Jump to content

Talk:Julie Payette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julie Payette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we using the correct date format?

[edit]

Most Wikipedia articles on Canadian topics use the date format 13 July 2017.

Why are we using the American format, July 13, 2017? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not solely an American format. As provided by MOS:DATETIES, articles with a close tie to Canada can use either format. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good point: Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the IP is correct here (there's a phrase you don't hear every day!) To clarify, the issue has always been that debates about "Canadian date style" persistently land no consensus — Canadian government sources typically use DMY while Canadian media sources typically use MDY, so both sides of the argument have always had evidence they could point to that their preference was "standard" in Canada. So the Canadian date formatting rule became "just stick with whichever format was used by the first person to add a full date to the article, and don't waste time changing dates from one format to the other except to correct any inconsistencies within the same article". Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Payette's dismissed assault charges and incident where she struck and killed a pedestrian

[edit]

I've reinstated some information that I believe was mistakenly removed, as both her assault charges and the incident an incident in which she struck and killed a pedestrian is a top of national discussion at the moment. I provided the most obvious reliable source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/payette-vetting-trudeau-wednesday-1.4213743), but I can and am willing to provide more reliable sources if necessary. MechanoidWarhead (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MechanoidWarhead: I support this readdition of this material. It has been covered in multiple reliable sources and is clearly a matter of public interest. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's now part of popular culture and in sources, I don't think that there is a problem with brief mentions which also specify that assault charges were dropped and that no driving charges were made for the accident. It is mostly because of the future appointment that it made the news, perhaps that it could be part of a section or paragraph about this, rather than in the lead or in the personal life section... —PaleoNeonate - 06:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Ivar the Boneful: & @PaleoNeonate: but it doesn't seem to matter. A user by the name of Dr. K has reverted the changes and then accused me of edit warring, which is weird, since I've only edited this article once. He also said I provided unreliable sources, but my reference was a Canadian Press article picked up by the CBC. I'm not quite sure how much more reliable of a source one can get. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to Dr. K, though as I am a relatively new user. Do you guys with more experience have any idea of how to escalate this kind of matter for review? Mostly, I'm miffed about being accused of edit-warring. MechanoidWarhead (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The assault charge really doesn't belong here as it was never proceeded with and indeed expunged. This means that it could (although there is no data on this, although Payette calls it "unfounded") have been a false accusation. The car incident one should be discussed here: again, though, whilst charges that go to court are probably notable, since it didn't, it was presumably decided that it was an accident (and thus, again, shouldn't be included in a BLP). Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I fully agree with Black Kite. The reasons s/he provides are exactly the same as the ones I have considered for removing this material. In addition, explaining the full extent of these incidents would be WP:UNDUE for this BLP. For example, in the case of the auto accident, if we just mention that charges were dropped, without explaining that the victim was sick and perhaps fell in front of the car, then we give the wrong impression. But by the time we explain all this, this incident will be large enough to be WP:UNDUE for this bio. If we add the reasons explained by Black Kite, we can see that the proposed edit is even less acceptable for this bio. As far as the edit-warring warnings, the information about the two incidents was reinserted in this edit with the edit-summary : Restored information that (assumed in good faith) was accidentally removed.. "Restored" basically means "edit-warring". If you had looked more carefully at the history of the page, it would have become quite clear that this information was part of an edit-war by IPs and had been removed multiple times. In fact, the article had to be protected so that IPs were prevented from editing it. Anyone restoring this edit, participates in the edit-war that was started by the IPs. Dr. K. 14:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the assault charges and the incident in which she struck and killed a pedestrian were notable because both incidents are major points in national discussion on the topic of her suitability for Governor General. Without trying to come off as obtuse, could you explain to me why the fact that she has a son is notable enough to go unquestioned, yet when it comes to two criminal run-ins with the law (though charges were dropped), it's not notable to mention even when it's being discussed on the news and in newspapers? Further, I'm also trying to wrap my head around why such an important and influential political figure causing the death of another person would also not be notable on its own. I really would be grateful if you could explain the reasoning. MechanoidWarhead (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Q&A[reply]
Given that both incidents have been widely reported I think they should be mentioned in passing without going into detail ie "second degree assault charge which was dismissed and expunged from court records and which Payette describes as "unfounded" and a fatal car accident for which police deemed her not to be at fault." I don't believe the car accident ever resulted in charges.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dr.K., rather than just linking to policy pages could you actually cite what specific sections / sentences you believe this content violates? There's nothing in WP:BLP that says we should remove any negative information about a person from their article. You've linked to WP:UNDUE twice in your above comment, but the first sentence of that states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In my opinion blanket a removal of something that has been covered in every prominent Canadian media outlet in the past few days is in itself a violation of that guideline. With reference to the car crash specifically, it should be noted that other celebrities (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner and Venus Williams) who have been involved in car crashes have that information noted in their articles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Caitlyn Jenner's was a larger incident and she had to settle out of court, while Payette did not have to. As far as Williams, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dr. K. 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And with this edit you removed information about Payette's marriages which was hardly controversial and was sourced to Maclean's and The Globe and Mail – if they're not reliable sources I don't know what is. Every other Canadian governor general has detailed biographical information in their article, I don't see any reason why Payette should be any different. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, not so fast. The edit I reverted claimed ...and has been married and divorced twice. Her first marriage was to engineer François Brissette. First, Astronautix is not a reliable source. Second, the MacLeans source did not have a link so that it could be verified. This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Dr. K. 15:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dr.K. you also warned me for edit-warring, even though I have made no reversions to this page. Furthermore, you accused me of "adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons", even though all my edits to this page were supported with reliable sources. Could you please provide an explanation for why you left those warning templates on my userpage? If you have made an error please remove them. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the assault is added by an IP. The IP edit was reverted multiple times. After the IP edit was reverted you reinserted the assault information in this edit. As I explained before, this is participating in an edit-war. Dr. K. 15:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise this article will expand, and part of that expansion will be the former charges, as well as their being raised very publicly just after the announcement of her pending appointment as vicereine, right? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are some forward-looking statements. Sorry, I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, rhetorical questions are annoying, especially ending with affirmatives in question form, such a right?. If you disagree with my points and those of Black Kite there are better ways to phrase your objections, starting with not pointing them only to me. Dr. K. 03:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely a case where WP:PUBLICFIGURE most likely applies in the case of the incidents concerned, and mentioning the specific details of the events is probably outside WP's scope. However, the activity that has been undertaken, not by her but more likely on her behalf, to whitewash the public record several months prior to Payette's new appointment is definitely noteworthy and should be mentioned under the terms of the same policy. Some of the edit activity suggests that there may be significant concern arising from WP:EXTERNALREL and WP:APPARENTCOI, and I note that a user account has even been set up whose sole activity has been to delete and/or revert specific items in the English and French versions of this article. That should also be kept in mind in this discussion.Raellerby (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just stepped into this article and its discussion re: Personal life content from the Help Desk posting (see below). My 2 cents on this (with COI / sockpuppet aside) is that for the subject's notability for inclusion at WP, the section itself reads very negatively and tabloid-ish. IMHO. I find it actually to be very poor writing for WP. If the editors involved can get past all the edit warring and COI, I would suggest a heavy scrubbing and an experienced WP editor to create a better section with a NPOV understanding as to why content should be added for this subject. Numerous marriages? piano playing? singing in a chorus? killed a pedestrian? assault charges that were expunged? Come on ... and only 1 source for each? Since when does a BLP who has actually killed someone get a single line without detailed explanation and only one source? I'm calling NPOV and undue weight: in reverse. In other words: "Is this really the best we can do, folks?" Honestly, if I were the subject, I would try editing this page, too. Look at everything she's accomplished in her career; and in her Personal life there's death, divorce and domestic abuse. Maineartists (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I removed the worst bits about the alleged legal issues. Dr. K. 02:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are no "good" or "bad" bits on Wikipedia. Just reliably sourced facts that are deemed notable for inclusion. If these fact are included on an article for a BLP, "good" or "bad", they must remain if 2 conditions are met: 1) reliable sources to back the claim - and - 2) consensus for notable inclusion. The "unfortunate" part of this BLP's article is that she is set to become the 29th Governor General of Canada; and any "worst bits" might appear unfavorable. WP is not a resume: WP:RESUME or a personal webpage. That being said, I would advise that you refrain from edit warring, and let other editors arrive at a consensus to better the article in the correct manner with proper WP procedure. Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I did was to say that I agree with you on the points you raised. Yet your comments above, are presumptuous, patronising and insulting. I remind you of WP:CIVIL. To elaborate, your comment: That being said, I would advise that you refrain from edit warring, and let other editors arrive at a consensus to better the article in the correct manner with proper WP procedure. "...let other editors arrive at a consensus to better the article in the correct manner with proper WP procedure."? Can you clarify why you think I should do that? "Refrain from edit-warring"? This is a contentious piece of information that there is no consensus to include as this discussion reveals. Removing it per BLP, until consensus forms, is not "edit-warring". As far as my expression of "worst bits", I used it to express the parts that dealt with the legal issues, which are more severe in nature than the more mundane tidbits of playing the piano or what have you. For sure I did not use that expression to invite a patronising lecture on what constitutes reliably sourced information worthy of inclusion and, even worse, to be fed links to WP:NOTRESUME etc.. Your comment about a "sockpuppet": My 2 cents on this (with COI / sockpuppet aside) is also baffling. I haven't seen any. Have you? Dr. K. 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My apologies if my comments felt patronizing, presumptuous, insulting or lecturing. That was far from my intent. I raised the issue with Seagull123 in the reverse for having put back the content without the proper sources and consensus (please see below). Re: sockpuppet - there has been raised concerns regarding certain editors for this page (see section: Recent edits). My comments still are as they stand and hopefully will be re-enforced by: WP:RECENTISM. (I honestly don't feel they belong) However, regarding my advice on "edit warring": no BLP violation has occurred. It is strictly "opinion" that requires consensus at this point; and thus it is considered "edit warring" until the issue has been resolved. An editor that is closely related to the subject (and suspicious of SPA) removed the content originally; any re-instating of the material was correct in doing so and then discussion should be brought to the Talk Page (which it was). What you are doing is now "edit warring" along the lines with the original SPA. The original content should actually remain until consensus is reached because the removal has been contested and challenged. I don't mean to lecture. Maineartists (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if my comments felt patronizing, presumptuous, insulting or lecturing. That was far from my intent. They are as I described them on my previous post. That you don't want to admit it, is ok. What you are doing is now "edit warring" along the lines with the original SPA. Don't keep repeating this red-herring. If controversial material of any kind appears in a BLP, it is to be removed, until consensus for its inclusion develops. The crimes information is sketchy at best and the details in the reporting are not clear. There is a good case to be made that the reporting is poorly sourced. That an SPA also initiated that removal is irrelevant. I also told you in the section below to retract your insinuation "(if Dr.K. is a SP of AB10002)" but you did not. I will remove your insinuation per WP:NPA. Dr. K. 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're just going to have to believe me when I say that your "ping" (17:34) never showed up (and does not now) in my notices. If I had seen it, of course I would have redacted it. The SPs are clear from the IP history edits and Talk Page summary. There is no "red-herring". But the edit history is clear as to the OP and the rvs. No insinuation; sorry we won't see eye-to-eye on this. And although we both agree on non-inclusion for content now; I worry we may lose this one in the long run. I wish tempers weren't so quick to rise so we could have worked together. But: c'est la vie. I'll redact whatever I've said in this post if I've offended again. Best. Maineartists (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to disbelieve you about the pinging. I also appreciate that you mentioned that you would have redacted the sock accusation. From your response, I can see that you are a fundamentally decent editor, and I have no problem working with you now, or in the future. Since we have cleared the socking allegation, I will reinstate your comment fully. Best regards. Dr. K. 22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the pedestrian bit here, and while searching for more sources for it, I found many (although only added 1 more at the time), such as at Google News. There are some news articles here: Like it or not, Payette’s past is news, Trudeau's silence on Payette's expunged assault charge shows double standard: Robyn Urback, PM Trudeau faces questions over Julie Payette appointment. I am uninvolved before readding this. I would like to ask Dr.K. what they mean by "removed the worst bits about the alleged legal issues", what do you mean by "worst bits"?  Seagull123  Φ  13:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. OK, so the "assault" part may be "notable" (let's stop using the word: news). WP is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP. There still is no consensus as to reinstating the pedestrian content as "notable". I do not believe at this time that it is; and furthermore, I still believe the section to be undue weight in negative content. Playing piano and singing in a chorus does not even out accidentally killing a pedestrian and domestic abuse. Not buying it. Sorry. I am all for including this information if it is covered correctly and fully (with reliable sources to prove its notability); and the section is properly enhanced to weight. But do not get caught up in WP:RECENTISM; which this section is leaning towards at the moment. Furthermore, the little "personal life" material that is left after the pedestrian / assault is removed comes from sources that aren't even reliable: biography related to the subject (encyclopedia). If the subject is this much of a public figure to warrant a personal life section that delves so deeply as though she were a celebrity, there should be ample enough sources online to retrieve notable information to create a well-formed section without one-line bites. So, far, that's all I'm seeing. Maineartists (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I weighed in on the date formatting issue back in July when her appointment was first announced and yesterday when I happened to catch the dispute over how many kids she has, for the most part I haven't been paying that much attention to this article — trusting that there were enough people watchlisting it to keep things in hand without needing my two cents very much. But in the case of this issue, I have to agree that the content in question veers toward WP:RECENTISM — our job on here is not to simply uncritically add everything to the article that happens to get said about her in the media, but to filter for what's important enough to satisfy the ten-year test. Yeah, media dwelled on the pedestrian and the withdrawn spousal assault charges for a few days — they also dwelled last year on Hillary Clinton's "cankles" and Donald Trump's hair, they dwell on Justin Trudeau's colourful socks, and they dwelled on a smalltown mayor in New Brunswick saying something silly about food trucks a couple of years ago. They often dwell on a lot of things that don't merit being mentioned in an encyclopedia at all. So the question that would need to be answered is not "did it get media coverage?", but "is it important enough to warrant the amount of media coverage it got?" — and for an automobile accident in which she was found to be not at fault and a withdrawn legal charge where we have no way of even knowing what did or didn't really happen, the answer to that question is no. Even at the time that the coverage was happening, it already didn't actually deserve the media pile-on it was getting, let alone the matter of whether anybody will still give a flying fig about it in 2027. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: I'm not sure if you saw my question above, but could you answer it please? Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  22:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: ignore that, just saw your answer to this above my question.  Seagull123  Φ  22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: to your response to my post above: I know that WP is not a newspaper, however I believe that WP:PUBLICFIGURE, In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, suggests that this should be included - there's a "multitude of reliable published sources" (see my above post), so this BLP should "simply document what these sources say", "even if it is negative". This addresses your point about "undue weight in negative content" - I believe that this is due weight (due to there being so many more RS's for the pedestrian stuff than for piano playing). Alright, the stuff I readded may have been a bit too in depth, and probably could be cut back a bit, but per WP:PUBLICFIGURE it should be included "even if it is negative". Your other points address the remanining content of this section (piano, singing etc.) and I have no opinion on the inclusion/removal of this content - however, I share your concerns for making sure everything is reliably sourced, and I will now spend some time finding more RS's for this section, and will add them here.  Seagull123  Φ  22:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more RS's I've found:[1][2][3] And to clarify my point above, I would support readding this in a short, purely factual way, such as "Payette was involved in a fatal car crash where she was found not at fault and was not charged. She also was charged with assault, but these charges were later dismissed and expunged" or something like that. I believe this is in keeping with WP:PUBLICFIGURE.  Seagull123  Φ  23:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seagull123 Thanks so much for replying. What I think I'm having difficulty with at present is the fact that this article was created in 2012. The incident regarding the pedestrian occurred in 2011. The "reliable sources" are all dated 2017; and have started to appear in this article on account as such. To me, this seems "tabloid" in nature; and not notable due to her recent appointment possibilities. If it was indeed notable to the subject, it would have been included long before this. Could you please present a clear defense against this argument? Thanks! I think this blog should also be taken into consideration with this subject: The Media Mobbing of Julie Payette in gathering "reliable sources". Maineartists (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you quoted specifies that in addition to sources existing for it, the information needs to be noteworthy and relevant. For example, a politician's article does not need to document every single time they ever showed up at a community event to hand over a plastic novelty cheque representing a government donation — while sources will certainly exist for that appearance, noteworthiness and relevance are still lacking, so we just don't add it. So the question you would need to answer here isn't whether sources exist or not: it's whether the information is noteworthy and relevant to an article about Payette. For example, an accident in which she hit a pedestrian, but wasn't charged with anything because the pedestrian was found to be the one at fault, is not noteworthy or relevant, because it doesn't speak to anything meaningful or important or relevant about Payette. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from agreeing with your analysis, Bearcat, I wish to state that this is as cogent an analysis as I have seen about inclusion criteria in a BLP. Dr. K. 17:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bearcat. Certainly on the same page. Hard to argue with this line of presentation. Maineartists (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Trudeau defends his choice for governor general amid revelations about her past". CBC News. 20 July 2017. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
  2. ^ "PM Trudeau made a rookie mistake dealing with Julie Payette's past, PR experts say". News & Headlines - Yahoo News Canada. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
  3. ^ Press, Jordan (20 July 2017). "Trudeau says no concerns were raised in vetting Julie Payette for Governor General role - National". Global News. Retrieved 11 August 2017.

Children

[edit]

Just a note to clarify, because there's been a bit of editwarring over whether she has one son or two. The fact is that all current sources about her state that she has one son, while the source for two sons dates from 2009 rather than 2017 — the discrepancy is because the older son in 2009 was her then-husband's son from a prior relationship. Payette was his stepmother, not his biological mother, so she has no legal relationship to him anymore now that she and Flynn are divorced — which means that she has one son, not two, because only one of the two sons in 2009 came out of her babymaking parts. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her only child, Laurier Payette-Flynn, appeared with her and his first name was given in her New Year's message. He was at her side for Remembrance Day 2017 and news photo captions give his full name. There is clearly no attempt for him to be kept out-of-sight or anonymous. So, it is appropriate for his full name to appear. Lkmorlan (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by AB10002

[edit]

Recently, AB10002 has been removing a lot of content from this page. They made a request at the help desk, some of which I have copied below: I have noticed that someone keeps changing the biographical notes on a public person on Wikipedia - adding details that are inaccurate and worded in such a way as to leave innuendos of possible wrong doing which are not facts. The public person in question is deeply troubled by these actions and our team is watching the page and constantly removes the false allegations. This may be a shared account, due to "our team", and may be a COI, possibly a paid editor. I thought I would leave this here for other editors to be aware of this.  Seagull123  Φ  23:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AB10002, a SPA with a conflict of interest, has removed well-referenced content from the article. I believe it should be restored. Maproom (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously brought about by my statement to the discussion above. The section will need to be semi-protected at some point; but certainly not until a consensus is formed regarding BLP content that not only displays "good writing" representational of WP standards and quality, but also reasoning for notable inclusion past the tendency for tabloid fodder. It's just not a good section in relation to the rest of the article IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maineartists: I thought your comment (if Dr.K. is a SP of AB10002) was meant in jest and this is the reason, I initially sent you thanks with the "thank you" button. But now I'm no longer certain about how you meant it, based on your response to me in the section above. If you were serious about this, I expect you to retract this AGF-defying PA. Dr. K. 17:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the original PA. Dr. K. 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC) statement superseded by this edit based on further discussion. Dr. K. 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the way AB10002 worded the request, it is reasonable to assume a Canadian education, as I have noticed that type of vague and indirect comment arising from such sources. I also have my suspicions as to where the "team" is located, which could be easily verified by an IP search. However, let's not go there—that's for Canadian journalists to dig up. Let's hope the user read and understood the message left to them at the help desk, and don't unduly interfere with this article in future.Raellerby (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that AB10002 is still busy stripping content from this article, with edits occurring as recently as 12 October. Is there no way to police this person's activity?Raellerby (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Put this article on your watchlist and keep an eye on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI tags

[edit]

There are two tags to this article. One is on the talkpage, and it states: AB10002 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Julie Payette. and the other, in the main article, stating that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.. I find two problems with these tags. The talkpage tag implies that user AB10002 was paid on behalf of Payette. Yet we don't have any proof of that, other than AB10002's own statement, which is vague in that regard (that he was actually paid). Jumping to conclusions, implicating Payette by name without proof, and based only on statements by a pseudonymous account, is in my opinion a violation of BLP. The in-article tag is also problematic. AB10002 is by no means a "major contributor" to this article. He only edited it a few times and from what I can see not in a major way. Currently, there is not much text in the article directly contributed by AB10002. So this tag should also be removed and replaced by a better one. Dr. K. 15:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that AB has declared they and their team are working on Payette's behalf, Dr. K. I'm wondering what further evidence you think is necessary???? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike. My problem with that is, that AB is a pseudonymous account. IMO, a statement from a pseudonymous account is not reliable enough to implicate Payette by name. If there is further proof, by all means, let's make that statement. But, imo, we should not explicitly name Payette, based on a statement by a pseudonymous account. Also, what do you think about the other tag, on the main article, given that AB is not a "major" contributor? Dr. K. 15:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that AB10002 has admitted to a COI and claims to be working on behalf of a "team", I think the tags should stay up as a warning to other members of the clean-up crew. If there are no similar edits within a few weeks or so then they can be removed. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine also. Thanks for your suggestion. Dr. K. 16:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there has been no issues, I've removed the tag on the article, which is public facing. I've kept the tag here for documentation. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at AB10002's edits and the complaint at AN/I, I'm not seeing proof that the person(s) behind the account were paid directly for any edits. There is certainly a strong suggestion of an external relationship, but it's far from an open-and-shut case. I've removed {{Paid-talk}} from this page accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

[edit]

'Titles' is a section included in all biographies of Canadian governors general (and many other articles, besides). Granted, "unknown" is not very encyclopedic. However, as Payette was married twice, it's simply inaccurate to claim she was titled 'Ms Julie Payette' through her entire life until this month. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 10:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted again, as unless evidence is provided that she took her husband's name, including this is a WP:BLP violation, and in particular asserting that she took her husband's first and last names, i.e. was known as "Mrs William Flynn" seems unlikely. Melcous (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless evidence is provided she legally remained 'Payette' and kept the title 'Miss' during her married life, what you reverted to is equally a WP:BLP violation.
(Addressing a married woman as 'Mrs [Husband's Name]' is the formal custom. Since this is a section on titles, formality seemed appropriate.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 10:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a formal custom in many places, but not in Quebec, of which Payette has always considered herself to be a resident. Under Art. 55 CCQ, only her birth name is considered her legal name, unless a change of name is authorized under Art. 57 CCQ.Raellerby (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As true as that all may be, it doesn't affirm the former claim in the article that she was styled as 'Miss' while married. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a version of the text using "Miss", only "Ms." What are you referring to? Nitpicking polish (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously 'Ms' is the abbreviation of 'Miss', just as 'Mr' is of 'Mister'. Whether or not those styles are written as abbreviations or in full is a matter entirely separate to the issue we're discussing. Hm, it seems I misunderstood 'Ms' to be an abbreviation of 'Miss'. Well, whether she was 'Ms' or 'Miss' when unmarried is a separate matter to asserting she was either while married. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference from the CSA that calls her Ms in October 2017 and therefore changed the 'end' date back to the date she became GG. Ms is widely used for both married and unmarried women, as Mr is for men, her marital status is irrelevant to the use of the title, that's the point. Melcous (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While that's a helpful find, it doesn't verify that she used 'Miss' or 'Ms' while married. It seems impossible to find even in what years her weddings were held, though we have the years in which she obtained her divorces. The source also doesn't verify she was addressed as 'Ms' from birth. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of alternate sources, the default should surely be what we do have sources for, not your speculation on what is "normal" (which as has been demonstrated above is unhelpfully out of date). This is also consistent with what is done for her predecessor's page. Melcous (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to where in the source it states she used the style 'Ms' while married? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on subject's title

[edit]
There is consensus not to specify any "normal titles" like "Mrs./Ms/Miss," and instead only list "special titles." Those in favour of not specifying "normal title" noted that the information was not of any real informative value and, as occured on this article, prone to lead to conflict on the accurate "normal title". A significant number argued in favour of getting rid of title sections on articles altogether. Given the large number of articles that have such title sections and would therefore be affected, this article is probably not the right place to have such a discussion, which would instead be much more suited to a Wikiproject or Policy/MOS page. --Brustopher (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It appears to be traditional that Governors General of Canada, and possibly other similar democracies, confer titles on the subject of "Her Excellency the Right Honourable" (or "His" for male subjects). Prior to that, the subject is known by an honorific title. For males, it is usually, "Mr." although some have also been "Dr." For married females, it is usually, "Mrs." We have a reference, that refers to the subject as "Ms. Payette". Should we use that, or some other honorific such as "Miss" or "Mrs."? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above question is confusingly worded. To clarify, the issue appears not to be the use of honorifics in the article text (which is discouraged; see MOS:HONOUR), but rather whether the specific section on "Titles" should specify Ms., Miss, or Mrs. for the subject's early life starting at birth, like this:

October 20, 1963 – October 2, 2017: Ms Julie Payette

October 2, 2017 –: Her Excellency the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of "Ms."

[edit]
  • checkY If that is how she wishes to be known, that would be the most acceptable option. I thought that had been the settled convention going back to the 1970s.Raellerby (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY This is not just a wikipedia tradition, but it appears fairly widespread. As noted by Bearcat below, Ms or Mr are not in themselves notable titles, everyone automatically holds one. However, they become somewhat notable when the person's title changes (and particularly changes multiple times, as Payette's will again when she leaves office), in order to distinguish which title is appropriate for which period of their life. Also, in terms of wikipedia it is not just Canadian GGs whose articles use this formatting but many others too. Of the options therefore, the one for which we have a reference, and also happens to be the most neutral and accepted convention in the absence of any other evidence, should be used. Melcous (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY (second choice: first preference is for no honorific.) If an honorific must be used, then, lacking a particularly notable preference by the article's subject, this is the most neutral gendered choice. Nitpicking polish (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of "Miss"

[edit]
  • Support But only from birth to the date of her marriage to her first husband. While married, a woman is styled as 'Mrs', unless she expresses some preference for it to be otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is only true if she takes her husband's surname, and not if she retains her own. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Miss/Mademoiselle’’’ from birth, simply the factual truth there, and after that she might have changed it upon the marriages and divorces. See example of Adrienne Clarkson. Eventually she winds up with Ms., but whatever she went by before that would be a former title. Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, every article about any female person could have a section for "Titles", starting at birth with "Miss/Mademoiselle". How exactly is that encyclopedic information? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The logic is that for a list of all titles, we start with the first one same as is done for the men. For her as a Canadian woman, the first would have been "Miss/Mademoiselle". Further prefaces or name changes or acquired titles of rank are simply matters of fact and her personal history. Markbassett (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that it shouldn't be done for the men either, because announcing that a man's "title" is "Mr." isn't telling you anything you didn't already know. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • What happens when we have a Mr. -> Ms. -> Governor General (or Ms. -> Mr. -> GG)? Is there a significance there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • If that ever happens, which I really don't foresee anytime real soon, then the body text of the article will already cover that aspect of the person's life — so a "titles" section to explain the title-swap between Ms. and Mr. still won't be necessary at all, because it wouldn't be revealing or explaining anything the article wasn't already covering. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Bearcat, Walter Görlitz, these comments seem astray, they belong in the section below if at all -- they are clearly not 'in favour of Miss', and actually seem not about the RFC question of what title to put in a single article edit either but rather a comment proposing changing the whole series. Suggest you post there instead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of "Mrs."

[edit]

In favour of stopping this tradition to avoid the conflict

[edit]
But, your remark still focuses on "prefixes". The section is about styles and titles. That is more than just "prefixes" and is pertinent information, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to contain. Are you trying to say this section and this section aren't informational? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose I suspect people are not getting the full picture before voting. A good number of past governors general have held multiple titles and/or styles. Without this section of their bios, that information would be unavailable on Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of the point. A simple chart of all the titles a person has held is merely indiscriminate trivia. If reliable sources have commented on a person's various titles, then the article should present that information in a prose-style encyclopedic summary instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

[edit]
Bad logic. Canadian norms are not those of the British Isles either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz You've poor history there. The Canada norms are closely related to UK norms and linkage is fairly well recent, particularly regarding the two links I provided of governmental forms and UK forms for her current position as a representative of Queen Elizabeth the Second. Canada was under British rule directly until the 1930s and full sovereignty was not until 1982, handing over to a system established by acts of the British Parliament. Particularly for her current position as the 29th Governor General of Canada, where she is the viceregal representative of Elizabeth the Second, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, and her other realms -- the norms for forms of address are not those of the United States.
Miss/Mademoiselle would also be correct history since usage of the title "Ms." does not begin until the 1970s in the United States, with later adoption into Canada and then Britain still ongoing. (see the 2017editorial guidance of British papers for Ms.). Applying "Ms." to her in 1960s is just factually incorrect. Figuring out when she switched to Ms. and whether she took either of her husbands names may be undetermined at the moment, but the list of title starts with her as "Miss/Mademoiselle" and ends with her currently Governor General of Canada. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You would have been correct a century ago. You're not any longer. We have been influenced by our neighbours to the south more than you know. So don't tell me our norms are closely related to UK norms, and the links you provided are worthless in explaining Canadian usage so don't keep pushing that dead horse let alone whipping it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking a little more on this, it could be fine to simply begin these lists at the first title/style a person receives other than 'Miss', 'Ms', 'Mr', or 'Missus'.

    We should remember, we're only discussing biographies of governors general here. They all will have received a title and style by virtue of being governor general, though many had other titles before and after their time as viceroy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More stripping edits

[edit]
Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Talk pages should focus on content, not users' behaviour
In addition to AB10002, I see that Jimmylaforge has also joined in on the activity, and has already been flagged for WP:COI. It appears this article is going to attract a lot of people who appear to be close to the subject of this article, will seek to be protective of her, and will constantly work to delete any content that appears to detract from their high estimation of her. We'll need to be very vigilant for the next few years.Raellerby (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene* FYI: Accusations of bias and conflict of interest don't really belong on this page, which is for discussing changes to content, not others' behaviour. If there is evidence for a conflict of interest, then please take it to WP:COI/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

I start this discussion because I removed the section "Personal life" and was reverted. I do not think that a section "Personal life" is encyclopedic. Also, we often only see those sections on article about women. For instance, the previous Governor General of Canada does not have a section like that. I think the useful information and references from that section should be move to a chronological biography and not have a specific section about it. Also, right now, the references present in that section does not have all the information that is present, so I will remove the unsourced information right away. Do you think that we should (or not) remove the "Personal life" altogether and move the pertinent and sourced information within the body of the biography? Thanks, Amqui (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section is written in a neutral way and contains encyclopedicly significant information. Unsourced information that names other should be removed immediately per WP:BLP. Common sense should be used on other content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't if the section is neutral or encyclopedic, but why it is separate from the rest of the article? Most biographies just mentions that type of information in a chronological order within the body of the biography. Why is it separate in this case? Amqui (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BIO has no stipulations for a personal life inclusion or exclusion. Nor does MOS:BODY. I have seen many biographies that separate out the personal life section so it's not an issue for me. I won't comment on which biographies you're reading, but What is an issue was that when you first came to this, you didn't try to move it or incorporate it into the rest of the article you removed it entirely. Any argument after that sort of behaviour is suspect and any argument to justify content removal is similarly suspect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you consider that suspect, it should be the reverse. I agreed with your opinion that it is pertinent and encyclopedic information and thought that it would be the consensus, so I respect it even though it may be contrary to my personal view... If you consider that behaviour suspect maybe it's a bias that you think everybody is stubborn, which is against Wikipedia way of dealings with things. I even added more sourced information in the "Personal life" section because we decided that it was pertinent, if this is not a sign of good faith and showing that I comply with consensus (that is not even made yet since we are only two that have expressed themselves so far), I don't know what it is. Now can we stay on the topic please and not use personal arguments that are not going anywhere. Please only talk about facts and not the other person behaviour since it's irrelevant. My question to you pulling Wikipedia's guidelines pages and saying that you saw that type of sections in other biographies, what is the percentage of articles of women that have it and the percentage of articles of men that have it? I'm sure the numbers would be very telling. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attack was intended, but your motivations are suspect. Sorry. As for being the only two who have commented, this article isn't high-traffic. More people will discuss over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little reminder : assume good faith. We will wait for more people to comment then. You are avoiding a big part of the issue about the systemic differences between biographies on men and women. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That issue is one of your own making. The personal life sections I am referencing are on professional athletes and musicians, both men and women. They are included when the personal life of the individual contains material that would interrupt the flow of the "career" section of the subject, or might not flow well. If this were a book, it would merit a chapter. There is no attempt to treat the subject differently because of her sex. There is no attempt to sensationalize the subject because of her personal life. So what exactly are you getting at by playing the gender card? That's assuming good faith and not making a personal attack. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My own making? Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Media and research. I surely did not make all that. Amqui (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Your own making. You're making a statement that implies (you don't come out and state it) that only BLPs of females have "personal life" sections. yet you do nothing to prove it. You have now pointed to a project that doesn't make that claim as proof of something. What? I don't know but I'm supposed to assume I do.
So again, what exactly are you getting at by playing the gender card? What are you suggesting? What is your solution, other than blanking? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already said my solution and it does not include blanking. I propose to take the information and put it in a chronological order in a biography section. Amqui (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are still evading the direct question. What do you mean, exactly, unequivocally and without prevarication, obfuscation or circumlocution, are you getting at by bringing the subject's gender into the discussion of the personal life section? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honours and ribbon bar

[edit]

The NASA and Ordre de la Pléiade ribbons should not be included in the ribbon bar as they are not approved for wear in Canada. Neither do they appear in photos of the Governor General wearing a Canadian Forces uniform. [1] Jagislaqroo

As a longer-term project, the honours and awards section should clearly delineate official (Crown) and unofficial honours as is often done in other articles. 

(talk) 20:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The SPAs are back

[edit]

Is it time to lock this page with all of the WP:SPAs that come here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Julie Payette a politician?

[edit]

@Bearcat: Regarding this edit (placing this article in Category:Astronaut-politicians and reinserting a See also section linking to the article Astronaut-politician), someone holding the post of governor general is not usually called a "politician". The definition of that word can be fluid but it usually refers to someone who seeks elective office. We wouldn't describe a judge or ambassador, or for that matter a monarch, as a "politician" so why should we do so for the governor-general. On a Google search, the most relevant results support my view: (a) Maclean's magazine opinion piece: "I agree with everything Payette said, and it would be entirely appropriate for her to say it in her role as a scientist, or as a politician, but she is no longer a scientist, and she has never been a politician." (b) National Post news article: "As another example, Payette cares deeply about science policy, but she is in a job that, by convention, requires a certain distance from policy-making. Sources told the Post she has sometimes tried to stretch that boundary by spending time discussing policy with politicians, including Science Minister Kirsty Duncan." Mathew5000 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She did not run for office. She was appointed. Senators are politicians and are appointed, but she makes no policy. Add her to the astronaut-figure-head category instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "politician" is not "makes policy"; it is "holds a political role" — candidates who run for office and lose don't get to make policy, because they didn't get to sit in the legislature to participate in policy-making, but are still politicians. The definition of "politician" also does not require that the person was necessarily elected to political office, while somehow excluding people who were appointed to political offices — senators aren't elected either, but are still politicians. The Governor General most certainly is a political office; the fact that they're supposed to stay above partisan politics doesn't mean they aren't still in politics, and the fact that she's appointed rather than elected doesn't mean she isn't still in politics. And there's no "astronaut-figurehead" category for her to be in anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The GG is not a political role any more than the monarch's role is. They are to rise above politics.
I was being ironic with the new cat if you couldn't tell. Also, I don't really care. I saw the removal of the cat and I didn't revert. I saw the revert of the cat and didn't remove. I have an opinion, but it won't motivate me to action though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The GG and the monarch are supposed to rise above partisan politics, but partisan politics is not the sum total of all politics. "Politics" is the complete package of governance, not just the partisan bickering in the legislature — even a person whose role is to be non-partisan is still in politics, if their role exists and confers duties as part of the political process (such as actually signing a law or proroguing parliament). You're using "politics" to mean strictly the partisan Liberals vs. Conservatives vs. NDP aspects of politics, which isn't what it means — the GG and the Queen are not supposed to express partisan opinions, no, but that doesn't mean what they do isn't still political in nature: they're still a key part of the political process, so integrally that if the monarchy were abolished we would have to fundamentally reorganize our entire political structure and couldn't just ignore the gaping hole. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: The official website of the Royal Family states that the Sovereign does not presently have a political role [1] and the official website of the Governor General of Canada has a page referring to "the non-political role of the Governor General" [2]. Other pages at gg.ca describe her role as "apolitical" [3][4][5]. Most people would find it very odd to hear Queen Elizabeth referred to as "a politician" and the same goes for Julie Payette. But the real test is whether we have good references to support what's in the article (including categorization). At present there are no reliable sources cited in the article specifically describing Julie Payette as a "politician", and for that reason alone the category (Astronaut-politicians) should be removed. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't have a partisan political role, no, I never said she did. But the entire constitutional basis of the United Kingdom falls completely apart if she doesn't have a political role — frex, signing the bills that Parliament sends to her is politics, because the bills don't become laws if she doesn't sign them. That is not a partisan role, but it most certainly is still a political role, because it's part of the process of governance. As I already correctly pointed out above, "politics" does not just mean the partisan pissing contests in the legislature — it encompasses the entire process of governance, up to and including the person whose signature has to be affixed to a law in order to make it a law in the first place. Yes, her role is to be above partisan politics — but if she refrained from political roles entirely, then politics couldn't happen at all, because then laws wouldn't get passed and parliaments wouldn't get dissolved and election writs wouldn't get issued and throne speeches wouldn't get read. Those things aren't partisan politics, and I never said they were — but they are still political, because politics can't happen if she doesn't do them. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone involved in the governance process is a politician. Senior civil servants, for example, are deeply involved in governance. The meaning of "politician" is broader than "someone involved in partisan politics", but not so broad as to include (in the Canadian system) career civil servants or the governor general (whose role is "apolitical" according to her web site). You and I disagree about the meaning of the word "politician"; to resolve the editing dispute we need to look at the sources cited in the article. Since none of them specifically describe Julie Payette as a politician, the category should be removed. Mathew5000 (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to look at the state of existing consensus. She was added to the category in 2017, very soon after taking office as Governor-General, and remained in the category with not a hint of controversy or debate about it until you took issue two days ago. The article has had 411,753 pageviews over the time the category has been there, and you're the first person in that entire time ever to have a problem with it. Truth be told, I'm far from convinced that the category needs to exist at all — the intersection of astronaut with politician is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic that interacts with political notability differently than other prior occupations do — but as long as the category exists, the fact that you're the first person out of almost half a million to take issue with Julie Payette being included in it means that I'm certainly not working any weird non-standard definition of "politician". Whatever the problem is here, it isn't with my language skills. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to lean toward removal unless RSes can be found to support it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat and Walter Görlitz: As it's been two weeks since I raised this question and there are still no sources in the article for Julie Payette's categorization as a "politician", I'm going to go ahead and remove the category (and associated "see also" link). Mathew5000 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://wearingyourmedalswrong.blogspot.com/2018/03/can-you-wear-medals-in-space-governor.html

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of faith

[edit]

The article uses the word creationism in reference to Governor General Payette’s statement where she criticized those who believe the beginning of life was divine intervention, as opposed to a natural process. She does not use the word creationism, which is a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Bible. Payette uses the divine intervention to mean the author of life. Many people believe in evolution and also believe in God. Could this be clarified, as her point is about people believing in God.2001:1970:5DAB:7400:1C05:FE79:20A3:1261 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Trudeau was criticized" [by whom?]

[edit]

Per WP:YESPOV, opinions must be attributed and deeming a world leader a boob in hindsight is an opinion, regardless of whether CBC is a reliable source for facts. I tried to credit "unnamed sources", per the first reference, was told (implicitly) to blame "the opposition" and "others". Tried to add a clarity tag, was sharply informed "the media" did it. Asked the reverter for clarity on whether I could credit the columnist "we" cite here, was reverted a third time and sent here. So yeah. Any better ideas, fellow editors? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation date

[edit]

We seem to have a dispute over when Payette's resignation took effect. Was it January 21, 2021 or January 23, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would indicate that she resigned on the 21st. PKT(alk) 20:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The official website lists Payette's term ending on January 21. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) She resigned on January 21 as is evidenced from the CBC report, https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-top-judge-is-now-acting-governor-general-but-expert-urges-speedy-replacement-1.5277421, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/queens-rep-canada-quits-461249, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment and others. They all clearly state that Wagner takes over the role. So I suppose the question is whether she was no longer GG after she submitted her resignations, whether it was when the PM spoke with HRH, or when Wagner was invested. If you cannot find a source that it is the the last option, which you seem to prefer, it is best to go with the date of resignation.
You also incorrectly completed {{dubious}} as you should have added this talk section name. I fixed that as well as restoring the phrase you removed. WP:3RR reminder needed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't prefer either date. Just wanted to highlight the date didn't match Governor General of Canada, List of governors general of Canada, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, it was me who removed "in disgrace", not GoodDay. I don't see how that phrasing is consistent with WP:YESPOV (specifically Prefer nonjudgmental language). — Kawnhr (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, it's good to see that this neutrality issue has already been brought up. Regardless of how widely believed the accusations are, and how much people agree on their severity, it is not appropriate to comment on whether someone is graceful in a BLP, especially the lede. Unless "resigned with disgrace" is some legal term I'm not aware of related to how the resignation was filed, it should be removed. Connor Behan (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several others have reverted, but I'll gladly point out the accusations individually instead of via one circumlocution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if @Mandoto: communicated on this talkpage or at his user talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to incivility; there is nothing to discuss here. Mandoto (Hi) — Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't get an emotional response, if you'd communicate on talkpages. The stiff upper lip approach, isn't helpful. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note, that since you've joined Wikipedia in October 2020, this is the very first time, you've posted on any talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the resignation date to January 22, 2021, as this is what is reflected on the GG website. PoliSciMaster (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now reflected there. It was January 21 at one point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was never reflected as January 21 on the GG’s website. News reports were used to justify the original date. While the announcement was made on January 21, it was well known that it was not effective until it had been accepted by the Queen. This was ignored and the January 21 date was used. PoliSciMaster (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was so as I and at least two other editors saw it that way. It was archived that was as well: https://web.archive.org/web/20210129010858/https://www.gg.ca/en/governor-general/former-governors-general Please strike your false statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was prematurely posted, or was corrected so that someone could save face, or some other reason is immaterial. The date was January 21 for long enough for three editors here to have seen it and for the Wayback Machine to archive it. Regardless, it now reads January 22. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was definitely an error. It was also a week after the original error was made. My statement is accurate — the resignation date was prematurely posted. PoliSciMaster (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The archive was a week after her resignation. The original date that January 21 was posted to the official site was clearly earlier. Your statements are assumptions. It is just as likely that her resignation was immediate and was only retroactively adjusted. Stop assuming you know what is right and what is an error. The only certainty here is what the date is today. We do not know why it changed. Unless you provide a reliable source to support your assumptions, they are just that and any theory could be posed as valid for the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dramatic irony"

[edit]

Newimpartial, as far as I know, "effective dramatic irony" is not a criterion for including content in a neutrally worded encyclopedia. I remain of the opinion that this passage adds no encyclopedic value, and should be removed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Effective dramatic irony" is a characteristic of good nonfiction writing, including encyclopedic writing. It is necessary to set up the recent fall of this G G by including some of the laudatory coverage of her appointment. Not to do so would, indeed, diminish the encyclopedic value of the entry. Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still disagree. There are laudatory speeches anytime anyone is appointed to anything. This article is not a dramatic chronicle of the Decline and Fall of the Governor General. It's an encyclopedia entry on a living person that must include the facts without puffery or spin. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The specific tone of excitement around the appointment (which you misleadingly call puffery), was indeed part of the facts and acquires a specific meaning in retrospect. I've been in and around Ottawa for a long time, and I don't remember any mood of excitement around the G-G appointment the way I was hearing in Payette's case. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let others weigh in at this point; I remain unconvinced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with AleatoryPonderings on this one — in an encyclopedia with neutral point of view requirements, "effective dramatic irony" isn't the kind of tone we should be aiming for. Our responsibility is to write objectively, not necessarily colourfully, and cherry-picking quotes for maximum irony value isn't part of writing objectively. The nice things that various public figures said when her appointment was first announced — a time when it's simply expected that various public figures will say nice things because that's their job — aren't an enduringly important part of the historical record. So yes, AP is entirely correct that the quote isn't adding anything of encyclopedic value. And at any rate, while it's true that dramatic irony can be part of creative non-fiction writing (memoirs, etc.), it isn't really part of academic non-fiction writing at all — and as an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be aiming for the latter much more than the former. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I will restate what I said before: that these were not simply the expected ... nice things, that the reception of Payette's announcement (and the expectations facing her) were exceptional, and that not reflecting this in the article, in the light of how her term ended, does a disservice to the reader. People can understandably object to my using a lit-theory term in an edit summary, but I don't see how there can be a policy-based objection to recording wie es eigentlich gewessen, and that includes the unusual degree of praise the announcement of Payette's appointment received.
I also disagree with you, Bearcat, about what constitutes good academic writing in the human sciences, but that is neither here nor there. Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to prove that the reaction statements to her appointment were "exceptional" and not simply routine; just asserting that they were is not in and of itself sufficient. The wie es eigentlich gewessen of viceregal appointments is that every appointment always generates commentary from the commentariat — so if you want the commentary that greeted Payette to be seen as more special than the commentary that greeted Johnston, Jean, Clarkson, LeBlanc, Hnatyshyn, Sauvé, Schryer, Léger and Massey, the burden of evidence is significantly higher than just cherry-picking one quote about Payette and calling it special without contextualizing how it purportedly went beyond the norm. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would want to find more sources, but these [6] [7] [8] [9] confirm my "excitement" hypothesis. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What they lack, however, is any evidence that her appointment generated more excitement than the appointments of Johnston, Jean, Clarkson, LeBlanc, Hnatyshyn, Sauvé, Schryer, Léger and Massey. The question isn't "did her appointment generate commentary?" — every viceregal appointment does — it's "did her appointment generate some unique type of commentary unmatched by the commentary that was generated by her predecessors?", and you haven't shown evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The David Johnston article has two whole paragraphs of praise for his G G appointment, so it seems to me that you are setting the bar for inclusion here in a very strange place. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Praise where unencyclopedic should be removed wherever it happens to crop up. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the policy. However, it was Bearcat who expressed the view that only exceptional praise for the appointment should be included in the article - a view which is not supported in policy nor is it reflected in other articles. It is almost as though glass ceilings exist. Newimpartial (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Payette's appointment generated an unusual amount of fawning coverage (which may or may not be the case), then it should be included on those grounds, as can commentary about how Payette's tenure ended in disgrace. Cf Jeanne Sauvé, whose lede includes … while her appointment as the Queen's representative was initially and generally welcomed, Sauvé caused some controversy during her time as vicereine … But including something for "effective dramatic irony", because it "set[s] up the recent fall of this G G" is extremely inappropriate. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to be crafting an article for maximum dramatic impact— that is shaping the narrative and completely incompatible WP:IMPARTIAL. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't shaping the narrative, it is following what actually happened according to reliable sources: enthusiastic reception of the initial appointment (with a couple of flies in the ointment), increasing turbulence, implosion. That reliably sourced story doesn't emerge if the initial praise is excluded. And it doesn't have to be unusual praise, either - it just has to be proportionate. If the enthusiasm was comparable to that of Johnston's appointment, say, then that is what the article should reflect, and not someone's IDONTLIKEIT perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, AleatoryPonderings, I don't see any consensus to exclude this material which has been part of the stable version. Your edit to David Johnston still left a whole paragraph of congratulations on his appointment, and the sources are no stronger for a positive reception there than here, so there is not a policy-grounded argument here for the mention to be UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, Three editors—namely Bearcat, Kawnhr, and myself—agree that we shouldn't include the material. You are the only editor who supports inclusion. Edits on other articles are not relevant to what we choose to do on this article, per OTHERSTUFF. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm going to have to RfC this for you to back off your position? OK. I'm advised. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't require unanimity. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also isn't a !vote. It is supposed to be based on policy, and IDONTLIKEIT and "this person offended me by invoking litcrit terms" are not policy-compliant reasons for exclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policies that support my view are WP:NPOV and WP:5P #1, namely "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". I said as much in my very first comment. I could care less about your use of lit crit terms. I do, however, care about the use of so-called dramatic irony in an encyclopedia article, because (in this instance) it violates NPOV. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has shown that including reliably sourced commentary on Payette's appointment - which was a significant step in the overall sequence of events of her G G -ship - would somehow violate NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean, "we don't talk about how anyone reacted to anything, because those feelings aren't neutral or unbiased". Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the NPOV point: while the sourcing may be reliable, it is not up to snuff. It's primary; no indication that news outlets or third-party commentators took Johnston's comment to be important. I am, of course, not suggesting that including praise or criticism is eo ipso a NPOV violation. I am saying that including a bland quotation of praise from a press release is, without more, a NPOV violation—or, at the very least, not encyclopedic. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did see the diff above where I gave four RS on this, yes? Some of them referred to the tweet in question, gave it prominence even. But I am certainly open to alternate formulations. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue whatsoever with including something along the lines of Payette's nomination was widely praised at the time, citing the sources you linked. I do have a problem with the Johnston quote alone, for the reasons I have detailed above. I must be missing something because I don't see any reference to Johnston's statement in any of the secondary sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I must have unconsciously sifted those out. I was thinking of this article, though it wasn't the only reference I saw. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Assuming that Mary Simon will be appointed by the queen as governor general. I'm guessing to keep with consistency, we'll be replacing Wagner with Simon as Payette's successor. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry -- Arms -- helm

[edit]

The description of the coat of arms is missing a reference to the helm ( Helmet_(heraldry) ) It is intended to represent an astronauts helmet. I came here to see the helm, but, not knowing anything about heraldry, didn't know what I was looking for, and had to do more research before I realized that it was an unlabeled element in the picture. 124.187.219.128 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julie_Payette&oldid=1217905828"