Talk:David Johnston/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bottom nav bar

Add it back so that it's consistent across all GG articles. Removing it because it's not in a few is not a good excuse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a succession box, and the one for governors general presently isn't in any of the governors general bio articles from Grey to Johnston. Given that the preceeding and succeeding governors general are already shown in the infobox, as well as in the navbox at the foot of the page, the governor general succession box seems entirely redundant. Can you explain how it might be otherwise? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

it is in the succession box which is at the top of the page. The nav bar I'm talking about is at the bottom. Other biographies have this sort of navigation at the bottom. It is a glaring omission to exclude it. You recently removed it from two Canadian GG articles. I assume it was under the same circumstances. I suggest that you add it back (or possibly just add it) to all Canadian articles. It is present in the Australian GG articles: Quentin Bryce; New Zealand: Anand Satyanand. Shall I look for others? Not sure why you're changing policy. Is this another one of your imposition of preferences? Do you have any precedent to back this change? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

While we wait for you to answer my question, could you point to the policy you say I've changed? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The practice on Wikipedia is to include the succession bar. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything at WP:SBS/G clarifying when succession boxes should be used and when they shouldn't. One for the office of governor general certainly seems redundant in this case. I've asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You full-well know that it's a policy and I have given you the change to be gracious about it, but you are in error here by removing the succession footer. Please restore it to all affected article or I will revert your actions as vandalism and post notices on your talk page to that effect. The reason that it should be kept is not only precedence but also that it's more than screen page away. In the case of this particular GG, the other successions are listed and it's a glaring omission to exclude the GG succession simply because it's listed at the top of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you don't see it at WP:SBS/G I suggest you go through the other GG articles as well and remove it immediately. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't make any sense of what you're saying besides some threats, commands, and breaches of WP:AGF. I asked you to explain why we need a succession box when the preceeding (and, on other articles, succeeding) governor general is already in both the infobox at the top of the page and the governors general navbox at the foot; you didn't. I then asked for the policy you said I changed; you haven't yet pointed to it. I'm going to wait to see if anyone from WP:SBS responds with any clarification on this; if the succession box should be included, I'll put it in here and all the other governors general bio articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what you say doesn't make any sense. Someone has already responded here. In fact two of us have, and you're in the minority. You're going against consensus.

Go fix the Australian, New Zealand, and other commonwealth GG articles since they're all breaking WP:AGF. You have one day. If you don't "fix" them all the way you "fixed" this article and the other Canadian GG articles, I will revert your changes as vandalism.

Call me uncivil if you must, but you're being arrogant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid ultimatums won't work; in fact, they'll ultimately backfire on you. My suggestion is that you take a deep breath and maybe more than a moment to step back and get a better grasp on what's going on; your words betray severe misunderstandings and an inflation of this matter into far more than what it actually is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, I have had no previous involvement with this article, but saw a note about this discussion at WT:SBS. My own take is simple: the two forms can and should co-exist, just as categories, lists, and navigation templates co-exist.

Succession boxes are a simple, unintrusive way of adding succession info, and they are much more widely used than infoboxes. I have no general objection to infoboxes, but they are not an answer to everything, and for many careers they cannot accommodate the succession for all the post someone has held. Even when they do have all posts included their vertical orientation makes it harder to view all the posts one screen. For that reason, I prefer succession boxes, but others may have different preferences, so the best solution is to allow the two forms to co-exist, which is what happens on many articles (see e.g. George W. Bush or Winston Churchill or Jacques Chirac or Éamon de Valera).

Also, in my experience more articles have succession boxes than infoboxes, so I habitually go the bottom of a page for succession info, rather than bothering to check how complete an infobox is. It's not helpful to be fored to go back to the back because someone has decided to impose the infobox as a replacement, rather than as a supplement.

As an aside, this is anther illustration of the deficiencies of wikipedia's reader interface. Succession data is structured metadata, and that sort of info should be made available to browsers to display to the reader in a variety of means independent of editorial presentation. Most of the web is pretty awful in this respect, but wikipedia does little or nothing to raise the standards. Basic mechanisms for doing some this were available 15 years ago in HTML 3.2, but sadly most browsers preferred to offer presentational toys rather than structure navigation. Jakob Nielsen has written extensively about the crappiness of browsers in this respect: read this piece from 1997 and weep. Or look at how the Dublin Core has remained a largely academic exercise, with little impact on the squazillions of metadata-free webpages out there.

But those are wider questions. In relation to this page, my response is simple: navigation is generally bad enough, and removing a feature which works does not improve it. If the wikipedia interface was developed to help readers, we'd have feature likes categories which could expand to multiple levels in-situ, with the user free to choose between displaying them sidebars (as with some bookmark-managers) or in pop-ups or drop-downs or some other form of widget; we'd have succession data handled in the same way, and Dublin Core-style metadata available in difft forms too. Sadly, we have none of those things, and there is no sign of them coming soon ... so in the meantime, please don't remove any of the existing navigational toolkit. Leave the infobox and the succession boxes in place, and spend your efforts adding navigational data to the articles which lack it, rather than ripping it out of articles which offer it in more than one of he various inadequate forms available to us. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed explanation. My personal opinion is still that, with the succession of occupants of the office of governor general mentioned in three different places in the article, something - either the succession in the infobox, the succession box, or the navbox - is redundant. However, this feeling may just be a less nuanced reaction to the inadequacies of Wikipedia than what you've offered above. I shall, anyway, as time allows, put the succession boxes back into these bio articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

M, you're confusing an ultimatum with a promise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps discussion to avoid an edit war would be appropriate

Governorship General may be correct English, it does read awkwardly.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Governorship+General%22 = About 2,600 results

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Governor+Generalship%22 = About 80,900 results

Sorry the links aren't working correctly with the quotes

So in terms of common usage, the latter is correct. Perhaps we could find an official source and come to consensus. In terms of sheer knowledge on the subject I trust Miesianiacal's judgment. However I see that GoodDay also has a great deal of experience in similar areas. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The two look like they have been discussing it on GoodDay's talk page. Looks like they came to a conclusion but you can judge that for yourself. :) -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has already started (and possibly ended?) at User talk:GoodDay#Canadian governors general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got everything settled. Though Governor Generalship looks more familiar to me, then Governorship General, it does fall in line with the plural Governors General -as opposed to Governor Generals. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, in "governor general", "governor" is the noun and "general" is the adjective. Hence, the noun is pluralised in "governors general". The same applies with the suffix "-ship"; it's applied to the noun, not the adjective. See "-ship". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the numbers were not discussed M. Your preference is in the minority. Do you have backing for your term? Again, the ones you referenced were for the term used with a hyphen, which for the record:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Governorship-General%22 = About 2,600 results

So perhaps some backing for the term would be appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The presence or absence of the hyphen isn't relevant; it's the basic grammar. "Governor generalship" (or "governor-generalship") might be more common, but it's gramatically incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is? I'm not familiar with that rule of grammar. I do know that brothers-in-law is correct while brother-in-laws is not but I can't point to a grammatical rule to prove my point. "Governorship General" does feel correct along those lines but just so that we're not throwing gut feeling at the subject, a reference would be ideal. Shall I check my books of grammar such as The Little Brown Book at home to confirm? That is of course an American reference and may not apply to International English. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

-ship at Wiktionary indicates that "governor generalship" is wrong. As does the entry for the same at Merriam-Webster. Unless, in "governor generalship", is "governor general" altogether being treated as the noun? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see specific entries for governor general in either reference and the question you pose is the crux of the matter. What is the noun? I just checked "Governors General" v. "Governor Generals" and the latter carries the weight in Google. And for the record, we don't see the "Governor's General Awards" but rather the "Governor General's Awards". Hence the confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything pertaining specifically to "govenrorship general" versus "governor generalship"; though, Meriem-Webster does say that "governor general" is a noun and either "governors general" or "governor generals" is acceptable pluralisation. AFAIK, most mentions of the plural of "governor general" in Wikipedia use the former format.

Whatever is decided in terms of "governorship general" vs. "governor generalship", I think we should be consistent and carry it through to other usages. It would be odd to see "governor generalship" but "governors general". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We have another editor now changing "governorship general" to just "governor general" in some articles. That's insufficient as a header; the persons who are the subjects of the articles were not themselves an office; they occupied an office for a period of time. "As governor general" might work; but, seems abbreviated and still unclear. "Tenure as governor general" is another possibility; though, I don't know that "tenure" is the right word. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Accepted practice is to use the sectio heading "Governor-General" rather the the clunky "Governorship-General". See Bill Hayden#Governor General, Jerry Mateparae#Governor-General of New Zealand and literally scores of similar articles, all long-standing, all unmarred by this awkward phrase. Using it is a step in the direction of awful. --Pete (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion focuses on the articles on Canadian governors general; the fact that something's been done at some bios of Australian and New Zealand governors general makes that something neither "accepted practice" across Wikipedia nor right or even best. You may prefer simply "Governor general", but I do not, and have explained why. I've not ignored your concerns about "governorship general", could you please not dismiss those I have about "Governor general"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood Skyring. The question is "Is the accepted practice incorrect?". And it focuses on all GG articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The first question is: is the "accepted practice" actually accepted practice? I don't see any guideline that states the header "Governor general" must be used. And what may be preferred by those who edit some bios of Australian and New Zealand govenrors general might be interesting to look at but isn't some pattern we here are forced to follow; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What's incorrect about using "Governor-General" as a section heading to describe a person's term as "Governor-General"? It is correct English, section headings do not have to be complete sentences, it is accepted, long-standing uncontroversial practice across Wikipedia, as it was with Canadian articles. It is only Miesianical's usage that has generated controversy, and the generally accepted view is that "Governorship general" is "awkward" or "clunky". I don't think we should single out readers of Canadian articles for clunkiness when other Commonwealth nations escape happily. See also Louise Lake-Tack#Governor-General of Antigua and Barbuda, Paulias Matane#Governor-General of Papua New Guinea, Tomasi Puapua#Governor-General of Tuvalu, Lord William Bentinck#Governor-General of India, Charles Metcalfe, 1st Baron Metcalfe#Governor General of the Province of Canada, Muhammad Ali Jinnah#Governor-General of Pakistan, William Gopallawa#Governor-General of Ceylon .26 President of Sri Lanka, Timothy Michael Healy#Governor-General of the Irish Free State, George Cakobau#Governor-General of Fiji, Joost van Vollenhoven#Governor General of French West Africa and so on. I found not one non-Canadian usage of "Governorship-General" in all of Wikipedia's various Governors-General. Where there was a section heading, it was in the form "Governor-General" or "Governor-General of XXXX". In Canadian Governor General articles alone we see the term used and the usage is the subject of continual unrest, provoked by one editor alone, pushing for his own personal preference. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody is pushing for "Governorship general" to remain forever. You can let go of that canard now. I am perfectly willing to explore alternatives; for the aforementioned reasons, I just don't feel that "Govenror general" is the best we can come up with. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

M, the first question is not "is the 'accepted practice' actually accepted practice?" as if it isn't you're calling Skyring a liar who just claimed it was the accepted practice.

I'm not smart enough to com up with an alternative. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's up to skyring to substantiate his claims. But, in doing so, he shouldn't rely on the misconception that "precedent" automatically means "accepted practice", or that we here must follow what's been done somewhere else (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).

I don't like "Governor general" as a heading; it refers to an office, not to time in that office (which is what the sections all cover); hence, it's common to see "Presidency" and "Reign", rather than "President" or "King". But, it seems people find the grammatically apt and consistent "Governorship general" to be legibly unappealing. There are alternatives besides the name of the office, but, without getting into too much detailed analysis here, they all seem to create their own problems in the context of certain articles (in the way they work with the subheadings, specifically). That said, "Governor general" doesn't sit well with the current subheadings, either; regard Vincent Massey, for an example: Under "Governor general" are the subheadings "As governor general-designate" and the very repetitious "As governor general". So, taking all those factors into consideration, I'm willing to live with the heading "Governor General of Canada" (the title they held). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, my personal choice for readers, would be Govenor General (note the double capital letters). GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't conform with the Manual of Style; see WP:Section caps and WP:Job titles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rats. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you might support "Governor General of Canada", then, since, according to guidelines, it would be capitalised as such (it being the proper title of the office and office holder, unlike the generic "governor general"). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Governorship-generalness

This was just left on my talk page. Moving here so it doesn't seem as though we're hiding the discussion.

Hi, Walter!

How long to you want to give it? You can pick your own period and do it whoever you want. There isn't anyone left who is pushing for "Governorship general", and it looks like the only dispute is over whether it should be "Governor General" or "Governor general" or "Governor general of Canada". My feeling is that if the occupant is a Canadian citizen, then it should be just "Governor g/General", but when it is one of the earlier occupants, usually minor British nobility with maybe a couple of different Colonial Service appointments under their belts, then add "of Canada" to make it clear. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it's been like this for a while, I don't see the rush in changing, especially if I suspect it will be changed back by a different editor. The current format, while not particularly common, is not entire unintelligible and M has a point in keeping it. However, we should come up with something that is acceptable to all editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we all rest assured, once and for all, that I'm not adamant in keeping "Governorship general" in the articles for all eternity? It should stay (well, should have stayed, since Skyring has reverted the reverts of his edit on all bio articles but this one) until some alternative is agreed upon, since that's what WP:BRD asks for.

Moving hopefully towards that agreed upon alternative: If Skyring wants just "Governor general" or "Governor General" (except for instances where the individual held more than one viceregal post), could he please suggest what should then be done with the commonly used sub-heading "As governor general"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there no suggestion forthcoming? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. Though I did think of some things that are probably quite awkward for you. My concern is to remove the eye-splitting awfulness of "Governorship-general" from Wikipedia in favour of something not quite so clunky. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, while you might find the term "governorship general" to be "eye-splittingly awful", I find "As governor general" as a subheading of a section called "Governor general" to be unprofessionally repetitive. Since that clunkyness is a consequence of your edit, you surely should take some responsibility. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since there's been no feedback, I'll take it that "Governor General of Canada" is acceptable to everyone as a section header. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It feels clunkier than just "Governor General", but it's fine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Good change M. I like it and I think it addresses the objections of others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "As governor general" being a subhead of "Governor general", why not use "Tenure" or the like? I do agree that "Governorship-general" is awkward. -Rrius (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Captain of the Harvard hockey team

The claim in this article that Johnston captain the Harvard hockey team is being challenged by an editor. The claim, however, is reliably sourced: from The Globe and Mail article used as a citation: "He captained the hockey team at Harvard, nabbing a spot as a minor character in a novel his dorm mate was writing at the time." It's also mentioned here: "David Johnston, a kid from the Sault who will soon be Canada's next governor general, was the captain of the Harvard Crimson hockey squad and knew Segal, who died in January at the age of 72." And here: "I have to admit, David's stint as the captain of Harvard hockey team was what impressed my boys the most." And here: "While at Harvard, Johnston was captain of the varsity hockey team and eventually made it into the school's Sports Hall of Fame." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Vacation pay

Recently, an editor added some information about pay Johnston received from UoW for unused vacation time and administrative leave (whatever that is). While it seems factual, I have to wonder if it's really encyclopaedic; does it meet WP:NOTE? I don't think so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's important, if it helps give balance to the article. Pointing out the wastefulness of an anacronistic office, is encylopedic. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, that would be POV pushing; not everyone thinks the President of the University of Waterloo is "anachronistic". Balance is another matter; but, what, exactly, is his vacation pay balancing here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a waste of tax payers money, as is the monarchy itself. Along with the fact tha both are hypocracies to democracy & anacronistic. There has to be some negativity on these monarchial related articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The vacation and administrative leave pay is for Johnston's former position as President of the University of Waterloo, GoodDay. There's nothing negative or positive about it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummm.... What? Is this little factoid notable or not? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You can delete it, if you wish. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It was the headline of a newspaper article. Of course it's notable. It can be (and seems to me, it was) presented neutrally. Also, it's mostly not vacation pay - it's "administrative leave" ie. sabbatical, normally for research faculty to go off and do research, instead of teaching.- TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You say it's notable, but don't indicate why, other than it was a headline in one newspaper. I haven't yet seen the article published by any major media outlet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a newspaper a major media outlet? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe The Record, as a local Kitchener-Waterloo paper, is, no. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A local paper reporting on things that local citizens, including staff and faculty of the university the subject was paid by, certainly seems major to me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Walter. A newspaper with a circulation of over 60 thousand seems pretty significant to me. Not everything needs to be in the National Post to be considered notable. It's a reliable source, arguably the only reliable news source for Waterloo, and it's quite a prominent article. I can't understand why you would want to remove this. You've already added an "explanation" which (in my opinion) serves to bias the statement to suggest that the ethics of his acceptance the funds are beyond any possible reproach. The article is full of praise for Johnston, with almost no criticism, and this one hint of criticism is not noticeable? I want to assume good faith here, Miesianiacal, but I don't understand your motivation. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How quickly we've arrived at the assumptions about what I want and why I want it.

I didn't say the source was unreliable; I asked if the factoid is notable. I still don't think it is; but, since it does seem to be reliably sourced, it's presence isn't against any policy or doing any particular harm.

I suspected, though, that when this point was originally inserted, it was meant to be some kind of smear. That would be counter to WP:NPOV; it's placement in the article and the original use of the word "despite" were suggestive. If any Wikipedia editor thinks Johnston committed some violation of ethics, it would be their personal opinion, which has no place in Wikipedia articles. We can only put in reliably sourced, encyclopaedic, and notable facts. The "explanation" you say I added isn't mine; it's that of Tim Jackson, UW's vice-president of external relations, as quoted in The Record article. If a criticism of Johnston over this matter is published in a source that meets Wikipedia standards, then it can be added. I haven't yet seen one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it a smear? It was a pay-out. Nothing more. Nothing less. It never even implied impropriety. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A pay out; exactly. And hence it seems rather non-notable. But, if it is to be included, it should be presented as such, "nothing more, nothing less", unlike the way the anon editor originally inserted it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to redact it accordingly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If Johnston wasn't Governor General of Canada 'or' representing the monarch in any other position, would we be having this discussion at all? food for thought. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No. You monarchists wouldn't have arrived here to discuss. The academics would have inserted it and it would likely have gone unnoticed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm a republican. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the CBC engaging in a "smear" against because they use the "suggestive" words "even though" ? [1] Personally, I don't think the GG thing matters at all - I could care less about which other highly paid position he took while collecting "leave of absence" salary from a publicly funded university.- TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The CBC link is good in that it is certainly more "notable" than the The Record. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is, yes. That said, I suspect the CBC is tyring to create a little controversy by using the suggestive words "even though". I doubt the CBC knows much about Johnston's contract with UoW or what, if anything, Johnston did with the money he was paid by that institution. We should avoid such speculative editorialising. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahah.. okay, well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Can we at least agree to leave the article text as is? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You think we should be speculating? I certainly hope not.

I think what's there is fine, for now. If any further information about this comes out, we can look at the article prose again, if need be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Order

There is a debate about what order is clearer for his service as the governor general of Canada. I had broken it up into years but this was undone. Now it goes back to a ridiculous section header Queen's Diamond Jubilee, the War of 1812, and First Nations issues which fails to show the integrity of this section since logically the three things have nothing in common. Instead I had pointed out they were all something he dealt with in 2012 and then left each of the three as subsections. As well, User:Miesianiacal argues that I break it into sections which are too small. Such section sizes are relatively common when no clear link of the various parts can be found. There is no set policy on how big a section should be in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout which I checked. The origin is that I added a picture and sentence concerning Johnson being the official representative of Canada at the Papal inauguration of Pope Francis but since the titles were no clear I placed it incorrectly. User:Miesianiacal moved it to the right place in order. However, then it fell in the section Queen's Diamond Jubilee, the War of 1812, and First Nations issues and I have a hard time seeing how it belongs with those points. Hence, I subdivided by years so that all these various things don't get grouped in sections with long and odd titles. There are other ways then precise years as I put it: I have no problem with the first sub-section being called First Year 2010-2011 and the second being called 2012 with no subsections as that unites the content. I await an explanation of why dividing it by years is not clearer. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 11:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is obviously set up mostly in a chronological fashion; the contents of sections thus don't have to have anything in common besides having occurred at some point in time. It appears you're aware of that, regardless of your other comments, since you kept the contents as is and changed the sub-headers to be simply years. However, since the contents aren't entirely chronological, there ended up under a header showing one year some information about events that took place in another year (see the end of the last paragrpah in the sub-section you headed "2010", or the final paragraph of the sub-section topped with the header "2011"). The sentence about the papal inauguration is a recent add-in that hasn't yet been properly fitted.

Finally, one paragraph isn't long enough to deserve a section of its own. There is no absolute rule to give a mininum number of required characters before a section or sub-section is warranted; however, the Manual of Style does say "[v]ery short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Then it would seem that the best solution would be to do it by years and forget subsections. I am not so concerned about including or subsections or not, but of creating headers that help not confuse. A header with 3 unrelated items that just happen to be together in time is not clear, and a header "First Months" that covers over a year is not clear either. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No other governor general article is divided by year. Headers are meant to give a hint as to the content of the sections they head; the ones here now do that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of other articles are divided similarly. I am Canadian but my focus is Catholicism and only started this whole thing since they were so confusing that I placed something in the wrong spot. Let's split it into 3: (1) 2010: First Months, (2) 2011: First State Visits, and (3) 2012: Anniversaries of the Queen and the War in 1812.

Adding the year to the beginning makes it clear and makes is so that a section can contain other less key items that are not in the title. When you lack that, the title gets so long like we have in the last section (A, B, C, & D). I have yet to see a title as awkward as this one currently stands (linking 3 seemingly unrelated elements). If that is the best title that can be given for the section, it means it should be subdivided into sections for each. I agree that sections should generally be a certain length but many articles have sections of a line when that is all there is to say about X or when it is expanded elsewhere. Several examples on a much more highly edited article I have worked on. Pope_Francis#Relationship_with_de_la_Rúa, 3 Consecutive sections of 1 paragraph with a grand total of 206 words vs. 566 in one section here (if you were right there should be one section called "Inaguration, Residence, and Curia" which at least have more to do with each other that Queen Elizabeth, 1812, and 1st nations since they all occur within the Vatican and within the same month) Pope_Francis#Inauguration Let's work out some reasonably clear order if you are just going to stonewall, I will get other editors involved since you evidently watch this page more than I could even hope to. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Simply adding a year to the end of each header doesn't make anything clearer; events in 2012 are mentioned under the header with 2010 in it; events in 2010 are mentioned under the header with 2011 in it. Perhaps the headers simply need reworded, or the entire section on his governor generalcy reordered, but please take a look at all the other articles on Canadian governors general to see how its done in them, to which this one should conform. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

gazette link

To save @Miesianiacal: from blatantly breaking the WP:3RR for repeatedly reverting without starting a dialogue, can I ask @Mabelina:, what it is in that link that you think is useful to the article? I don't really understand either. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the link before, but it has no encyclopedic merit. Other than mention his name, what does "THE ORDER OF MERIT OF THE POLICE FORCES" have to do with the subject? Also, he wouldn't break 3RR, bit it could be considered edit warring on both sides. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see anything of value either, but Mabelina seems to be a perfectly competent editor and made some reference to "ref GCStJ" in his/her edit summary, so I thought I'd give Mabelina a chance to explain in more detail, instead of just continuing to revert the addition.. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a very odd page to link ...one of hundreds if not thousands of pages listing the duties hes preformed. Useless. and hopefully not the type of link added all over. -- Moxy (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - Wikipedia is constantly looking for references & citations and here is one of the most official sources you could find ref appointment to the Order of St John. Why has the Order of St John been targeted by a bunch of people incl Miesianiacal who reveal limited knowledge of the subject - David Johnston is a GCStJ so surely this is relevant?

qte MOST VENERABLE ORDER OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM

His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, is pleased hereby to appoint the following Canadians, who have been recommended for such appointment by the Grand Prior of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem:

Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St. John

As of March 14, 2012
unqte M Mabelina (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit concerning are you saying you added these all over and there being reverted? (I see why) Can you explain why your adding a link to the external link section listing random people? Perhaps best to read over WP:LINKSTOAVOID before proceeding. If your looking to add content like ..."one of his official duties was to present the Order of St John to ....." then it may be ok ..but I think a better source could be found...one that mentions his obligations. -- Moxy (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I added it there because I have had so much difficulty engaging with folk who display next to no knowledge about the Order of St John but persist in reverting everything I didn't want to become embroiled in yet another set to over nothing. Basically he is a Bailiff Grand Cross, which is an honour involving no duties (but a very high honour so more than worthy of mention) & Wiki loves (or did love) official citations so here is one. M Mabelina (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK still have no clue what your doing the website your using as a source says nothing about him receiving the honour. The page is about how he presented people with the order. -- Moxy (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a random example of gazetted appointments to various orders. It's so tangential to the subject of this article as to be useless to it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Moxy talk - more rubbish from Miesianiacal - please deal with it & view my discussions with Qexigator - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina what are you trying to say.... that David Johnston has been presented with the order or that hes presents the order to others.? The source talks about how he presented others with the order not that he received it. -- Moxy (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

hi Moxy talk - look what I am up against - a maniac - qv: https://www.sja.ca/English/Order-of-St-John svp.... M Mabelina (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain, please:

• Why Johnston's apparent appointment as a Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St John is listed apart from his other appointment/promotions in the order?
• Why the flag icon associated with his appointment as a Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St John is that of the UK, given the order is part of the Canadian honours system?
• More importantly, where in the source you provided does it state Johnston was appointed a Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St John?
• Why the ribbon bar of the Order of St John is placed following the Order of Canada ribbon bar, contrary to the established order of precedence for honours in Canada?

Thanks in advance for your direct and detailed response. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal - I have absolutely no time for your constant interference & lack of understanding about the Order of Saint John so the answer is NO. Got it? M Mabelina (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked you politely. Can you please give a direct and explanatory response to each of the questions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I found the source that we can use. I have no problem adding this to the honours section with the right Canadian image because the order is found in the "The Canadian Honours System by Dr. Christopher McCreery" Source... "The Order of St. John - Membership Roll of the Order". Order of St. John Secretariat. 2015. p. 66. . Hard to move forward when questions are no replied to!!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That source says Johnston was appointed a Knight of Justice in 2010. That fact was already in the article and sourced. There's no source affirming he's a Bailiff Grand Cross. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I see thank you ...only if questions were replied to.. not fun talking to myself over and over LOL. But that was the problem I was seeing not in the so called source. Has there been more of this type of thing affectingc other Canadian articles?-- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you may prefer no reply to replies that accuse you of being a rubbish peddling, revisonist, maniac.

I see no reason to leave any of Mabelina's edits standing. I suspect, though, undoing them will only result in her revert warring.

She's been causing some trouble at Order of Saint John (chartered 1888), too. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Touchée M Mabelina (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I reverted it ...fake source - no mention of this in source.. plus..source from 2012 last updated in 2013 for an honour received in 2014 simply does not add up. Best not added back unless a new source is found. Editor un-willing or unable to reply to concerns. -- Moxy (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Message to you Canadian dudes - why not add something to Wiki about Eric Barry (by creating an article) - that is if you really know anything about the order? Ciao M Mabelina (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Questioning your ability to comprehend a source or provide one is a serious concern that you should address when re-adding content. In the future if it arises again pls try to be more aware of the concerns raised. Happy editing -- Moxy (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mabelina: I'm glad I decided to take the day off. This is not a personal attack: your literacy and attitude suck. In reading what you wrote I was left confused. I understood more my reading Miesianiacal's replies than I did from reading your attacks on him. I agree with his assessment that the source is unclear and poor—you can see that in my comment above—and was hoping that communicating here would give clear reasons why the source you added should or should not be included. Moxy made several good suggestions, but you ignored them. I trust from your final comment you're done with this. Let us know if that changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: - I don't know why you have waded into the dispute (but I have heeded your advice & attempted to calm things down with Miesianiacal, altho he doesn't seem to be a calming down sort of chap). Trust this amply advises you of a change in situation and more than refutes something you attempted to make an allegation about sucking and illiteracy..?? It would be heartening were Wikipedia able to stick to facts & not impose MOS - much look forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Why did you get involved anyway?

What an ignorant question. Take a look at the history of this discussion: I was the second editor here. Take a look at the history of this article.

A better question is why you added the link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line...... -- Moxy (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Flags

I'm not sure if all, but certainly many, of the articles on Canadian governors general use flag icons in the honours and awards sections. So, it should be decided what to do for all of them.

Though most of the flags seemed superfluous (I think they were there simply to follow on from articles like List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II), I wonder what to do about honours from foreign countries, such as Johnston's Fulbright Canada Award (which came from the US Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs) and Jean's appointment to France's Legion of Honour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If the honours are from the country, it's acceptable to list the flag and list the nation as well, probably linked. Otherwise the link to the institution is sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to "trivia" or "smear"

Salaries of public figures are becoming increasingly present in public debate. The fact that he has made a significant amount of money during his stint as University President is an important piece of information for those who wish to write about this topic. Take for example the Maclean's article: or this one:

Students have a right to the information to hold their presidents accountable for their work, among other factors. Despite that the Ontario government releases public salary information, yearly, having the data on Wikipedia is far more accessible. Ashvin83 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

When you drop in information about Johnston earing large sums of money in a short period of time and provide zero context, as well as use words like "significant increase", it comes across as though you are trying to make a particular negative point about what may well be common practice. This isn't a place for political debate. It's an encyclopedia and we must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. You need to provide balance and/or context--why is the salary and bonus of particular note? Was it mentioned in any reliable secondary sources? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ashvin83. My brother's salary is published by the Ontario government but he's not a notable subject and media outlets did not pick-up on that. Johnston clearly did. By itself, it meets WP:GNG, but not enough content to merit an article. It should be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The threshold here however is much higher than a normal article (WP:BLP). I don't see what it is adding here or how it is relevant. Not having it included does not harm the article or take away from the reader. Having it included can easily be contentious or seen as POV. trackratte (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly in BLP is reproducing this content supported by multiple RSes? I have no problems taking this to RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The pertinent part is likely WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." So, why the information about his salary/bonus is being presented and how is important here. Without context and with words like "significant increase" (over what? Where's the line between significant and insignificant?), it appears as though the numbers are there to imply Johnston got some kind of shady pay-out. More is needed to establish how the amounts are more than just trivia to a man's biography. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you planning on using the sources to write a cautious and dispassionate section on it so it doesn't offend that section? If not, it's just censorship. The second RS discusses the subject at length. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source does not even mention Johnston so is of no use here. The second source devotes three sentences to his 2010 salary, without any hint of criticism or accusation of impropriety. That's not "at length", in my opinion. Content added because an editor thinks that "Students have a right to the information to hold their presidents accountable for their work" is a strong indication that the goal is soapboxing. "Students" have no inherent right to add any information to this encyclopedia, as they enjoy no special status here. The possibility that that content violates the neutral point of view must be considered. I fear that it does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So students have no inherent right to add information? Have you read WP:5P3 recently. Anyone can edit it. With that said, you're out to lunch on that slant because it's information for the students, not by the students. As long as WP:5P2 is honoured, it's not a violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone, student or non-student, can edit Wikipedia, in compliance with policies, guidelines and community consensus. Our articles, however, are written for all readers, not for Ontario university students. I see no criticism or controversy regarding his 2010 salary. So should it be included, as opposed to his 1997 salary or his 2013 salary just because it went from six to seven figures? That's undue weight. That's a factoid out of context. Or perhaps we should list his salary for every year he has been a public servant. But that would be just plain ridiculous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Given we've got an article on his salary at that point, I don't have a problem saying it is worth covering here. Certainly not a BLP problem to cover it. I can see the UNDUE weight issue, but not if it's done without judgement "XXX had the second highest salary of any YYY" seems reasonable if well sourced (which it would be). Hobit (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Context is necessary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, context is that was a lot of money for a public official--per the source. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources--[2] [3] [4] [5] (the last being the exact same article as the one before it)--say that. They each outline many individuals' pay. To conclude from those sources that Johnston's earnings in 2011 are somehow scandalous or, at least, suspect is to engage in editorialising and original research. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We've got an article where the headline is about his pay in this job and the lede is "Canada's new Governor General earned more than $1 million in 2010, making him the second-highest Ontario employee last year according to the province's co-called sunshine list." Nothing about scandalous, but something found by the media to be worth having a headline about. I don't see how there is an issue including it in the article. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Some media want to imply shady goings-on and taxpayer waste to sell papers and get clicks. Wikipedia shouldn't do the same. Unless the raise was, or was a key part of, a major event in Johnston's life, why should it—and it as the lone information on salary—be in his biography? See: WP:BALASPS. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Good thing that we're not like other media. We're an encyclopedia and we would present it as simple fact. I'm not sure how being the second-highest paid employee of Ontario is not encyclopedic. It does not give undue weight and so does not go against BALASPS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaders' Debates Commissioner

Hello Wikipedians! I want to have a civil conversation about this since I am new to Wikipedia and I am just simply trying to help in collecting accurate and helpful information. I am curious why his status as Commissioner of the Leaders' Debates Commission shouldn't be included in his inbox. Other people holding office of similar status like Official Languages Commissioner Raymond Théberge, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion to name a few all have their respective offices in their infobox. I would argue that his status as leading an agency of the Privy Council Office is a senior position and more deserving of being in the infobox than other positions and chairmanships he's held.

Of course, there may be precedent for this kind of thing that I am unaware of, so please feel free to educate me to that.

I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to engage in a discussion about this topic. Factchecker72946482 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no supporting policy, but I agree that it would seem reasonable to maintain his status as Commissioner of the Leaders' Debates Commission in the infobox for at least some time longer. As you note, it was a senior position, and he just resigned a few days ago. ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a matter of notability. Johnston has been head of a number of organizations. That doesn't meant hey're all worthy of inclusion in the infobox. The Leaders' Debates Commission is a barely-known entity and Johnston was head of it for, what? Five years?

Perhaps you'd want to bring this up at WP:CANADA.--₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to say whether this role is significant enough to be in the infobox. I agree it wouldn't be a bad idea to discuss on the Canada project. I tend to think it is a pretty significant role, but since the Leaders' Debates Commission has only been around since 2018, only organized two sets of debates (2019 and 2021), and since so far Johnston is the only person to have held the role of Commissioner, it is hard to say whether it is significant enough a role to be in an infobox generally, and also if it is in this case. Obviously, the role of GG is more prominent and should be treated as such for our purposes. Once the government appoints a new commissioner editors on the page of the new commissioner will need to grapple with similar considerations. Might also be useful to consider MOS:INFOBOX, we are not the first editors to grapple with such issues.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that's what I was trying to get at: the commission's just not that prevalent; most Canadians don't know it exists. That's not necessarily an argument to exclude it, per se. But, I'd say, at best, it's equivalent to him having been dean of Western's law school, principal of McGill, and President of Waterloo, and none of those are in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOX does state, "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Is being the head of a relatively obscure commission, that he didn't exactly elevate into the national consciousness or anything, a "key fact" about Johnston? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we have other bios with this position mentioned in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, he is the first (and only) person to have held the position so far. So no.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't add it to Johnston's infobox, if this is so. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. I am not sure the position is less significant or well known than some other commissioners like the Ethics Commissioner, which is also fairly new (and only on to its third office holder now). I think the better reason to exclude it here would be that in the case of Johnston his most prominent role is GG, and including many others could be distracting and perhaps not a summary in the spirit of MOS:INFOBOX. That said I tend to think the Debates Commissioner role is more prominent than academic roles, but others seem do disagree. Reasonable arguments could be made both to include the role in Johnston's infobox, or to exclude it. Just saying, I don't think this discussion should be read to suggest the 2nd Commissioner not have that role included in an infobox (that would likely depend in part his/her/their background). However, if that happens, it might circle back to this page again, because we then might want to consider navigation across the encyclopedia. That is a question for another day though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Needs new edits in light of recent events

Unlock the profile so it can be updated to include recent events of Mr Johnstons participation into Foreign interference. 70.31.26.72 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content relating to appointment as Special Rapporteur

Do criticisms raised by opposition political parties and media regarding David Johnston's appointment as Special Rapporteur merit article inclusion? ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely 71.17.137.94 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Beginning an informal discussion here regarding coverage of Johnston's appointment as Special Rapporteur and coverage of media criticism of the appointment. Should this content all be removed as per User:MIESIANIACAL/ or should such content be included in the article? My interpretation of WP:REL is that it merits inclusion. ScienceMan123 (talk) ScienceMan123 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Info about Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family has been part of this article for a very long time.

Quotes of every thing Trudeau ever said about Johnston is trivial.

Criticism of state visits belongs on articles about those responsible for the state visits; in this case, Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. Johnston did not decide to go to China; Johnston could not have said no to going to China.

Undue weight given to criticism violates WP:NPOV. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have compressed and integrated the additional information about Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family and moved it next to the existing sentence in the article. Hopefully this addresses your concerns.

Regarding criticism of Johnston's visits to China, please let me be clear that I am not criticizing Johnston. I am describing media criticism of Johnston, with appropriate citations. If you disagree with that criticism, I would suggest raising your concerns with the originating media sources. Blanket removal of criticism is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. ScienceMan123 (talk) ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What you've added to the part pertaining to Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family is a redundancy: Mont Tremblant is in the Laurentians.

It doesn't matter what media sources say. Johnston did not decide to go to China; Johnston could not say no to going to China. To claim otherwise in this article contradicts everything else said on Wikipedia about constitutional monarchy, responsible government, the governor general's role and powers, state visits, and more. That is not permissible. At best, you could insert:

"Terry Glavin criticized Johnston for visiting China—on his Prime Minister's advice, which the governor general is constitutionally required to follow—and for not addressing the Canadian Cabinet allowing Anbang Insurance Group to purchase Retirement Concepts, though the governor general is, by constitutional convention, disallowed from speaking publicly on policy matters. Glavin's main concern was with what he perceived to be Johnston ignoring Liu Xiaobo's status as a prisoner in Chinese jail. Johnston stated to CTV News he raised the matter of Xiaobo and China's human rights record with Chinese President Xi Jinping."

But, such extensive coverage of one journalist's opinion would seem to go against WP:DUE. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what is there right now is appropriately balanced and detailed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether Johnston was ordered to visit Xi by Prime Ministers or not has no bearing on whether his visits meet significance requirements for inclusion in the article. They merit article inclusion because they were reported on and he was criticized extensively in the press for his visits. Again, I am not the one criticizing him. I am describing the criticism that he received in the press, with appropriate citations. For now, I have left the unsourced claim that Johnston was ordered to visit Xi by Harper/Trudeau due to WP:AFG, but it would be helpful to find a source.ScienceMan123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a straw man. The issue isn't whether or not Johnston making a state visit to China is worthy of inclusion. The issue is whether or not criticism that is ignorant of how constitutional monarchy and responsible government works can pass Wikipeida policy and be included; at least, without explanation of the facts to clear up the misconceptions Glavin creates. This is an encyclopedia; not a political magazine. It's ludicrous that you think stating the most basic fact of Canadian civics even requires your gracious permission to let it stand, for now, until it's been sourced. Just read the articles Monarchy of Canada, Governor General of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada, Government of Canada, Cabinet of Canada, King's Privy Council for Canada, Constitutional monarchy, Responsible government, and others, if you want more. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I would request that you please keep this discussion civil and focus on the content. ScienceMan123 (talk) ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"If you disagree with that criticism, I would suggest raising your concerns with the originating media sources." With that bit of sarcastic condescension, you lost the right to lecture on civility. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm or condescension in that statement. The originating media sources are the correct venue to address criticism of their reporting. Again, I would ask to please keep this discussion civil. ~~ ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Neutral - Its inclusion or exclusion is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with Miesianiacal that the criticism from Terry Glavin under#Continued viceregal service doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion, on basis of WP:UNDUE. As far as I can tell, criticism about the state visit came only from Glavin, and while Glavin is a notable journalist, he's still only one man — it doesn't make sense to elevate a single take like this. Moreover, the rest of the paragraph is a mess. The following line During that meeting, Xi described Johnston as an "old friend of the Chinese people." seems to be there to make insinuations about Johnston's connections to China, but it's really just boilerplate diplomatic language. After that, it's a couple sentences explaining how viceroys work, effectively there to counter Glavin and the earlier sentences, which just makes it awkward. The whole thing should be junked.

I'm also a little unsure about the criticism under #Post viceregal career, relating to his appointment as special rapporteur. My thought is, opposition parties always find something to criticize the government for, so that they found fault here is not necessarily notable; and the massive number of citations that follows it feels an awful lot like a WP:REFBOMB. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion of Johnston's state visits to China under David_Johnston#Continued viceregal service has become a mess. I will remove both Glavin's criticism and the defense to that criticism, leaving only a brief statement of fact about his visits. User:Miesianiacal please revert if you disagree.

Regarding David_Johnston#Post_viceregal_career, there are definitely more citations than are necessary at the moment. There was concern about the criticism not meriting inclusion under WP:UNDUE, which the citations were meant to address. WP:REFBOMB does not apply in this case, since these are valid references that focus on criticism of Johnson's appointment. But there are indeed too many of them. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

My concern was essentially that the sheer number of refs, made it look like an attempt to 'prove' relevance, especially since the criticism felt a bit harsh to me. But the current version looks a lot better (thanks, Miesianiacal) and I don't have an issue with it as it stands.

Was trying to clean-up the paragraph on Johnston's state visits (first by putting it chronological, which seems more neutral to me), and in the process found that there actually was a bit of criticism about the 2017 visit… so I've included that, and reinstated the Glavin ref per that (though I still don't think his editorial needs to be specifically noted in the text). — Kawnhr (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean-up/ref grouping, the text regarding Johnston's current appointment reads well now. I have no more concerns regarding article balance on this topic. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Miesianiacal and I seem to be in disagreement over whether mention of Johnston family ski trips with the Trudeaus are worth including in the article. Since they have been extensively mentioned in the media, I am of the opinion that they are worth including as a separate item from vacations in adjacent cottages. ScienceMan123 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Seem to be? Three times I've said the information is redundant. The families go to the cottages in the Laurentians to ski because the Laurentians are mountains and people ski on mountains and often have cottages nearby as convenient places to sleep and be when not skiing.

Kawnhr was right to be suspicious of attempts to make insinuations in the article. What point are you really trying to make by insiting the skiiing be in there except to mislead readers into believing the Trudeau and Johnston families spent more time together than they really did? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You're wasting your time arguing with partisan editors. See their contribution histories. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of their contributions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The information is not redundant. It was extensively reported that they spent time together at their adjacent cottages and during ski trips. Just because both sets of events occurred in the Laurentians does not make them redundant. They constitute separate activities. Why do you not want that information in the article?

I do not appreciate the continued personal attacks. ScienceMan123 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't hide behind feigned personal offence. You are the one making the edits. And you still have not explained the pertinence of the skiing detail nor justified the way it's been misleadingly inserted to say the Trudeaus and Johnstons spent time both at cottages and on skiing trips, when both are the same thing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not clear on how it is misleading to include mention of both summer trips to adjacent Laurentian cottages and ski trips to Tremblant. Both were reported in the media, and constitute separate sets of events. Can you please clarify why this was tagged as disputed? ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository for amateur original research projects. Unless you have facts, you shouldn't be editing articles. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any specific content that you disagree with, or is this just a personal attack? ScienceMan123 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are very clear on how the editing of information leads or misleads, since literally the only thing you ever add to this article is more and more minutae about one aspect out of Johnston's long and varied career, even now going so far as to bring one aspect of his daughters' educations into this article. Your aim is transparent: hightlight every and all connections between Johnston and China, no matter how small or how tangential, to the exclusion of all others, in order to paint Johnston as a Chinese agent. This is the same pattern as seen in your imbalanced edits at 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot. This heavy, forced one-sidedness violates the core principle of WP:NPOV. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

All content that I have added is well-sourced, relevant, and not a matter of opinion. In no way is it misleading. During his time in academia Johnston formed close partnerships with China, partnerships of a level that he did not form with any other nation. This has been covered in the media, and was sadly lacking from this article.

I wonder why all criticism and related content of Johnston was missing from the article? One possible reason is that certain editors edit articles relating to the Canadian monarchy and associated officials to remove inconvenient content and make them look as favorable as possible. Looking at your edit history, it appears that your entire purpose is to defend and promote the monarchy and anyone associated with them. Talk about WP:NPOV, you're like the monarchy whitewash team. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you keep falling back on the "it's sourced" argument, which has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Or perhaps we should be looking at WP:OR: you can add all the sourced material you want. It's still invalid if it's cherry-picked and edited, including using overload, to communicate your personal opinion. And a false dichotomy isn't a defence: the answer to no criticism isn't EVERY CRITICISM FROM EVERYONE EVERYWHERE. Besides, Johnston's daughters doing some of their schooling in China isn't a criticism of Johnston. Nor is happenstance landing him in a cottage next to the Prime Minister's. Nor is making state visits exactly as his job entailed. That's the information you've inserted. It's interesting you now call it "adding missing criticism". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that all content has been well sourced is very relevant given your repeated false accusations that I have posted misleading information. Now that you are also making false accusations of WP:OR, it is doubly so.

Criticism that is covered extensively in the media is relevant and inclusion is essential to establish a WP:NPOV. I am sorry that this interferes with your singular objective of portraying the monarchy and all related Canadian officials in the most favorable light possible. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's all assume goof faith, focus on content and keep building a better encyclopedia. FWIIW, I think statements of support (and criticisms) of Johnston's appointment are appropriate, but should generally be focused in the portion of the article where the appointment is discussed in detail. Even that might be unnecessary in this article, since the appointment will is addressed in the related 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot#Appointment of Special Rapporteur article/section and these matters are addressed there. If this article directs there, it may be unnecessary to reproduce some of that material here. I will comment on the daughters' education point below, but on the other issues, I think the best way forward is to identify specifically what content is still in issue. At this point, I am not clear on that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree the edits are apt and should be included in this. The other editor is just a Liberal Party shill trying to protect Trudeau. 70.31.26.72 (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, IP 206.45.2.52 has been blocked for a month. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Daughters' university educations

Do we really need to cover his daughters' university education in this? I get that there has been some public criticism of Johnston's appointment as special rapporteur due to percieved closeness to the Chinese regime or people. It may be appropriate to note that the appointment was praised by some, criticized by others, and to include brief summaries of the reasons for each. But do we really need to go into his daughters university educations? Is that relevant to an article about *him*? Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not in the least bit needed. Unless one has a goal of weaving a particular tapestry of one's own preference, that is.

The quotations are also needlessly excessive; Johnton's quote about his supposed feelings towards the Chinese people is pointless (he's probably said similar things in other countries during his many goodwill, collaborative, and diplomatic trips), let alone two and three quotes saying the same thing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Details of his daughters' education was brought up in the news as a source of criticism related to Johnston (rather than his daughters), so I thought it relevant to include the details. But I'll cut out the specific details and just leave the references to address this concern. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the details of his daughters' education are needed. This article is about him. We don't need to include the details of where his daughters went to school just because some WP:RS have mentioned it. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. If the reason to include it is to give context to criticisms about his appointment as special rapporteur, that can be done in that section (without mentioning his daughters). As has been done in 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot#Appointment of Special Rapporteur, prior to the most recent edit there, by simply noting general concerns about his own ties to China (through his own travel and academic career). General WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME concerns are also a good reason to avoid putting unnecessary details in about his non-notable daughters.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The details of his daughters' education have already been removed. Probably the other discussion of his associations with China would be better moved to the section on his appointment as special rapporteur. Originally context to criticism of his appointment as special rapporteur had been placed in that section, but its placement there was a point of contention. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What I am saying is I am not sure we should even be including this sentence: Three or four of Johnston's daughters studied at universities in China.. That is still in the article as currently written. Do we really need it? What does it add?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It adds context to the great affection for China in the Johnston home, which was one of Glavin's main sources of criticism on the appointment. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. But we don't have to include any of Glavin's criticisms just because they WP:EXIST. It may be appropriate to include general criticisms of the appointment (ie that he is perceived to be too close to China, or too focused on improving relations as Glavin writes), but that we already have info about *his* work in academia, travels, etc. Why is it nessisary to include his daughters' education to further show that criticism? I just don't think it is, and there are decent reasons not to, ie his non-notable daughters' privacy which newspapers are less concerned with than us (Wikipedia).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that his daughters are not named, it does not pose a privacy concern from the Wikipedia side of things. My opinion is that the information helps readers to understand why the attitude towards China in the Johnston home was criticized following his appointment as special rapporteur. But it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on, so if you feel particularly strongly on this topic feel free to take out the sentence. We can then revisit if additional criticism on the Johnston family attitude towards China comes up in the media. ScienceMan123 (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The article Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections exists for that very purpose. This is a biographical article about David Johnston, not his daughters. Unless you can prove he forced his children to attend university in China, the very neatly cherrypicked info about where they went to school doesn't belong here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Except that it is being extensively discussed in the news in the context of Johnston's potential conflict of interest as special rapporteur, making it of relevance in a biographical article about David Johnston. Such cursory family details of interest would also not be out of place in a biographical article on any other individual: what makes Johnston special such that no details of his family should be included? ScienceMan123 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)