|
While I can understand you wanting to revert Johnston, I am baffled at your reverts to Jean - She is no longer the GG as of 0000 EST October 1. In the event from now until Johnston is sworn in that requires the intervention of the Queen or her representative, it's the Chief Justice acting as the Administrator of Canada who will take on the role.--Cahk (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what your source is for the exact moment the Chief Justice was commissioned to act as administrator, but the Administrator of the Government doesn't replace the governor general. Jean has to have her commission from the Queen revoked to cease being governor general and, unless there's evidence to the contrary, that hasn't happened. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact, it has already be gazetted so the previous commission is revoked. [1]--Cahk (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no indication therein that Jean's commission has been revoked. And note the pertinent words in the Queen's letters: "And further We do hereby appoint that, so soon as you shall have taken the prescribed oaths and have entered upon the duties of your Office, this Our present Commission shall come into effect." As I keep saying, Johnston hasn't yet taken the oaths of office; so Jean remains governor general until that exact moment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note ..we should refer to her now as the "27th Governor General" and not "former Governor General". Former sounds like she got fired were 27th make it obvious she served the whole term. Ps Officially David is the "Governor General Designate" until hes sworn in. Moxy (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Mansbridge & CBC news says her tenure ended at 10:00 AM est & the Chief Justice is now Acting GG. Would Peter lie to me? GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) That's just hearsay about what a reporter said; we need a more substantial and reliable source for a claim as big as the Office of Governor General is vacant. You don't even have a link. And Peter has been known to be wrong in his on-air commentary (the 2003 D-Day ceremonies in France come to mind).
- The Chief Justice is now Administrator of the Government. That in no way means Jean has ceased to be governor general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like the new coat of arms.Moxy (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note who is accepting the vice-regal salute - it clearly isn't Jean! --Cahk (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) No, it wouldn't be, because, as has already been pointed out, the Chief Justice is acting as Administrator of the Government. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already posted on another board - the two posts (i.e. Admin and GG) are mutually exclusive. They cannot co-exist together because the entire reason of having an admin is because GG is "removed or incapcitated" - does that make more sense now? (Early morning communication isn't as effective I guess) --Cahk (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And is Jean either removed or incapacitated? And, if yes, by who's authority? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Johnston will be sworn-in soon, so the vacancy argument will become moot. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't so much of vacancy per se (or whether Jean is still the GG), but more for future reference because that's our Constitution! I am surprised with the amount of mis-information in media about the installation .... only CBC got it right so far which baffles me! --Cahk (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, CBC news has said that the Chief Justice is 'tecnically' Acting GG (not Acting GG). Therefore, Mies has got a point there. I reckon this argument will continue at List of Governors General of Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically acting GG because she's the Administator of Canada for the time being. There isn't a post called "acting GG" but for public information sake ... --Cahk (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the chief justice the administrator, when the 1947 Letters Patent clearly only allow for the chief justice to be administrator in the case of the "death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Governor General out of Canada." Jean is none of the above. Likely, the chief justice is acting as Deputy to the Governor General.
- The bottom line is, only the Queen can terminate the governor general's commission, and there's no evidence she did so. Jean can't remove herself from office. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with you over who can terminate the commission. However, the administrator of government would be her correct title - because each deputy of GG has to be re-appointed by the next GG to continue that role. Since Jean is no longer the GG, only the Chief Justice, as the Administrator of Canada (because GG is no longer in office), has the power to preside over the ceremony. This is in line with most Commonwealth countries. --Cahk (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your whole position, though, rests on the assumption that Jean is no longer governor general (assuming Johnston hasn't yet taken the oaths of office; I can't tell because the CBC's video stream of the ceremony failed to materialise). Where is the evidence to support the assertion?
- This situation is actually not at all common in other Commonwealth realms; in fact, this is only the fourth time in Canadian history that a governor general has attended the installation of his or her successor. Aside from diverting some attention away from the main focus of the ceremony - the governor general-designage - this action creates a whole mess of legal and protocol problems. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mansbridge just did it again, calling the CJ 'Acting GG'. Then again, CBC news has been a tad inaccurate today, calling Jean 'former GG' & 'outgoing GG'. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is precisely why we shouldn't be relying on them solely as a source of information. The law tends to be more clear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the assumption that CBC news covered previous GG's installation in this matter, I'd oppose having the current Chief Justice listed at List of Governors General of Canada as an Acting GG. Afterall, her alleged status merely lasted a few hours (if that). PS: Do they have to have preys? geez. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS: Oh great, now they've got the 'kids choir' thing, going. I think those are the same kids they've been using at these cermonies for the last 20+ years. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well, at least you can see what's going on. CBC's website has done an epic fail on the live streaming video of the ceremony. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnston has assumed office. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to the GG discussion, I noticed an inconsistancy among the PM infoboxes. Some of them list the Governor General, while other don't. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't remember when, but it was decided some time ago to show just the monarch. The infoboxes should all be consistent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps tomorrow, I shall begin deletions. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good Afternoon,
I Am Curious As To Why We Are Going Back And Forth On The Subject Of The Canadian Forces Air Force Marking On The Tri-Force Insignia. The GCS Page Lists The Air Force Insignia As A "Soaring Eagle", When In Fact The Bird Is An Albatross. My Reasoning For This Is Based On 5 Years In The Canadian Forces And The Education I Have Been Provided On The Subject As A Result.
Thank You For You Time,
Chris Brown
Mobil300 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia relies on verificability and reliable sources, and the source for the assertion that the bird is an eagle is the Department of National Defence: "The GCS is a gold-coloured four-pointed star, 44 mm across, representing the cardinal points of a compass bearing on the obverse, built-up in order from the back: a wreath of maple leaves terminating at the top with the Royal Crown, two crossed swords, the blades and hilts forming four additional points to the star, an anchor and a flying eagle" [emphasis mine].[2] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The DND Website Is In Error; However Until They Fix It, This Issue Is Closed. Thanks For All The Time And Effort You Put Into Wikipedia, We All Appreciate It.Mobil300 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this DND source goes into the albatross v. eagle issue and asserts that the bird is indeed an eagle, though a rumour of it being an albatross persists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for nothing, but I have been an Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces Primary Reserve for almost 10 years, and I was told it was an Eagle, not an Albatross. When I first joined as an Officer Cadet (I was one for about 2 hours) I was given the CF Tri-Force cap brass, then given the Artillery Badge when I was commissioned. (NCM's and Subordinate Officers wear the Cap brass, Commissioned Officers wear a cloth badge) Dphilp75 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There sure is, and it says "Do not space em dashes." You can space en dashes, though. The MOS doesn't bother telling us not to put hyphens into verbs like "lay in state" because that's just common sense. 85.178.65.144 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay; if there's a problem with spaces, then it lies in the {{mdash}} template. The code
— should probably be used instead of the template. The dashes you put in at Ray Hnatyshyn certainly didn't show up as mdashes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I changed them to en dashes, which, when spaced, can be used equivalently to unspaced em dashes. There's no need to use code like
— and – when you can use the characters — and – directly. 85.178.65.144 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact he has already been sworn in, he has yet to receive his KStJ. As noted on the GG website, "[KStJ] will be presented to Mr. Johnston within the first six months of his mandate." [3]
When a LG/GG is presented with the Order of St. John, it is gazetted and thus, at this point, he is not KStJ but only the Prior.[4][5] --Cahk (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anywhere on the site you link to any mention of Johnston "receiving his KStJ" within the first six months of his mandate. The statement isn't entirely clear, anyway: one doesn't receive a KStJ; one is appointed to the order and receives the appropriate insignia. Which are you referring to when you say he's to receive his KStJ?
- Another question is: If the governor general is the Prior and Chief Officer of the order, then who, but Johnston, is presently Prior and Chief Officer? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange - they updated the website today I suppose .. if you take a look at Google [6] = that's where I got the citation re: in 6 months. I only removed the KStJ ref but left the Prior because he is indeed in that role, only he has yet to be appointed to KStJ. --Cahk (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure of that? I've searched the Gazette, and I don't see where Jean was gazetted. It strikes me that if the sentence was removed, it may have been because it was inaccurate. -Rrius (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Category:current national leaders you will see that HRH is not listed there either. I don't know if other GGs are listed. I noticed this when an anon added the category the other day. It appears that the category serves a different purpose. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HRH? Which one? I'm not sure I follow your logic, anyway. The anon removed Michaëlle Jean from the category and added David Johnston to it. No, Elizabeth II is not in the category, but that's perhaps because the article's already in about twenty heads of state categories, I don't know. But, Quentin Bryce, Louise Lake-Tack, Arthur Foulkes, Colville Young, Clifford Husbands, Carlyle Glean, Patrick Allen (Jamaica), Cuthbert Sebastian, Pearlette Louisy, Paulias Matane, Anand Satyanand, Frank Kabui, Iakoba Italeli, and Frederick Ballantyne are all included. What purpose do you think the category serves? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After I wrote here I checked and discovered that GGs are listed. As are the Prime Ministers of those countries. It appears to be a glaring omission that Elizabeth II isn't and it makes me believe that there has been an error in one of those two. I'm not sure which is the case though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't check prime ministers, per se; but, I did notice Stephen Harper in the cat. I can't see why anyone would object to Elizabeth II being added. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Thanks. I planned on throwing it in a template and usually do, I just didn't have time at that moment. See my work at Canadian Afghan detainee issue. --Natural RX 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry, I didn't check your edit history. Fair enough, then. Apologies, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if WG could prove at talk just how common blowing anvils apart is in Canada. It's unique. There is no question of that. However fireworks on Victoria Day are not common in locations in western Canada. I believe that they are unique to southern Ontario, but I have no WP:RS let alone WP:V sources for that latter concept, and I'm certainly not familiar with how Victoria Day is celebrated in Quebec or the maritimes. I wouldn't call fireworks "more common" though. I even had a problem with "common". They do occur, but not with the anticipation of Canada Day celebrations, and certainly not as widely, and they're certainly not as "large" (number of pyrotechnics or duration or even in attendance). The Hyack festival is the only popular (and by that I mean publicized) Victoria Day celebration in the Vancouver area, while every city and municipality has an official Canada day celebration. In many communities, such as Surrey, BC, there are smaller, unofficial celebrations for Canada Day hosted by community groups. You don't see that happening with Victoria Day. So "common" makes it seem to the outside as though they happen in many communities. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The words "more common" referred to the comparitave commonality of fireworks versus anvil blasting, in general; an evening of fireworks is a more common way to celebrate than blowing apart anvils. Given the verity of the statement, "more common" are therefore not weasel words. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a comparison with anvil blasting (which I don't even a common practice globally--I have only heard of one other such celebration) it works. I was obviously reading it in isolation and not in context. Is there a way to fix the phrasing so that if someone were to take the phrase out of context, it could still be correctly understood? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording as it is is fine. It was the accusation of using weasel words that I objected to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. If I could go back and strike that phrase I would do so now that I understand the reasoning behind the addition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well, thank you for saying so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man.. I just couldn't resist... I presume he also has you on his watch list, so I thought I would pop this here to rattle his chain when he gets back...! ;) Hope all is well with you! Dphilp75 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol. I still think he's a closet monarchist... But more on that when I return from my weekend out of the city. Cheers, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How much will the British taxpayers pay for Billy & Cates nuptials? I suppose you two are tickled pink, today. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's up to the British Cabinet to decide, and be accountable for. I'm not particularly moved by the engagement announcement; it was a long time coming. I'm more curious to know if the Canadian Privy Council met to give its approval. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt they will. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it appears you might be right about the meeting taking place in future. Charles proposed to Diana in February 1981, but the CPC didn't give consent to the wedding until March. Quick! You still have time to write to Harper and have him block the union! ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be wasting my time. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, very few editors realize that there's 2 articles of the same topic. We've got Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton & Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Those at the former's AfD (voting keep) seem unaware of the latter's existance. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis alright now. The former was made into a re-direct to the latter. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to weigh in on this? Specifically, the part about Middleton's title when she marries William? There seem to be a few people that don't understand why she won't be "Princess Katherine" and why she will be "Princess William of Wales"...Dphilp75 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Welcome! This is Miesianiacal's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Miesianiacal.
archive: 12/08 | 01>03/09 | 04>09/09 | 10/09>03/10 | 04>09/10 | 10/10>03/11 | 04>09/11 | 10/11>03/12 | 04>09/12 | 10/12>03/13 | 04>09/13 | 10/13>03/14 | 04>09/14 | 10/14>03/15 | 04>09/15 | 04>09/14 | 10/15>03/16 | 04/16>06/22 | 07/22>03/24
Hello, Miesianiacal. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.