Talk:Michaëlle Jean

Succession box

[moved from User talk:Miesianiacal]
Just because other GG articles have both the succession box and the GG template doesn't make it right. Please review Wikipedia:Avoid template creep if you are uncertain about this. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I have any particular attachment to the succession boxes at the foot of many biographical articles; rather, I imagine that it would be confusing for readers to see some governors general articles with a succession box and others without. In other words, the articles on Canadian governors general should either all have succession boxes, or they all shouldn't. It's merely for consistency. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Other Controversies" section (re.: seal hunt)

I recently added information about Jean's participation in an Inuit ceremony that included Jean helping butcher a seal, and eating part of its raw heart. For some reason, someone deleted this section. I am going to revert, and if anyone deletes it again, I will apply for protection. You can't delete newsworthy information in a WP entry without due cause. Bricology (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article. No need to have it twice. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that someone has moved it into the "Domestic Duties" section, which seems nonsensical to me. As I understand it, her visit to the Inuit ceremony wasn't the fulfillment of a "duty" at all. What "domestic duty" was Jean performing by gutting a seal and eating its heart? (That sounds like it could've been the domestic duty of an Iron Age shaman, but not a 21st century, first-world politician.) It seems to me that burying odd controversies at the end of the "Domestic Duties" section is a poor fit. I move for establishing a permanent "Controversies" section and moving the seal heart incident back to it.Bricology (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Travelling Canada, meeting with Canadians, taking part in organized events, & etc., are all duties of the Governor General. Explicitly labelling something as a "controversy" is inherently against WP:NPOV. There is also WP:UNDUE to consider when contemplating giving one event it's own section. The facts should merely be presented as they are without additional interpretation on the part of Wikipedia editors. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Travelling Canada, meeting with Canadians, taking part in organized events, & etc., are all duties of the Governor General. That's a stretch. Is traveling anywhere or meeting with any Canadian for any reason part of her "official duties"? One could just as easily say that Richard Nixon was fulfilling an "official duty" as President, since he was meeting with Americans (the Watergate "plumbers") to discuss breaking into the Democratic Party's headquarters. Nothing "controversial" about that particular incident, eh? There has to be a sensible definition for "duties"; it's not some amorphous thing. Was Jean's gutting of a seal and eating its heart on her agenda for the day? I somehow doubt it, and apparently, so does the media, or they wouldn't've reported it with such a tone of surprise. I'm not going to push for changing the entry as it stands now, but I find your justification highly suspect. Bricology (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The different takes on the event are mentioned already. Additional personal interpretations by Wikipedia editors is neither neutral nor balanced. Please stick to guidelines. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Alberta Centennial Medal

I think the article might be wrong about Jean receiving the Alberta Centennial Medal. She is not on the list of recipients at http://www.albertacentennial.ca/programs/medal_recip.html and the honour is restricted to Alberta residents.--BruceR (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps not. Here she's wearing the Commemorative Medal for the Centennial of Saskatchewan, but obviously not the one for Alberta. Odd that she'd get one from one province but not from the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the lead page of the GG's website also shows Jean with the Saskatchewan medal but sans one from Alberta. I guess its safe to assume she never received one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is one prorogation notable but the other is not?

Greetings User:Miesianiacal

I noticed that on January 2, 2010, in this edit that you entirely deleted my contribution completely, with no amendments and no discussion.

In Wikipedia article traffic statistics, the article for "legislative session" went from 38 to 1,400 when the news broke that the Governor General had prorogued Parliament under the circumstances of December 30, 2009.

And the article "Michaelle Jean" went from 448 to 874 (double).

I noticed that in this instance there is an entire section devoted to a prorogation.

Why is one prorogation notable but the other is not?

What are the exact criteria for the "notability" you mentioned in your Edit summary?

Is it not notable when a minority government prorogues Parliament immediately after ignoring a motion which passed with a majority?

At this source from Dec 18, 2009 I found this "noteworthy" quote:

"The House of Commons has passed a motion requiring the release of unredacted documents concerning the Afghan detainees to the committee hearing the issue. The government has refused, setting up the possibility that it could be found in contempt of Parliament. If the executive and legislative branches of government were to come to deadlock, an unprecedented constitutional crisis could be precipitated. "

This Wikipedia policy states that "In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.

If you have been checking the news outlets, this topic is being noted in many media. If you take all of it collectively, then is that not "significant coverage?"

I am surprised that you deleted my contribution without any discussion or attempt at amendment.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Prorogation is a routine procedure which happens several times in the life of every parliament. What was uniquely notable about the 2008 matter was the context in which it was done — less than a week after Parliament was convened in the first place, specifically in order to forestall a confidence vote, and with a reasonably valid argument to be made that Michaëlle Jean could have or should have denied the request. Your contribution was written as if every prorogation inherently precipitates a parliamentary crisis, which is false — although there may be disagreements about why Harper requested a prorogation in this instance, it's not a particularly shocking or unprecedented or crisis-inducing thing for him to have done, and neither was there any compelling reason for Jean to even consider saying no. And consequently, it simply isn't comparable to 2008 in any meaningful respect. Not its impact, not its context, not its relevance to Jean's article. A neutral summary of the situation might be valid content in Harper's article — but it's not relevant here. Whether it should have happened or not is for Harper to wear, not Jean. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. If there's anything to be said about this most recent prorogation, I think it would be better suited for inclusion at 40th Canadian Parliament. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I suppose that only the passage of time will tell whether this situation will lead to "an unprecedented constitutional crisis". I will wait and see whether this article is right when it says, "The refusal sets the stage for a potential parliamentary crisis, not unlike the one that gripped the country one year ago, with Harper's minority government in a standoff with the three opposition parties." I will wait until that happens (if it happens) before discussing this any further. I understand that Wikipedia is not for predictions. Forgive me for "jumping the gun." I did so only because Reg Whitaker, the author of this article is no slouch when it comes to analysis. But even that is no excuse for my "jumping the gun." I apologize.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If it does actually evolve into a constitutional crisis with demonstrable blowback onto the GG, then yes, we can note that here once it happens — but until that actually occurs we don't speculate about what might happen. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would beg to differ on this topic. When Parliament is prorogued, it is generally just to end the session of parliament for the afternoon or a short time, and not typically at a time when the government is in peril. If I am correct, the only other time it is common for Parliament to be prorogued is when the Prime Minister requests the complete dissolution of parliament to call an election. I do not believe parliament has been prorogued for any other reason in recent memory. Also, I believe Michaelle Jean was the first GG to agree to prorogue Parliament in decades for a reason other than an election. (A further explanation of proroguing can be found here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch08&Seq=7&Lang=E) Therefore, unless there is something I am missing, I propose that both prorogations by Michaelle Jean is worthy of including in the article. RainnIceberg —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Both prorogations are mentioned in the article, albeit the second one with no accompanying detail, as it should be; whatever the political oddity of that 2009 prorogation, it has nothing to do personally with Jean.

You also seem to be confusing recess, prorogation, and dissolution as though they're all the same thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Port-au-Prince quake

Does the 2010 Haiti earthquake affect her family? If so, it should be added.

Also, where in Haiti was she and her family from?

76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the 18 January 2010 CTV National News at 11:00pm, her family is from Jacmel... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Associated with this matter is the anon IP user who keeps reverting a sentence communicating that some Canadians saw Jean's reaction as indicitave of stronger ties, on her part, to Haiti than Canada. The supporting source states: "Even as Jean stirred the Canadian soul with her talk Wednesday, she evinced some negative responses, such as this letter to the editor in the Globe and Mail: 'Her emotional TV performance was a disgrace. She put her country of origin before the country in which she holds office.'" I'm rather a fan of Jean, so I'm not insisting that the sentence remain out of some animosity for the woman; it is, instead, for the sake of WP:NPOV that an opinion contrary to the positive one of her post-earthquake address be provided for balance. It would also seem strange to have the statement and source removed when the positive claim stays despite its being supported by the same source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail says [1] that her daughter's godmother was killed in the quake. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Date

Her date should be September 6, 1957 not 6 September 1957 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.238.141 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Either British (6 September) or American (September 6) date format is acceptable on Wikipedia; the only rule that we have is internal consistency within a specific article. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here too? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Following a brief and bloodless American/Canadian date style editing skirmish this morning, the following discussion on date styles has been copied to this topic. I believe that both my reasoning and facts are correct, and that all GG and LG articles should maintain a British date style. Comments? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no Canadian date format. The official rules are that either American or British date formats may be used. Many editors have pointed-out that American date formats are most common. The overarching rule with dates in Canadian articles is that format in which the article existed after ceasing to be a stub should be the format in which it remains. In Talk:David Lloyd Johnston, an editor admitted that he changed the format to British. This change was just over a year ago. The article was in originally was American date format. I wasn't going to make the change until consensus was reached, but I will follow the anon's lead and keep it in the correct format. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Walter, thanks for your insight above. Of coarse course, my comment on 'Canadian date style' reflects the fact that the Canadian federal government and provinces officially follow the British date style, hence 'Canadian' style.

Regarding the use of a Canadian/British date style for the GG, I would like to point out that that those articles present an exception to the normal WP date style rules, which state:

"In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee decided that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason; for example, with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject."

While an article started with an American date format on an average Canadian would keep its American style, the GG, as the Queen's personal representative to Canada, is viewable as a British subject, although he/she may or may not hold British citizenship (many have in the past). In the particular case of Governor Generals and Lieutenant Governors, they act as regal viceroys (a royal official who runs a country or province in the name of and as representative of the monarch) and should be considered British subjects. For the sake of consistency, I suggest that all such articles maintain British/Canadian date styles, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

First it's not "of coarse" but "of course". Second, provinces don't use British long date formats. That has been discussed. Please read the discussion above and various other locations. The American long date format is the most frequently used long date format in Canada. See Talk:David Lloyd Johnston, Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, and Wikipedia talk:CANSTYLE#List of date formats used for a further discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm astounded that the Governor General of Canada would be classified as a British subject. The position, at least since 1931, has zero to do with the United Kingdom.

That said, I wonder why WG and his anon compatriot have stopped their project of returning the articles to their original date formats at Vincent Massey. All but three of the articles on GGs prior to Massey also originally used MM DD, YY. I think you have some more work to do, Walter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero to do with the United Kingdom? Well other than the monarch who is a citizen of the U.K. appoints the GG.

I do not know who the anon is so suggesting that the anon is my compatriot is pushing reason. The connotation is also disturbing in that the root of the word is the same as that behind that of patriot which seems to suggest that I am pro-American which is far from the truth. I could imagine all sorts of misrepresentation behind the word but want to clarify again that I do not prefer the American long date format and to the best of my knowledge don't know the anon. However if by compatriot M means one living in the same country, which is the dictionary definition, then I full agree with that connotation. I assume that he is also compatriots of the other two editors as well. Is anon changing date formats in other articles?

I am not returning the article to its original format. I am merely keeping this article in the format the anon moved it to, which is the correct format based on WP:DATESNO. I would not have done the work myself but am glad that anon did so. I was waiting until consensus before changing date format, if required. The other relevant section is WP:STRONGNAT. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

When you reverted back to the anon's edit, you returned the article to it's original format. I see now that you only did so on this page; I apologise for believing you'd done the same on the others back to Vincent Massey. However, if you don't want to change the date formats until a consensus is reached - an opinion with which I agree - why then did you uphold the change to the date format on this page, and have left the anon's other edits alone? Shouldn't all the pages stay as they were when this conundrum came up? It's rather difficult to maintain a discussion on a matter when that matter keeps changing. This whole thing is already complicated enough.

BTW, the Queen isn't a UK citizen and she appoints the governor general as Queen of Canada on the advice of her Canadian prime minister only. The UK and its government has nothing to do with it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So when she travelled to Canada in the 1950s did she travel on a British passport or something else? I suspect that before she was monarch she was a British citizen. As I said I would not have done the work myself but am glad that anon did so. I was waiting until consensus before changing date format, if required. I will not change any others. I do not watch any others so I won't revert any other changes made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would she need a passport to travel to her own country? Which is all irrelevant to the governor general being a British agent, anyway. Meaning it has no bearing on the date format used on these pages.

If consensus still needs to be found, then the articles should stay as they were; that's per WP:BRD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Walter, are you implying that Michaëlle Jean is not a subject of the British Commonwealth? Oh, come now!.... Best: HarryZilber (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been called the British Commonwealth for about fifty years now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see your comment User:Harryzilber until now. I'm saying that Michaëlle Jean would probably, come Christmas anyhow, say that she's a citizen of Canada. Her husband has ties to a separatist movement in Quebec and they are quite opposed to what they see as a foreign power controlling Canada in the monarchy. If I remember correctly, this was a major concern with selecting her as GG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 18 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 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So much for "waiting for consesnsus," eh Walter? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what. You made your enemies. You deal with the repercussions of your actions. As you can see, I am not changing the other articles that you're edit warring with anon in Chilliwack, but I can tell you this: you're not innocent yourself. I can sleep at night after having undone a change that an anon pointed-out that you made against Wikipedia policy. I am not going back and changing any other GG articles. I will wait for consensus on those. Now if only I could convince you to stop being so self-righteous in your actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me or the anon and everything to do with you. You said you wanted to wait for consensus before changing this article; a wise position. But then you go and change the article anyway, using the anon as an excuse to do so. It's disruptive, and I can't imagine how you couldn't know that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL poor Miesianiacal an article were he is clearly the main contributor... a guy who has never edited the page before last month reverts him on dates. LOL Moxy (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Commander in chief

From http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=45

The governor general is commander-in-chief of Canada. This role has been expressly conferred on the governor general as per the letters patent of 1947. As such, the governor general plays a major role in recognizing the importance of Canada’s military at home and abroad.

This seems to supplant the constitution of 1867 in which the monarch is named "Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the constitution says that Command-in-Chief is vested in the Queen. That's different from the Queen being the sole rightful Commander-in-Chief of Canada. It's phrased nearly identically to the section stating that "executive government and authority" is vested in the Queen. The Governor General clearly has executive authority in Canada granted by the Queen; why can she not also be the Commander-in-Chief of Canada? Unless there's some kind of legitimate source clearly delineating that the Governor General truly has no claim to the position of C-in-C , then it strikes me as being a bit POV and OR to phrase it the way it currently is.--Ibagli (Talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And if we need a note saying that Commander-in-Chief is "not a position that she holds" because Command-in-Chief if vested in the Queen, then we probably also need to go into all of the articles that give a surprisingly large amount of constitutional minutiae and add even more. "Governor General AB did X on the advice of Prime Minister CD" surely needs an explanation that Governor General AB doesn't actually have the executive authority under which the action was performed, because after all, it's vested in the Queen. (Please, nobody get ideas.) --Ibagli (Talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Monarch of Canada was C-in-C, though the Canadian Prime Minister actually calls the shots. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Command-in-Chief the same as Commander-in-Chief? Is the one an archaic form of the other or are they two distinct terms? Linguist or constitutional lawyer please. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x5 The governor general is commander-in-chief of Canada; in name. The actual commander-in-chief, by the constitution, is the reigning monarch. Walter Görlitz already pointed out S.III.15 of the Constitution Act 1867, which hasn't been repealed or superseded, unless it can be proven otherwise. If it can, that should be brought to the attention of the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Board and the Federal Court of Canada, both of which affirm that the Queen is commander-in-chief: From Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh v. the Attorney-General of Canada:

"[T]he grievance was denied on the merits for the following reasons: '...section 15 vests the command-in-chief of all Canadian military forces in the Queen."

"The Board gave its report to the CDS on May 31, 2006 and it recommended that the grievance be denied. The Board determined that the payment of respect to the Queen within the Canadian Forces was consistent with her constitutional role as the Head of State and as the military Commander-in-Chief."

"The role of the Queen within the Canadian Forces is constitutionally and statutorily established. Section 15 of the Constitution Act, 1867 designates the Queen as the 'Command-in-Chief' of Canada's naval and military forces. Section 14 of the National Defence Act establishes the Canadian Forces as the armed forces of 'Her Majesty'."

"Here, I agree with the Respondent's characterization of their legislative purpose at para. 70 of its factum: '70. Similarly, as the Commander in Chief of the CF, all members of the CF are required to salute the Queen.'"

"Whether Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh[, the anon user, and Walter Görlitz] likes it or not, the fact is that the Queen is his Commander-in-Chief and Canada's Head of State."

Whether the sentence needs to be here at all is another matter all-together and an interesting question. MIESIANIACAL 22:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick search on the CBC for "commander in chief" Jean results in 50 hits, although some seem to be duplicates. This includes:

• "Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean, the commander-in-chief of the Canadian forces" - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/27/queen-colour.html
• "He said Jean has also been a powerful advocate for aboriginal and Arctic peoples, and a proud commander-in-chief who has stood alongside Canadian troops in Afghanistan." - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/02/governor-general-jean-term.html
• "Jean, who is commander in chief of Canada's armed forces" http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/08/jean-kabul-070308.html#ixzz0pjj540OB

WP:V source. Is it incorrect? Possibly, but Wikipedia is about verifiability not facts.

Didn't the constitution of 1982 supersede the BNA?

Could you please point to a modern document that confirms this? It's not whether I like it (and you should be cautioned for discussing the editors again) it's whether it's verifiable or not.

I distinctly remember a discussion about this in the news immediately before Christmas, but the GG's own site indicates that she is CiC. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I being accused of sock-puppetry with this sentence "Whether Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh[, the anon user, and Walter Görlitz]"? I certainly hope not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless verifiable sources are produced showing Elizabeth II as C-in-C, this will be a toughy to argue. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Unless verifiable sources are produced"?? GD, what do you want more than the decision of a federal court? A letter from the Queen herself? (I know you want a letter from Lizzy, you "republican"... ;) ) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is we have two conflicting streams. The Supreme court's ruling using the BNA as a source for HRH HM as CiC and several sources including the leader of the opposition and former commander of the Canadian Forces directly quoted, as well as the GG's web site. In that earlier news source I believe the OM stated that the Queen was CiC. I don't have that story though. In either case, if the paragraph were to be included it should clearly indicate that authority for CIC is vested in the Queen but granted to the GG. (PS: I'm a weak monarchist, not that it matters. I just want to satisfy WP:V and make sense of the sources.) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't the GG perform all of the Monarch's duties (which would include CiC)? PS: It's HM, not HRH. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost all, yes. But that doesn't make the GG the monarch.

Frankly, I'm more interested in deciding whether or not the sentence is actually worth anything in the article. No sense in going through this if there's no purpose for what we're fighting over. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But the Canadian monarch would have to be CiC, in order for the GG to perform such a duty (if only sympolicly). The GG can't discarge a duty, that the Monarch doesn't have. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The fact that there is this confusion is evidence that something should be said if only to clarify the common misconceptions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A Canadian republic would certainly clarify things (hahaha). GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The confusion only seems to exist because of the inclusion of the sentence. What difference does it make whether the Queen is also entitled to be called "Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada" or what if any distinction exists as to the exact nature of each woman's command? It is enough to recite Jean's full title as Governor General and leave it at that. -Rrius (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence from all GG bio articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I recognize that this discussion is now over a moth old but I have found a new source] from George the Sixth making reference to the "Governor General and Commander-in-Chief". The phrase appears several times in the document. So it appears that the monarch has ceded control of this role over to the GG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's ever argued that the governor general isn't called the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. However, because he or she is called that still isn't proof that the monarch ceded command-in-chief of the Armed Forces to the viceroy. I've already pointed out above that both the Federal Court and the CFGB have ruled that the Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

True. The king simply signed a document that made the GG the CiC unless I'm missing something in the phrase "there should be a Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada". Is that a name conferred on the GG? No. The GG is CiC over Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the Federal Court and CFGB (and, I believe the Chief of the Defence Staff, as well) are incorrect? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that George the Sixth isn't wrong. Are you saying he is? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Are you saying the Federal Court and CFGB (and, I believe the Chief of the Defence Staff, as well) are incorrect? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the other bodies in any way and I'm not sure why you're bringing those other bodies into a discussion about a document signed by George VI. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I raise what those other bodies said as a rejoinder to your personal interpretations of the meaning of George VI's letters patent, not in reaction to George VI's letters patent themselves. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not state nor did I imply anything. Please read my comments and stop trying to make me revoke a statement which I did not make nor imply. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your statement: "So it appears that the monarch has ceded control of this role over to the GG." Nothing supports this claim but your own interpretation of the letters patent; in fact, the rulings of the Federal Court and CFGB prove it to be undoubtedly false. Nobody is trying to make you revoke anything; you're allowed to be wrong on a talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Except I'm not wrong. The monarch appears to have ceded control of this role over to the GG. I did not say that the monarch obviously has nor did I write that the monarch has for all time and under all circumstances in perpetuity ceded control, I simply stated what the document appears to have done. Rather than discuss the document you started attacking me and demanding whether I thought other institutions were wrong in their interpretation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't attack you at all. I rebutted your expressed opinion with proof that what you say the document appears to have done was, in fact, never done by the document. That's all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. This wasn't opening the debate about the GG but about the document George VI signed. You attacked by asking questions not related to the issue which I raised. This is commonly done in question period. I'm sorry to say that it should not be done here. Do you have something to say about the document I showed or would you like to attack me by asking additional questions about bodies that hold opinions different than George VI? Perhaps you'd like to explain what the document actually means without brining third-parties into the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You raised what you thought the letters patent appeared to say regarding the governor general and the position of commander-in-chief. That opens a debate on the governor general and the position of commander-in-chief. It's thus quite pertinent to raise in response what more qualified individuals have said about the position of commander-in-chief, and they leave no doubt about what the letters patent appear or don't appear to say about the governor general and the position of commander-in-chief: the monarch is commander-in-chief, the governor general is not. If we all accept that, then this conversation’s come to the end of its useful life. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you interpreted this to open a debate on the governor general and the position as CiC. I wasn't intending that at all. Would you now please comment on the document cited? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made the only comments that I think are relevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So what does that say about you? Does any other editor have a comment on the document cited? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Confederation of...?

The distinguishing "that country's" has been removed by User:Walter Görlitz from the sentence "the 27th since that country's confederation," leaving the majority of non-Canadian readers, and likely a good number of Canadians, wondering: confederation of what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The distinguishing "that country's" was edit-wared by User:Miesianiacal from "this country's". Neither phrase is required since the object of confederation is already in the phrase "Governor General of Canada". It's not vague since the complete sentence is "She is the current Governor General of Canada, the 27th since confederation.". Confederation cannot be confused with the subject (the GG herself) why does the phrase "this/that country's" need to be included? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Could it be England's confederation? The United States'? Latvia's. It's obvious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. 'In my last commit on this I suggested that User:Miesianiacal was at WP:3RR on this article. That is not correct. He is at 2. My apologies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Edit warred"? I reverted it one (1) time (and it was from "the country's" back to "that country's", not "this country's", as you've mistakenly claimed). One revert does not an edit war make. Can you ever resist the urge to smear my integrity?

Regardless, by removing the words "that country's", "confederation" has been detached from the noun to which it's supposed to relate back to: "Canada", leaving it floating without clarification; Canada's is not the only confederation. This is a disservice to readers. Even "the country's" was better than what you've done.

It could say "the 27th since Canada's confederation" or "since Canadian confederation", but it seems like an over-use of the word "Canada" in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason that it would be over-use of the word "Canada" in the lede, using this/that country is unnecessary. The vague tag is not necessary for this reason and I am not at 3RR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. So don't repeat yourself in the lede. And before you accuse me of being IP 204.174.87.223, it's from Victoria and I'm on the mainland whom I quote: "Quit the petulant bickering! The tag is silly, at best, and looks far more like trouble-making. The country concerned is bloody obvious, given the context; and the link may be followed by the dense.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you're rejecting the third opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that. I simply quoted an anonymous editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You instructed me not to repeat myself in the lead by placing "that country's" before "confederation". As the third opinion offered was to add "Canadian" before "confederation", and "that country's" and "Canadian" serve the same grammatical purpose, it would therefore follow that you reject the third opinion. If you've mixed things up somehow and you are actually fine with "Canadian confederation", then this dispute is happily over. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Don't repeat yourself in the lede, but I'm not rejecting the 3O, I am simply stating an opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's what you call it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Someone posted a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion, so here I am.

In my opinion (as a non-Canadian), the phrase in the lead "the 27th since confederation" strikes me as meaningless. My brain asks "confederation of what?" An article should be accessible to a general audience, including English-speaking countries on the other side of the globe such as Singapore. I notice the word "confederation" links to the article Canadian confederation, so I think it would be appropriate to use the actual article title in the lead, and I don't see it as an over-use of the word "Canada". ~Amatulić (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to jump in here. Though it's still my immediate inclination that having the word "Canada" (or "Canadian") mentioned three times in two short sentences is probably once too many (I notice this happening all the time on articles I work on), I'm willing to live with "Canadian confederation" if it will end this dispute, as it at least addresses my main concern, which you hit right on: clarifying to an international and/or unfamiliar audience just what confederation is being talked about. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked for and rejected a third opinion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "She is the current Governor General of Canada, the 27th since the country's confederation."

That would avoid using the word "Canada" twice in the same sentence, while still making it clear what was confederated. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Either or. I think "that country's confederation" is the best wording, but, as I said, I'm willing to accept either of your two proposals. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "that country's confederation" is the stupid wording as does the anonymous editor and both of the 3Os. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you let them speak for themselves? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you stop showing WP:Ownership? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, one of those "do you still beat your wife?" questions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If this were a question like the one you posed the Japanese have several ways of addressing it. My preferred response would be mu. However it isn't such a question. You are showing ownership of this, and have shown ownership and several other Canadian articles. You refuse to allow other editors to make constructive, valid changes. Classic ownership. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my acceptance of a resolution that was less than what I'd otherwise want is an obvious example of my ownership. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Obstructionism by being a royal pain in the ass, including riddling editorial discussions with remarks that serve only to annoy and to side-track and drag out the discussion, as you've done here, is an especially pernicious form of exhibiting "ownership". 204.174.87.223 (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That was gracious losing. You thought you were right and made an appeal hoping to be vindicated. When it turns out that you were wrong you actually argued with those called to help you. YOu finally gave in when you realized you could not persuade them that your previous wording wasn't ideal. That action is not ownership.

Your actions of ownership are closer to the actions examples 2. and 3. given in Wikipedia:Ownership# Examples of ownership behavior and quite similar to 1., 9., and 10. in the On revert sections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted once. You know that full well, as the evidence sits right there for all to see, and I suspect you know (as I already told you) that one revert constitutes neither an edit war nor ownership. Also there is above the proof that I expressed my opinion (which wasn't wrong, just unpopular); expressing such is not arguing when it precedes my open acceptance of the compromise. I also have a feeling that, on some level, you're aware that you've no grounds on which to base your assumption that I sought dispute resolution as a means to find personal vindication; I wanted the dispute done with. Period. But, past experience tells me this is likely all to no avail. Just go on calling it whatever you want to call it, and believing whatever you want to believe, Walter. As I said elsewhere, you assume bad faith far too much and refuse to differentiate between assumption and proven fact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR rules thrice Twice: [2] [3] [4] [5]. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The second and third links you provide do not show reverts; unless you can show otherwise by providing diffs of the stage(s) I supposedly reverted to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct; twice. However, only one took place (at 02:03, 10 July 2010) before you accused me of edit warring (at 03:54, 10 July 2010); my second revert came later (at 04:08, 10 July 2010). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Accused and then retracted. Highlighting in case you missed it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a retraction of the accusation of 3RR breach (at 03:58, 10 July 2010) (and thank you for it), not the accusation of edit warring (at 03:54, 10 July 2010). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Which "third opinion"?

Before this nonsense about who is "rejecting the third opinion" goes any further, take note: Miesianiacal posted for a "third opinion" about half an hour after already having gotten one -- from me. He shortly got, in answer, another opinion -- really a 4th opinion -- from Amatulic. It differs from mine. Now Miesianiacal and W.G. seem to be accusing one another of "rejecting the third opinion". Seemingly neither is entirely right -- nor entirely wrong. The trouble is that they are not, it seems, referring to the same opinion as "the third opinion". W.G. seems to mean mine, and correctly notes that M. has not gone along with it. M., meanwhile, writes as though he is not even aware of my opinion and takes Amatulic's opinion as the third one, and says that W.G. is rejecting it.

With that little distraction cleared up (I hope) maybe we can resolve this. As said, I think that simply "confederation", with the link, is best and is all that is needed. My second choice is a linked "Canadian Confederation", though I don't really like that, much less think it is needed. I don't at all like "the/that/this country's confederation" -- clunky writing. 204.174.87.223 (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Amatulic's is the third opinion, because he responded to my request at Wikipedia:Third opinion, which calls for a third opinion in talk page discussions, and only WG and myself were involved in this one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so. I gave my opinion about half an hour before you asked for a "third opinion". 204.174.87.223 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not on this talk page, you didn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't respond to third opinion request if there are more than two editors involved. I didn't see anyone but M. and W.G. in this dispute. Had I seen a contribution for 204.174.87.223, I would have likely not responded. I am not certain whether 204.174.87.223 is an outside opinion either, or that of an involved editor.

So, you're stuck with mine. If it isn't satisfactory, I suggest alternative means of dispute resolution. It seems silly to escalate the dispute over a single word, however.

Bear in mind that third opinions are not binding. They are simply third opinions given by uninvolved editors with no stake in the outcome, for the purpose of breaking a tie, really. That said, it is unfortunate that we now have two differing opinions. As I stated before, from the point of view of a non-Canadian, referring to "the confederation" conveys a sense of insider information that I'm not privy to unless I click on the link to read the Canadian confederation article. At some point one has to decide what is sufficient information for a general audience to understand without forcing them to click on links to gain an understanding. In my opinion, it is insufficient to refer simply to "the confederation". ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My IP is 96.55.184.168. The other IPs are someone who lives in Vitoria, BC and 204.174.87.223 is a Vancouver, BC IP. I am none of them. I can's speak for M.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Prorogation (December 2008) section needed?

Now that M Jean's term as GG is over there have again been media articles regarding her decision to grant Stephen Harper's request to prorogue Parliament. There is legitimate interest in the Dec 2008 prorogation and a section is warranted IMO. I propose to insert a section and would like to use the following articles to start. If editors find additional or alternate material please post a link. Comments requested, I note there was debate on this further up the talk page.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

DSatYVR (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm against a section of its own; separating the event out would give the implication that it was the most important aspect of Jean's tenure, when there were other notable occurrences in that time. Even Byng's bio doesn't have a separate section for the King–Byng Affair. Plus, what amount of info is there to warrant a separate section? The detail is already well covered in at least one dedicated article.

That's not to say, though, that some of Jean's own observations can't be addeed here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

perhaps a section about many decisions that were many and not on just one.Moxy (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MIESIANIACAL for pointing out the additional article. I hadn't looked at the links closely enough. I've split the paragraph in the article for now and will look at the wording next. If it's OK I will attempt to establish agreement/consensus on wording here first rather than making the changes in the article. DSatYVR (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Commas

How many commas-in-dispute have been added? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing CN tags

This edit suggests that information is not needed. I cannot find a reference to the title anywhere and so the phrase needs a reference now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to infer from the edit that the information is not needed. Why, though, do you feel it necessary to cite the fact that "compagnon principale de l'ordre du Canada" is not the correct translation of "Companion of the Order of Canada"? If you really insist on it, the evidence is here: in English, in French --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Several issues:

1. The edit before mine removed the word "principale" from the French. You adding it above simply confuses matters. I had no reference to determine if the new phrase or the original was correct which, if you had read the request, was the point of adding the CN tag.
2. Both links above fail verification. They doesn't point to any text to assist in verifying either the English nor the French. They point to collapsible categories. Since "Companion of the Order of Canada" is not in the English, it's not possible to determine, from your links, if your statement is correct or incorrect.
3. A quick search on "Companion of the Order of Canada" on the site linked to the following English and French text describing the coat of arms. It confirms that the recent edit to remove the word is correct and what you wrote above is incorrect.

This is why I found it necessary to cite the phrase: I assumed good faith on your edit. If the original editor had correctly added a reference to verify the translation, this discussion would not have been necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the edit removed the word "principale", and did so correctly, since "compagnon principale de l'ordre du Canada" is not the correct translation of "Companion of the Order of Canada". The links I provided back that up. A cite isn't really necessary, though; just a basic grasp of French and English. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your links don't back that up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But they do. Are you unable to open the drop downs? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am able to open the drop downs, but that's the problem. You don't indicate which drop down to select to get a description of Jean's coat of arms. Mine does. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My links have nothing to do with coats of arms. You must be looking at the wrong pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am looking at your links which don't mention anything being discussed in either French or English. You must be unable to copy and paste URLs. May I suggest that you click on them and copy the text out, without clicking on any menus or links on the page, that was being discussed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional Information
The Canadian Honours System has rules in regards to the Order of Precedence of its various honours and as to how and when an insignia should be worn. The following sections will give you more information on those rules, and also on postnominals.
If you have any questions or comments on Honours, contact the Chancellery of Honours.

Contact information excluded. Text in question not present=failed verification. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No instructions on how to get to the text in question=failed verification. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

One link is to a page in English. The other link is to the French version of the same page. As the former contains the term "Companion of the Order of Canada", the French translation of the same term can be found in the French version of the page. I'm sorry you're having such difficulty using the internet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I included the text above. Companion of the Order of Canada does not appear in your links. It does appear in my links. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "Companion of the Order of Canada" does indeed appear in the first of the links I provided. Its French translation appears in the second. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The phrase does not appear on your link without having to click which I'm not about to do without instructions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The term is still there, whether you click with instructions of without. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Check the link. It's not there. Please either copy and paste the text and the surrounding text the way I did or provide a screen shot because the text is not present on http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71 which is your link but it does appear on http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13891&lan=eng which is mine. Perhaps you have confused the two. But your link does not contain the text. Insisting that it does, does not make it appear in any of the browsers I've used over the past two days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether or not you see it, the term most certainly is there. Here it is copied and pasted with surrounding text:

• Order of Merit (O.M.)

• Companion of the Order of Canada (C.C.)

• Officer of the Order of Canada (O.C.)

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have lost all patience with you. It's not present. You have simple inserted some text that does not appear anywhere on the page. If there are instructions to find this text, you have not provided it. What you repeatedly failed to mention is that the text is hidden behind the Order of Precedence ui-accordion-content widget. It's not a drop down. Those are at the top: "The Governor General"; "Roles and Responsibilities"; etc. I suspected that it was once again the fact that you're using a browser that 1) is a decade old and 2) even Microsoft web developers are trying to kill but didn't know how to ferret the information out of you. Thanks for once again not explaining it and forcing others to do the work for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is there. My software is a year and a half old. I don't need to do your work for you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is there. No you don't need to do my work for me. What you need to do is you need to learn how to explain things so other people can understand what you're seeing. Saying "it's there" without explaining how to discover the hidden text is not at all useful You're complete inability to communicate that is a failure and the fact that you can't understand that is a worse failure. The fact that you don't know the the difference between types of controls may be a technological gap, but the fact that you use the term with conviction and pointed me to the wrong tool simply compounds the problem. You should improve your communication skills or not communicate at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All you had to do was employ the most minute effort to click on one of two bars to reveal text. Don't blame others for your shortcomings. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And all you had to do was to learn to communicate in English. Don't blame others for your shortcomings. Your failure to communicate clearly is appalling and your should be ashamed. The rules for verification are simple and you failed them. I could have clicked on the widget but you directed me to the drop down. There were a great many other controls on the page on which I did click that did not result in verification and it is the responsibility of the person providing the source to link directly to the verification material.

Also, the main reason that this was an issue was that there was an error in the text. The entire discussion could have been avoided if you had done your due diligence when adding the material and provided a reference as is expected of all Wikipedians. In your words: "Don't blame others for your shortcomings". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you're having such troubles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're the problem. You're an arrogant editor who has consistently shown that you're not willing to work with other editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Walter, you seem compelled to pursue something here, but I'm not exactly sure what it is. Do you want me to accept full responsibility for your failure to find a few words on a simple web page? If so, your efforts will prove themselves to be fruitless. I'm not entirely sure that my use of the term "drop down" was incorrect; but, I also can't say with 100% certainty that I should not have said "ui-accordion-content widget" instead. However, even if my misuse of terminology did cause you some confusion, it should only have been very brief. I highly doubt anyone is going to believe that you, who seems to feel he knows quite a bit about web browsers, were so baffled as to be completely unable to locate the words "Companion of the Order of Canada" on that page and thus be led to claim with absolute certainty that the words just weren't there at all. I rather think this is a case of you making an assertion repeatedly, only to find out it was wrong, and then blaming the error on someone else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I want you to stop blaming me for your inability to communicate effectively. You can't explain ho to access the information. It's you fault not mine. That's all. The words are not there unless they are revealed by an action which you did not explain. Sorry you don't undestand technology. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, I still can't give you what you want, since I can't stop what never started. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then you can think that you piss gold, but that's no more factually correct than your previous statement. You did not, regardless of what you think, point to the information. The text on the page, without manipulating any controls, did not meet the request for verification of the term. Furthermore, the fact that it stood without a reference is against Wikipedia policy. The fact that you removed the CN tag without providing a reference is also against Wikipedia policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to pursue this at another venue. You don't seem to be getting what you want here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pursue this at another venue since you're inability to communicate is what started it. I suggest a course in communication. This was not your finest series of edits. I suggest you stop responding except to apologize since you are simply being antagonistic and I am not appreciating your behaviour. You were provided incomplete information and refuse to admit it. That's the bottom line. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I said "drop down" instead of "ui-accordion-content widget" (even though I'd never in my life heard the second term until you brought it up). Now, as you've evidently no problem with the content of this article, aren't reading what I write, have descended into the use of personal insults, and have nothing to take to another forum to resolve, I guess I can consider this matter closed. Best. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)