past to figure out the refernce footnote thing on wikipedia to no success. If somebody could add in references to these people citations. Here they are

• link to the news release about Cabot's honourary CM
• UN Secretary news article - i think this lists 2 more

Okay, this brings the number of honorary appointments up to 11 - I never knew Lois was an American ! Dowew 02:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I got an e-mail today from the author of John Kenneth Galbraith authorized biography it states : "Prof. Galbraith gave up his Canadian citizenship in late August, 1937, a

few days before he married--and then sailed for a year's study at Cambridge University." Dowew 01:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Queen Mum Canadian?

HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother (arguably not a "non-Canadian," Companion) [22] (2000) [23] (deceased)

How is the Queen Mother "Canadian"? Are Commonwealth citizens considered Canadian for the purpose of honours? Or was she granted some kind of honourary citizenship when Canada seperated it's citizenship from the UK? (Alphaboi867 19:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

Most likely, she was given honorary citizenship, like the Queen. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

            The HM is a Canada as Queen (not a Citizen as Citizenship comes from her) but as Queen she is a Canada simply idea can be in place for her Mother the Late Queen futher she the Late Queen saw herself as Canadain finally the Sofnia Natalization act granted British Citizenship to all desendent of the Sofnia and there King George the VI would have held Citizenship before becoming a pass it to his wife 

The Queen Mum was tecnically British as she was at one time just a british noblewoman, however, she was the Queen of Canada - monarchists would argue that by that she should be considered a Canadian - if you are asking wheather or not she is a citizen - then no - however - Is Queen Elizabeth II actually a "Canadian" ?

The answer is no, but we as Canadains live under her soverance. I say that this little bracket is good to have in the article

Also - We in Canada are "citizens" of the British Commonwealth. Until relatively recently when traveling within the commonwealth you did not require a passport - only some kind of photo id - for example you could fly from Canada to the Britihs Virgin Islands with no passport as it is part of the commonwealth. Dowew 20:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It has not been the British Commonwealth since 1946 or 1949, depending how you count it. It is the Commonwealth of Nations. Hu 12:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarkson & Saul photo

I have the photo of Jean and Lafond in the appoints companion section since they are both wearing the badge like everone else on the page Dowew 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, is it under the Crown Copyright? Zach (Sound Off) 03:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I meant to say that I changed the photo of Jean & Lafond to the previous image of Clarkson & Saul since in the Jean photo neither of them are wearing the order. Dowew 15:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Order of Canada photo gallery

I have created a page Order of Canada photo gallery in which to put photographs related to the Order of Canada, especially ones which are loaded on wikipedia but cannot fit onto the main page.

Dowew 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks a lot. Zach (Sound Off) 01:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has taged it for deletion. Oh well, I guess it didn't fit with guidelines. Dowew 01:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably because of the fair use images. Any free images would have been sent to the Wikimedia Commons. We could speedy delete the page if no one objects. Zach (Sound Off) 01:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nomination PDF

Is it a good idea to mirror the nomination PDF file on Wikipedia, especially presented as "click here to obtain it"? I'd hate for someone to get an out-of-date nomination form because no-one noticed it needed updating, and the copyright notice on the GG's site notes that even noncommercial users cannot represent a copy as an official version. After all, Wikipedia is not a mirror or an instruction manual. — mendel ☎ 04:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your right, let's remove it. Zach (Sound Off) 04:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I still think it is a good idea to present some sort of link to the nomination forms (especially now that the gg.ca site has relaunched to what I think is a less than stellar navigation format. I have instead made a link to the gg.ca site where the forms can be downloaded. I think it is also important to remind users that postage is free when sent to Rideau Hall !. Dowew 16:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptive, not instructional. Would you expect to find nomination instructions in any other encyclopedia? In any case, external links that are not references belong in the "External links" section per Wikipedia:External_link. — mendel ☎ 18:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts anyone to have nomination instructions on wikipedia...in fact I would think it makes it better. I would hope that after canadian read about the Order of Canada on wikipedia they would think of an influencial canadian and want to nominate them. Something simple like the mailing address certainly is of no harm and the link doesn't like directly to the pdf file, only to the Order of Canada page at gg.ca. Dowew 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we remove the nomination information, then someone will come by and say "how does someone get into the Order?" I also have the nomination information at Appointment to the Order of Canada. Zach (Sound Off) 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Creation

I found an interesting PDF article about the history of the Order [11]

We could use that, but that could also go into the article about Canadian decorations in general. Zach (Sound Off) 02:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

photos automatically deleted ?

The Canadian Crown Copyright Photos such as the image of Paul Anka getting the order have a tag on them saying that "This image is not licensed under the GFDL. It is under a non-commercial-use only licence. If this image was uploaded after May 19, 2005, it will soon be deleted without further warning"...is there anything we can do to stop these from being deleted ? Dowew 02:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

All Crown Copyright photos are being deleted, because they were under a non-commercial license. Zach (Sound Off) 02:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What I can suggest is to tag the images as fair use and explain the fair use. Zach (Sound Off) 02:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyway the CanadaCopyright tag can automatically be replaced with a fairuse tag, since there are an awful lot of Crown Copyright photos on wikipedia and many canadian related pages made great use of them....and things like military medals should be under a difference licence, right ? Dowew 17:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

We have to alter the template itself, I will see what I can do. Zach (Sound Off) 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Stamp images unfair use

I don't think any of the postage stamp images are legitimate fair use here. As {{stamp}} points out, copyrighted stamps can only be used legitimately in relation to the stamp itself, not as a convenient source of pictures. As far as I know, Canada's Order of Canada-related stamps are philatelically uninteresting - it's common for countries to put medals on stamps, particularly at notable anniversaries. So unless someone can come up with a different fair use rationale, these images will have to go. Stan 14:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed, taken out back and shot. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bob Rae

• I'm not sure how effective it is to have that picture of Bob Rae wearing his lapel pin in the article. I know when I first saw it, i thought it was vandalism... till I realized that he was wearing the pin... Is there any way to crop it so that we only see the pin? Or even make an arrow pointing to it? - pm_shef 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we could crop it, since the pic is pretty small. My suggestion is that we should get a pic of the lapel pin itself. It was removed before by OrphanBot, but it was placed back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a rather fuzzy pic of John Ralston Saul's lapel pin which I took when I met him a while back. Unfortuantly my camera had been dropped so its quite fuzzy...if that would work Dowew 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That'll work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, its on my brother's computer so I will have to upload it at a later date. Dowew 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• 

Actually, I found this one of Elizabeth May in the commons...as much as I dislike the woman, its a free photo Dowew 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that will work too. Pretty much, it doesn't matter to me who wears the lapel pin, but as long as the photo is free (in the sense of our goal), then it is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made the change. I think the Saul photo I took would still be better, just have to get to it Dowew 03:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sample List of Appointments

Editors keep adding people to this list, and since it's just supposed to be a sample, that's probably not a good thing. I propose that either someone decides on a good [small] list and we vote on it here (and then someone ruthlessly enforces it), or else the sample list is removed entirely and only a link to the list page is left. OzLawyer 15:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, but if we have to go with something, it would be the second options, since there will be new holders to the Order and the old ones will pass away, so the list will change all of the time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lewis MacKenzie And The Order Of Canada.

I understand that Lewis MacKenzie has recently been established this year as a member of the Order of Canada, but I think he should be stripped of that privilege because of the controversy surrounding him. Personally, I believe he doesn't deserve this honour since there was a lot of evidence showing he lied and gave into bribery from the Serbs many years ago, and failed to accomplish the whole point of his mission "UNPROFOR" (United Nations Protection Force) since he failed to preotect innocent civilians that were being killed daily. There are many other Canadian heroes out there that deserve this more than he does. A lot of people are still ignorant about what really happened with his involvement in the Yugoslav Wars (especially in Bosnia), and base their opinions on what he has shared with the media. There was an instance where he lied in one of his statements, just to prove his point. I'm not writing this comment to start a huge argument, but to say that the topic of Lewis MacKenzie is very detailed and like I said before, many people are ignorant about what really happened. Thanks.

We try not to list every single person who has the order here, but we do mention their status at the order at that person's article. My suggestion is that if you wish for MacKenzie to lose his honor, we have an article detailing on how to get someone removed and you can help get that process started. However, from what I have seen with the 2 strippings of the honor, they have to be convicted of a criminal offense before even talk of their honor being revoked is even discussed. I know there are plenty of other questionable appointments, so I guess you should write a NPOV tidbit at the article of removal from the Order. If you do not wish too, I will see what I can do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Free images

It appears now that all of the images of the badges have been photographed and put under a free copyright license. Many of the images are listed in the catalog of Library and Archives Canada. While some have been put online, others have not. I am wondering if, those living in Canada, could gain access for the photographs so we can use them here and finally ditch many of the fair use images we have? I also plan on overhauling the article to make the references look better and maybe update some stats. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I also plan on overhauling the other subpages. Anyone who wishes to help, they are welcome. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Order of Canada (Companion).png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Order of Canada (Member).jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

info box

Is there a way to add an extra line to the "infobox". Under the line about "Ranks" where it says Companion, Officer and Member I think there should be another collumn for former ranks Medal of Service and Medal of Courage. Dowew (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. But, I wonder: is a medal a grade? Or were the MoS and MoC decorations within the order? --G2bambino (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that MoS and MoC were, umm.. 'in the order but not of it'; they were associated with the order but didn't take any precedence within it.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jean image

Firstly, can we leave the image there until this discussion is complete? If it's removed from here it will be orphaned, and thus deleted. Secondly, it keeps being replaced with an older image of an investiture ceremony, as though the latter was a replacement for the former. However, the older image doesn't illustrate the same thing as the newer one does; one is of an individual being invested, the other is of a group of inductees gathered with the Chancellor and Principal Companion of the order; something that would never happen outside of Rideau Hall. Thus, while the older image has merit as an illustration, so too does the newer one, for a different reason. --G2bambino (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, I am an admin, so I can restore it if it happens to be deleted on accident. You think we should include both, but what I am trying to get at here is this article used to have major fair use images (and problems) when I got the article to Featured. I want to reduce it as much as we can. On another side note, I request for the image of the Queen to be removed from the article. We have images of the female Order insignia already, and we can mention the Queen is the sovereign of the Order without using an image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be deleted by accident; is it not an automatic function that orphaned images are deleted? Anyway, I understand the concerns with image use, but I'm also saying that the concerns over this image are unfounded; it is an illustration that could not be made, ever, free of copyright; and it is being used for educational purposes here, not for profit.

As for the Queen image, I believe its purpose is to illustrate the Sovereign of the order wearing her Sovereign's insignia; this differs from the regular female insignias, of which there are three, not one. --G2bambino (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just rather have the free image of the ceremony than having the copyrighted photo from the Canadian Government. As for the Queen, I still think it is a good idea to keep her photo out, since we had the image before here and was kept on being removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the 60s investiture image being there as well, along with the contemporary one; as I said, they illustrate two different things. The Queen: the only issue with this image that I know of was being caused by one particular user. There is an image specifically of the sovereign's insignia from Archives Canada, but it would have to be uploaded, and it too isn't free. Do you think that would be better than the picture that illustrates both the Sovereign of the Order of Canada herself, and the insignia she wears to identify herself as such? --G2bambino (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel the image of the Queen here is a fair use overuse; if we have to use a photo of the Queen, the just use the NASA photo that is used in her biography. That image is in the public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's okay. But, what about the Sovereign's insignia of the order? --G2bambino (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll worry about that later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)On second thought, I am close to reducing the fair use in the article to even less, so give me some time to deal with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the Sovereign's Badge on the Library Archives Canada, and the image terms will allow us to use the image here. So we can replace the photo of the Queen with the NASA image I described earlier. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was the image I spoke of earlier; though, I thought there was a mass clearing of Archives Canada images from Wikimedia commons as they weren't actually fair use. But, if I was wrong, all the better. --G2bambino (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With this one, I made sure we can keep the images on the Commons. These survived the mass cleaning, mostly because the copyright was assigned to the LAC and their restrictions were NIL. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that makes sense. I don't think we need a photo of Liz anymore, though; we have the insignia and there are plenty of photos of her at her own page. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to reduce fair use here. There are only 2 fair use photos here now, so that should be fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

It seems to me that the CoA should probably not be where it is (if, indeed, it should be anywhere in the article). in its current context, it can confusingly be inferred that it is the CoA of the Order, as it's not clear that it is the CoA of the Governor General. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Ha! You did it while I was commenting. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, just doing my job. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

The only thing that I wish for this article to see now is just improvement on the way the references themselves are presented. We can use this tool to make references for us and we also should update our numbers of holders of each grade of the Order. Any want to help? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Appointments

I suggest moving that section to the "Removal" page....this could pretty much include all appointments which have stirred up discusion....although im sure someone, somewhere ranting that Kim Campbell doesn't deserve it because she was only PM for 5 months. Other controversial appointments include people like Sue Johnanson....hers was protested by Real Woman of Canada... Dowew (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to keep it here, as long as we're careful. Removal is not the same as controversial, after all. --G2bambino (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-Canadian Inductees

Ought J.K. Galbraith to be included in the list of non-Canadian inductees? I've never heard of him renouncing his citizenship, though my knowledge of this is admittedly slight. I have always heard him spoken of as one of our greatest sons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.129.174 (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox meets line

PoC: trying to force the text down using breaks may make the infobox clear the header line of the first section on your computer screen, but it doesn't on mine; in other words, the effort is kind of futile. I'm not sure what you find so offensive about the infobox crossing the line, so to speak. It happens all the time on many articles; it isn't a breach of any manual of style guidelines. --G2bambino (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just ugly, that's all. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But, you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen. --G2bambino (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk to me like I'm a child. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, okay then. --G2bambino (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

useful links

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080702.worderdiscussion02070/BNStory/specialComment/home Christopher McCreery talking about Morgentaler's appointment Dowew (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080705.ORDER05/TPStory/?query=Morgentaler Kevin Lynch and Judith LaRocque opposed it ! Dowew (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) http://web.archive.org/web/20050211195903/gg.ca/honours/faqoc_e.asp Eddie Greenspan editorial http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/07/14/6148511-sun.html Dowew (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[12] link with images of Doherty's medal being returned Dowew (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Beverley McLachlin responding to allegations about Morgentaler's appointment [13] Dowew (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[14] the most recent amendments to the OOC constitution Dowew (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

interesting article [15]

images of the scroll and medal [16]

article about John Mathison [17]

two more posthumous returns [18]

Politicians

From the CTV news link, there's no indication as to what Harper is reacting to; is it the appointment itself, or those who are protesting the appointment? We can't start ascribing to people opinions they don't hold. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The story makes it pretty clear what he is speaking to; as such, I've restored the remainder of his quote. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The remainder of the quote does nothing to make it clearer as to what Harper thinks is divisive. The author of the article speculates that Harper is talking about the appointment of Morgentaler, but, some journalist's personal opinion (and not even a definitive one, at that) is not proof of what Harper is thinking. --G2bambino (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Just a note about resignation. It doesn't apear to me that any of the people who have "resigned" from the order have actually done so.

1) Catherine Doherty - she is deceased, so her membership in the order was terminated upon her death and therefore she is no longer a member of the order as such. Her estate has simply returned her isignia and scroll to a Rideau Hall employee where it will be placed in a cupboard for safe keeping. This is according to section 25 subsection a

2) Lucien Larre - now, since he is living he can resign from the order. However, according to section 25 subjection b the only was a living person can be removed from the order is in writing. Lucien Larre must write a letter to the governer general informing her of his intention to resign from the order, the governor general must then accept the resignation, and the return of the scroll/insignia and wipe his name from the rolls. This would presumably, like the removal of Ahenakew result in his removal from the Order of Canada database and a message on gg.ca announcing his termination of membership. Neither of these things has happened, and it seems he just fired off an e-mail saying he was angry and fedexed his insignia and certificate back. While this is a powerful symbolic message he is still a member of the order.

3) Frank Chavin - again living. He as far as I can tell from media reports hasn't even sent an e-mail, just mentioned it to a reporter. Therefore until they receive his written resignation and insignia/scroll hes still a member.

4) Hon. Gilbert Finn - a living douchebag. so far he has fired off angry e-mails to Stephen Haprer and Michelle Jean. He has not resigned from the order, but rather is given them an ultimadem...if Morgentaler's appointment isn't revoked I will resign. Therefore he hasn't actually resigned. If he does follow thru with this it will probably happen around the time that Morgentaler is invested.

5) the supposedly anonymous resignation. There is a website claiming that "three members" have "quietly returned" their insigna. However, again, returning the insigna doesn't result in your membership being terminated...your medal is just sitting on a shelf until you ask for it back. The fact that these people have supposedly done it anoymously suggested they dont want to get into the political fray of this shitstorm and just want to send a message....and dont want to actually resign.

6) There is a nun up in the north Sister Margaret something who claims to the media she is considering resigning....again...nothing actually done about it.

Dowew (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

While I would agree that there is a big difference between threatening to return the medal and actually returning it, your wording and language display a strong bias against these individuals which may be skewing your judgement. You have to draw a line somewhere, and admit that if the person has physically returned the medal, they have clearly resigned. How will we know for sure that they have returned the medals? I don't think Rideau Hall can be expected to make a public announcement -- surely they'd rather keep this sort of thing quiet -- so all we can do is wait to see whether the press will follow up on these stories. Until then, we probably just have to accept these people at their word and consider them innocent of lying until proven guilty. -- Mecandes (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Errr... no. As Dowew said above: "However, according to section 25 subjection b the only was a living person can be removed from the order is in writing. Lucien Larre must write a letter to the governer general informing her of his intention to resign from the order, the governor general must then accept the resignation, and the return of the scroll/insignia and wipe his name from the rolls."

They have not resigned from the order until the GG accepts the resignation in writing. Simply returning the insignia is not enough. I'll be reverting your change. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dowew and PoC on this one. Until the formal criteria for resignation have been met, these people have not resigned. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is, you are making assumptions that the criteria has not been met out of bias. If the person publicly states to the media that they have returned their medal, why else would you assume they are lying if not bias? Certainly we have seen proof of their statements from reliable media outlets -- so the onus is on you to provide the _proof_ for this article that they have lied. As I said, they deserve to be treated as "innocent until proven guilty." -- Mecandes (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't undo my last edits to this article, as they really have nothing to do with this conversation, as you will see if you actually look at the edits. For example, my edits do NOT make the claim that the medals have actually been returned (only Madonna House, which was filmed live by the media at Rideau Hall). I have just shifted things for clarity and based on the real-world timing of events. If you do undo my edits, please provide examples of what was incorrect here so it can be discussed. -- Mecandes (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is accusing anyone of lying. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most inductees to the Order don't bother reading the charter of the Order, and thus do think that they can resign simply by returning their insignia.

What it comes down to is verifiability. Is it verifiable that these people have returned their insignia? Yes. Is it verifiable that the GG has received notice of their intention to resign in writing, and accepted same? No. Therefore, we may not assume that actual resignation has happened, and must therefore not use the word 'resignation' until it is verifiable.

As for not undoing your last edits to the article.. your last edits are exactly the same as the ones I've already reverted. And I have explained precisely why they are incorrect; we have no evidence of resignation, only returning of insignia. I've reverted again. Until you have verifiable documentation that is not original research, please stop making changes to this article. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, just to make things simpler for you...

"TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORDER

25. A person's membership in the Order ceases when

(a) the person dies;

(b) the Governor General accepts the person's resignation from the Order, which resignation shall have been made in writing and given to the Secretary General; or

(c) the Governor General makes an Ordinance terminating the person's appointment to the Order."

From here. None of the above conditions have been met. Therefore none of these people have actually been terminated from the Order of Canada. 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mecandes - First, you need to go back and carefully read WP:AGF. Dowew's above comments aside, two other editors have weighed in on this issue, and for you to make a silly broad-brush bias accusation is inappropriate. Second, your suggestion that other editors have to prove a negative demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding as to how WP:V works. The onus is on the editor proposing to insert information to prove that it is true. As has been pointed out to you, this is a black and white issue. Either these people have resigned in accordance with the rules, or they have not. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are "lying" - that's just a red herring. Provide some official acknowledgement that their resignations have taken effect, or some other reliable source indicating that they complied with all of the rules, otherwise WP:V will not have been met. If you can cite it, however, I don't see anything wrong with an indication that there were threats of resignations from the order. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Given past history when people have been removed there has been an announcement on gg.ca informing the public that for examples David Ahenakew was stripped of his membership. Presumably, as a said before, if someone were to truly resign from the order there would be an annoucement on the page and their names would be removed from the order of canada database.

While fedexing your medal back to Rideau Hall has symbolic value it is, procedurally, meaningless. Dowew (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add the other deceased people who have had their medals returned. I found this article [19] - it mentions that medals which have been turned of deceased members may be recycled and issued to other people. Dowew (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

found another one. nephew of Monsignor A. J. Goski has fed-ed the medal back [20] Dowew (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

infobox

wondering....The Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Queen's Councils are not Orders of Medals....so although in terms of postnominal letters they come before and after shouldn't VC and CV be before the Order of Canada and CMM COM and CVO be after Order of Canada in terms of precedence ? Is there anyway we can wiki the word precedence in the infobox to link to Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals) ? Dowew (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean that the QPC and QC are not "orders or medals"; however, both are included in the article you linked to, implying that they are part of the honours system; and I could understand how this is so: both are organizations with membership appointed by the sovereign (or GG on her behalf). But, I'm not 100% sure if this is accurate or not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, is there a cite at all that shows QC coming directly after CM? That seems very suspect to me.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

rules to the lapel pin

Seems there are set rules about the wearing of the pin. Particularly that it must not be worn on a raincoat and you cannot wear another pin higher than it ! [21] Dowew (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some with the US flag pin too, but not as rigid as what you posted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation

is that translation of the motto official? if i recall my years of latin drudgery correctly, a better translation of 'desiderantes' would be 'those who desire'.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The translation is noted at the official site. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, i had already found that. but what's there isn't 'desiring', but 'they desire'.i have made the change.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

similar ribbons

Is it worth noting that the Honduras Order of Conduct has an identical ribbon to the Order of Canada [22] Dowew (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, ribbons are shared all of the time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Personal Coat of Arms of Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean.jpg

The image Image:Personal Coat of Arms of Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Duffy

aparently in the late 1990s Mike Duffy claimed under oath that Chretien told him his lawsuit again Frank Magazine cost him an appointment to the Order of Canada [23] Dowew (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How would Chrétien know that? Prime ministers aren't supposed to have an influence on the awards in the Canadian honours system. Indefatigable (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Only OofC members could become citizenship judges?

According to this article before 1998 only members of the Order of Canada could become citizenship judges [24] Dowew (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations incomplete

There are several citations in this article that are incomplete in their format—needs to be resolved or article might need to go up for WP:FAR. --Eustress (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Turcotte

While there was no announcement of his resignation from the Order published on the gg's website, he is the one individual who announced he was returning the medal whose name is no longer listed on the searchable honours database at gg.ca. Anyone else think this means he actually resigned? Dowew (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jean Vanier

During the Morgentaler controversy Jean Vanier wrote a letter explaining why he didn't resign [25] Dowew (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Main image

The image used in the infobox has been reverted a couple of times in recent days. One was by a user with a total of four edits, so I don't think there was much reason behind the reversion. In light of User:Dowew's reinsertion into the infobox of the image with the three insignia, I thought we should probably come to a final decision on image use.

I earlier moved the three-insignia image to the Insignia section; we lost all the insignia images that were previously used here, and the three-insignia image seemed an apt replacement. In order, then, to not have two identical images on the same page, and in the absence of any other appropriate choice, I put the image of the member's insignia in the infobox. As the present arrangement is such only because it seemed logical and works with the limited resouces available, I've no particular opposition to any other rational suggestion. Is there another option? --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Membership in other groups

Could one be both a Member of the Order of the Canada and the Order of the British Empire at the same time?

Precedence

After revelations following Jean Chretien's appointment to the Order of Merit, I'm now not entirely sure what to do about the order of precedence we show here for Canadian honours. Since the 70s, the precedence list has not included the Order of Merit or the Order of the Companions of Honour, save for mention in the order of wear for those appointed prior to 1 June 1972, where the OM and CH are placed above the Order of Canada and below the Cross of Valour. However, a closer look at the wording of the Government House guidelines doesn't seem to apply to the OM and CH after 1972. The clauses state "Commonwealth orders, decorations and medals, the award of which is approved by the Government of Canada, are worn after the Canadian orders"; but, the OM and CH are awarded without government approval, and thus don't fall within the parameters of the policy. The most recent authority to speak on this matter was Chris McCreery, who said in his book on the Order of Canada that the OM and CH were not included in the Canadian honours lists because no living Canadian was a member of either order at the time, but the OM and CH, nonetheless, still rank above the Order of Canada and below the Cross of Valour. Indeed, in relation to Chretien's appointment, McCreery commented that the OM is the highest civil honour a Canadian can receive.[26] As this information is backed by reliable sources, it seems prudent to list the OM and CH as preceding the OC. I only wonder if anyone has some information that would lead to a different conclusion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I was incorrect about the CH - appointments do require ministerial advice. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Prince Philip's refusal

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was offered appointment to the order as an honorary Companion in 1982; however, he refused on the grounds that, as the consort of the Queen, he was a Canadian, and thus entitled to a substantive appointment rather than an honorary one. In 1993, the Advisory Council proposed an amendment to the constitution of the Order of Canada, making the sovereign's spouse automatically a Companion, but Prince Philip again refused, stating he should be appointed on his merits. Conversely, he accepted the Order of Australia as a companion in 1988 without issue.

Prince Philip's Companion in the Order of the Australia, and indeed Prince Charles's Knighthood of the Order of Australia, were substantive appointments, not honorary. The Order of Australia is modelled after the Order of Canada, in that substantive appointments go to citizens only, non-citizens receiving honorary awards. Thus, Philip and Charles must have been considered "Australian citizens" for the purposes of the order (although they would not be so regarded in any other contexts, afaik). Their "Australian citizenship" could only have derived from their Royal status, as they have never sought it via the usual process. If the usual rules were waived, or more likely considered irrelevant, for their Australian awards, why was the same view not taken in Canada for Prince Philip? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Order of Australia#Prince Philip for more recent discussion. The Queen amended the Letters Patent in 1981 to accommodate Prince Charles. No such consideration has ever been given to Prince Philip, yet he appears to have been given a substantive AC, yet he's no more an Australian citizen than his son is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Order of Precedence and Eligibility, 10/11 Sept 09

I have changed both the order of precedence and the eligibility information in the infobox. The Governor General website states that only federal and provincial politicians are ineligible, thus permitting municipal politicians to be permitted into the order. Also, there was a statement that the Order of Merit was "unofficially higher" than the Order of Canada. The order of precedence states that the Cross of Valour is higher in the order of precedence. I don't debate that the Order of Merit may be a higher honour, in fact I very much agree with that fact. However, something like that should be placed elsewhere in the article, not in the infobox. If one were to wear miniature medals or undress ribbons, the Order of Merit would be after all Canadian awards, unless awarded a British medal prior to 1 June 1972. As far as honour goes, the Order of Merit is higher. However, as order of precedence goes, it is lower, and needs to be treated accordingly in these articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMesh (talk • contribs) 03:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Order of Merit can't be ignored in the infobox; the order of precedence is now unbroken in the infoboxes of all Canadian honours articles from the Victoria Cross all the way down to the General Campaign Star, and removing the OM from here upsets that continuity. I admit the order's placement in the precedence is odd, given that it isn't in the official list (the stipulations for pre-1972 honours refer to those that are British, which the OM is not) but is still recognized as directly above the Order of Canada by Canadian honours experts (see my earlier post); hence, I made the distinction between the official and unofficial precedence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on this point, but your argument does have some validity, and as such I will leave it alone. However, my point about politicians is entirely correct. Municipal politicians are not specifically prohibited from receiving the order. I would request that this of my edit be replaced. JMesh (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, as your edit r.e. politicians is still there now. If you disagree with my attempt to resolve the precedence issue, what suggestions do you have as alternatives? I'm open. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)