Talk:David Johnston/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

How is Johnston pronounced? Tetsuo (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

dʒɑːn' stən or dʒɒn' stən. I'm an American, so I don't know which. -Rrius (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely the latter, at least for the first syllable. I could be wrong on the second since I don't deal much with IPA. -Rrius (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a verifiable source for this (that satisfies WP standards), but the person who introduced him at the press conference said 'dʒɑn.sɨn. Like you Rrius, I'm not an IPA wizard, so I'm struggling with the vowel for the second syllable (ɨ or ə). What I mean to highlight is that the "t" is silent, as far as I know.HuntClubJoe (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as a Governor General-Designate

I re-worded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a used term. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Even the PM's press release uses the term. The only question is how to capitalise and punctuate it, and I think at the very least we reflect a perfectly sound usage, and maintain internal consistency with Governor General of Canada's discussion of appointments and the like. -Rrius (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Date format

User:Walter Görlitz has expressed a stong objection (as evidenced by his attempts to slander me with lame accusations of vandalism) to the use of DD MM YY date format on this page. I have tried to employ that format here so that this article falls in-line with all the other biography pages for Canada's governors general. Does anyone else feel as WG does and think this page should not be consistent with the others in the series? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not expressed a strong objection to the use of the British long format. In fact, I have insisted on its use in association football articles, most recently in the 2010 FIFA World Cup article. I have simply stated that it is not the most common format used in Canada. User talk:Miesianiacal has on at least two occasions (on the Victoria Day and Canada Day articles) insisted that consensus had been reached and that the British long format should be kept. It was later discovered that he himself changed them within the previous twelve to eighteen months. I suspect the same has happened with the GG articles. I can go through the others to determine if the date format was changed to the British format or if they were created and existed after no longer being stubs using that format. I will report back if requested. I would prefer User talk:Miesianiacal to simply admit to making the changes and revert them, but will do the work if he is unwilling to do so. Since this article was already in the US format I suggest keeping it in that format until this has been resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And your first comment here launches into an attack on my character. Regardless, I never suggested I didn't change any other biography article on a Canadian governor general; I said there was a consistency throughout them that this one does not now conform to. Your personal opinions on what is and isn't the "official" date format in Canada are irrelevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a character attack when it's simply factual. If you can show me where I erred, I will both strike my comments and apologize. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What's neither necessary nor factual is your interpretations of past events and my motivations to do as I did at that time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please identify where this occurs. The only personal attacks and interpretations I see on this talk page are "User:Walter Görlitz has expressed a stong objection (as evidenced by his attempts to slander me with lame accusations of vandalism)", which aren't mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From the discussion at my talk page, it seems I'd be wasting my time in trying to get you to understand the difference between fact and your personal opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From that same discussion I don't think you understand it in the first place. But let me explain here again in hopes that you may. On the Victoria Day article where the date issue first came up you indicated that consensus had been reached to keep it in British format. It was then discovered that consensus had been reached in 2009 before you made a change. You then exerted a great deal of effort defending that action. You finally backed-down and changed the format to the American date format which was the original consensus. None of that is personal opinion. The fact that you made it seem that the consensus had been reached by your edit seems to not be correct. If I am wrong in that, feel free to explain how. If you are wrong, please stop pushing back on this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

People can go and read those discussions if they want and come to their own conclusions; nobody needs to accept your erroneous interpretation of the events, either in relation to this particular matter or for anything else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Now it's an "erroneous interpretation". It's not. You proved it when you showed that you made the majority of changes. For the love of all things decent stop attacking me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But it is; most of what you say I did simply didn't happen. I didn't knowingly break any policy or guideline, especially not in terms of consensus; it later turned out that there was a misunderstanding of some loose wording at WP:MOSDATE, but I am entitled to be bold, per WP:BRD. I never said my change to the date format at Victoria Day automatically made a new consensus; I said the year that passed before anyone raised an objection to the change had established consensus by silence, as is outlined at WP:CONS. Rather than entirely blocking any undoing of my change, I sought consensus and even volunteered to undo my own more-than-a-year old edit once there was a majority decision in favour of that act. And now it seems you're accusing me of changing the date format of every Canadian governor general's bio page (though, you already pre-accused me when asking above that I admit to having made all those alterations); if you take more than two seconds to review the list I compiled yesterday, you'll find that charge is wrong too.

I otherwise wouldn't bother with any of this, except that you brought it into a public forum and are attempting to use your misrepresentations of both the past and my character to your benefit in this discussion over the date format of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All of what I say did happen. While you didn't knowingly break any policy or guideline, you did break the guideline. You also stated that the British date format was the consensus for the Victoria Day article. You failed to mention that you changed it within the previous year and the fact that no one looked at the article in that time period escaped your notice. You pointed to the rules on consensus but didn't point to the rules on changing the article after consensus had been reached. You then concluded that "silence equals consensus." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) and "consensus built through silence" --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Also "The one presently used in the article has been used there for quite a long time; as such, the present format has consensus." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (emphasis mine and notice that you state long time but don't at all indicate that you changed the article to the British format). SO in short if you weren't a politician or political aide you should have been one since you manage to respond to direct accusations of wrongdoing with an aplomb reserved for spin doctors. You then go on the attack and try to mud sling those who are pointing-out the problems.

Now, onto the task at hand. You stated that the GG articles should all attempt to have the same date format. You established that consensus prior to change was the American long date format. I will be changing them all to the American long date format unless you can offer some counter-proposal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. My edit escaped notice rather than being either accepted or not cared about by subsequent editors because there were no subsequent editors - the edit history showing more than 150 edits following the one I made to the dates obviously being a sham - and apparently no viewers, either. The proof? You say so. I made up the idea of silence equaling consensus, based on my deluded imagining of the words at WP:CONS: "silence can imply consent." The proof? You say so. I didn't immediately fess up to it being me who changed the date format, even if that point wasn't relevant, because I knew I'd committed a crime and wanted to keep it hidden. The proof? You say so. You ignore the other baseless accusations of yours that I raised, but I'll assume you think they're right too; because you say so.

What does it matter, though? Anyone who points out the inherent errors in your interpretations of the events, or simply suggests that what you assume to be true might not be, is merely a mud-slinging miscreant on the attack.

I don't know that you should be going off to change all the governors general bio articles without further input; some of those pages that started out with MM DD, YY have used the DD MM YY format for five years or more. They now seem to have fallen into a grey zone between WP:CONS and WP:MOSDATE that, I think, asks for a wider agreement on what to do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no feelings on which is the appropriate format to use but i do agree it does make sense for all articles on Governor Generals to use the same format. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing further, as can be seen by this wise editor's comment here: He's not been appointed yet so this isn't a GG article yet. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but it still make sense to have them in line ready. Theres no reason to wait till he takes up the post officially. If all the other GG articles need changing to the other format then that could be done instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Be consistant with the 27 GGoC articles infoboxes. Besides, using D/M/Y avoids the usage of a comma. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Fully agree that d/m/y avoids the use of a comma (but what does that matter?). Consistency is important. But what if the other twenty-seven articles were changed away from this format? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you realise that not all the Canadian governor general biography articles originally used your preferred date format. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now the second time you have incorrectly identified the American long date format as my preferred format. It's not. Please don't misrepresent my preferences. As I stated, I am going on the Wikipedia policies regarding date formats. You know what they are: original format after an article is no longer a stub should stay unless there is a pressing national reason to change it. Canada has no preferred format. Neither do I. As I stated before I have argued for the British long format in other articles. I am arguing for the American format in this article and the vast majority of the GG articles. Would you like to let me know which you changed to the British format or are you insisting on having me go through them one at a time? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But of course it is your preferred date format. The evidence stands not only in your application of an imaginary "official" designation to its use in Canada, but you also went to the effort of trying to get the Wikipedia guideline changed to state that it is the only acceptable format for use in Canada-related articles.

You just said you were all for consistency across the governors general's bio pages. You also say the date format used in an article can't be changed from that originally used. Yet, applying the MM DD, YY date format to all the GG bio pages would require the use on some of those articles of a date format not originally employed; in other words, some of the articles were started using the MM DD YY format. How do you reconcile that contradiction? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not my preferred date format. this edit would prove you wrong. Please stop repeating it. And I never said it was "official" designation to its use in Canada. Again those are your words to misrepresent my words. I said it's the most common. I didn't say that the date format "can't be changed from that originally used". I said that it must have a valid national reason, which is Wikipedia's policy. So if I discover, as I suspect I will, that the majority of GG articles were in American format at some point and then they were changed to the British format, it only stands to reason that all should use the American format. However if I discover that the majority of GG articles used the British format and only a handful were changed (as happened in the Michaëlle Jean article) then we should keep the majority. As you can see, I'm not oppose to the British long date format, but I am opposed to people changing to their preferred date format over reason and consensus to the contrary. I'm not trying to impose my will on this article or the other GG articles. I am merely trying to see that User:Miesianiacal's will isn't imposed either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is for Canadian articles. Your words: "May 24 is again the official format used in long dates in Canada..."[1] "Currently the guide indicates both American and UK date formats are acceptable. That is not the case."[2] You dictate this as though it is fact when it is not; hence, one format is your preferred choice.

As for which articles started with which format:

Charles Monck, 4th Viscount Monck: MM DD, YY, changed 20 March 2009 to DD MM YY

John Young, 1st Baron Lisgar: DD MM YY

Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava: MM DD, YY, changed 15 December 2005 to DD MM YY

John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll: MM DD, YY, changed 23 December 2006 to DD MM YY

Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne: MM DD, YY, changed 6 September 2003 to DD MM YY

Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby: MM DD, YY, changed 14 July 2005 to DD MM YY

John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: DD MM YY

Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 4th Earl of Minto: MM DD, YY, changed 29 May 2009 to DD MM YY

Albert Grey, 4th Earl Grey: MM DD, YY, changed 30 August 2006 to DD MM YY

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn: MM DD, YY, changed 12 January 2004 to DD MM YY

Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy: MM DD, YY, changed 21 June 2005 to DD MM YY

Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon: DD MM YY

Vere Ponsonby, 9th Earl of Bessborough: MM DD, YY, changed by me

John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir: MM DD, YY, changed 3 December 2005 to DD MM YY

Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone: MM DD, YY, changed 6 June 2005 to DD MM YY

Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis: MM DD, YY, changed 8 November 2005 to DD MM YY

Vincent Massey: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Georges Vanier: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Roland Michener: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Jules Léger: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Edward Schreyer: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Jeanne Sauvé: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Ray Hnatyshyn: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Roméo LeBlanc: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Adrienne Clarkson: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Michaëlle Jean: MM DD, YY, changed by me

So, while the majority of articles began with MM DD, YY format (24/27), when I started my exercise of bringing all the articles into conformity, the majority showed DD MM YY (15/27). If someone wants to put all those ones that were originally MM DD, YY back to that format and change the three that began as DD MM YY to MM DD, YY, be my guest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So of the 27 articles, only three were originally in British date format? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

D/M/Y helps us avoid the usage of a comma. Anyways, all Canadian GG article infoboxes should be consistant. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I saw this discussion, I noticed the different formats being used in the article, so I made them consistent. (Btw, it's good to see "consistent" being consistently misspelt "consistant". Always be consistent, I say, even if you're consistently wrong. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It kept setting off my spell-checker too. I decided not to comment though. :) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a special rule for Canada-related articles that whatever was there stays. I fail to see how we need consistency with other GG articles on the theory that they are somehow a series. Each Wikipedia article is an island unto itself unless some need for consistency can be demonstrated. I'm afraid I don't see how it is necessary to have date formats consistent for governors general. Whichever was first (and I don't know for myself which one is) should stand. -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no date format rule for Canada-specific articles. Therefore the rule is consensus on the format after the article is no longer a stub. I appreciate your position but think that User:Miesianiacal has a valid point in wanting to keep consistency across the series. I don't know if there's precedence for it or not though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the usual ipse dixit "we must have consistency!", no, there is no real procedure. I'm sure I read somewhere Canadian date formats were supposed to be like Engvar. -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's a valid point, I don't agree with his point. In retrospect, it seems rather implausible to me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the Governor General is defined as the Queen's representative in Canada, this suggests stronger ties than usual to the UK, therefore tipping in favour of international date formatting for GG articles. Dl2000 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Expanding ipse dixit and WP:ENGVAR. I think the point I was making was WP:RETAIN. I didn't realize that there wasn't a consensus or procedure related to keeping consistency across related articles, but it does seem reasonable. Of interest to other readers would be WP:DATE, specifically WP:STRONGNAT to which I referred earlier but did not link to. Also WT:CANSTYLE and the section I added: List of date formats used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Queen's representative in Canada tips in favour of Canada though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've brought this matter to the attention of WP:CANADA. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And it seems people are barely interested (unsurprisingly). But, of the input we have, so far, myself[3], User:Walter Görlitz[4], User:GoodDay[5], and User:BritishWatcher[6] are in favour of consistent date formatting across all Canadian governors general biography articles and User:Rrius[7] is seemingly neutral.

The problem of what date format to use consistently, however, remains unresolved. I'm fine with things as they are, User:GoodDay seems to support DD MM YY, and User:Walter Görlitz is for MM DD, YY, while this discussion at WP:CANADA shows two supporting MM DD, YY in general but also an ambivalence between them and one other editor about whether or not it is now applied to all the articles on governors general, and one anon for DD MM YY. As well, a response I got at WP:CONS offers the opinion that MOSDATE counts in this situation more than CONS, but the author doesn't care which date format we use.

Where does this leave us? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, without a response here, I've drawn this article in line with the present state of the other governors general's bio articles; we all seemed to agree on consistency. Should a decision be made on which date format should be used throughout the series, or all Canadian articles, this one can be changed to suit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Without consensus to change the article and without any clear policy on "consistency" I have changed all of the long dates, all of them, to American format as that is the overarching policy on Wikipedia. The decision has been made that the date format this article was in after it reached stub status is the format in which it will remain unless clear consensus exists to change it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted a comment about this 24 hours ago; 24 hours in which you were active on Wikipedia.

You yourself argued in favour of consistency across all the governors general's bio articles, regardless of which format the article began with. Why have you changed your mind? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was careful not to take a stand about consistency. I merely pointed-out that you argued for consistency. I don't believe that consistency is required. Sorry. If you can find where I state that consistency must be maintained I will correct matters.

Where did you post the comment about this twenty-four hours ago? You mean the one on this page where you wrote "I'm fine with things as they are"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your words: "Fully agree. Consistency is important."[8] "I... think that User:Miesianiacal has a valid point in wanting to keep consistency across the series."[9] "I didn't realize that there wasn't a consensus or procedure related to keeping consistency across related articles, but it does seem reasonable."[10] Now you not only change your mind but also deny having ever been in favour of consistency and yet snipe at others for being confused? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust that I have clarified any points of confusion that my earlier edits may have caused. I do not support your changing this article against WP:MOS guidelines. I do not support, not have I ever supported, nor have I every intended to show support for a change for all of the articles away from their original American format just so they could be in the preferred format of one editor who has made a great many edits in the article. I support it no more than I would support placing placing <small> tags around <ref> tags just so that one editor who uses an outdated browser can see articles with even line-spacing. It makes no sense to impose one editor's preference on wikipedians. WP:MOS takes precedence over any wishes any one editor's unifying schemes, or those of any other editors who comment in favour of said scheme, until consensus has been reached in a forum that the first editor appealed to for support. This is particularly true when that editor has not found the desired support in that forum and is instead being questioned there as well.

So I'm sorry if I left you with the opinion that I supported this. I trust that my actions in reverting and correctly unifying the date formats to American format—the format used when this article was established—based on the guidelines in WP:MOS, makes it clear what my position on this article are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be a successful back-pedal and use of irrelevancies (both real and imagined) as deflection from your flip-flop if not for the existence of your own words:

• "Consistency is important."
• "I... think that User:Miesianiacal has a valid point in wanting to keep consistency across the series."
• "[C]onsistency across related articles... does seem reasonable."
• "If... the majority of GG articles were in American format at some point and then they were changed to the British format, it only stands to reason that all should use the American format."

All-together, those pretty well establish that you favoured consistency, and the last quote in particular shows you were fine with changing articles from their original date format; such would have to be done to the three pages that started out using DD MM YY in order to make "all [emphasis mine] use the American format" originally employed by the majority of articles.

But, it seems you've changed your mind, which, in principal, is fine. I just hope that in future you'll be able to let people know that in a more helpful and cooperative manner. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not form an opinion and then remain unswayed by well-reasoned arguments. The more I think about it the less I am convinced that the GG articles should use British date formats. The fact that you went about changing many of them to British date formats and you're trying to wave a red flag and make me look bad doesn't really hold water in the argument. I'm not displaying ownership of these articles either. I am merely pointing out my opinion: I don't know that consistency is required. This article should stay in the date format it was created using as per WP:MOS (or whatever the format guideline is) and if for some reason there is a groundswell that states we must have consistency, then I don't mind agreeing with the majority. However I am convinced that if consistency were decided-upon, and it was recognized that the majority of articles were changed from American format, I think you would find some other reason not to change them to American format. Am I correct in that persuasion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, the only reason I agreed with the idea of consistency was that I knew that many of the articles at that point were originally in American format and they should be returned. With the majority of the articles in American format and your position behind your position of consistency, I was looking forward to watching you find excuses for not moving all of the articles to American format.

Admitting that someone has a valid point does not mean I agree with the point either. I think communists have valid points, but I am not a communist. I think capitalists have valid points, but I am not a capitalist either. I can see valid points without changing my opinion and agreeing with them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, it makes things exceedingly difficult when you don't follow along. I will say this once more and I will say it as simply as I can:

1. I took it upon myself to - right or wrong - make all the biographies of Canada's governors general consistent in overall layout and format.
2. To accomplish step #1, I changed the date format on 12 of the 27 articles from MM DD, YY to DD MM YY.
3. I changed the date format in that direction because the majority of articles at that time - 15 of the 27 - used DD MM YY. Preference had nothing to do with it.
4. It turns out that 12 of the 15 articles mentioned in step #3 had years before been changed from MM DD, YY to DD MM YY. I did not make those changes.
5. Discussion here showed four of five editors involved, including yourself (as already explained) to be supportive of date format consistency across all the articles.
6. Given step #5, I changed the date format on this article to align with the same that all the others presently show.
7. Just as what date format all the others presently show isn't permanent, so wasn't the format put in in step #6: If a decision had been reached to make all governors general bio articles use MM DD, YY, this one could have been altered right along with all the others. Consistency was the only thing to be maintained.
8. You changed your mind on consistency, which is fine, but didn't express that fact until after step #6 had taken place.

I trust that's clear now, though it doesn't offer much in the way of a resolution of what to do with 27 pages using one date format and one using another, or how to deal with the still majority of editors here who approve of consistency throughout the series of pages, or what to do with articles that are simultaneously British and Canadian. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear now is that you changed this article and that will not be condoned. What's also clear is that I agreed that you thought it was a good idea to change the format. If you understood that I agreed with it, then you were fooling yourself. I did not agree with you, I said that you had a valid point, but I did not agree. If your date preference is not the British date format, why did you change both the Canada Day and Victoria Day articles to meet that format? Was that to keep them in line with the GG articles? As for editors here who approve of consistency throughout the series of pages and what to do with them, well, let's just say you take not of all things I write that are in opposition to WP:CIVIL. My best suggestion is that they all go over to your other petition to have some form of consistency on the GG articles to back you since you're losing that one too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing further, where exactly did you say that you were planning on changing this article today? I still haven't found it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it unfortunate that I can't find it or that you never said it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to D/M/Y, please. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? That's a short date format and we're discussing long date formats. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We must match with the other GG infoboxes. Besides, D/M/Y avoids the usage of a comma. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why must we? Month DD, YYYY is the most frequently-used date format in Canada and this is first and foremost an article about a Canadian. And while the guideline for Canadian articles is that either format may be used, we all know which is most frequently used. Commas are cheap. If you're short on commas (or pay for your Internet by the byte) I'd be more than willing to assist you in whatever way makes sense to you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since most of the Canadian Prime Ministers bio infoboxes use M/D/Y, then fine. Just make sure all 27 articles are consistant. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On what is this insistence on consistency based? Personal preference or some overarching principle? Why stop at the PM articles then? Why not extend it to all Canadian political articles? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you got the time, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Still unclear on what this insistence on consistency is based. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC on what to do with the date formatting across the entire series of biographies on Canada's governors general: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC on date format for GG bios. Input is requested so as to bring this issue to a resolution. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that MM DD YY seems to have been phased out in Canada and now it's either DD MM YY (which I prefer) or one starting with the year ( this seems to be preferrred - well ordered- on government forms). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.249.99 (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Move to David Johnston

I think that this article should be renamed/moved to David Johnston instead of David Lloyd Johnston, and then in the article it can be indicated what his full name is. He does not seem to be commonly known by his full name, including middle name. My suggestion would be similar to other biographical articles. For example, Stephen Harper's middle name isn't included in his article's title, but his middle name is indicated at the top of the introductory paragraph. I also think that this article should take the place of the disambiguation page currently at David Johnston and that page moved to David Johnston (disambiguation). --thirty-seven (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that presume that this David Johnston is the most widely known David Johnston? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It does, and that is my presumption. In any case, I intended that my above post to be two separate suggestions: 1. That this article be called "David Johnston" because that is what he seems to be commonly known as, not "David Lloyd Johnston"; 2. That this David Johnston get the so-named article and not the disambiguation page. But even if #2 isn't accepted, #1 could be by moving this to "David Johnston (Canadian Governor General-designate)" or the like. --thirty-seven (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Do not replace the disambiguation page that is there until it can be shown that this is the primary use of the term "David Johnston". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it probable that he is seldom known as "David Lloyd Johnston". It seems to me that there isn't a clear case for this guy being the primary David Johnston. That said, what would be the disambiguator? I think "(Canadian Governor General-designate)" is too long. Perhaps "(governor general)" would work as there is no other governor general by that name, but it would be premature. Something like "(lawyer)" would work, since many politicians and government officials have it for a disambiguator. Anyway, that's my two cents. -Rrius (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think holding high office, ie de facto head of state of Canada, qualifies him as the "primary" Johnston. Be in Nepean (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the precedent here is John Roberts which points to the US Supreme Court Chief Justice by virtue of his high office rather than to a disambiguation page even though if you look at John Roberts (disambiguation) there are a number of other John Roberts' including the CNN anchor (who is arguably better known than the judge) and various politicians and academics. Be in Nepean (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you make the point more forcefully than "think" ("think holding high office")? Wikipedia:Disambiguation and specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discuss the guidelines. We may want to ask a few more people than those interested in the article presently to discuss. Possibly including the watchers of the other David Johnston articles as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the others is an Australian former Cabinet minister and current Shadow Cabinet minister. Can you honestly be sure that this David Johnston will be what people are searching for more than all the others combined? I just don't see a credible basis for saying that this guy is the David Johnston. -Rrius (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we proceed, then? Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone in the above discussion opposed the idea of renaming the article to the name under which this person is commonly known. However, there is clearly opposition to giving him the "main" David Johnson page. So, can we reach a consensus on a disambiguator? May I suggest simply "David Johnston (academic)", since this is how he is introduced in the article, and that is probably because after all it will still seem the best single word for that. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. I'll move it in a couple days if no one objects. MitchellDuce (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It still seems a tad odd to have him differentiated by something other than his highest station in life. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's odd to be discussing moving this when it's not clear to what it will be moved. It's clear that this Mr. Johnston is not the primary subject and should not replace the disambiguation page. It's also clear that using a middle name is as clear a distinguisher as adding an adjective. Also if it were to be moved to David Johnston (Governor General of Canada), what would happen in five years when we get a new GG? Would we then move it to David Johnston (Governor General of Canada 2010 - 2015)? The case has not been made for the necessity of a move. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The case has been made, Goerlitz. Wikipedia titles are meant to reflect the commonly-used and widely known name of the subject. For some examples, see Mata Hari, Babe Ruth or Buzz Hargrove. Also see WP:COMMONNAME for more examples, and for an explanation of Wikipedia article title conventions. While I agree that this particular David Johnston shouldn't "own" the David Johnston page, the article's title should still be changed to the common appellation. I haven't once heard of this man being referred to as "David Lloyd Johnston" in the media.HuntClubJoe (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't insult me by intentionally misspelling my name.

The case has not been made. David Lloyd Johnston has not been shown to be the most likely candidate for the David Johnston page. Since David Johnston cannot be used for this article, what would you suggest we move this article to? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anglican isn't a religion

Noticed it was added to the infobox. Also noticed that previous GGs list it, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox, etc. as religion. They're all technically Christian with their denomination being the aforementioned "religion". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why you would argue this point is not obvious. Does that mean that we should change the listed religion of the Pope to "Christian", or the Aga Khan to "Muslim"? One's personal views on the validity of divisions in religions have no bearing on the fact that those divisions exist. Ever heard of a guy called Martin Luther? HuntClubJoe (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What you just wrote makes no sense. Yes I would argue that the pope is Christian and Luther and Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, etc. I would argue that the Aga Khan is Muslim. It's not my personal view it's a simple fact: Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran are all denominations and Christian is the religion. Sorry you don't understand that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Curriculum Vitae, University of Waterloo

Isn't this technically a self-published source? Should it be used as a reference? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's authored by Johnston but published by U of W as part of their biographical information on him. Given the way headhunting works for universities, this means the CV has been vetted and verified during Johnston's hiring process and is therefore reliable. 64.229.170.73 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

sources

(→Governor general-designate: no media release on PM's website or mention in Globe that any release states who was committee's chair; & why does the anon love bare urls so much?). This is brought to you by the same editor who wrote "It was on July 8, 2010, announced from the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada that Queen Elizabeth II had, by commission under the royal sign-manual and signet" with the comment (→Governor general-designate: c/e, fix refs (why are the authors' names consistently left out?)). If I'm not mistaken, there is no mention of royal signs-manual, or signet rings in the sources. So I'm confused why one editor may freely edit the article to include information not included in sources while another editor may not. Is it presumed? Is it common knowledge? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Signet does seem incorrect; the Letters Patent 1947 constituting the Office of Governor General state that the appointments are made under the Great Seal of Canada. "Royal sign-manual" is only a term for the king or queen's signature, which goes, along with the great seal, on the governor general-designate's commission. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the whole section, which now reads "by commission under the royal sign-manual and Great Seal of Canada", has no citation. The refs make no mention other than one reads "seal of approval". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that I wasn't clear enough. Sorry for that. I have marked the sections in question with citation templates. I trust that this addresses my concern more fully. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[11] "...[A]ppointments to the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada shall be made by Commission under Our Great Seal of Canada."

[12] "GIVEN under Our Royal Hand and under Our Great Seal of Canada..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good links. Neither refer to Johnston in specific. Is it an assumption that these have been granted? Have you created a synthesis of published materials? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Letters Patent are obviously applicable to all appointments. Yes, the second link is to the royal commission for Michaelle Jean. But, do you think hers was somehow unique? Are you saying it's conceivable to have such a commission issued without the monarch's signature on it? We could wait and hope Johnston's commission is eventually published in the Canada Gazette. However, the commissions seem pretty standard fare; Clarkson's was the same: [13] "GIVEN under Our Royal Hand and under Our Great Seal of Canada..." (The Gazette online doesn't go back farther than 1998.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that there's no citation here or at the Michaëlle Jean article to verify the formal terms listed there and there should be. If I were to dig deeper I'm sure that there would be no citation at other GG articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you now have citations that illustrate the procedure by which, since 1947, a person is commissioned as govenror general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a document that states this about Johnston. It appears you're assuming that there is or at least should be one but can't find it. Have you created a synthesis of published materials? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please either provide a citation or remove the statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You have the necessary citations that affirm the existence of a standard practice for the appointment of governors general. Unless you can affirm that Johnston is the odd one out of all other governors general, there's no unverified claim in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am very close to deleting those phrases as WP:OR if you cannot provide a source to back those terms with Johnston's name attached to them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide alone whether they stay or go. I can see this is going to have to go to the next step of dispute resolution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have no sources to back your addition. You have simply synthesized what you know from previous appointments. That constitutes WP:OR. It's not my decision, it was yours to fight against what is obvious. Feel free to open up to the next level of dispute resolution since you're being stubborn and not seeing that you have added WP:OR. I wasn't going to point it out until you did so to the anon editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a request for a third opinion. (Though, I could just adopt your method of settling these "bloody obvious" matters. ;} ) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Or your could show civility. You never seem to recognize the log in your own eye. You called-out the anon for not providing a source. The anon adds a source to restore the edit. Yet you do not add your own source even when it's shown that you are synthesizing sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the case is not that I haven't added sources to support the claim; it's that I've provided some and you say they're not good enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have no document that shows that Johnston has gone through this process. For all you know, the process may have started and will not conclude until the current GG resigns and Johnston takes her place. You have made an assumption that this has happened. You have not provided a document that it has happened in Johnston's case. It's not that I don't feel they're good enough M. It's that they're not good enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then will you be happy if I remove the sentence until Johnston's swearing-in? I am willing to do that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that the sentence be removed until a document exists to back the claim of royal assent occurred in this way in relation to Johnston. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence until he's sworn-in. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PMO Press Release on GG Committee

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=546739 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.170.73 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Does an unpublished email qualify as a source? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See the url at the top. 64.229.170.73 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The link you added to the article is a superb source; thank you. But, for future, please use appropriate citation templates; they can be found here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be published. Any chance we could get a source for that signet ring information? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Daughters' jobs

The article again lists the qualifications and/or careers of Johnston's children, after this was restored by the anon IP 64.180.165.4 (talk · contribs). While it does indeed seem that the current information is now sourced, the anon's revert did not address the issue of keeping these facts up-to-date; there's no guaranteeing the women will remain in their present employment forever. On that grounds, I maintain that this detail should be removed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, the information was already sourced when M took it out as "unsourced". All one needed to do, to see that, was to read the cited source, which is (currently) available online. So M's phrase, "...it does indeed seem that the current information is now sourced..." wrongly implies ("now sourced") that it was not sourced before (when M removed it). Moreover, it does not merely seem that the information is sourced. It is and was sourced -- to an article in the Montreal Gazette, given in the citation, and even available online, currently.

As for keeping the information up to date, time will tell whether and to what extent that will be possible. If the material ever becomes too dated, it can simply be given a qualifier saying when it is "as of". That is no more than common sense, for handling any material that is of interest in relation to a given subject, but might become dated. So the "currency" issue is a non-problem.

64.180.165.4 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is a problem; how are we to know when any one of Johnston's daughters no longer works at the job the article claims she does? It's not as though any of them are high-profile individuals who garner wide attention. Why is this tangential detail even pertinent to the main subject of this page? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a problem? Information changes and a new source is provided when it is changed. Worst case, it could be changed to read "as of August 2010". Are you protesting because his children are all women, or that they are listed at all, or some other reason? I don't think the "likelihood of change" argument holds any water at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How much more clear can I make this? The precise jobs presently held by each of Johnston's daughters are tangential and trivial to this article and will be difficult to keep accurate over time as it is unlikely, given the non-notability of these individuals, that any future career change will be announced in widely available media.

Simply list Johnston's children, with perhaps some mention that they are all professionals and/or together hold numerous degrees from universities in Canada and abroad. The rest is superfluous and needlessly difficult to maintain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they are likely to change employers (or even careers) is not a problem as explained. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And what, again, is the point of including perhaps current, perhaps outdated minutae on Johnston's daughters' individual jobs? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that they are successful and apparently the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Sorry. I thought that was obvious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote my own words still obviously displayed four posts up: "Simply list Johnston's children, with perhaps some mention that they are all professionals and/or together hold numerous degrees from universities in Canada and abroad." That sufficiently demonstrates that his children are successful and "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"; perhaps current, perhaps outdated minutae on Johnston's daughters' individual jobs is not necessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote you (from your talk page): "one person thinking something is unnecessary does not make it so". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. It is the lack of evidence of its necessity combined with the affirmation that the same can be said in a better way that makes it unnecessary. I'll ask one more time: given that it can be demonstrated that Johnston's children are successful and "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" without resorting to specific mention of his daughters' precise and likely impermanent and likely difficult to keep up to date positions at places of employment, what, again, is the point of including perhaps current, perhaps outdated minutae on Johnston's daughters' individual jobs? If you can't answer that question, you can only be here arguing for the sake of arguing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is only your suggestion that this information is minutæ. In my experience, it's not. If the individuals were significantly notable in their own right they could have articles. Since they are not, it's acceptable to include their biographical information in a related article. This is done quite frequently with musical groups who have individual members who are not notable enough to have articles of their own. The artist page links back to the band article and one must wade through information about the band to find information on the one person in whom they may be interested. I see the same thing happening here. This is why I don't have a problem with including details about individuals who are not the subject of the article. If you can find a precedent in the biography articles then by all means we should follow precedent. However, I don't really see this to be as large of a problem as you do. Wikipedia is not running out of space and can accommodate details of related individuals. It certainly does not detract from the main subject does it? It's by no means trivia, and even if you thought it was, since it's not in a trivia section doesn't really go against any Wikipedia guidelines. So it's not a problem to me. The only thing that concerns me is that only one source has felt it necessary to include information about Johnston's daughters. It would speak more to their notability and the importance of the information if more sources would do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. The problem isn't that it's minutae, it's that it's minutae that will be extremely difficult to keep up to date (as evidenced by your own observation that only one article on Johnston's wife has made passing reference to his daughters). So, for the third time: given that it can be demonstrated that Johnston's children are successful and "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" without resorting to specific mention of his daughters' precise and likely impermanent and likely difficult to keep up to date positions at places of employment, what, again, is the point of including perhaps current, perhaps outdated minutae on Johnston's daughters' individual jobs? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have answered it: it can and will be maintained as appropriate. Even if it's not maintained, it can easily be changed to read "as of August 2010...". You haven't answered mine. In fact, you rarely answer the questions others pose. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer it; you didn't say how it will be maintained; adding "as of August 2010" does nothing to negate the problem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I will answer how it will be maintained if you answer how the remaining 3,000,000 - odd articles on Wikipedia will be maintained. Adding "as of August 2010" does solve the problem since the reader has a time-frame for the information. If after some time has passed you feel that the information is out-of-date, you may add that phrase after requesting and not getting an update to their current employers. Oh, and you still haven't answered any of my questions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"As of August 2010" leaves future readers in doubt of whether or not the situation as of August 2010 ever changed. Typically, such information would be updated; but, as neither individual is notable, making such changes when needed will be next to impossible in this case; it is highly likely that in the near future this information will become inaccurate without any Wikipedia editor's knowledge. I have presented a way to avoid all these issues while still putting across the same intended message. So, please just answer the question as put or drop this matter all together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I will answer how it will be maintained if you answer how the remaining 3,000,000 - odd articles on Wikipedia will be maintained. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you don't like answering questions posed of you so allow me to answer it: the information will be updated by editors who find the subject of interest. The fact that you don't find it of interest doesn't mean that the subject is not of interest to others. If the material ends up out-of-date for some reason at some point in the future it can be addressed at that time. You are trying to solve a problem that has not yet happened and is not guaranteed to happen. So it seems that since the criteria of WP:V has been met and you cannot offer a guideline to indicate why it should not be added, and you won't explain why its addition irks you, I don't see a reason to either prolong this discussion or remove the material from the article. If you have some concrete statement to counter one of those claims, feel free to offer it but stop harping in a non-issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your disinterest in what I actually said (repeatedly) is evident. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not disinterested in what you actually repeatedly and annoying said. What you said is not logical and your disinterest in my logical and reasonable responses show your disregard for all other editors who disagree with your opinion. Your changing the article again with lies show your ownership activities again. Please stop. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In short, there is no guarantee that any piece of information will ever be updated in any Wikipedia article. That is no reason not to include that information.

One thing further, don't tell me in what I am and am not interested. This is particularly humorous when you yourself have chosen not to respond to my valid questions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that you have deleted my talk page comments and called me disingenuous, a liar, and annoying, let me end my participation in this particular thread by returning your attention to the words about and offered to you at WP:WQA. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intent to delete the comments. I over-wrote them. Sorry. Now let's return to the topic at hand: the fact that the information meets WP:V and is appropriate to the subject and there's no guarantee that any piece of information will ever be updated in any Wikipedia article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

For the benefit of anyone joining this discussion, my solution to the matter was the following (now reverted by Walter Görlitz):

The couple have five daughters, all of whom were educated at universities in Canada and abroad: Deborah and Alexandra, who both became lawyers; Sharon, who became a medical doctor and educator; Jenifer, who became an economist; and Catherine, who earned a doctorate in education from Harvard.

This retains the pertinent message about the daughters' educations and professional status, while avoiding the time-sensitive, difficult to maintain, and non-notable (in regards to this article) detail about which office or what school each woman is employed at. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unintentionally reverted by me. Your solution is not agreeable to me as it is removing valid material and reverting to your preferred edit from yesterday where you apparently only stopped to avoid a WP:3RRwarning. I suggest that you drop the matter M and let the comments arrive and go with what is decided-upon instead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I stopped at 0 reverts yesterday to avoid a 3RR warning. Today's edit was quite different to the one I made yesterday. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also the change you're suggesting implies that something is amiss and needs to be fix, which isn't the case. What is presently in the article is fine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Miesianiacal (short and simple) way to much detail currently - are the children currently or have ever been notable NO!. This is not a family resume and i question if they need to be named at all, because they way it is going will we be listing there husbands/boyfriends and children etc too?.. Moxy (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Their boyfriends, husbands, spouses, or S.O.s not likely. Children, grand-children of the subject, not likely. But you were reducing the argument to the absurd. if the subjects are not important, why did the original source feel they needed to "fill-out" their article with this information? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

YES am reducing your long argument to simply what is needed/appropriate in the article ..Not sure y someone thinks they needed to be added, but its pretty clear they are being put on the same pedestal as there parents in the way its worded now. Many people try to add many things that does not make it right soured or not. What we must look at is what is relevant and encyclopedic, no matter who added it even if its sourced well or not. All that needs to be said here in my opinion is "They have 5 girls " and perhaps there names,.this children were not acquired in an odd manner or done anything that needs mentioning in the details there is now. Moxy (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Largely agree with Moxy here, the article should say the subject has five children (not "girls" either, just "children" - is there any particular significance that they are all girls?). If one of the kids gets their own Wikipedia article (god forbid) then they can get an individual mention, as such will become encyclopedically significant. We're not a trivia site and we won't post pictures of the family playing with the dog. This article is about the named person, not about the person and their kids. Start a new Johnston family article if you see a need for extended coverage. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So, is the suggestion that we not go with my proposal above (just below the sub-header) and instead use: The couple have five daughters: Deborah, Alexandra, Sharon, Jenifer, and Catherine? Or, something to that effect. I don't see the harm in including something about the daughters' level of education (it is fairly impressive), but I'm not passionately against removing it, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The daughters are not notable. Anything more than simply mentioning their existence is contrary to the BLP and Notability policies. Roger (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Which BLP policy exactly is it contrary to. I have a few musician biographies that need to be clean-up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." Quoted from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. Roger (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

With that said, I no longer have any objection to removing the material based on the policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need to mention anything more than Johnston has five children. With Walter's comment above, is everyone in agreement, then? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to note that they are professionals rather than unemployed Wikipedia editors or something else that could come to mind. no insult to unemployed wikipedia editors intended. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Roger (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored a deleted reference and changed the colon to a period. Now all we have to do is harmonize this article with the list in Sharon Johnston. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are three references really necessary for the fact that he has 5 daughters? So many refs overwhelm the actual text of the section when editing - there's more ref text than actual content. Roger (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, but the one referencing their progressions and employers should be the one to stay. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. That is in fact the one that should be deleted. Keeping it can be regarded as a (possibly bad faith) attempt to retain content "through the back door" that has been removed in terms of BLP policy. The refs only need to substantiate the daughters' existence, nothing more. Roger (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it contains the most information about the children it makes the most sense to keep. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily agree with it (why are we concerned with privacy when the daughters' names and places of employment are already out there, published in a major newspaper?), but if the accepted rationale is to remove the information from here on the grounds of BLP issues, then it does seem counterintuitive to keep here the very reference that contains the information we just removed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Though, I just found that the article contains other information useful to this page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I struck the above as I found a source that gives the same useful information without mention of the daughters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been arguing against a source that you haven't read? How many other editors have not read the article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of Canada

The article presently claims that Johnston is only the second governor general-designate to have been admitted to the Order of Canada prior to becoming governor general, after Adrienne Clarkson, and the first to be a Companion of the order. However, Ray Hnatyshyn was appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada on 10 January 1990, 19 days before he was sworn-in as governor general, and Jules Léger was made a Companion on 19 June 1973, nearly seven months before he became governor general. The sentence should be corrected, though, if it is, that might render it non-notable and thus redundant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no citation for any of it, so my inclination would be to replace it entirely with a sourced statement that he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. -Rrius (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already mentions his appointment to and elevation within the order, so I deleted the sentence in question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Anybody know how to change Taking office to Assumed office? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Titles and honours sections

Why is the titles and honours sections of this article now different to the same sections in the bios of previous governors general? The chronology of titles should not include post-nominals, and the honours section should; see any other GG bio page for the established pattern. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've fixed it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Privy Council for Canada

I have got a question in relation to membership to the Privy Council. The article now reads: "Given current practice, he will be sworn into the Queen's Privy Council for Canada when his term as the Queen's representative ends." However, I kind of thought that someone's appointment as Governer General gave them automatic membership to the Privy Council. Would someone (the author of the sentence perhaps?) care to comment please? For my part, I would propose to either delete or re-phrase the sentence (e.g. "Following the usual practice, he has been sworn into the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, whose membership is normally for life."). --89.216.218.113 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as the constitution says that the governor general is to be advised by the Privy Council, it would seem odd for the governor general to be a member of the body that's supposed to be advising him or her. But, then, past governors general were made privy councilors before becoming viceroy, when they were made ministers of the Crown: LeBlanc, Hnatyshyn, Sauvé.

Regardless, those who weren't previously privy councilors were appointed as such after their time as governor general was up: Clarkson on 2 October 2005,[14], Schreyer on 3 June 1984,[15] and Leger on 1 June 1979.[16] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this informed contribution, obviously I stand corrected. --89.216.218.113 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because I'm curious, what if a GG were already a member of the Privy Council? I suppose this might not happen, though, as membership is usually indicative of one's membership in the ministry. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation

I wonder if User:Walter Görlitz could explain why it's important to a) use a web site citation template for a reference that's a news bulletin, b) keep inserting the wrong publisher into the publisher field of the template, c) remove the name of the news bulletin from the citation template, and d) include a quote (the only one in a reference in the article) for my benefit when I said the quote was unnecessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a web page that's why. First you removed the addition by anon stating "all former office holders are "emeritus"; ref not properly formatted, either", so I formatted the reference in my preferred method (makes it easier to find and change the information). The quote was added to show that it was not automatic (if it were automatic, it would have been granted in absentia) and that a ceremony actually occurred. You then changed the web listing to a journal entry. Journal entries are for "articles in magazines and academic journals and for academic papers". It was a web-based press release, not a journal. You also complained about the expanded format so I reduced it to a single line. Then you changed it to a plain citation and protested that the quote wasn't required. I restored the web citation template and removed the quote. It appears that you're showing page ownership again: you don't want it my way at all costs. The correct format is to use template:web citation. It contains all of the necessary fields although I have omitted them since I don't usually use them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a regularly published news bulletin on a web page; as such, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite news, or Template:Citation are all useable. It does seem Template:Cite web has a field where the name of a journal or newspaper can be placed ("work"), but the template is typically used for web-based sources that are not regular publications with authors and editors; hence, it says right on the template page that "{{Cite news}} can also be used when citing a news source."

Regardless, none of this explains why you keep removing the name of the news bulletin and misnaming the publisher.

I know why you put the quote in the first time; I asked why you put it back in again; but I was wrong, you didn't. I apologise.

Leave the bad faith out of this, please; especially when you level accusations that could easily be turned around and fired right back at you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter, as to which citation is used? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the headings. Template:Cite journal is not appropriate for the reasons I gave above: "articles in magazines and academic journals and for academic papers". Template:Cite news is appropriate as is Template:Citation but Template:Cite web is also appropriate, and in my opinion is the most appropriate. As I said, feel free to fix the citation, but you are also removing elements that are correct.

The citation template that is used really doesn't matter GoodDay so I don't know why Miesianiacal insists on changing it instead of adding the missing elements which are part of the template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles in magazines, yes; the Daily Bulletin is a magazine, of sorts; it's certainly a regular publication with contributors and an editor. I explained why I felt {{cite web}} wasn't appropriate and I did add the missing field and corrected the incorrect entry, but you reverted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a web site first and foremost. This type of publication would be impossible without the web. Glossy alumni magazines would not contain all of the minutia that these web publications with content management allow. It's a web site not a published journal or magazine. There's a clear distinction between them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The only distinction is the media by which the information is distributed; is the Toronto Star any less of a newspaper because it has an online edition? No. But, this particular point isn't worth debating any further; I wouldn't use the template, but you're clearly not going to back down on its employment, and what appears in the reference section could be the same as if another template was used, anyway. What concerns me more is the re-insertion of the wrong publisher and the deletion of the news bulletin's name. There never was an explanation from you about that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me the most is that after I stated twice that you should feel free to insert the correct information you would rather take the time to complain about it than actually do it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, one must be careful not to break 3RR, no? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A day later? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Current publisher is "Communications and Public Affairs, University of Waterloo" and you want it to be "University of Waterloo". The publisher is Communications and Public Affairs, University of Waterloo as is stated at the site. It isn't the press of University, which it could be. It's not a specific professor or on-campus department, its the Communications and Public Affairs group at the university. I have made the requested changes. Would you mind citing the remainder of the honours now? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Communications and Public Affairs is the department the author works in. Look at the bottom of the page, it is copyright University of Waterloo.

I was planning on making the changes today or tomorrow; but, thank you for making them yourself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was a necessary change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The GG is the Chief Scout?

According to http://www.chiefscout.ca/Default.aspx?pageId=345976 it is an award award by "the Governor-General of Canada, in the official capacity as Chief Scout of Canada". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for starting a discussion about this; I was going to once I was able to sit down at my computer for more than five minutes.

I did see that the Governor General's website used the term "patron scout" (note: lower case letters), yet I couldn't find anywhere on the Scouts Canada website any reference to a position of patron scout, only Chief Scout of Canada. A full Google search turned up the same. Did Rideau Hall make a mistake in their press release? Or is it a matter of the governor general being both the Chief Scout of Canada and a patron of Scouts Canada? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)