This is an archive of past discussions about Michaëlle Jean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It is important to note that "Vice-Regal" is spelled with a capital "V" and "R" and has a hyphen in it, according the Governor General of Canada's website. (See "Vice-Regal Salute" at http://www.gg.ca/heraldry/emblems_e.asp) TO220740
No, a "Vice-Regal Salute" is a specific protocol with a specific proper name. Proper names are capitalized; in normal usage, words such as "viceregal" are not capitalized if they're not appearing in proper names. Bearcat23:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Jean's family is the first non-Canadian viceregal family. Many of Canada's GGs in the past have been British. JohnnyB 16:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Monck would probably not have called himself Irish, any more than he called himself Canadian. Perhaps this is more relevant in the context of Irish history than Canadian, but as the Duke of Wellington (another Irish born Brit) so succinctly put the matter: "Being born in a barn doesn't make one a hors". Anti-Irish sentiments of the period aside, it is still probably more proper to consider him "British" given that is how the anglo-Irish saw themselves. --Chaleur18:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Titles
I would presume that 'Her Excellency', 'Right Honourable', the various Orders, etc will all be conferred at the same time. Is there any reason these might not all come on Sept 27? Just want to be sure the bases are covered... Radagast 03:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I started the post-nominals by putting MA up for her Masters degree. Once she becomes GG, her post-nominals (alphabet soup as I like to call them), should be: CC, CMM, COM, MA. I know I will be missing a few, or a few will be added that we never knew of. Her titles and her salute will be first used during the Investure ceremony. Zscout370(Sound Off)03:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I knew it, I was missing one: The Canadian Forces Decoration. Every GG is awarded the medal, and the post nominals is CD. This is done because the Governor-General is ex-officio, Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces. [1]. The nominals, should be, hopefully: CC, CMM, COM, CD, MA. Zscout370(Sound Off)03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there actually a reference for any Wikipedia policy indicating that we're even supposed to begin the article with "The Rt. Hon. Name, CC, CMM, COM, ETC."? I'm fairly sure that's actually not the Wikistandard, though I suppose I could be wrong. Bearcat03:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I know people were having a problem with pre-fixed styles, like His Holiness, Dear Leader, The Rt. Hon.; but to my knowledge, I did not think we have a problem with post-nominal letters. But, we can use the post-nominal letters, since they are showing an honor earned, like the Order of Canada. Zscout370(Sound Off)03:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Present policy, style or not, I think it's entirely appropriate to use important titles and post-nominals in first reference. DoubleBlue (Talk)03:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, to me it comes across more like Excessive Deference to the Authoritah of Our Social Betterstm than like an honest attempt to impart useful information...but if that's the consensus, I guess I'll just have to live with it... Bearcat03:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope nobody minds, but since nobody has spoken on this issue in quite some time, and her title has changed this the most recent comment here, I have elected to change the name in the introduction; I hope nobody minds! If so, then chastise me most severely. ;) FiveParadox05:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Mentioning honorary doctorates down in the articleis fine, but do they really belong up top with the Order of Canada? Just for comparison, neither the Trudeau entry nor the Mulroney entry mentions those at the top (and both men do have such degrees). Is this common practice in Canada? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.27.123 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
name
Could someone please add the correct pronunciation of her name? I have heard her say it more like "Michael John" ... - Abscissa01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
repetitive
The current article is repetitive and redundant in several places and often not well-organized. Would someone knowledgeable of the topic please "clean it up" a little? TysK05:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Skin colour
Is it really necessary to make references to Jean's skin colour? I'd think that stating she is the first Governor General of African-Caribbean heritage would make it redundant to add vague, outdated and mildly insensitive labels like "non-white" and "person of colour." --gbambino19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"Person of colour" is not vague, outdated or insensitive; it's the legitimate and correct term which the groups covered by it use for themselves when they need to call attention to skin colour as a personal characteristic. It's the term those groups have specifically asked to be used in place of constructions like "non-white". And as for your edit summary, Jean is the second person of colour to hold the office, not the first — Adrienne Clarkson was the first. Bearcat05:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of any visible minority group calling themselves "persons of colour". Did those of African descent not go to great lengths to cease being called "coloured people"? And if, as individuals, we're all people of varying colours, what range of colours does one have to fall into to be defined as one colour or another? If Adrienne Clarkson is do be defined as a "person of colour," what exact colour is she? Weren't Michener, Sauve, LeBlanc, etc., people with a colour?
This is why it's vague. The only way to refer to Jean's skin colour is to say she's "the first Governor General with a slight mocha brown skin tone." But, what's the point of that? --gbambino15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The difference between "coloured people" and "people of colour" is that non-white groups chose the latter for themselves, as a construction which puts their person-ness first and then emphasizes that they're not white, as opposed to the older form which puts their colour before their humanity. And if you've never heard of a non-white person or a social/political/cultural group for non-white people use "person/people/women/lesbians/etc. of colour" to describe themselves or their group, you obviously don't get out much — they've been using that term for at least fifteen years now; I don't believe for a second that anybody alive in 2006 has never heard it before. Here are a few examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. That's just a small sample; there are countless others: "person of colour" gets 37,000 Google hits, while the American spelling without the u gets almost 400,000; "people of colour" gets 258,000 hits and without the u it jumps to over 9 million. Bearcat17:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I get out; quite a bit, thanks. But, perhaps because silly things like labels don't play a huge part in my life, I haven't heard of anyone referring to themselves as a "person of colour." Regardless of the order ("people of colour" vs. "coloured people") it still uses "white" people as a reference point against which to judge yourself.
Anyway, my personal feelings on the matter are neither here nor there in terms of this article. However, two questions remain: 1) if it's already stated that Jean is of African-Caribbean heritage, why is it necessary to say she's a "person of colour", and 2) what colour is Adrienne Clarkson? To me, her skin looks the same colour as mine. --gbambino18:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Adrienne Clarkson is Asian.
Again, the point remains: "people of colour" is a term that the groups so described have chosen for themselves, a term they use for themselves, and a term that they have specifically asked to be used when it is necessary (as it sometimes is, in a society where racial categorization is still an unavoidable reality at times) to call attention to skin colour as a characteristic. And it is relevant to note that Jean is the second person of colour to hold the position. Using whiteness as the reference point isn't the issue; the reality is that we live in a world where skin colour does still play a role in the way people interact with society and vice versa. The issue is who's drawing the referents, which brings us right back to the fact that "people of colour" is a term the groups chose for themselves and frequently use for themselves. If you don't see how that's different from an imposed label like "coloured people", then I really don't know what to say to you.
If you've honestly never heard a black, Asian or aboriginal person describe themselves as a "person of colour", then we're at an unresolvable roadblock, because in the reality I live in, it's an everyday usage that lost its novelty value sometime around 1993. Maybe I'm just more finely attuned to issues of political and social language usage than you are, I don't know. But when anti-racist conferences describe their own target market as "people of color", when social and cultural and political groups targeted especially to black and Asian communities describe themselves as "a group for people of colour" (and sometimes even use "of colour" in their names), when people like Sunera Thobani, Urvashi Vaid, bell hooks, Nalo Hopkinson and Margaret Cho describe themselves as "people of colour", when there are Wikipedia editors (User:Xoloz, frex) who describe themselves as "people of colour" right on their Wikipedia userpages, let's just say I'm almost infinitely more inclined to trust their judgement in the matter than yours. Bearcat21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears to come down to a personal preference - some describe themselves in such a manner; others don't. It seems disingenuous, and unnecessary (to me, anyway) to apply the label to Mme. Jean given that it's already said that she's of African-Caribbean heritage, and we don't know whether she considers herself a "person of colour" or not.
By the way, "Asian" isn't a colour. You stated Clarkson was a "person of colour" - what colour is she? --gbambino21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What other kind of answer do you imagine possible? I suppose one could get into that old practice of calling Asian people "yellow", but that would be racist and inappropriate. Bearcat21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, calling Asian people "persons of colour" implies they are actually a colour other than white, which for them must be yellow - and that is indeed racist and inappropriate. This is why the whole thing is ridiculous - somehow "persons of colour" actually means people of any racial strain other than caucasian, but many people who aren't caucasian are the same colour as caucasians anyway!
Jean is the first person of African-Caribbean heritage to serve as Governor General, the third woman, and the second immigrant. What more needs to be said? Everything else is subjective. --gbambino22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
somehow "persons of colour" actually means people of any racial strain other than caucasian. "Somehow"? What part of "BY THEIR OWN CHOICE OF APPROPRIATE TERMINOLOGIES" are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because some people have chosen it doesn't make it logical; nor does it really make it appropriate to anyone but themselves. --gbambino22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
People of colour themselves get to decide whether or not "people of colour" is logical and appropriate terminology, not you. Bearcat22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I have a free will. I can say for myself what is logical and what is not. Others have the same, and can do the same. But obviously not everyone agrees. Hence, the label "person of colour" is subjective, which has been my point all along. --gbambino22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Minority groups have an exclusive right to decide what are and are not appropriate terms to use in reference to them. If Asian communities consider themselves to be "people of colour", which they do, then that's the final word whether you find it logical or not. Bearcat23:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You talk as though every community, group, club, knitting circle, football pool, what have you, made up of people of Asian descent call themselves "people of colour." While some certainly might, not all do. It's a label some people use, and some people do not. --gbambino02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is what their community does or doesn't consider to be appropriate and permitted labels for itself, not what one specific individual does or doesn't use. Bearcat03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bearcat. Whether or not we like it, or find it logical, people do have the right to call themselves what they will. The long-standing convention in the media, as in encyclopedias, is to respect that. Sunray00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What she calls herself is irrelevant. What a person's ethnocultural community taken as a whole considers to be the appropriate or inappropriate terminologies for their own group is the final word in the matter. If a community defines itself as "people of colour", an individual person belonging to that community does not have some additional right to dictate that she can't be called the same thing. She can call herself whatever she wants — but it's the black community in general that gets to decide whether "person of colour" is a valid terminology for black people or not. People may have personal preferences, but nobody within the black community, not even Michaëlle Jean, gets any kind of special right to dictate that only some of the terminologies accepted by her community can be used specifically in reference to her. Bearcat03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The black community usually refers to those incuded within it as Afro-Canadians, African-Canadians, African-American, or simply blacks. Looking for "black community" with "persons of colour" I got a whole of 81 hits. With "people of colour": 1,400 hits. "African Canadian" with "people of colour": 386. "African American" with "people of colour": 9,100. "African American" and "black", on the other hand: 19,100,000. "African Canadian" and "black": 57,800 "African-Canadian" alone: 106,000. "African American": 41,500,000. Altering the spelling of colour actually brings up less results. So, it seems the vast majority of those in the black community deem themselves African Canadian or African American, and do not label themselves further as "persons of colour."
Just out of interest, "Michaelle Jean" and "person of colour" brings up 34 hits - many duplicates. "Adrienne Clarkson" and "person of colour": 30.
So, Jean is the first Governor General of African-Caribbean heritage, or the first African-Canadian, if you like. But "person of colour" remains a subjective label that isn't, despite what you assert, accepted or employed by the ethno-cultural black community as a whole, or even, it seems, a majority. --gbambino15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You guys need to read history
Only the Second immigrant to be governor general? HAHAHAH. Please. Most of the Governors general have been born outside of Canada CJ DUB16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That didn't make them immigrants. The Governors General from the UK were subjects of the Crown, just like every Canadian was at the time. Canada's first citizenship laws were passed in 1947, while our last British Governor General was in office. After him, the appointments were all Canadian. You, guy, need to read history, and learn how to spell along the way. --gbambino16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose she was a British suhject - that's very interesting. It's certain that she was a refugee, but maybe you're right that she actually wasn't an immigrant. Though, there is a difference between her and previous Governors General: She came with her family and stayed, whereas Governors General prior to 1952 came to Canada only for as long as their post required, and then returned to the UK. --gbambino23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, claiming the current GC as the "second immigrant" or especially "second foreign-born" is highly misleading. How about "second foreign born since 19XX"?? CJ DUB17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The point about her being the second "foreign born" is followed by the correct clarification that this continunes to break a tradition set by Vincent Massey's appointment in 1952.
The point about her being the "second immigrant" is only potentially misleading in that she may actually be the first immigrant Governor General.
What you're trying to assert - that the Governors General prior to 1952 were immigrants - is not only misleading, but factually inaccurate. --gbambino19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's possible to be both factually accurate and misleading. Saying she's the second immigrant is clearly misleading, even if it's true. It's misleading, because it will lead ordinary people to think only two GCs were born outside of Canada. We should write this article for those not familiar with the topic already. --Rob20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but saying, or even implying, that the Governors General of Canada before 1952 were immigrants is nothing other than incorrect. --gbambino20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Further to my point above, an immigrant is defined as:
Main Entry: im·mi·grant
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-gr&nt
Function: noun
one that immigrates : as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown
So, both Clarkson and Jean are immigrants. Byond the issue of nationality, as the British Governors General all returned to the UK at the end of their time as GG they're not considered immigrants.
It's already mentioned that Clarkson's and Jean's appointments have broken the tradition of creating Canadian-born individuals as Governor General, in place since the appointment of Massey; so what else can be said to make it more clear? --gbambino20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be written for people who do not fully understand the subject. The wording is technically accurate, but more confusing than helpful. --C civiero19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Vacation
"On January 4, 2007, according to articles in the Globe and Mail and National Post, Michaelle Jean failed to preside over a Cabinet shuffle of the Conservative government. It was later reported in the January 5, 2007 edition of the "Journal de Montreal" that she was on vacation and that she was replaced at the ceremony by Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastrache. Additionally, despite having returned on December 11, 2006, from her 3-week state visit to various African nations, visits to the Governor General's official website indicate that Madame Jean has not undertaken any sort of official activity in keeping with her role as the Queen's representative since December 15, 2006 when she presided over an Order of Canada Ceremony."
Is the above really notable? Administrators routinely perform the tasks of the Governor General when he or she is not in the country. So, really, all the text is saying is that Jean went on vacation and someone filled in for her at the swearing in of a couple of new cabinet members. It seems the anon. who wants to insert this is trying to insinuate that Jean is shirking her duties, and create scandal where there is none. --G2bambino21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use the DStJ in the opening as her post-nominals? According to this link, they're only used internally by the Order, and nearly all articles on other members of the Order don't use them.--Ibagli (Talk) 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
It was my impression that one doesn't receive the title of "Honourable" or "Right Honourable" until one is sworn into the Privy Council. Since the Governor-General is not sworn into the Privy Council until after their term expires, doesn't that mean she does not currently possess that title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadmen (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In Canada "the Right Honourable" is borne by all Prime Ministers, Governors General, Chief Justices, and other eminent Canadians for whom it is decided that they should be allowed to bear it. Membership in the Privy Council isn't necessary.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have seen on the blogs that she is a "professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa," but I cannot find a good source to back it up with. Zscout370(Sound Off)00:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
But that doesn't make her a professor. It just means she taught a course. She was likely a grad student at the time and serving as a teaching assistant. I think it is a misnomer to have "professor" as her job title, especially if we're talking about 2 years out of 26.--Westendgirl18:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the Globe jumped a little to conclusions, something we have the liberty of time to avoid. U de Montréal says she taught Italian Studies while taking her Masters in Comparative Lit. Something which many grad students do but are not, strictly, professors. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think I can clarify the matter. In French, "professeur" simply means "teacher". While she may have taught a class at some point in her past (I'm not aware of this ever having happened, but I suppose it's possible) I can state with absolutely certainty that Ms. Jean does not have a PhD and has never been a professor or professor emeritus at any accredited university in this country (Canada) or in any other for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.50.106 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Case for her being a Quebec separatist
1. Jean-Daniel Lafond's La Liberté en colère is a documentary about the men behind the FLQ crisis and is considered quite sympathetic to the separatist cause.
2. A memo written by a Quebec journalism student interning at Radio-Canada, Mme. Jean's (now-former) place of employment:
Selon mes sources bien informees, qui tous une une tres grande admiration pour Michaelle, celle-ci aurait des opinions politiques tres tranchees. Notamment, elle aurait souvent manifeste son nationalisme quebecois, son penchant en faveur de la souverainete du Quebec et son opposition A cette institution vetuste qu'est la representation de la Reine d'Angleterre au Canada.
Here's a rough translation (corrections/improvements welcome):
Acccording to my well-informed sources, all of whom greatly admire Michaelle, she has some very open political opinions. Notably, she often made her Quebec nationalism known, her preference in favour of Quebec sovereignty and her opposition to the antiquated institution of the Queen of England's representative in Canada.
The post goes on to say that Mme. Jean took a long time to decide to accept Martin's offer, and, according to his sources, did so in the end because she saw it as a good way to advance the causes she cares about: child poverty, violence against women, and the situation in Haiti.
Now, it could be that Mme. Jean is just a Quebec nationalist. Not all nationalists are separatists, of course.
I agree. A film considered sympathetic by someone and a fawning intern who says he thinks she has separatist leanings. Not exactly reliable sources. I'll let her words and actions speak for her. DoubleBlue (Talk)05:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I think Paul Martin, as an avowed federalist and the leader of the most federalist Canadian party, would have been careful not to reccommend a Québec separatist or nationalist as GG. Escheffel02:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name of the documentary where Michaëlle is supposedly toasting to Québec independence with former FLQ members? The one where she supposedly made her "independence cannot be given" comment? It seems if this footage would be either validated or denounced once and for all, we could all know the truth. I would really like to track this footage down and see it for myself. (User talk:Ossian27)
I added the MA post-nominal, just like what Clarkson has on her page. However, another user added BA to it. It could have been the same person who added HE The Rt. Hon. too. Zscout370(Sound Off)04:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it was Michael Drew and from the look of his talk page he has rather a fondness for adding such honorifics. I removed the MA from Clarkson yesterday. I'm in favour of having the important post-nominals but not university degrees. They're already mentioned in the article anyway. DoubleBlue (Talk)04:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think educational degrees should be added, especially BAs, or MAs. I will be getting my BA in eight months, and I don't plan on adding a post-nominal to my name. I think we should just put up whatever is used by the person 'officially'. For example, on the GG's website, Adrienne Clarkson only uses CC, CMM, COM, CD, and we should just stick with that. Eddo
I should point out that doctorets and such are usually listed on a persons Order of Canada citation. As for educational postnominals would for example a Doctor use the postnoms "MD" are wouldn't it be appropriate to use that on wikipedia ? Dowew03:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the honorary degree post nominals, I think that's really pushing it, personally I'm in favour of not including any degree post nominals, but I've left in the two she's earned, other than the fact that it's not that appropriate or helpful, I think that it just looks silly to have a huge long list in a small infobox. AJMW (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"...Jean is Canada's first black Governor General, the second person without either a political or military background (after Adrienne Clarkson), the second person from a visible minority and (again after Clarkson), foreign-born (like Clarkson, and breaking tradition since Vincent Massey's appointment)..."
-Doesn't everyone think it's rather hollow and terminally PC to keep referring to "breaking the tradition" when the last GG who was a British subject was Alexander and he quit in 1952! (Perhaps it would be "breaking tradition" if we DID appoint a british subject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.240.211 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Order of Precedence succession box
G2bambino has listed "Members of the Royal Family" in the "Canadian order of precedence" succession box on this page. This contradicts the Department of Canadian Heritage's "Table of Precedence for Canada" which makes no mention of the royal family and states quite clearly that the Governor General is followed in precedence by the PM. Rather than engage in an edit war I'd like other people to weigh in on this. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Under the "As Governor General" heading of the article, the link to Two Solitudes links to a disambiguation page, and it is not clear what it is supposed to refer to from the text. Moisejp (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
More biography?
I'm having trouble surmising from the article how a Haitian refugee decides and manages to get a literature degree. Before anyone panics and decries me as a fanatical racist, it's not exactly a controversial suggestion that university is expensive and difficult, and refugees are in a particularly difficult position socially and economically, at least in general. Could this information about her background be found and explained? It seems to me to be some of the most interesting and important part of her life, but it's not at all in the article. My sort of guess would be that she doesn't come from the sort of class background, economically or socially, as an average Haitian would. So what's the story?
I hate to be cynical, but if that's the case - if she essentially comes from a wealthy, elite Haitian family - it nixes the ideas these sorts of symbolic gestures (it's not like the GG is a real job anyway, so really it is just symbolic, however sweet it might be) are actually indicative of real social mobility. But I don't know the situation, and I'd like too. --Jammoe (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. Where's the evidence here that "jealousy and anti-environmental attitudes" are motivating any Wikipedia editors? --G2bambino (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid not; in no way does it support the claim that Wikipedia editors are being motivated by "jealousy and anti-environmental attitudes." Please point to the evidence or explain the rationale behind your thinking. --G2bambino (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
David Suzuki is described as a "potentially politically charged individual." These weasel words are a defamatory attack on a respected person. Wikipedia editors should use alternative forums for their opinions. --Dlatimer (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You still fail to provide any evidence whatsoever that Wikipedia editors have used this article as a forum for their opinions. Back up your accusations, please. --G2bambino (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you two--that means both of you---please take the sniping elsewhere? It has gone beyond having anything to do with the content of the page. I don't know who did what to whom first, but neither of you is paying much attention to being civil. Please, take it to your own talk pages, or find a disinterested third party to arbitrate whatever the disagreement the two of you have; it doesn't belong here. Prince of Canada t | c04:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
PoC, I appreciate the attempts to reduce tempers, but you are completely wrong when you say that this is no longer about the content of the article. Dlatimer claimed that there was unattributed POV in this article, yet is still unable to point out where. I suspect he never read the text properly and incorrectly attributed the views of Michael Valpy to me, but both this and his satisfaction with the present arrangements remains to be confirmed. --G2bambino (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest you both kill it with the combative and argumentative language. Saying "Dlatimer, I don't see where the POV is; I guess I'm missing something. Can you show me where it is so I can understand where you're coming from?" is constructive. What you said is not. Prince of Canada t | c04:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just don't see the question "Where's the evidence here that 'jealousy and anti-environmental attitudes' are motivating any Wikipedia editors?" as being particularly "combative." Gushingly polite? No. But certainly not combative. It was just a direct question, repeatedly asked, and never answered. --G2bambino (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Except that's not what you said. "You still fail" and "back up your accusations" are hardly constructive language. But I am not going to get drawn any further into this argument. If you feel you can truly say you are honouring more than the black-letter of WP:Civil, well, okay then. I tried to appeal to both of you to calm down and talk to each other instead of past, and neither of you are having it. I'll let both of your actions speak for themselves. Prince of Canada t | c05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I said after three requests were met with silence. And that was on top of the bad attitude I got from Dlatimer elsewhere. That final comment was curt, yes, but still quite civil; more so than Dlatimer deserved, actually. But, you are right: he should talk to those he has a disagreement with; answering their legitimate questions would be a start. --G2bambino (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Was. And, Dlatimer, honestly.. from your edits to this article, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to questioning the motives of other editors. I don't want to get into an argument here; in this situation neither you nor G2bambino, shall we say, exemplified the ideals we're all striving for. Can we drop this mess now, please? Prince of Canada t | c02:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to help, you can review all the reverts that G2bambino has made to my edits and maintenance tags since he came off his block. I am more than happy for someone else to do it. --Dlatimer (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Controversy over art collection
My thanks to the two users who have supported the edits. This takes care of the most obvious issue. The whole "controversy" seems long-winded, lacking in seriousness, based on opinion pieces and tells only one side of the story. Surely a sentence or two at most is required. --Dlatimer (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we have to start thinking about what's going to happen on December 8th, when the vote of confidence takes place, will Jean call an election, fire the Harper government and put Dion or Ignateiff in as PM, or accrue to herself all power for a temporary time while she figures things out. All is possible or none of it is. Ericl (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Certainly we have to be aware of the possibility and prepare ourselves for the work it's going to entail in updating Wikipedia (not to mention the likely sh*tstorm of partisan vandalism it's going to unleash), but until the vote actually takes place Wikipedia isn't the place to speculate about what might happen. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think EricL has a clear grasp of the Canadian constitution, and forgive me Eric but I'm guessing you're American, by the look of your edit history and talkpage interests....the clincher is your notion that the G-G could hold power herself for a while, which is just "not on" and not how things work in this country; if you are Canadian I suggest you study more Canadian than American civics for a while..... And please be careful not to use hyperbolic terms like "depose" like you did on the Chretien and Broadbent pages....that's POV, and also an incorrect usage (kings and presidents are deposed; PMs are not - they resign...to be deposed is to be forcibly removed from office, which this has NOTHING to do with).Skookum1 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm rather known for colourful and provocative language myself....but your titel for this section is highly questionable and has a POV/propaganda flavour to it, as did your use of "coup d'etat" on the Harper talkpage. Please stop using inflammatory language about these matters, "you've misleading the public" (just like a politician or spin doctor, in fact). Fine if the colourful language were accurate, but it's not. And the proper term is "Vice-regal"....and I'm gonna have to go look up Decembrist (re "December Coup") but it likewise is an extremist allusion you're making.Skookum1 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the Decembrists/December Coup....where are the soldiers? Once again, you're using inflammatory language as if there were a military overthrow of a regime going on, instead of a completely legal - even wholesome - proceeding of the constitution. Please desist from further distortions; sorry to say, I'm going to have to watch your edits closely this next week, given what I've seen of them so far. If Harper hadn't tried to beahve like a dictator, when he's only got a minority in the House, none of this would be going on, also.Skookum1 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Vice-Regal it is! Sorry about that. Nothing else though. I do hope you're right. The situation is mostly unprecidented, and the G-G is is well within her rights to do all sorts of things that she just never does. Harper may not resign if he loses the vote on monday and...you get the idea. As to saying "it's just not done" what's going on now is "just not done." Ericl (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While there hasn't been an opportunity for what's going on now to have happened in many years now, there's nothing fundamentally "just not done" about it — it's completely constitutional and completely legal. And there's no opportunity for Jean to "accrue to herself all power for a temporary time while she figures things out", either. If the current government falls on a confidence vote, one of two things will happen: either she'll offer the opposition the opportunity to form a government, or she'll call an election. Nothing else is "possible" at this point. You are hereby reminded that any Wikipedia content about this is required to maintain a neutral point-of-view — and it also violates WP:CRYSTAL to portray this as a done deal until the confidence vote actually takes place. Any number of things could still intervene to prevent this from happening — there's been media talk of Harper simply proroguing Parliament altogether, for one thing — and so we really can't and shouldn't predict the future until the vote is actually held. At that time, the appropriate articles will be updated in a neutral fashion, but until then it's not appropriate to speculate about things at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel sorry for her - this is exactly the kind of situation where everyone and their uncle thinks they know what is the "correct" outcome but the reality is that this is a question that's never been completely answered. Whether in the Westminster system a Prime Minister who loses a confidence vote in a parliament when he has previously had the confidence in the same parliament has the right to request a dissolution or whether the GG (or monarch) must first see if an alternative government can be assembled in the current parliament has taxed many political scientists over the years (and the King-Byng thing doesn't provide the easiest of answers), and invariably there will be partisans dissatisfied that the "correct" outcome didn't happen.
More practically we need to make sure that this article, and related ones, don't fill up with the kind of one-sided minutae analysis, sourced to only one side of the constitutional debate, that turns articles into total messes but are difficult to undo because often the best counters are offline books that not everyone can get in their local libraries. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
not needed?
Reaction
Stephen Harper, the leader of the Conservative party and leader of the opposition, congratulated Jean on her appointment and said that her life story "serves as a great example to many Canadians. I know Mme. Jean will serve Canada in a dignified, vice-regal fashion."[4]
The departing Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, applauded Martin for choosing Michaëlle Jean by saying she is "an exciting and imaginative choice for Governor General." Clarkson said she and her husband John Ralston Saul look forward to Jean being invested with her position with "great enthusiasm."[5]
Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, was disappointed that Jean decided to, in his words, "accept a position that is strictly honorary and within an institution that is not democratic."
Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democratic Party, said he wished Jean and her family well and that he looked "forward to seeing a family again in Rideau Hall, which is fitting for the first Governor-General of a new century." Layton also commented on Canadian peacekeeping activities at this time by saying Jean "knows well the value of the peacekeeping operations that give Canadians so much pride."[6]
This is an archive of past discussions about Michaëlle Jean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It's not that I have any particular attachment to the succession boxes at the foot of many biographical articles; rather, I imagine that it would be confusing for readers to see some governors general articles with a succession box and others without. In other words, the articles on Canadian governors general should either all have succession boxes, or they all shouldn't. It's merely for consistency. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"Other Controversies" section (re.: seal hunt)
I recently added information about Jean's participation in an Inuit ceremony that included Jean helping butcher a seal, and eating part of its raw heart. For some reason, someone deleted this section. I am going to revert, and if anyone deletes it again, I will apply for protection. You can't delete newsworthy information in a WP entry without due cause. Bricology (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see that someone has moved it into the "Domestic Duties" section, which seems nonsensical to me. As I understand it, her visit to the Inuit ceremony wasn't the fulfillment of a "duty" at all. What "domestic duty" was Jean performing by gutting a seal and eating its heart? (That sounds like it could've been the domestic duty of an Iron Age shaman, but not a 21st century, first-world politician.) It seems to me that burying odd controversies at the end of the "Domestic Duties" section is a poor fit. I move for establishing a permanent "Controversies" section and moving the seal heart incident back to it.Bricology (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Travelling Canada, meeting with Canadians, taking part in organized events, & etc., are all duties of the Governor General. Explicitly labelling something as a "controversy" is inherently against WP:NPOV. There is also WP:UNDUE to consider when contemplating giving one event it's own section. The facts should merely be presented as they are without additional interpretation on the part of Wikipedia editors. --Miesianiacal (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Travelling Canada, meeting with Canadians, taking part in organized events, & etc., are all duties of the Governor General. That's a stretch. Is traveling anywhere or meeting with any Canadian for any reason part of her "official duties"? One could just as easily say that Richard Nixon was fulfilling an "official duty" as President, since he was meeting with Americans (the Watergate "plumbers") to discuss breaking into the Democratic Party's headquarters. Nothing "controversial" about that particular incident, eh? There has to be a sensible definition for "duties"; it's not some amorphous thing. Was Jean's gutting of a seal and eating its heart on her agenda for the day? I somehow doubt it, and apparently, so does the media, or they wouldn't've reported it with such a tone of surprise. I'm not going to push for changing the entry as it stands now, but I find your justification highly suspect. Bricology (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The different takes on the event are mentioned already. Additional personal interpretations by Wikipedia editors is neither neutral nor balanced. Please stick to guidelines. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the lead page of the GG's website also shows Jean with the Saskatchewan medal but sans one from Alberta. I guess its safe to assume she never received one. --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is one prorogation notable but the other is not?
"The House of Commons has passed a motion requiring the release of unredacted documents concerning the Afghan detainees to the committee hearing the issue. The government has refused, setting up the possibility that it could be found in contempt of Parliament. If the executive and legislative branches of government were to come to deadlock, an unprecedented constitutional crisis could be precipitated. "
This Wikipedia policy states that "In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.[1]
If you have been checking the news outlets, this topic is being noted in many media. If you take all of it collectively, then is that not "significant coverage?"
I am surprised that you deleted my contribution without any discussion or attempt at amendment.
Prorogation is a routine procedure which happens several times in the life of every parliament. What was uniquely notable about the 2008 matter was the context in which it was done — less than a week after Parliament was convened in the first place, specifically in order to forestall a confidence vote, and with a reasonably valid argument to be made that Michaëlle Jean could have or should have denied the request. Your contribution was written as if every prorogation inherently precipitates a parliamentary crisis, which is false — although there may be disagreements about why Harper requested a prorogation in this instance, it's not a particularly shocking or unprecedented or crisis-inducing thing for him to have done, and neither was there any compelling reason for Jean to even consider saying no. And consequently, it simply isn't comparable to 2008 in any meaningful respect. Not its impact, not its context, not its relevance to Jean's article. A neutral summary of the situation might be valid content in Harper's article — but it's not relevant here. Whether it should have happened or not is for Harper to wear, not Jean. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I suppose that only the passage of time will tell whether this situation will lead to "an unprecedented constitutional crisis". I will wait and see whether this article is right when it says, "The refusal sets the stage for a potential parliamentary crisis, not unlike the one that gripped the country one year ago, with Harper's minority government in a standoff with the three opposition parties." I will wait until that happens (if it happens) before discussing this any further. I understand that Wikipedia is not for predictions. Forgive me for "jumping the gun." I did so only because Reg Whitaker, the author of this article is no slouch when it comes to analysis. But even that is no excuse for my "jumping the gun." I apologize.
If it does actually evolve into a constitutional crisis with demonstrable blowback onto the GG, then yes, we can note that here once it happens — but until that actually occurs we don't speculate about what might happen. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I would beg to differ on this topic. When Parliament is prorogued, it is generally just to end the session of parliament for the afternoon or a short time, and not typically at a time when the government is in peril. If I am correct, the only other time it is common for Parliament to be prorogued is when the Prime Minister requests the complete dissolution of parliament to call an election. I do not believe parliament has been prorogued for any other reason in recent memory. Also, I believe Michaelle Jean was the first GG to agree to prorogue Parliament in decades for a reason other than an election. (A further explanation of proroguing can be found here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch08&Seq=7&Lang=E) Therefore, unless there is something I am missing, I propose that both prorogations by Michaelle Jean is worthy of including in the article. RainnIceberg—Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
Both prorogations are mentioned in the article, albeit the second one with no accompanying detail, as it should be; whatever the political oddity of that 2009 prorogation, it has nothing to do personally with Jean.
Associated with this matter is the anon IP user who keeps reverting a sentence communicating that some Canadians saw Jean's reaction as indicitave of stronger ties, on her part, to Haiti than Canada. The supporting source states: "Even as Jean stirred the Canadian soul with her talk Wednesday, she evinced some negative responses, such as this letter to the editor in the Globe and Mail: 'Her emotional TV performance was a disgrace. She put her country of origin before the country in which she holds office.'" I'm rather a fan of Jean, so I'm not insisting that the sentence remain out of some animosity for the woman; it is, instead, for the sake of WP:NPOV that an opinion contrary to the positive one of her post-earthquake address be provided for balance. It would also seem strange to have the statement and source removed when the positive claim stays despite its being supported by the same source. --ĦMIESIANIACAL00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Either British (6 September) or American (September 6) date format is acceptable on Wikipedia; the only rule that we have is internal consistency within a specific article. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Following a brief and bloodless American/Canadian date style editing skirmish this morning, the following discussion on date styles has been copied to this topic. I believe that both my reasoning and facts are correct, and that all GG and LG articles should maintain a British date style. Comments? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no Canadian date format. The official rules are that either American or British date formats may be used. Many editors have pointed-out that American date formats are most common. The overarching rule with dates in Canadian articles is that format in which the article existed after ceasing to be a stub should be the format in which it remains. In Talk:David Lloyd Johnston, an editor admitted that he changed the format to British. This change was just over a year ago. The article was in originally was American date format. I wasn't going to make the change until consensus was reached, but I will follow the anon's lead and keep it in the correct format. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Walter, thanks for your insight above. Of coarse course, my comment on 'Canadian date style' reflects the fact that the Canadian federal government and provinces officially follow the British date style, hence 'Canadian' style.
Regarding the use of a Canadian/British date style for the GG, I would like to point out that that those articles present an exception to the normal WP date style rules, which state:
"In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee decided that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason; for example, with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject."
While an article started with an American date format on an average Canadian would keep its American style, the GG, as the Queen's personal representative to Canada, is viewable as a British subject, although he/she may or may not hold British citizenship (many have in the past). In the particular case of Governor Generals and Lieutenant Governors, they act as regal viceroys (a royal official who runs a country or province in the name of and as representative of the monarch) and should be considered British subjects. For the sake of consistency, I suggest that all such articles maintain British/Canadian date styles, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm astounded that the Governor General of Canada would be classified as a British subject. The position, at least since 1931, has zero to do with the United Kingdom.
That said, I wonder why WG and his anon compatriot have stopped their project of returning the articles to their original date formats at Vincent Massey. All but three of the articles on GGs prior to Massey also originally used MM DD, YY. I think you have some more work to do, Walter. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Zero to do with the United Kingdom? Well other than the monarch who is a citizen of the U.K. appoints the GG.
I do not know who the anon is so suggesting that the anon is my compatriot is pushing reason. The connotation is also disturbing in that the root of the word is the same as that behind that of patriot which seems to suggest that I am pro-American which is far from the truth. I could imagine all sorts of misrepresentation behind the word but want to clarify again that I do not prefer the American long date format and to the best of my knowledge don't know the anon. However if by compatriot M means one living in the same country, which is the dictionary definition, then I full agree with that connotation. I assume that he is also compatriots of the other two editors as well. Is anon changing date formats in other articles?
I am not returning the article to its original format. I am merely keeping this article in the format the anon moved it to, which is the correct format based on WP:DATESNO. I would not have done the work myself but am glad that anon did so. I was waiting until consensus before changing date format, if required. The other relevant section is WP:STRONGNAT. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
When you reverted back to the anon's edit, you returned the article to it's original format. I see now that you only did so on this page; I apologise for believing you'd done the same on the others back to Vincent Massey. However, if you don't want to change the date formats until a consensus is reached - an opinion with which I agree - why then did you uphold the change to the date format on this page, and have left the anon's other edits alone? Shouldn't all the pages stay as they were when this conundrum came up? It's rather difficult to maintain a discussion on a matter when that matter keeps changing. This whole thing is already complicated enough.
BTW, the Queen isn't a UK citizen and she appoints the governor general as Queen of Canada on the advice of her Canadian prime minister only. The UK and its government has nothing to do with it. --ĦMIESIANIACAL19:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So when she travelled to Canada in the 1950s did she travel on a British passport or something else? I suspect that before she was monarch she was a British citizen. As I said I would not have done the work myself but am glad that anon did so. I was waiting until consensus before changing date format, if required. I will not change any others. I do not watch any others so I won't revert any other changes made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Why would she need a passport to travel to her own country? Which is all irrelevant to the governor general being a British agent, anyway. Meaning it has no bearing on the date format used on these pages.
Why Walter, are you implying that Michaëlle Jean is not a subject of the British Commonwealth? Oh, come now!.... Best: HarryZilber (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see your comment User:Harryzilber until now. I'm saying that Michaëlle Jean would probably, come Christmas anyhow, say that she's a citizen of Canada. Her husband has ties to a separatist movement in Quebec and they are quite opposed to what they see as a foreign power controlling Canada in the monarchy. If I remember correctly, this was a major concern with selecting her as GG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You know what. You made your enemies. You deal with the repercussions of your actions. As you can see, I am not changing the other articles that you're edit warring with anon in Chilliwack, but I can tell you this: you're not innocent yourself. I can sleep at night after having undone a change that an anon pointed-out that you made against Wikipedia policy. I am not going back and changing any other GG articles. I will wait for consensus on those. Now if only I could convince you to stop being so self-righteous in your actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me or the anon and everything to do with you. You said you wanted to wait for consensus before changing this article; a wise position. But then you go and change the article anyway, using the anon as an excuse to do so. It's disruptive, and I can't imagine how you couldn't know that. --ĦMIESIANIACAL03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL poor Miesianiacal an article were he is clearly the main contributor... a guy who has never edited the page before last month reverts him on dates. LOL Moxy (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The governor general is commander-in-chief of Canada. This role has been expressly conferred on the governor general as per the letters patent of 1947. As such, the governor general plays a major role in recognizing the importance of Canada’s military at home and abroad.
In any case, the constitution says that Command-in-Chief is vested in the Queen. That's different from the Queen being the sole rightful Commander-in-Chief of Canada. It's phrased nearly identically to the section stating that "executive government and authority" is vested in the Queen. The Governor General clearly has executive authority in Canada granted by the Queen; why can she not also be the Commander-in-Chief of Canada? Unless there's some kind of legitimate source clearly delineating that the Governor General truly has no claim to the position of C-in-C , then it strikes me as being a bit POV and OR to phrase it the way it currently is.--Ibagli (Talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And if we need a note saying that Commander-in-Chief is "not a position that she holds" because Command-in-Chief if vested in the Queen, then we probably also need to go into all of the articles that give a surprisingly large amount of constitutional minutiae and add even more. "Governor General AB did X on the advice of Prime Minister CD" surely needs an explanation that Governor General AB doesn't actually have the executive authority under which the action was performed, because after all, it's vested in the Queen. (Please, nobody get ideas.) --Ibagli (Talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought the Monarch of Canada was C-in-C, though the Canadian Prime Minister actually calls the shots. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Command-in-Chief the same as Commander-in-Chief? Is the one an archaic form of the other or are they two distinct terms? Linguist or constitutional lawyer please. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x5 The governor general is commander-in-chief of Canada; in name. The actual commander-in-chief, by the constitution, is the reigning monarch. Walter Görlitz already pointed out S.III.15 of the Constitution Act 1867, which hasn't been repealed or superseded, unless it can be proven otherwise. If it can, that should be brought to the attention of the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Board and the Federal Court of Canada, both of which affirm that the Queen is commander-in-chief: From Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh v. the Attorney-General of Canada:
"[T]he grievance was denied on the merits for the following reasons: '...section 15 vests the command-in-chief of all Canadian military forces in the Queen."
"The Board gave its report to the CDS on May 31, 2006 and it recommended that the grievance be denied. The Board determined that the payment of respect to the Queen within the Canadian Forces was consistent with her constitutional role as the Head of State and as the military Commander-in-Chief."
"The role of the Queen within the Canadian Forces is constitutionally and statutorily established. Section 15 of the Constitution Act, 1867 designates the Queen as the 'Command-in-Chief' of Canada's naval and military forces. Section 14 of the National Defence Act establishes the Canadian Forces as the armed forces of 'Her Majesty'."
"Here, I agree with the Respondent's characterization of their legislative purpose at para. 70 of its factum: '70. Similarly, as the Commander in Chief of the CF, all members of the CF are required to salute the Queen.'"
"Whether Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh[, the anon user, and Walter Görlitz] likes it or not, the fact is that the Queen is his Commander-in-Chief and Canada's Head of State."
WP:V source. Is it incorrect? Possibly, but Wikipedia is about verifiability not facts.
Didn't the constitution of 1982 supersede the BNA?
Could you please point to a modern document that confirms this? It's not whether I like it (and you should be cautioned for discussing the editors again) it's whether it's verifiable or not.
I distinctly remember a discussion about this in the news immediately before Christmas, but the GG's own site indicates that she is CiC. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Am I being accused of sock-puppetry with this sentence "Whether Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh[, the anon user, and Walter Görlitz]"? I certainly hope not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless verifiable sources are produced showing Elizabeth II as C-in-C, this will be a toughy to argue. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Unless verifiable sources are produced"?? GD, what do you want more than the decision of a federal court? A letter from the Queen herself? (I know you want a letter from Lizzy, you "republican"... ;) ) --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is we have two conflicting streams. The Supreme court's ruling using the BNA as a source for HRH HM as CiC and several sources including the leader of the opposition and former commander of the Canadian Forces directly quoted, as well as the GG's web site. In that earlier news source I believe the OM stated that the Queen was CiC. I don't have that story though. In either case, if the paragraph were to be included it should clearly indicate that authority for CIC is vested in the Queen but granted to the GG. (PS: I'm a weak monarchist, not that it matters. I just want to satisfy WP:V and make sense of the sources.) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But doesn't the GG perform all of the Monarch's duties (which would include CiC)? PS: It's HM, not HRH. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Almost all, yes. But that doesn't make the GG the monarch.
Frankly, I'm more interested in deciding whether or not the sentence is actually worth anything in the article. No sense in going through this if there's no purpose for what we're fighting over. --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But the Canadian monarch would have to be CiC, in order for the GG to perform such a duty (if only sympolicly). The GG can't discarge a duty, that the Monarch doesn't have. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact that there is this confusion is evidence that something should be said if only to clarify the common misconceptions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The confusion only seems to exist because of the inclusion of the sentence. What difference does it make whether the Queen is also entitled to be called "Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada" or what if any distinction exists as to the exact nature of each woman's command? It is enough to recite Jean's full title as Governor General and leave it at that. -Rrius (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I recognize that this discussion is now over a moth old but I have found a new source] from George the Sixth making reference to the "Governor General and Commander-in-Chief". The phrase appears several times in the document. So it appears that the monarch has ceded control of this role over to the GG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's ever argued that the governor general isn't called the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. However, because he or she is called that still isn't proof that the monarch ceded command-in-chief of the Armed Forces to the viceroy. I've already pointed out above that both the Federal Court and the CFGB have ruled that the Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of Canada. --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
True. The king simply signed a document that made the GG the CiC unless I'm missing something in the phrase "there should be a Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada". Is that a name conferred on the GG? No. The GG is CiC over Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying the Federal Court and CFGB (and, I believe the Chief of the Defence Staff, as well) are incorrect? --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Are you saying the Federal Court and CFGB (and, I believe the Chief of the Defence Staff, as well) are incorrect? --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not commenting on the other bodies in any way and I'm not sure why you're bringing those other bodies into a discussion about a document signed by George VI. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I raise what those other bodies said as a rejoinder to your personal interpretations of the meaning of George VI's letters patent, not in reaction to George VI's letters patent themselves. --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not state nor did I imply anything. Please read my comments and stop trying to make me revoke a statement which I did not make nor imply. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Your statement: "So it appears that the monarch has ceded control of this role over to the GG." Nothing supports this claim but your own interpretation of the letters patent; in fact, the rulings of the Federal Court and CFGB prove it to be undoubtedly false. Nobody is trying to make you revoke anything; you're allowed to be wrong on a talk page. --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Except I'm not wrong. The monarch appears to have ceded control of this role over to the GG. I did not say that the monarch obviously has nor did I write that the monarch has for all time and under all circumstances in perpetuity ceded control, I simply stated what the document appears to have done. Rather than discuss the document you started attacking me and demanding whether I thought other institutions were wrong in their interpretation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't attack you at all. I rebutted your expressed opinion with proof that what you say the document appears to have done was, in fact, never done by the document. That's all. --ĦMIESIANIACAL00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. This wasn't opening the debate about the GG but about the document George VI signed. You attacked by asking questions not related to the issue which I raised. This is commonly done in question period. I'm sorry to say that it should not be done here. Do you have something to say about the document I showed or would you like to attack me by asking additional questions about bodies that hold opinions different than George VI? Perhaps you'd like to explain what the document actually means without brining third-parties into the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You raised what you thought the letters patent appeared to say regarding the governor general and the position of commander-in-chief. That opens a debate on the governor general and the position of commander-in-chief. It's thus quite pertinent to raise in response what more qualified individuals have said about the position of commander-in-chief, and they leave no doubt about what the letters patent appear or don't appear to say about the governor general and the position of commander-in-chief: the monarch is commander-in-chief, the governor general is not. If we all accept that, then this conversation’s come to the end of its useful life. --ĦMIESIANIACAL00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you interpreted this to open a debate on the governor general and the position as CiC. I wasn't intending that at all. Would you now please comment on the document cited? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The distinguishing "that country's" has been removed by User:Walter Görlitz from the sentence "the 27th since that country's confederation," leaving the majority of non-Canadian readers, and likely a good number of Canadians, wondering: confederation of what? --ĦMIESIANIACAL03:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The distinguishing "that country's" was edit-wared by User:Miesianiacal from "this country's". Neither phrase is required since the object of confederation is already in the phrase "Governor General of Canada". It's not vague since the complete sentence is "She is the current Governor General of Canada, the 27th since confederation.". Confederation cannot be confused with the subject (the GG herself) why does the phrase "this/that country's" need to be included? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"Edit warred"? I reverted it one (1) time (and it was from "the country's" back to "that country's", not "this country's", as you've mistakenly claimed). One revert does not an edit war make. Can you ever resist the urge to smear my integrity?
Regardless, by removing the words "that country's", "confederation" has been detached from the noun to which it's supposed to relate back to: "Canada", leaving it floating without clarification; Canada's is not the only confederation. This is a disservice to readers. Even "the country's" was better than what you've done.
It could say "the 27th since Canada's confederation" or "since Canadian confederation", but it seems like an over-use of the word "Canada" in the lead. --ĦMIESIANIACAL04:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
For the same reason that it would be over-use of the word "Canada" in the lede, using this/that country is unnecessary. The vague tag is not necessary for this reason and I am not at 3RR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my point. So don't repeat yourself in the lede. And before you accuse me of being IP 204.174.87.223, it's from Victoria and I'm on the mainland whom I quote: "Quit the petulant bickering! The tag is silly, at best, and looks far more like trouble-making. The country concerned is bloody obvious, given the context; and the link may be followed by the dense.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
You instructed me not to repeat myself in the lead by placing "that country's" before "confederation". As the third opinion offered was to add "Canadian" before "confederation", and "that country's" and "Canadian" serve the same grammatical purpose, it would therefore follow that you reject the third opinion. If you've mixed things up somehow and you are actually fine with "Canadian confederation", then this dispute is happily over. --ĦMIESIANIACAL06:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion (as a non-Canadian), the phrase in the lead "the 27th since confederation" strikes me as meaningless. My brain asks "confederation of what?" An article should be accessible to a general audience, including English-speaking countries on the other side of the globe such as Singapore. I notice the word "confederation" links to the article Canadian confederation, so I think it would be appropriate to use the actual article title in the lead, and I don't see it as an over-use of the word "Canada". ~Amatulić (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for volunteering to jump in here. Though it's still my immediate inclination that having the word "Canada" (or "Canadian") mentioned three times in two short sentences is probably once too many (I notice this happening all the time on articles I work on), I'm willing to live with "Canadian confederation" if it will end this dispute, as it at least addresses my main concern, which you hit right on: clarifying to an international and/or unfamiliar audience just what confederation is being talked about. --ĦMIESIANIACAL05:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
How about "She is the current Governor General of Canada, the 27th since the country's confederation."
That would avoid using the word "Canada" twice in the same sentence, while still making it clear what was confederated. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Either or. I think "that country's confederation" is the best wording, but, as I said, I'm willing to accept either of your two proposals. --ĦMIESIANIACAL06:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If this were a question like the one you posed the Japanese have several ways of addressing it. My preferred response would be mu. However it isn't such a question. You are showing ownership of this, and have shown ownership and several other Canadian articles. You refuse to allow other editors to make constructive, valid changes. Classic ownership. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my acceptance of a resolution that was less than what I'd otherwise want is an obvious example of my ownership. --ĦMIESIANIACAL07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Obstructionism by being a royal pain in the ass, including riddling editorial discussions with remarks that serve only to annoy and to side-track and drag out the discussion, as you've done here, is an especially pernicious form of exhibiting "ownership". 204.174.87.223 (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
That was gracious losing. You thought you were right and made an appeal hoping to be vindicated. When it turns out that you were wrong you actually argued with those called to help you. YOu finally gave in when you realized you could not persuade them that your previous wording wasn't ideal. That action is not ownership.
I reverted once. You know that full well, as the evidence sits right there for all to see, and I suspect you know (as I already told you) that one revert constitutes neither an edit war nor ownership. Also there is above the proof that I expressed my opinion (which wasn't wrong, just unpopular); expressing such is not arguing when it precedes my open acceptance of the compromise. I also have a feeling that, on some level, you're aware that you've no grounds on which to base your assumption that I sought dispute resolution as a means to find personal vindication; I wanted the dispute done with. Period. But, past experience tells me this is likely all to no avail. Just go on calling it whatever you want to call it, and believing whatever you want to believe, Walter. As I said elsewhere, you assume bad faith far too much and refuse to differentiate between assumption and proven fact. --ĦMIESIANIACAL14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The second and third links you provide do not show reverts; unless you can show otherwise by providing diffs of the stage(s) I supposedly reverted to. --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Before this nonsense about who is "rejecting the third opinion" goes any further, take note: Miesianiacal posted for a "third opinion" about half an hour after already having gotten one -- from me. He shortly got, in answer, another opinion -- really a 4th opinion -- from Amatulic. It differs from mine. Now Miesianiacal and W.G. seem to be accusing one another of "rejecting the third opinion". Seemingly neither is entirely right -- nor entirely wrong. The trouble is that they are not, it seems, referring to the same opinion as "the third opinion". W.G. seems to mean mine, and correctly notes that M. has not gone along with it. M., meanwhile, writes as though he is not even aware of my opinion and takes Amatulic's opinion as the third one, and says that W.G. is rejecting it.
With that little distraction cleared up (I hope) maybe we can resolve this. As said, I think that simply "confederation", with the link, is best and is all that is needed. My second choice is a linked "Canadian Confederation", though I don't really like that, much less think it is needed. I don't at all like "the/that/this country's confederation" -- clunky writing. 204.174.87.223 (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I normally don't respond to third opinion request if there are more than two editors involved. I didn't see anyone but M. and W.G. in this dispute. Had I seen a contribution for 204.174.87.223, I would have likely not responded. I am not certain whether 204.174.87.223 is an outside opinion either, or that of an involved editor.
So, you're stuck with mine. If it isn't satisfactory, I suggest alternative means of dispute resolution. It seems silly to escalate the dispute over a single word, however.
Bear in mind that third opinions are not binding. They are simply third opinions given by uninvolved editors with no stake in the outcome, for the purpose of breaking a tie, really. That said, it is unfortunate that we now have two differing opinions. As I stated before, from the point of view of a non-Canadian, referring to "the confederation" conveys a sense of insider information that I'm not privy to unless I click on the link to read the Canadian confederation article. At some point one has to decide what is sufficient information for a general audience to understand without forcing them to click on links to gain an understanding. In my opinion, it is insufficient to refer simply to "the confederation". ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
My IP is 96.55.184.168. The other IPs are someone who lives in Vitoria, BC and 204.174.87.223 is a Vancouver, BC IP. I am none of them. I can's speak for M.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Prorogation (December 2008) section needed?
Now that M Jean's term as GG is over there have again been media articles regarding her decision to grant Stephen Harper's request to prorogue Parliament. There is legitimate interest in the Dec 2008 prorogation and a section is warranted IMO. I propose to insert a section and would like to use the following articles to start. If editors find additional or alternate material please post a link. Comments requested, I note there was debate on this further up the talk page.
I'm against a section of its own; separating the event out would give the implication that it was the most important aspect of Jean's tenure, when there were other notable occurrences in that time. Even Byng's bio doesn't have a separate section for the King–Byng Affair. Plus, what amount of info is there to warrant a separate section? The detail is already well covered in at least one dedicated article.
Thanks MIESIANIACAL for pointing out the additional article. I hadn't looked at the links closely enough. I've split the paragraph in the article for now and will look at the wording next. If it's OK I will attempt to establish agreement/consensus on wording here first rather than making the changes in the article. DSatYVR (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no way to infer from the edit that the information is not needed. Why, though, do you feel it necessary to cite the fact that "compagnon principale de l'ordre du Canada" is not the correct translation of "Companion of the Order of Canada"? If you really insist on it, the evidence is here: in English, in French --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Several issues:
The edit before mine removed the word "principale" from the French. You adding it above simply confuses matters. I had no reference to determine if the new phrase or the original was correct which, if you had read the request, was the point of adding the CN tag.
Both links above fail verification. They doesn't point to any text to assist in verifying either the English nor the French. They point to collapsible categories. Since "Companion of the Order of Canada" is not in the English, it's not possible to determine, from your links, if your statement is correct or incorrect.
A quick search on "Companion of the Order of Canada" on the site linked to the following English and French text describing the coat of arms. It confirms that the recent edit to remove the word is correct and what you wrote above is incorrect.
This is why I found it necessary to cite the phrase: I assumed good faith on your edit. If the original editor had correctly added a reference to verify the translation, this discussion would not have been necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the edit removed the word "principale", and did so correctly, since "compagnon principale de l'ordre du Canada" is not the correct translation of "Companion of the Order of Canada". The links I provided back that up. A cite isn't really necessary, though; just a basic grasp of French and English. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I am able to open the drop downs, but that's the problem. You don't indicate which drop down to select to get a description of Jean's coat of arms. Mine does. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I am looking at your links which don't mention anything being discussed in either French or English. You must be unable to copy and paste URLs. May I suggest that you click on them and copy the text out, without clicking on any menus or links on the page, that was being discussed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Additional Information The Canadian Honours System has rules in regards to the Order of Precedence of its various honours and as to how and when an insignia should be worn. The following sections will give you more information on those rules, and also on postnominals. If you have any questions or comments on Honours, contact the Chancellery of Honours.
One link is to a page in English. The other link is to the French version of the same page. As the former contains the term "Companion of the Order of Canada", the French translation of the same term can be found in the French version of the page. I'm sorry you're having such difficulty using the internet. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The term "Companion of the Order of Canada" does indeed appear in the first of the links I provided. Its French translation appears in the second. --ĦMIESIANIACAL06:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. The phrase does not appear on your link without having to click which I'm not about to do without instructions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Check the link. It's not there. Please either copy and paste the text and the surrounding text the way I did or provide a screen shot because the text is not present on http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71 which is your link but it does appear on http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13891&lan=eng which is mine. Perhaps you have confused the two. But your link does not contain the text. Insisting that it does, does not make it appear in any of the browsers I've used over the past two days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whether or not you see it, the term most certainly is there. Here it is copied and pasted with surrounding text:
I have lost all patience with you. It's not present. You have simple inserted some text that does not appear anywhere on the page. If there are instructions to find this text, you have not provided it. What you repeatedly failed to mention is that the text is hidden behind the Order of Precedence ui-accordion-content widget. It's not a drop down. Those are at the top: "The Governor General"; "Roles and Responsibilities"; etc. I suspected that it was once again the fact that you're using a browser that 1) is a decade old and 2) even Microsoft web developers are trying to kill but didn't know how to ferret the information out of you. Thanks for once again not explaining it and forcing others to do the work for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is there. No you don't need to do my work for me. What you need to do is you need to learn how to explain things so other people can understand what you're seeing. Saying "it's there" without explaining how to discover the hidden text is not at all useful You're complete inability to communicate that is a failure and the fact that you can't understand that is a worse failure. The fact that you don't know the the difference between types of controls may be a technological gap, but the fact that you use the term with conviction and pointed me to the wrong tool simply compounds the problem. You should improve your communication skills or not communicate at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
All you had to do was employ the most minute effort to click on one of two bars to reveal text. Don't blame others for your shortcomings. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
And all you had to do was to learn to communicate in English. Don't blame others for your shortcomings. Your failure to communicate clearly is appalling and your should be ashamed. The rules for verification are simple and you failed them. I could have clicked on the widget but you directed me to the drop down. There were a great many other controls on the page on which I did click that did not result in verification and it is the responsibility of the person providing the source to link directly to the verification material.
Also, the main reason that this was an issue was that there was an error in the text. The entire discussion could have been avoided if you had done your due diligence when adding the material and provided a reference as is expected of all Wikipedians. In your words: "Don't blame others for your shortcomings". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You're the problem. You're an arrogant editor who has consistently shown that you're not willing to work with other editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Walter, you seem compelled to pursue something here, but I'm not exactly sure what it is. Do you want me to accept full responsibility for your failure to find a few words on a simple web page? If so, your efforts will prove themselves to be fruitless. I'm not entirely sure that my use of the term "drop down" was incorrect; but, I also can't say with 100% certainty that I should not have said "ui-accordion-content widget" instead. However, even if my misuse of terminology did cause you some confusion, it should only have been very brief. I highly doubt anyone is going to believe that you, who seems to feel he knows quite a bit about web browsers, were so baffled as to be completely unable to locate the words "Companion of the Order of Canada" on that page and thus be led to claim with absolute certainty that the words just weren't there at all. I rather think this is a case of you making an assertion repeatedly, only to find out it was wrong, and then blaming the error on someone else. --ĦMIESIANIACAL20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I want you to stop blaming me for your inability to communicate effectively. You can't explain ho to access the information. It's you fault not mine. That's all. The words are not there unless they are revealed by an action which you did not explain. Sorry you don't undestand technology. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well then you can think that you piss gold, but that's no more factually correct than your previous statement. You did not, regardless of what you think, point to the information. The text on the page, without manipulating any controls, did not meet the request for verification of the term. Furthermore, the fact that it stood without a reference is against Wikipedia policy. The fact that you removed the CN tag without providing a reference is also against Wikipedia policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should pursue this at another venue since you're inability to communicate is what started it. I suggest a course in communication. This was not your finest series of edits. I suggest you stop responding except to apologize since you are simply being antagonistic and I am not appreciating your behaviour. You were provided incomplete information and refuse to admit it. That's the bottom line. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I said "drop down" instead of "ui-accordion-content widget" (even though I'd never in my life heard the second term until you brought it up). Now, as you've evidently no problem with the content of this article, aren't reading what I write, have descended into the use of personal insults, and have nothing to take to another forum to resolve, I guess I can consider this matter closed. Best. --ĦMIESIANIACAL12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Recent anon edits from Toronto and Ottawa
They're not likely the same editor and so I would advise other editors not to dismiss their improvements without serious discussion. Just because they're anons and are not commenting correctly, they are attempting to improve the article. WP:AGF --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which edits you're referring to, specifically. If it's the recent ones pertaining to Jean's appointment as Chancellor of the University of Ottawa, I don't see where there's been any disrespect towards anyone's edit, though the most recent anon has been a bit disrespectful by reverting without even an edit summary. It's pretty clear policy that the lead is meant to summarise; detail such as dates of appointment should go in the article body. I merely shifted around what the first anon added; nothing was deleted, and then put the lead content back into chronological order, since that's obviously less confusing to readers. --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
A blatant falsehood and a personal attack. Surely you're capable of better contribution than that. A defence of the anon's edit, perhaps; an explanation of how it made the article better? --ĦMIESIANIACAL00:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
In short, we don't just keep the article in your preferred state, a problem we've tried to discuss before with the way you formatted references. We allow other editors to improve the article and we don't revert their changes which may discourage them from continued editing just because they change them. Did you address the edits with the anons? Not according to their talk pages: User talk:192.75.139.254 and User talk:74.12.116.140.
I asked if you could show how the anons' edits improved the article. If you can't, then you've no grounds to complain about mine. We're here to create and maintain good encyclopaedia articles; not let editors play freely. --ĦMIESIANIACAL00:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course they improved the articles. Can you show how they made it worse? No! All you can do is show that they changed the order that you set into place. You have no grounds to complain about theirs other than they changed the order. We're here to create and maintain a community of editors for an encyclopaedia, not let editors take control of articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course I can show how they made it worse; I hinted at it in the edit summaries (as is all one can really do in an edit summary) and gave broader explanation above. To reiterate and expand more: Detail like appointment dates doesn't belong in the lead because the lead is meant to summarise the article (the date of her appointment as governor general was never even included, why then have those of her UNESCO and chancellorship postings in the lead, giving undue prominence to those appointments?) Further, why also give those appointments further prominence by placing mention of them before mention of her appointment as governor general, as well as making the whole lead chronologically confusing by stating first that she was given a UNESCO appointment and made Chancellor of the University of Ottawa before even saying how she came to be in Canada! That non-chronological arrangement of the summary of Jean's personal history in the lead also made this article deviate from all the others on Canadian governors general. So, please don't tell me what I think.
1 Since it's her current appointment, I can see why the anons think it's important to list it first. It should be in the opening paragraph. I do see your point though, but obviously the anons don't. And she's not a GG any longer so let the subject's life be expressed in the article.
2 Your action was biting newcomers, and I didn't just claim in in the edit summary, I stated it outright: "We allow other editors to improve the article and we don't revert their changes which may discourage them from continued editing just because they change them." You didn't do that, you just reverted with comments of "merge, update, & summarise" and "keep lead chronologically ordered; keep detail out of lead and in article body, per MoS". Which MOS is that? You still didn't answer that question. You're not explaining anything to the newcomers.
Walter, it isn't my, nor anyone's, responsibility to coach every anonymous IP that drops in; they're typically seen once and never again. I partly reverted (restoring the chronological order) and partly edited the first anon's edit and reverted the second, both times with a summary explanation as to what I was doing: merging (info and reference into the body of the article), updating (mention of Jean's UNESCO appointment from future tense to past tense), and summarising (removing detail from the lead, per the Manual of Style (MoS), WP:MOSINTRO in particular, which states "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article... This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article."). If the two (assuming it isn't the same person) want to know why their edits were reverted/edited, they're free to chime in here; I'd rather they spoke for themselves than you or I ascribing their motives to them. But, making a revert isn't biting anyone; I was in no way hostile or confontational with either of them, which is what WP:BITE cautions us to avoid. Neither does reverting or editing necessarily equate with page ownership; note that WP:OWN describes an editor who believes he or she owns an article as someone who typically "continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages revert wars". The same guideline also states "Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia". I believe you've made such a mistake. --ĦMIESIANIACAL06:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That's where you're wrong. It is every seasoned editor's responsibility to coach anonymous IPs who edit productively in hopes of turning them into even more productive editors.
There was no partial edit, it was a complete revert. Complete and total. My diff above shows that. Your summaries were at best misleading.
Thank you for clarifying which MOS.
The editors may not know to discuss on the talk page. That's where coaching would come in handy.
Reverting the way you did, is biting, particularly with obfuscating comments.
You may quote whatever parts of WP:OWN you want, but you violated actions 1 and 2 on the guideline:
"disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily" The article was edited twice in two days, so unfortunately, that would be daily.
"Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."
If it were only these two anons, I would likely let it go. I have seen this behaviour repeated numerous times. A quick review of the edit history displays this. It seems clear to me, but I'm just one editor. Shall we ask for an impartial opinion to resolve this dispute? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
We're clearly not going to agree on these matters. I think it's evident your opinions are misguided; but, they are noted. --ĦMIESIANIACAL15:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Please provide the facts so we can debate this. Basically what other minority governement shut down the parliament after an election to avoid the majority. Followed precedent suggests this is normal, it is not. Reading "Choosing to follow constitutional precedent" should mean what it says, and if not, we keep it out of the article. Unless you provide the facts to support why your thoughts believe this, it stays out of the article. --184.69.101.180 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Usually, if an editor disagrees with a statement the editor tags it with a {{Citation needed}} template unless it's an issue related to a WP:BLP violation. Removing the text here is not constructive as it hides the dispute away. I plan to restore the material and treat it appropriately. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
WHAT!!! You're saying the precedent is similiar in that it followed the PM's advice to shut the parliament. Every case is on the adice of the PM is it not??? Inotherwords, that is not a precedent. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THE DETAIL THAT MADE IT SIMILIAR TO ANOTHER OCCURANCE you claim as precedent. Inotherwords you must be aware then its a false fact if that's the best you got. Provide the other precedent please!! --184.69.101.180 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand the definition of precedent. If "every case is on the adice [sic] of the PM" then following the prime minister's advice is following precedent, as I said. In that way, the article says nothing wrong. For greater clarity, though, the sentence could be reworded as "After two hours of deliberation, Jean chose to follow constitutional precedent and accept her prime minister's advice, which was to prorogue parliament until late January 2009." --ĦMIESIANIACAL19:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
New wording does make it more clear. Anon from Vancouver Island, does it sit well with you? if not, how would you like to phrase it, with the understanding that the idea must remain. Walter Görlitz (talk)
For the record, you are saying the precedent is based on the PM asking for it makes the precedent. The issue is that the reader reads that there is precedent means a similar situation was followed. So again what was the similar situation? AND, wiki is not a place for original research, so you need to reference it, and you have not, so what's up with no reference?? HOW WOULD I WORD IT? This was the defining moment of her life and millions of Canadians thought what she did was wrong and a betrayal of our democracy! There are thousands and thousands of (point of view) references on the net that express that thought! --184.69.101.180 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The article should include that "The opposition parties counted on the probability that Governor General Michaëlle Jean would invite a Liberal-NDP coalition able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons to form a government, instead of any other options available to her." quote from 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute--184.69.101.180 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The set precedent is that the governor general follows the prime minister's advice. Are you really requiring a source for that? "The Governor General acts on the recommendations and at the request of the Prime Minister and Cabinet"[22]; "The Governor General... almost invariably must act on their ministers’ advice"[23]; "In exercising these powers, the Crown and its representatives—-the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors--are advised by their respective governments... the Crown normally accepts and provides the final legitimizing step to government legislation."[24] --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A french refugee?? The article mentions she renounced her French citizenship, but gives not details how this refuge has dual citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.101.180 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The refugee statement in the lede is clear that it is from Haiti and not France as it has a reference of "Jean, Michaëlle". The UN Refugee Agency. Retrieved June 11, 2010.. So what you're asking is how she obtained and later renounced French citizenship. Is that correct? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The cbc article clearly states she meet with the PM for 2 and 1/2 half hours before she shut down our democractic process, yet the article states 2 hours. This has been removed now twice. Please explain the reasoning?! --184.69.101.180 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it's all the other irrelevant material that you place into the article that gets your one good edit removed. I removed the duplicate reference but left the rest of your edit.
When adding references, you should add them:
without spaces
after punctuation if any is present
with a |name= parameter and then use <ref name="" /> for subsequent instances.
A coalition of three opposition parties in parliament threatened to rescind their confidence in the Cabinet under the leadership of the PM
?? When did the majority give their confidence in the minority government's Cabinet? This fact is challenged and should be removed from the article as it is not referenced. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In a minority government, whenever certain motions are passed the government is considered to have the confidence of the house. The technicality could be explained better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Formatting
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
List formatting
My use of {{Plainlist}}, in accordance with WP:UBLIST, has twice been reverted by Walter Görlitz. The first time he claimed that "Plainlists are not appropriate here. They're for long lists of more than ten items." and then that "This was part of the discussion on where to implement plain and flatlists and where not". He says he cannot to be able to find the discussion on which he relies. The claims are bogus, and not supported by WP:UBLIST. The removal of {{plainlist}} harms both accessibility and machine readability (DBPedia, for one, uses list formatting to determine that values represent multiple entities, rather than simply one entity punctuated by commas or line breaks). The {{Plainlist}} template should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As WP:MOSLIST says, "Use structured... list format instead of other, made-up formats, as they not fit reader and editor expectations, they hamper reusability of Wikipedia content, they make automated processing more difficult, and they often introduce usability and accessibility problems". That page goes on to talk about using line breaks to separate list items, saying "This method is deprecated as it does not meet web standards and can cause accessibility problems. Instead, use one of the following:" - "the following" include {{Plainlist}}. The machine readability is also discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I asked only because what I see when its used is the same as when its not. For the same reason, I'm neither for nor against its use. I can't see why it would make a difference whether the list was two entries long or two dozen. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You will see exactly the same in a regular, visual web browser - that's deliberate. The presentation to, for instance, blind people using screen readers is much improved when the template is used. You're right that the number of items in a list is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The use of those lists is not without controversy and I'm sorry, I cannot find the discussion that stated, several times, that the use of the list is only for long lists and not for items of two or three items. There are several editors, myself included, who believe that they should not be used in any infobox. I'll see if I can uncover that discussion, but thanks for discussing rather than reverting again.
However, the question asked by M was, what the advantage, and no answer was given, only pointing to the templates (debated) documentation. There are several supposed advantages. The first is for accessibility. This has not been supported with empirical evidence that readers make better use of these short lists in list format than the previous (or current) formatting. Another supposed benefit is that the breaks in items is more clear. However in the case of these lists, where each item is a link, that's not possible. Each item is a clearly defined item. The final argument was that it's easier to read, and tends to be the argument for flatlists rather than plainlists. That's simply subjective and whether on new lines or in a plainlist, the presentation is the same (as was stated). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
A while ago, I asked this question of Graham87 and received his advice that although screen reader users cope with very short lists of a couple of items, they benefit from having the correct semantic structure of a list that gives them options to navigate the list as they choose. Frankly I'm not impressed with editors who "believe that they should not be used in any infobox" and are attempting to impose their personal preferences to the detriment of the visually impaired. The guidance at WP:Manual of Style/Lists #Unbulleted lists is unequivocal: "For lists of up to thirty (may increase later) items, without bullets (for example in infobox fields, or to replace lists separated with <br />), {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} should be used. This emits the correct HTML markup... "(my emphasis). If you're unsure of how visually impaired users prefer their lists, just ask Graham87; I've always found him an excellent source of advice. In the meantime I've restored the accessible version, including the removal of <small>...</small> tags from within an infobox per WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Text: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)." --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any "controversy"; though of course I'm sure you'll be able to provide links to evidence it. If you can remember where it was, that is. I'm also confident that my response answered M's question adequately. I do remember clarifying the difference between comma-delimted list items and commas as punctuation for you the last time we discussed this; the linking of parts does not negate that; consider |Headquarters=London, England". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're not impressed with editors who want the same level of empirical proof for the claims made for readers, so if you don't mind, I'm not impressed with your unreferenced claims.
The controversy exists only in your mind and if the word of Graham87 who uses screen readers isn't enough for you, I'd like to know what is. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Reference: "Sighted users perceive structure and relationships through various visual cues ... list items are preceded by a bullet and perhaps indented ... Having these structures and these relationships programmatically determined or available in text ensures that information important for comprehension will be perceivable to all." - http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html
Reference: "When markup is used that visually formats items as a list but does not indicate the list relationship, users may have difficulty in navigating the information. An example of such visual formatting is including asterisks in the content at the beginning of each list item and using <br> elements to separate the list items ... Some assistive technologies allow users to navigate from list to list or item to item ... Check that content that has the visual appearance of a list (with or without bullets) is marked as an unordered list." - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/H48.html
In order of being raised: If you think that the controversy exists only in my mind, then take your request to implement lists (either flat or plain) to template:Infobox album or template:Infobox musical artist where the arguments were put forward by you and other editors and were shot down because, (second point) there was no empirical proof. A single user commenting on what may be a single screen unnamed reader is not proof of any sort. A consortium advocating for the blind is. They have not petitioned Wikipedia to make this change, a few editors may have. We don't make changes to make Wikipedia look better in one browser over another, but when editors have tried to improve rendering in a browser, they were shot down because it made the rendering worse in other browsers. That was one of my early interactions with M and he can attest to that. So if these lists are better for all or even most (assuming market penetration, etc.) screen readers, let's see the proof of that. Having used screen readers in my accessibility testing (point three and four) of several websites, I can tell you for a fact that they do not all approach pages the same way. The situation here, with the linked material, would be enough to create a distinct list. So WCAG 2 does not address how lists should appear, so, no that's not good enough for anyone actually. I do recognize that lists shouldn't be separated by breaks and hate editing film articles because that is their preferred way of doing that. I know it's wrong but don't have enough invested in those classes of articles to try to change that. I'm glad that was removed from this article though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok - as soon as we have consensus here for the use of plainlist, I'll take it to a central discussion and sort out the problems at template:Infobox album where I see that no consensus was ever reached at Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 8#flat list. Your arguments were just as obstructive to making improvements there as they are here, so they will be easy enough to deal with. There's simply no need for us to have accessibility improvements blocked by walls of text from you. The single user you disdain as "no proof at all" is a respected administrator here who has been blind since birth and is very experienced in using several versions of JAWS as well as NVDA. If he tells me that lists in infobox fields are better marked up semantically as lists for him, then that's proof enough for me. If you can't accept that, I'd like to know what empirical proof you have that following our accessibility guidance and WCAG guidance doesn't improve accessibility. Don't bother throwing in the different browser red-herring; this is an issue of how screen readers cope with poor markup. WCAG does address how lists are marked up ("relationships programmatically determined") and which part of Check that content that has the visual appearance of a list (with or without bullets) is marked as an unordered list didn't you understand? We're all aware that different screen readers have different features, but they all understand that a list is a list, despite the fud that you're trying to throw about. I'm pleased you think that the <br /> tags were removed from the article. I'm not surprised that you're wrong again - check what your edit-warring against MOS:ACCESS has lead to as the current version. Well done. --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So now I'm obstructive in other discussions. What a brilliant ad hominem attack. You have not provided any empirical proof that the lists are actually better nor has anyone ad ACCESS, where I brought this up in the past as well. So you won't get consensus here either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're obstructive because it doesn't matter how much evidence is brought before you, you can't admit you're wrong. Which part of Check that content that has the visual appearance of a list (with or without bullets) is marked as an unordered list didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No. I simply want empirical evidence and you have none to offer and you can't admit that you not only don't have it but you're basing this supposed policy on that and that makes your not only wrong but ignorant and deceived. I understand that Check that content that has the visual appearance of a list (with or without bullets) is marked as an unordered list has no basis in fact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You have been given empirical evidence that ISO's international standard for web site accessibility recommends the use of proper list mark up for lists of items, with no quantitative restriction on the number of those items. Where is the empirical evidence for your claim that this only applies, generally or on Wikipedia, to lists of (your arbitrary number of) ten or more? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to mislead you, because I never said what you are passing off as a misrepresentation. It uses plainlist internally for members, both present and future, but does not use it in a manual way for genre, labels or associated acts. That was debated and rejected. So I'm sorry that I was sufficiently clear and that forced you to use the fallacy of equivocation top call me a liar.
When I say empirical I mean a complete study of the "contemporary screen readers" at list of screen readers that list the way that they present lists in infoboxes separated by commas, the way they present linked lists separated by commas, the same two separated by breaks, the same two in a plainlist, and the same two in a flatlist. Anecdotal evidence of one user's experience don't really count when we don't know which of the readers the individual was using. Here's that list for those who care.
95Reader
BRLTTY
BrowseAloud
Capture Assistant
ChromeVox
Claro ScreenRuler Suite
ClickHear
ClickHear Mobile
ClipSpeak
COBRA
Edbrowse
Emacspeak
Fire Vox
HAL
HT Reader
iZoom
JAWS
Kurzweil 3000-firefly and Kurzweil 1000
Leitor de Telas
Lingspeak
LookOUT
MAGic
Microsoft Narrator
Microsurf
Mobile Speak
Model T Reader
NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA)
Orca
PC-Talker
PCVoz
Project metalmouth
Proloquo
Read & Write
Read:Outloud
ReadHear
ReadSpeaker
Recite Me
Screen Access for All
Simply Talker
SodelsCot
SpeakEasy Media System
Spoken Web
Supernova
SUSE-Blinux
System Access
TalkBack
Talks
TeleTender
Text to Speech
Thunder ScreenReader
Virtual Vision
VoiceOver
WebAnywhere
Window-Eyes
WinZoom
ZoomText
When I did my acceibility testing I used Thunder and JAWS and found that lists with links made no difference.
I would also ask editors to please stop using equivocation to change the clear meaning presented by another editor and change it to something it was not intended to. I would also ask editors to stop misleading other editors with partial truths. I'm sure we'll all get along better if that happens. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I also do accessibility testing, but just with NVDA, VoiceOver, and JAWS (admittedly a very old version) because of cost. I also test with Lynx for different reasons. As it happens the latest WebAIM survey from February estimates that those three readers cover about 80% of the market. I found that each of those will allow me to find and navigate lists, giving an extra dimension of functionality if desired. I admit that a sighted person such as I cannot truly judge for myself the degree of improvement, but fortunately I have the experience of Graham87, who is always willing to share, and for that I'm grateful. Graham will correct me if I'm wrong, but when I met him at Wikimania in 2012, he was using JAWS as his principal reader, with NVDA as a backup.
I understand your argument, Walter; I even accept that for a couple of entries the difference between {{Plainlist}} and comma separated values is no big deal. But Plainlist has just about no downside: it's clearly superior to commas after just a few entries; it avoids ambiguity for non-linked items in apposition (|producer=John Smith, The Stompers); and it prevents horrors such as <br /> being used. --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No down sides is overselling it, but the decision for this article has been made by the cabal and so I won't try to help you understand the downsides any further. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually I did think that was ungracious, as the use of cabal is often derogatory. I suppose in one sense, the editors who are concerned about accessibility do display "manifestations of emergent behavior" because we're striving for the same goal - that of improving the accessibility of Wikipedia articles. But Walter needs to know that there's nothing "shadowy" about that ambition. Here's my disclosure: I have met both Andy and Redrose64 on occasion at Wikimedia UK events, and I met Graham at Wikimania 2012 in Washington. I have never met any of the other contributors to the RfC below and I have had no contact with any of them beyond sometimes editing the same pages. Has Walter considered the likelihood that numerous Wikipedia editors will hold the same opinion because it's right, rather than having secretly colluded to reach that conclusion? --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Text formatting
I restored the formatting of the honorifics as they've been rendered that way for a very long time and the same is done at all Canadian governor general infoboxes. "Avoid" does not equal "do not use". But, if there's another, better way to achieve the same result, it could--well, should--be used. --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is to avoid using small text. Of course it means "do not use". Please revert yourself. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That's quite a contortion of the English language. And I see no such consensus. Indeed, I'd question how there's a consensus saying one thing about a matter while a guideline says about the same matter something quite different.
As I said, if there's another way to achieve the same result, let's use it. But, it isn't logical or considerate to lose the article subject's name among a surrounding plethora of letters and words. --ĦMIESIANIACAL17:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I note the part of the MoS you quoted mentions avoiding the use of smaller font sizes "in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes". Yet, the infobox template's default for the subject's honorifics, name, and post-nominal letters is a font that's at least the same size as, if not bigger than, the typical font used for article text.
I've changed the font to 85%, so it adheres to that stipulation in the MoS, which pretty clearly seems non-negotiable. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That something is "done at all Canadian governor general infoboxes" is not a reason to continue doing it; there is no intrinsic reason why those subjects should be styled differently to others which use the same template and parameters; and the inline styling should be removed from all Canadian governor general infoboxes. (We could more convincingly argue "the same [unstyled] is done at all Canadian people infoboxes" or "the same is done at all governor general infoboxes".) If you have concerns about the template's readability, raise the matter on its talk page and get consensus to change it centrally. Making text paler (not to mention smaller and paler) also harms accessibility. And "avoid" certainly means "do not use"; one of the definitions of "avoid" in Wiktionary is "to abstain from". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"Done at all Canadian governor general infoboxes" states two things: 1) maintaining consistency across a series of articles is a reason to undo the edit here and 2) this matter touches on more than one article.
I'm not sure how many times it needs to be repeated: If there's another way to achieve the same result, let's use it. If that means changing the template itself, so be it.
And "avoid" is more of a warning, advice, than an instruction like "do not use". Regardless, the more pertinent WP:IBX tells us "[a] good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason" [emphasis mine]. There's no confusion there as to whether or not an override can be used and I think I've already presented the good reason. --ĦMIESIANIACAL20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Other Stuff Exists is not a good reason. The text in infoboxes is already set at 88% by the css class .infobox. By further reducing it by another factor of 85%, you end up with text at 85% of 88% = 75% which breaks our accessibility guideline (which has consensus for good reason) and makes it unreadable for me and for many visitors whose eyesight is less than perfect. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it appears the honorifics and post-noms are set to be 87% of 125%, which is very nearly back to 100%. Thus, 85% of that meets the requirement. --ĦMIESIANIACAL21:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, they are not. If you have the ability to [Inspect element] in your browser you can see that the honorific and post-nominals in the infobox are 10.35px in Monobook and 11.38px in Vector. Page text is 12.7px in Monobook and 14px in Vector. That's 10.35/12.7 = 81% or 11.38/14 = 81%. The relevant rules are also obvious from a look at the page html source:
Which is subject to the .infobox class size reduction of 88%. That's 88% of 125% of 87% of 85% = 81% - the same as found by inspection. So please post your values and let's get the facts straight once and for all. Are you seriously trying to tell me you see "The Right Honorable" in the infobox at the same font size as "The Right Honourable" in the last line of the lead? --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
To your question, the answer is: yes. Using two browser windows to place them side by side, they appear the same size, or, if there is any difference, it's so small as to be imperceptible. The post-nominal letters are most certainly the same size as capital letters in the article. But, the size of the honorifics/post-noms infobox text in comparison to the article text is not the issue. As I've said already, it's the honorifics/post-noms infobox text in comparison to the person's name in the infobox; they're barely any different in size and are the same colour. The name, which should obviously be the most prominent element, is thus camouflaged in a collection consisting of other words above and a jumble of letters below. You can go on about percentages of percentages all you want, but none of it changes the fact of what I just said. --ĦMIESIANIACAL00:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
How the page appears to an IP I take it you're unable to [Inspect element] and simply say what font size is being displayed in each case? In which case, you need to sort out your browser settings before trying to impose your view of how the article should look. This is how the page appears to a non-logged in visitor (the vast majority) You'll need to visit the file page to see clearly that "The Right Honorable" is 8px high in the infobox and 10px high in the last sentence of the lead. A reduction to 80% is far from "imperceptible". If your browser is displaying differently when you're logged out, then post your screenshot and we'll ask for a third opinion. --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Goodness me, you're right (finally, after vacillating between claims the font is 75% or 81%). How silly I didn't know the honorifics and post-nominals are automatically 87% of 125% of 88% (especially when the "infobox class size reduction" is evident, well, seemingly nowhere). But, I'm sure that half pixel needed to get the letters up to 85% will save so many from the torture of squinting to figure out what those tiny blots there now are.
If the 85% span tags I added are taken away, the honorifics and post-noms in the infobox end up 10px high, exactly the same as the article text, which is precisely what I concluded yesterday just by judging with my naked eye and said so above. The subject's name in the infobox is a mere one pixel taller, which (along with them being the same colour) simply isn't enough to differentiate it from the words above and letters below. So, an alternate solution is to take away the span tags from the honorifics and post-noms and increase the size of the subject's name. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And again: "if you have concerns about the template's readability, raise the matter on its talk page and get consensus to change it centrally". Why will you not do this? Do you wish to argue that the names and honorific titles of Canadian governors-general are somehow visually different to those of other office holders? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is where this discussion is taking place. A solution to the problem of legibility in the infobox was found and implemented and, along the same lines as a comment made by WG about lists, not one single person has ever complained about illegibility in all the years the infoboxes in the Canadian governor general articles have been the way they are. I don't understand your second question, but, if people who edit other articles don't care about the legibility of the infoboxes in those articles, so be it. That doesn't mean it can't be dealt with elsewhere. As Rexxs said, other stuff exists. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Look, let's get this straight. I - and thousands of other older readers - set our browsers so that we can comfortably read text at the normal size on a page. Like many thousands of older readers, my ability to change focus has been diminished by the years. I can just about cope with infobox text at 88% but normal text that is marked <small>...</small> (i.e. 85%) is at the very limit of what I can manage - and judging by the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility, I'm not the only one:
You choose to dismiss my concerns as "ridiculous" and try to pretend the math means nothing, but the problem remains: the text size that you're edit-warring into the infobox is too small for many to read and our Manual of Style clearly tells you "In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize". You've posted nothing that indicates your preferred way of presenting the text abides by WP:ACCESS: not a measured text size; not a screenshot - while I've presented all of the evidence that shows you're willfully breaching WP:ACCESS. We have accessibility guidelines for a reason and your refusal to abide by those guidelines is tantamount to disruptive editing. On the right you can see how the font sizes are rendered by the default styling of {{Infobox Governor General}} and there is perfectly good distinction between the honorific, the name, and the post-noms. If that's not good enough for you, the place to take it up is Template talk:Infobox Governor General, but you'll find that nobody is going to support you making text smaller than 85% of page text. I'm going to suggest that you remove all of the excess inline styling from this infobox and others that you've made unreadable before I am obliged to take this matter to dispute resolution. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Being clueless doesn't help either. You have no idea of the effect of the edits you made, nor do you care what effect those have on other readers. You edit-warred in defiance of WP:ACCESS and your only recourse now is to swear at me. You really have no place in a collaborative editing environment. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Your attempts to deflect with ad hominems, revisionism, and more presumptions is really just wasting everyone's time. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, more nonsense. But, thanks for partaking in that discussion I started and making some effort to resolve the infobox's problems. Still, don't get on my case for not doing the edits myself, since, well, it was impossible; the template is only editable by certain people. I could only raise the issue and partake in discussion (when not out of town for Easter and away from easy Internet access, of course). --ĦMIESIANIACAL19:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
What an ungrateful pos you are. MOS:ACCESS#Text says In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize and WP:IBX says A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason. And you edit-war [25][26][27][28] to make the text 81% of page font size using inline style formatting! After a second prompting from another editor, you finally managed to find Template talk:Infobox officeholder and ask the question. At which point I offered some solutions and eventually fixed the problem in the template itself. The honorifics are now 88% of page font size without any need of inline styles in articles. I even spent an hour or more going through all the transclusions of {{Infobox governor general}}/{{Infobox Governor General}} to clean out the crap you'd been edit-warring to keep. Thank you for finally having the sense to doing the same for the four transclusions of {{Infobox officeholder}} that you'd screwed up. Nevertheless your first action on returning to editing was not to fix those problems you'd caused, but to tell me not to "be so bloody presumptuous and sanctimonious". Don't bother to thank me for sorting out the mess you caused, you clearly have no concept of what collaborative editing means. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Arrogance, revisionism, exaggeration. (Well, okay, maybe you have an exceedingly slow Internet connection and it did take you more than an hour to do what takes me 10 minutes; but, the rest--the melodramatic cries for the suffering readers, the steadfastness of "rules" you demand everyone follow, the soundness of your shifting mathematical conclusions, the sacrifice you made--all exaggerated.) You have an odd concept of collaborative editing if you think that aids it. --ĦMIESIANIACAL20:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In fact, MOS:ACCESS is a guideline, defined as " best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines...". You have provided no rationale for making an exception to that in this case. WCAG 2.0 on the other hand, is an ISO international standard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"maintaining consistency across a series of articles" is pretty silly when, as indicated above, those articles are also parts of other series. We need greater consistency; which the template provides in its defaults settings. Anything else is not only not a good reason, but is just imposing personal aesthetic preference for the worst of reasons. Again: if you have concerns about the template's readability, raise the matter on its talk page and get consensus to change it centrally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits22:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Note My comment preceding this one is unfortunately orphaned (it was actually in reply to a comment by Miesianiacal, timestamped "20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)"), by Walter Görlitz's repeated and disruptive insistence on outdenting his comment mid-conversation, which also, ironically, breaks the list markup used here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment I did no such think The history shows that I outdented and then Pigsonthewing responded, only after removing the formatting. Outdenting is comment practice when the indentation becomes too large and anyone who works cooperatively will recognize that this is not only an acceptable practice, but much appreciated based on the psychology of reading. The line clearly shows to where the conversation is linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My comment, made on 15 April, beginning "'maintaining consistency across a series of articles' is pretty silly...", indented by three ":", is now nested below your later, 30 April, comment beginning "Do not edit indents [sic]", indented with two ":", despite not being a reply to it. It is no longer indented hierarchically below the comment to which it is a reply. The same issue applies to the underlying HTML list structure. At the same time, your outdented and fallacious "ACCESS is an opinion" comment interrupts (and closes) an HTML list, meaning that my comment is in a second, separate HTML list to the comment to which it is a reply. All this would be a side issue, were it not for the fact that this entire section exists because of your lack of understanding or acceptance of good-practice, semantic HTML list structures and the accessibility impact of breaking them, and the disruption that you cause because of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"Other Stuff Exists is not a good reason" actually an essay only for deleting articles and is once again incorrectly applied to a discussion about whether there should or should not be consistency. The argument that should be made is whether there's a MoS that applies or not, and if none does, then don't apply one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What is true in deletion discussions is just as applicable here. If a whole raft of articles have text that's too small for many visitors to read, then they all need to be fixed. It's no consolation to me when I can't read text in an article that there are lots of other articles where I can't read the text either. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
Yes. WP:Manual of Style/Lists #Unbulleted lists states: "For lists of up to thirty ... items, without bullets (for example in infobox fields, or to replace lists separated with <br />), {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} should be used. This emits the correct HTML markup... ". In this article, there are two infobox fields ('Prime minister' and 'Alma mater') containing lists of two and four items. I know that screen reader users don't worry about not marking up lists with only a couple of items, but definitely benefit from having the correct list markup in any size of list. We have accessibility guidance at WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Unbulleted vertical lists for good reason and this is a clear example of where those guidelines are being breached and the improvements in accessibility are being edit-warred out of the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
First of all Walter Görlitz, please do not use phrases like "pile of misguided BS from the proposing and promoting editors", its on the border line of WP:CIVIL - if you disagree fair enough leave it at that, don't demote others opinions simply because you do not disagree. Also, take a look at data granularity - there are distinct advantages to using {{plainlist}} over commas. Considering that in many infoboxes editors use the <br> or </br> tag, using {{plainlist}} is much more advantageous. Also, the addition of additional code is a minor inconvenience that occurs once when editing an article but provides continuous data granularity improvements for an infinite amount of times after the original edit. That is what we call compromise to make an article better for the majority of readers. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1- { Talk } -20:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It was intentionally borderline. I'm sorry if you were offended. If you read above, none of the supposed advantages have ever been empirically proven, only individual anecdotal support has been offered. I have no problems with a cabal imposing this sort of thing in the name of consensus though. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could stick to the issue being discussed i.e. the application of {{plainlist}} in this instance. If you believe that the whole think is superfluous you need to bring that up at WP:MOS because to be frank, Accessibility and more specifically {{plainlist}} has already been accepted as part of the MOS and individual projects or templates do not have a mandate to differentiate from the MoS. Also, as for empirical evidence, the Manual of Style is not a science that can be measured as such, we rely on anecdotal evidence and research about data granularity, it isn't something which can be measured or rated on a scale as such. Its an improvement that helps limited sight readers and thus we're using knowledge, research and their feedback to make changes which benefit them. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1- { Talk } -20:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.
Secretary-General of La Francophonie
@Miesianiacal: I'd ask you to reconsider your recent edits. There's no reason to remove a subsection heading simply because "one paragraph is not enough." There's no rule against using a subsection for one paragraph. Secretary-General of La Francophonie is a significant position and it makes the section easier to find for a reader. I don't see any harm in including it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
What's to reconsider? Either there's a separate one-paragraph section, or there isn't. MOS:PARAGRAPHS outlines "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading"; it breaks up the article too much. Information on Jean's role as secretary-general can be expanded, or maybe you can come up with a different header for the section there now. But, two one-paragraph sections is not an improvement. --₪MIESIANIACAL14:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Remembrance Day reference unclear
I don't understand the reference to Remembrance Day, when, according to the article as it is written, "veterans turned their backs on the Governor General and her consort to show contempt for two people the veterans felt had worked to break up the country they had fought to defend." This is very vague to me. How had they work to "break up the country"? There is a footnote, but it leads to a dead link. Even if the link were live, the sentence should be clarified and expanded since it introduces a rather serious issue.
I have just modified 14 external links on Michaëlle Jean. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn 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.
I have just modified 12 external links on Michaëlle Jean. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.