Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 10 July 2010

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Canada selected biography

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Quebec / Montreal / Governments / Politics / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Caribbean: Haiti This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Haiti. France This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1 (creation - 2005) /Archive 2 (2006 - 2008) /Archive 3 (2009 -

Succession box

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

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

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

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

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

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

Travelling Canada, meeting with Canadians, taking part in organized events, & etc., are all duties of the Governor General. Explicitly labelling something as a "controversy" is inherently against WP:NPOV. There is also WP:UNDUE to consider when contemplating giving one event it's own section. The facts should merely be presented as they are without additional interpretation on the part of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors is neither neutral nor balanced. Please stick to guidelines. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Alberta Centennial Medal

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

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

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

Why is one prorogation notable but the other is not?

Greetings User:Miesianiacal

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

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

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

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

Why is one prorogation notable but the other is not?

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

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

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

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

This Misplaced Pages 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. Kathryn Tabb,. "Authority and Authorship in a 21st-Century Encyclopaedia and a 'Very Mysterious Foundation'" (PDF). eSharp (12: Technology and Humanity). University of Glasgow. ISSN 1742-4542.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 Port-au-Prince quake

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date

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

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

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

Commander in chief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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 likes it or not, the fact is that the Queen is his Commander-in-Chief and Canada's Head of State."

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

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

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

WP:V source. Is it incorrect? Possibly, but Misplaced Pages 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"? I certainly hope not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confederation of...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which "third opinion"?

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Canadian English
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Canada-related articles
• High-importance Canada-related articles
• B-Class Quebec articles
• High-importance Quebec articles
• B-Class Montreal articles
• Unknown-importance Montreal articles
• B-Class Governments of Canada articles
• High-importance Governments of Canada articles
• B-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• High-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• B-Class History of Canada articles
• High-importance History of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed Caribbean articles
• Unknown-importance Caribbean articles
• Unassessed Haiti articles
• Unknown-importance Haiti articles
• WikiProject Haiti articles
• WikiProject Caribbean articles
• Unassessed France articles
• Unknown-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• Commonwealth of Nations articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles