Jump to content

Talk:Peter Cosgrove

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

NEVER let the truth get in the way of a good story!

[edit]

(Archived, but also left here for entertainment purposes ... )
Quote:

His famous exchange with ABC anchor caused a scandal back in 1994.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.

Nice story. Total fabrication,
First, in 1994, Cosgrove wasn't even a Brigadier (yet), much less a General.
This story has a LONG and varied history, and has been around in one form or another at least since the start of the web.

And if the mood takes you:

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNZM

[edit]

He was awarded the Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit but we don't show the CNZM postnominal. Is there a good reason why not? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. CNZM is, for Australians, a "foreign" award. Postnoms for foreign awards (unless specifically mentioned in Oz regs) are not recognized. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure. In all official mentions of Cosgrove, there is no use of his CNZM post-nominal. Department of Defence Directorate of Honours and Awards policy for Foreign Awards is located here. The only thing that I can interpret from that page that may make sense re CNZM is "Once applications are received at DH&A, they are assessed to determine if the medal/s have an equivalent within the Australian honours and awards system, in accordance with Government policy...." Given that AC is equivalent, it would "outrank" CNZM, and either Cosgrove may have not sought approval for it to be used as a postnom; or endorsement/approval may not have been given. I've upgraded importance from Low to High; in view of impending appointment as Governor-General of Australia. Rangasyd (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe New Zealand citizenship is required for use.Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 05:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no entitlement to postnominals from foreign awards. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is John Howard an OM AC SSI and not a plain AC? And why is Bob Hawke an AC GCL rather than a plain AC? The UK, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea are all foreign nations. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OM is recognised in the Order of wearing Australian Honours and Awards; but no mention of SSI. Yes, the UK, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea are all foreign nations; and all members of the Commonwealth of Nations, as is New Zealand; which does nothing to help understand the disparity. Rangasyd (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely. If you look at the Oz regs that you have quoted, you'll see that certain UK honours are actually SPECIFICALLY included. (e.g. VC, OM, and others.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most external official references to Howard and Hawke omit the SSI and GCL, so maybe we're in error by showing them. Whitlam is also AC GCL QC. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now refreshed my memory about Talk:John Howard/Archive 18#Postnominals (2009), which included a link to Talk:List of post-nominal letters#Post-nominals from more than one country (2008), which seems to answer the Cosgrove issue (CNZM to be used only in NZ contexts), but the bigger picture issue seems to have remained unresolved all this time. Maybe it's time to revive it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jack, not sure what you mean. My personal POV is that Order of wearing Australian Honours and Awards is definitive, so I don't understand what, if anything, is unresolved. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try again: but the bigger picture issue seems to have remained unresolved all this time. - To be clearer, can you humour me please and state what you are referring to when you say "the bigger picture issue"? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's get this clear. Are you saying that Cosgrove may never use the CNZM postnominal? And that Howard may never use SSI? And that Hawke and Whitlam may never use GCL? (Unless they adopt the relevant citizenship, of course.) And that Wikipedia has been in error for years for showing Howard, Hawke and Whitlam with these letters?
Am I saying ... "never" ... - No. (Your above link addresses the answer.)
Wikipedia has been in error for years - Well, it seems to look like it, doesn't it. Doesn't it? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he's shown in Category:Companions of the New Zealand Order of Merit but I very much suspect he should be moved to Category:Honorary Companions of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Without NZ citizenship, there's no way he'd qualify for a substantive award (like Mike Rann, for example). Wrong. See below. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the protocols applying to other countries must be different, because there are numerous non-Australians who've been granted honorary awards in the Order of Australia and who are generally (not in every case) shown with the AC or whatever after their name (examples: Jacques Cousteau, Jill Ker Conway, Nelson Mandela, Kiri Te Kanawa, and various of the others listed at Category:Honorary Companions of the Order of Australia). Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "learning opportunities" continue. I now see that, for substantive awards, the Order of New Zealand extends to citizens of any Commonwealth realm (unlike the Order of Australia which is limited to Oz citizens only). Hence, Cosgrove is a substantive Companion, albeit an "Additional Companion" (meaning his award does not count towards the quota of 40 Companions to be appointed in any year). I've altered the article accordingly.
As for postnominal usage, the Statutes of the ONZ (whose author is the Queen) says[1]:
  • 19 Post nominal letters
  • Ordinary, Additional (my bolding), and Honorary members of this Order shall have the privilege of adding the appropriate letters after their names to denote their membership in this Order, viz:
  • I Knights and Dames Grand Companions — GNZM
  • II Knights and Dames Companions — KNZM or DNZM
  • III Companions — CNZM
  • IV Officers — ONZM
  • V Members — MNZM.
That says to me that Cosgrove is entitled to use CNZM after his name. Unless there's something in the Australian rules of protocol that overrides this. The plot thickens. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite like your research, unless anyone has any objection I sugest adding the 'CNZM' post-nom as per Jack of Oz's research. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but let's not be hasty. There's a difference between being entitled to certain letters, and choosing to use them. My research is entirely OR at this stage and needs to be backed up by some source explaining why Cosgrove is not generally shown as CNZM. I note that the current G-G calls him AC MC only [2]. We should not go beyond that without good reason. Also, I'm still very keen to clarify the SSI and GCL matters in relation to Howard, Hawke and Whitlam. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Howard, the official list of Members of the Order of Meirt on the Queen's website lists the 'SSI' post-nominal. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion. Please note that the link placed earlier related to the wearing (my bolding) of Australian (my bolding) honours and medals. That means it is not a definitive guide to the use (my bolding) of post-nominals. As the CNZM is not an Australian honour, it is not included in the guide; neither is the SSI or the GCL, etc., for that matter; but the OM is. I'm not too sure why we're having this discussion about the CNZM, but not about the Legion of Honour (France) or the DSM (Military) [Singapore], etc. Our discussion should be focused on what Australia allows in the use of post-noms from other countries (not the other way around re NZ and Queen/UK stuff cited above); and if the awards issued by foreign countries actually carry post-noms, as not all awards carry post-noms. Rangasyd (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That means it is not a definitive guide to the use (my bolding) of post-nominals. - Not entirely. See "The amount of data on the topic is accumulating!" below.
I'm not too sure why we're having this discussion about the CNZM, but not about the Legion of Honour (France) or the DSM (Military) [Singapore], etc. - Because it has a post-nominal entitlement. Do the Legion of Honour and DSM have post-nominal entitlements?
Our discussion should be focused on what Australia allows - Agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of data on the topic is accumulating!
(However, CNZM, SSI and GCL have been approved - as foreign awards.)
  • http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/wearing.cfm#Order says:
    • Order of wearing There is an established order of precedence for the wearing of Australian decorations. You can download a copy of the Order Of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards document ...
    • Post-nominal entitlements Many awards carry an entitlement for recipients to use indicative letters after their name - for example, ‘OAM’ for the Medal of the Order of Australia. If a recipient is entitled to post-nominals for more than one award, the sequence of letters is indicated by the Order of Wearing for Australian honours and awards.
(BTW: Order of Wearing mentions the non-use of Order of St John post-nominals.)
I'm still looking for something specific/definitive re post-nominals of approved foreign awards. Talk:List of post-nominal letters#Post-nominals from more than one country refers to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/docs/acceptance_and_wearing_of_foreign.pdf, but that's currently a [dead link].
Nevertheless:
  • The guidelines would differ from country to country - in Australia, unless the post-nominal is in the Australian Honours Order of Precedence, then the 'foreign' post-nominal is not used. Having said that, if the individual was being referred to in a country where he had earned a foreign post-nominal, then it may be used. For example: Peter Cosgrove AC, MC would be the format generally used, however in a New Zealand newspaper or media release, you may see him referred to as Peter Cosgrove AC, MC, CNZM. PalawanOz (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PalawanOz was correct about the use of post-nominals by Australians. CAG S548, 22 December 1997,Guidelines Concerning the Acceptance and Wearing of Foreign Honours and Awards by Australians explicitly states in sub-paragraph 9 that
"Foreign awards which provide for the use of post-nominals or titles in their country of origin may only be accepted on the understanding that the use of the post-nominals or honorary titles by Australians in Australia will not be recognised officially. Foreign awards are to be worn in accordance with The Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards."
Imperial awards granted prior to 05 October 1992 are considered Australian and so post-nominals may be used in these circumstances. The same is not true for awards post 05 October 1992. (See here and Michael Maton, The National Honours & Awards of Australia, ISBN 0 86417 679 1, Kangaroo Press, Sydney, 1995, pp 31, 33) Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done everyone. That appears definitive. Cosgrove is not entitled to use the CNZM post-noms in Australia; but in NZ, they may be used, out of respect to the New Zealand Order of Merit. Rangasyd (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article be based on his post-nom entitlement in Australia? (as he is an Australian citizen, and not also a New Zealand citizen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.219.173 (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is. I quote from above: Foreign awards which provide for the use of post-nominals or titles in their country of origin may only be accepted on the understanding that the use of the post-nominals or honorary titles by Australians in Australia will not be recognised officially. Therefore, if he were to use CNZM in Oz, he'd be doing it without any authority. That is presumably why Government House doesn't use those letters for Cosgrove. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AC/AK postnoms

[edit]

His appointment as Companion was in the Military Division. His appointment as Principal Knight is in the General Division.

It is true that people appointed in one division and later appointed to a higher level in the other division are entitled to show both postnoms: in this case His Excellency General The Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK, AC (mil.), MC. Is it likely Gov House will actually use this form, or should we wait and see? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Government House will use that form, as do all Government Houses around Australia. Though in my opinion it looks tacky. thoughts? Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 01:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very, but it's not for us to say. If that's the form used, we'll have to accept it. But it seems it's not being used: The website says AK MC (Retd.). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But interestingly, a different part of the same website refers to Michael Jeffery as Major General the Honourable Michael Jeffery, AC, AO (Mil), CVO, MC (Retd). Curious. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries]
It's more correct to have separate postnominals (just as the Order of the British Empire has separate postnominals, if an awardee has awards in both civil and military divisions). There are separate ribbons for the general and military division awards. A higher award in the general division would not subsume a lower award in the military division. If someone is entitled to use both postnominals, or people are allowed to refer to the person's name with both postnominals, then it should be done that way on Wikipedia.

Image

[edit]

There is a higher resolution version of the image available on the GG web site[3] available under a CC-BY license.[4] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload it later this afternoon if no one has already uploaded it. Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could almost be Tim Fischer. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles, styles and honours

[edit]

How did he go from plain Mr Cosgrove yesterday, to General Cosgrove today? That's the most rapid rise in military history. I think we're missing some intermediate steps in his army career. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I covered that with Note 21, I could easily add his LTGEN dates but before that will be difficult. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 07:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I missed your note. I still think it's odd to go straight from Mr to General. Better, I think, to show no title at all than show one that's plainly wrong. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His Full style from a range of sources (mainly his Bio - My Story);
28 July 1947 – 1968 Mr Peter Cosgrove[1]
1968 – 1970 Lieutenant Peter Cosgrove
1970 – 12 February 1971 Captain Peter Cosgrove
12 February 1971 – December 1971 Captain Peter Cosgrove MC
December 1971 – December 1972 Captain Peter Cosgrove MC ADC
December 1972 – 1976 Captain Peter Cosgrove MC
1976 – 15 January 1983 Major Peter Cosgrove MC
15 January 1983 – 26 January 1985 Lieutenant Colonel Peter Cosgrove MC
26 January 1985 – July 1988 Lieutenant Colonel Peter Cosgrove AM MC
July 1988 – July 1989 Colonel Peter Cosgrove AM MC
July 1989 – March 1998 Brigadier Peter Cosgrove AM MC
July 1989 – 25 March 2000 Major General Peter Cosgrove AM MC
25 March 2000 – 16 July 2000 Major General Peter Cosgrove AC MC
16 July 2000 – 4 July 2002 Lieutenant General Peter Cosgrove AC MC
4 July 2002 – 3 July 2005 General Peter Cosgrove AC MC
3 July 2005 – 28 March 2014 General Peter Cosgrove AC MC (Ret'd)
28 March 2014 – Present: His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia

Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Nford24. Thanks for the effort. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Peter Cosgrove held various army ranks not listed here

Controversy section

[edit]

It seems to me like the 'Controversy' section shouldn't exist. Two columnists/online commentators wrote a short article each that criticised the use of pre-prepared speeches after the Melbourne Cup which didn't acknowledge the fact that the winning jockey was a female. It's a pretty absurd distortion of the word 'controversy' to say that Cosgrove's speech qualifies as one. Controversy sections usually contain references to criminal activity, misconduct or words/actions that have generated a public backlash or significant public debate. In this case, an omission in Cosgrove's speech was criticised by two internet commentators on the day after, and only the day after, the Melbourne Cup. Even if it qualifies as a controversy, it was so minor that it doesn't warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article; the point of Wikipedia is to provide relevant (read: important) information to readers, not a catalogue of the times the subject was mentioned by an online commentator/opinion-piece writer. If no one has good reason why the section should stay, I'll delete it. W108 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an entire section for such a minor and passing episode is probably undue weight. Anotherclown (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the section and now agree with its deletion. The story was quite big at the time, more that just a couple of journalists, but it took most of its significance from being a part of the huge story, all over the Australian media for a couple of days, about the "true battler" who was the first woman to ride a Melbourne Cup winner and a 100-1 outsider at that. Her personal story is still appearing, but the incident of the speeches has faded away. Wikiain (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peter Cosgrove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peter Cosgrove. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Knighhood?

[edit]

A recent amendment refers to Cosgrove's "automatic" knighthood on taking office as GG. I don't think that is now the case, and hasn't been for many years if it indeed existed. All GG's I can think of post WW2 came as knights or better.Lexysexy (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here. It was reinstituted in 2014 under Tony Abbott and abolished again when Malcolm Turnbull ousted him in 2015. The only Governor-Generals it applied to during that time were Bryce and Cosgrove. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you DW. Principal Dame/Knight as distinct from Principal Companion of the Order. All clear now.Lexysexy (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Head of State

[edit]

Former Governor-General, Dame Quentin Bryce was introduced to the Queen as the Head of State of Australia. Governor-General Peter Cosgrove is similarly the Head of State of Australia, not the Queen, who is the sovereign of Australia.

This is a topic that is best left alone. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Cosgrove&oldid=1206801224"