Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:49, 16 July 2010

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: Governments / Politics / History / Education 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 Governments of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games 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 sports and games work group. [REDACTED] Ice Hockey [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey 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.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey

How is Johnston pronounced? Tetsuo (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

dʒɑːn' stən or dʒɒn' stən. I'm an American, so I don't know which. -Rrius (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely the latter, at least for the first syllable. I could be wrong on the second since I don't deal much with IPA. -Rrius (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as a Governor General-Designate

I re-worded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a used term. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Even the PM's press release uses the term. The only question is how to capitalise and punctuate it, and I think at the very least we reflect a perfectly sound usage, and maintain internal consistency with Governor General of Canada's discussion of appointments and the like. -Rrius (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Date format

User:Walter Görlitz has expressed a stong objection (as evidenced by his attempts to slander me with lame accusations of vandalism) to the use of DD MM YY date format on this page. I have tried to employ that format here so that this article falls in-line with all the other biography pages for Canada's governors general. Does anyone else feel as WG does and think this page should not be consistent with the others in the series? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not expressed a strong objection to the use of the British long format. In fact, I have insisted on its use in association football articles, most recently in the 2010 FIFA World Cup article. I have simply stated that it is not the most common format used in Canada. User talk:Miesianiacal has on at least two occasions (on the Victoria Day and Canada Day articles) insisted that consensus had been reached and that the British long format should be kept. It was later discovered that he himself changed them within the previous twelve to eighteen months. I suspect the same has happened with the GG articles. I can go through the others to determine if the date format was changed to the British format or if they were created and existed after no longer being stubs using that format. I will report back if requested. I would prefer User talk:Miesianiacal to simply admit to making the changes and revert them, but will do the work if he is unwilling to do so. Since this article was already in the US format I suggest keeping it in that format until this has been resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And your first comment here launches into an attack on my character. Regardless, I never suggested I didn't change any other biography article on a Canadian governor general; I said there was a consistency throughout them that this one does not now conform to. Your personal opinions on what is and isn't the "official" date format in Canada are irrelevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a character attack when it's simply factual. If you can show me where I erred, I will both strike my comments and apologize. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What's neither necessary nor factual is your interpretations of past events and my motivations to do as I did at that time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please identify where this occurs. The only personal attacks and interpretations I see on this talk page are "User:Walter Görlitz has expressed a stong objection (as evidenced by his attempts to slander me with lame accusations of vandalism)", which aren't mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From the discussion at my talk page, it seems I'd be wasting my time in trying to get you to understand the difference between fact and your personal opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From that same discussion I don't think you understand it in the first place. But let me explain here again in hopes that you may. On the Victoria Day article where the date issue first came up you indicated that consensus had been reached to keep it in British format. It was then discovered that consensus had been reached in 2009 before you made a change. You then exerted a great deal of effort defending that action. You finally backed-down and changed the format to the American date format which was the original consensus. None of that is personal opinion. The fact that you made it seem that the consensus had been reached by your edit seems to not be correct. If I am wrong in that, feel free to explain how. If you are wrong, please stop pushing back on this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

People can go and read those discussions if they want and come to their own conclusions; nobody needs to accept your erroneous interpretation of the events, either in relation to this particular matter or for anything else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Now it's an "erroneous interpretation". It's not. You proved it when you showed that you made the majority of changes. For the love of all things decent stop attacking me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But it is; most of what you say I did simply didn't happen. I didn't knowingly break any policy or guideline, especially not in terms of consensus; it later turned out that there was a misunderstanding of some loose wording at WP:MOSDATE, but I am entitled to be bold, per WP:BRD. I never said my change to the date format at Victoria Day automatically made a new consensus; I said the year that passed before anyone raised an objection to the change had established consensus by silence, as is outlined at WP:CONS. Rather than entirely blocking any undoing of my change, I sought consensus and even volunteered to undo my own more-than-a-year old edit once there was a majority decision in favour of that act. And now it seems you're accusing me of changing the date format of every Canadian governor general's bio page (though, you already pre-accused me when asking above that I admit to having made all those alterations); if you take more than two seconds to review the list I compiled yesterday, you'll find that charge is wrong too.

I otherwise wouldn't bother with any of this, except that you brought it into a public forum and are attempting to use your misrepresentations of both the past and my character to your benefit in this discussion over the date format of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All of what I say did happen. While you didn't knowingly break any policy or guideline, you did break the guideline. You also stated that the British date format was the consensus for the Victoria Day article. You failed to mention that you changed it within the previous year and the fact that no one looked at the article in that time period escaped your notice. You pointed to the rules on consensus but didn't point to the rules on changing the article after consensus had been reached. You then concluded that "silence equals consensus." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) and "consensus built through silence" --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Also "The one presently used in the article has been used there for quite a long time; as such, the present format has consensus." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (emphasis mine and notice that you state long time but don't at all indicate that you changed the article to the British format). SO in short if you weren't a politician or political aide you should have been one since you manage to respond to direct accusations of wrongdoing with an aplomb reserved for spin doctors. You then go on the attack and try to mud sling those who are pointing-out the problems.

Now, onto the task at hand. You stated that the GG articles should all attempt to have the same date format. You established that consensus prior to change was the American long date format. I will be changing them all to the American long date format unless you can offer some counter-proposal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. My edit escaped notice rather than being either accepted or not cared about by subsequent editors because there were no subsequent editors - the edit history showing more than 150 edits following the one I made to the dates obviously being a sham - and apparently no viewers, either. The proof? You say so. I made up the idea of silence equaling consensus, based on my deluded imagining of the words at WP:CONS: "silence can imply consent." The proof? You say so. I didn't immediately fess up to it being me who changed the date format, even if that point wasn't relevant, because I knew I'd committed a crime and wanted to keep it hidden. The proof? You say so. You ignore the other baseless accusations of yours that I raised, but I'll assume you think they're right too; because you say so.

What does it matter, though? Anyone who points out the inherent errors in your interpretations of the events, or simply suggests that what you assume to be true might not be, is merely a mud-slinging miscreant on the attack.

I don't know that you should be going off to change all the governors general bio articles without further input; some of those pages that started out with MM DD, YY have used the DD MM YY format for five years or more. They now seem to have fallen into a grey zone between WP:CONS and WP:MOSDATE that, I think, asks for a wider agreement on what to do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no feelings on which is the appropriate format to use but i do agree it does make sense for all articles on Governor Generals to use the same format. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing further, as can be seen by this wise editor's comment here: He's not been appointed yet so this isn't a GG article yet. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but it still make sense to have them in line ready. Theres no reason to wait till he takes up the post officially. If all the other GG articles need changing to the other format then that could be done instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Be consistant with the 27 GGoC articles infoboxes. Besides, using D/M/Y avoids the usage of a comma. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Fully agree that d/m/y avoids the use of a comma (but what does that matter?). Consistency is important. But what if the other twenty-seven articles were changed away from this format? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you realise that not all the Canadian governor general biography articles originally used your preferred date format. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now the second time you have incorrectly identified the American long date format as my preferred format. It's not. Please don't misrepresent my preferences. As I stated, I am going on the Misplaced Pages policies regarding date formats. You know what they are: original format after an article is no longer a stub should stay unless there is a pressing national reason to change it. Canada has no preferred format. Neither do I. As I stated before I have argued for the British long format in other articles. I am arguing for the American format in this article and the vast majority of the GG articles. Would you like to let me know which you changed to the British format or are you insisting on having me go through them one at a time? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But of course it is your preferred date format. The evidence stands not only in your application of an imaginary "official" designation to its use in Canada, but you also went to the effort of trying to get the Misplaced Pages guideline changed to state that it is the only acceptable format for use in Canada-related articles.

You just said you were all for consistency across the governors general's bio pages. You also say the date format used in an article can't be changed from that originally used. Yet, applying the MM DD, YY date format to all the GG bio pages would require the use on some of those articles of a date format not originally employed; in other words, some of the articles were started using the MM DD YY format. How do you reconcile that contradiction? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not my preferred date format. this edit would prove you wrong. Please stop repeating it. And I never said it was "official" designation to its use in Canada. Again those are your words to misrepresent my words. I said it's the most common. I didn't say that the date format "can't be changed from that originally used". I said that it must have a valid national reason, which is Misplaced Pages's policy. So if I discover, as I suspect I will, that the majority of GG articles were in American format at some point and then they were changed to the British format, it only stands to reason that all should use the American format. However if I discover that the majority of GG articles used the British format and only a handful were changed (as happened in the Michaëlle Jean article) then we should keep the majority. As you can see, I'm not oppose to the British long date format, but I am opposed to people changing to their preferred date format over reason and consensus to the contrary. I'm not trying to impose my will on this article or the other GG articles. I am merely trying to see that User:Miesianiacal's will isn't imposed either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is for Canadian articles. Your words: "May 24 is again the official format used in long dates in Canada..." "Currently the guide indicates both American and UK date formats are acceptable. That is not the case." You dictate this as though it is fact when it is not; hence, one format is your preferred choice.

As for which articles started with which format:

Charles Monck, 4th Viscount Monck: MM DD, YY, changed 20 March 2009 to DD MM YY

John Young, 1st Baron Lisgar: DD MM YY

Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava: MM DD, YY, changed 15 December 2005 to DD MM YY

John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll: MM DD, YY, changed 23 December 2006 to DD MM YY

Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne: MM DD, YY, changed 6 September 2003 to DD MM YY

Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby: MM DD, YY, changed 14 July 2005 to DD MM YY

John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: DD MM YY

Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 4th Earl of Minto: MM DD, YY, changed 29 May 2009 to DD MM YY

Albert Grey, 4th Earl Grey: MM DD, YY, changed 30 August 2006 to DD MM YY

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn: MM DD, YY, changed 12 January 2004 to DD MM YY

Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy: MM DD, YY, changed 21 June 2005 to DD MM YY

Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon: DD MM YY

Vere Ponsonby, 9th Earl of Bessborough: MM DD, YY, changed by me

John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir: MM DD, YY, changed 3 December 2005 to DD MM YY

Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone: MM DD, YY, changed 6 June 2005 to DD MM YY

Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis: MM DD, YY, changed 8 November 2005 to DD MM YY

Vincent Massey: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Georges Vanier: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Roland Michener: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Jules Léger: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Edward Schreyer: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Jeanne Sauvé: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Ray Hnatyshyn: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Roméo LeBlanc: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Adrienne Clarkson: MM DD, YY, changed by me

Michaëlle Jean: MM DD, YY, changed by me

So, while the majority of articles began with MM DD, YY format (24/27), when I started my exercise of bringing all the articles into conformity, the majority showed DD MM YY (15/27). If someone wants to put all those ones that were originally MM DD, YY back to that format and change the three that began as DD MM YY to MM DD, YY, be my guest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So of the 27 articles, only three were originally in British date format? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

D/M/Y helps us avoid the usage of a comma. Anyways, all Canadian GG article infoboxes should be consistant. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I saw this discussion, I noticed the different formats being used in the article, so I made them consistent. (Btw, it's good to see "consistent" being consistently misspelt "consistant". Always be consistent, I say, even if you're consistently wrong. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It kept setting off my spell-checker too. I decided not to comment though. :) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a special rule for Canada-related articles that whatever was there stays. I fail to see how we need consistency with other GG articles on the theory that they are somehow a series. Each Misplaced Pages article is an island unto itself unless some need for consistency can be demonstrated. I'm afraid I don't see how it is necessary to have date formats consistent for governors general. Whichever was first (and I don't know for myself which one is) should stand. -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no date format rule for Canada-specific articles. Therefore the rule is consensus on the format after the article is no longer a stub. I appreciate your position but think that User:Miesianiacal has a valid point in wanting to keep consistency across the series. I don't know if there's precedence for it or not though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the usual ipse dixit "we must have consistency!", no, there is no real procedure. I'm sure I read somewhere Canadian date formats were supposed to be like Engvar. -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's a valid point, I don't agree with his point. In retrospect, it seems rather implausible to me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the Governor General is defined as the Queen's representative in Canada, this suggests stronger ties than usual to the UK, therefore tipping in favour of international date formatting for GG articles. Dl2000 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Expanding ipse dixit and WP:ENGVAR. I think the point I was making was WP:RETAIN. I didn't realize that there wasn't a consensus or procedure related to keeping consistency across related articles, but it does seem reasonable. Of interest to other readers would be WP:DATE, specifically WP:STRONGNAT to which I referred earlier but did not link to. Also WT:CANSTYLE and the section I added: List of date formats used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Queen's representative in Canada tips in favour of Canada though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've brought this matter to the attention of WP:CANADA. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And it seems people are barely interested (unsurprisingly). But, of the input we have, so far, myself, User:Walter Görlitz, User:GoodDay, and User:BritishWatcher are in favour of consistent date formatting across all Canadian governors general biography articles and User:Rrius is seemingly neutral.

The problem of what date format to use consistently, however, remains unresolved. I'm fine with things as they are, User:GoodDay seems to support DD MM YY, and User:Walter Görlitz is for MM DD, YY, while this discussion at WP:CANADA shows two supporting MM DD, YY in general but also an ambivalence between them and one other editor about whether or not it is now applied to all the articles on governors general, and one anon for DD MM YY. As well, a response I got at WP:CONS offers the opinion that MOSDATE counts in this situation more than CONS, but the author doesn't care which date format we use.

Where does this leave us? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, without a response here, I've drawn this article in line with the present state of the other governors general's bio articles; we all seemed to agree on consistency. Should a decision be made on which date format should be used throughout the series, or all Canadian articles, this one can be changed to suit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Without consensus to change the article and without any clear policy on "consistency" I have changed all of the long dates, all of them, to American format as that is the overarching policy on Misplaced Pages. The decision has been made that the date format this article was in after it reached stub status is the format in which it will remain unless clear consensus exists to change it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted a comment about this 24 hours ago; 24 hours in which you were active on Misplaced Pages.

You yourself argued in favour of consistency across all the governors general's bio articles, regardless of which format the article began with. Why have you changed your mind? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was careful not to take a stand about consistency. I merely pointed-out that you argued for consistency. I don't believe that consistency is required. Sorry. If you can find where I state that consistency must be maintained I will correct matters.

Where did you post the comment about this twenty-four hours ago? You mean the one on this page where you wrote "I'm fine with things as they are"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your words: "Fully agree. Consistency is important." "I... think that User:Miesianiacal has a valid point in wanting to keep consistency across the series." "I didn't realize that there wasn't a consensus or procedure related to keeping consistency across related articles, but it does seem reasonable." Now you not only change your mind but also deny having ever been in favour of consistency and yet snipe at others for being confused? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust that I have clarified any points of confusion that my earlier edits may have caused. I do not support your changing this article against WP:MOS guidelines. I do not support, not have I ever supported, nor have I every intended to show support for a change for all of the articles away from their original American format just so they could be in the preferred format of one editor who has made a great many edits in the article. I support it no more than I would support placing placing <small> tags around <ref> tags just so that one editor who uses an outdated browser can see articles with even line-spacing. It makes no sense to impose one editor's preference on wikipedians. WP:MOS takes precedence over any wishes any one editor's unifying schemes, or those of any other editors who comment in favour of said scheme, until consensus has been reached in a forum that the first editor appealed to for support. This is particularly true when that editor has not found the desired support in that forum and is instead being questioned there as well.

So I'm sorry if I left you with the opinion that I supported this. I trust that my actions in reverting and correctly unifying the date formats to American format—the format used when this article was established—based on the guidelines in WP:MOS, makes it clear what my position on this article are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be a successful back-pedal and use of irrelevancies (both real and imagined) as deflection from your flip-flop if not for the existence of your own words:

• "Consistency is important."
• "I... think that User:Miesianiacal has a valid point in wanting to keep consistency across the series."
• "onsistency across related articles... does seem reasonable."
• "If... the majority of GG articles were in American format at some point and then they were changed to the British format, it only stands to reason that all should use the American format."

All-together, those pretty well establish that you favoured consistency, and the last quote in particular shows you were fine with changing articles from their original date format; such would have to be done to the three pages that started out using DD MM YY in order to make "all use the American format" originally employed by the majority of articles.

But, it seems you've changed your mind, which, in principal, is fine. I just hope that in future you'll be able to let people know that in a more helpful and cooperative manner. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not form an opinion and then remain unswayed by well-reasoned arguments. The more I think about it the less I am convinced that the GG articles should use British date formats. The fact that you went about changing many of them to British date formats and you're trying to wave a red flag and make me look bad doesn't really hold water in the argument. I'm not displaying ownership of these articles either. I am merely pointing out my opinion: I don't know that consistency is required. This article should stay in the date format it was created using as per WP:MOS (or whatever the format guideline is) and if for some reason there is a groundswell that states we must have consistency, then I don't mind agreeing with the majority. However I am convinced that if consistency were decided-upon, and it was recognized that the majority of articles were changed from American format, I think you would find some other reason not to change them to American format. Am I correct in that persuasion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, the only reason I agreed with the idea of consistency was that I knew that many of the articles at that point were originally in American format and they should be returned. With the majority of the articles in American format and your position behind your position of consistency, I was looking forward to watching you find excuses for not moving all of the articles to American format.

Admitting that someone has a valid point does not mean I agree with the point either. I think communists have valid points, but I am not a communist. I think capitalists have valid points, but I am not a capitalist either. I can see valid points without changing my opinion and agreeing with them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, it makes things exceedingly difficult when you don't follow along. I will say this once more and I will say it as simply as I can:

1. I took it upon myself to - right or wrong - make all the biographies of Canada's governors general consistent in overall layout and format.
2. To accomplish step #1, I changed the date format on 12 of the 27 articles from MM DD, YY to DD MM YY.
3. I changed the date format in that direction because the majority of articles at that time - 15 of the 27 - used DD MM YY. Preference had nothing to do with it.
4. It turns out that 12 of the 15 articles mentioned in step #3 had years before been changed from MM DD, YY to DD MM YY. I did not make those changes.
5. Discussion here showed four of five editors involved, including yourself (as already explained) to be supportive of date format consistency across all the articles.
6. Given step #5, I changed the date format on this article to align with the same that all the others presently show.
7. Just as what date format all the others presently show isn't permanent, so wasn't the format put in in step #6: If a decision had been reached to make all governors general bio articles use MM DD, YY, this one could have been altered right along with all the others. Consistency was the only thing to be maintained.
8. You changed your mind on consistency, which is fine, but didn't express that fact until after step #6 had taken place.

I trust that's clear now, though it doesn't offer much in the way of a resolution of what to do with 27 pages using one date format and one using another, or how to deal with the still majority of editors here who approve of consistency throughout the series of pages, or what to do with articles that are simultaneously British and Canadian. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear now is that you changed this article and that will not be condoned. What's also clear is that I agreed that you thought it was a good idea to change the format. If you understood that I agreed with it, then you were fooling yourself. I did not agree with you, I said that you had a valid point, but I did not agree. If your date preference is not the British date format, why did you change both the Canada Day and Victoria Day articles to meet that format? Was that to keep them in line with the GG articles? As for editors here who approve of consistency throughout the series of pages and what to do with them, well, let's just say you take not of all things I write that are in opposition to WP:CIVIL. My best suggestion is that they all go over to your other petition to have some form of consistency on the GG articles to back you since you're losing that one too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Move to David Johnston

I think that this article should be renamed/moved to David Johnston instead of David Lloyd Johnston, and then in the article it can be indicated what his full name is. He does not seem to be commonly known by his full name, including middle name. My suggestion would be similar to other biographical articles. For example, Stephen Harper's middle name isn't included in his article's title, but his middle name is indicated at the top of the introductory paragraph. I also think that this article should take the place of the disambiguation page currently at David Johnston and that page moved to David Johnston (disambiguation). --thirty-seven (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that presume that this David Johnston is the most widely known David Johnston? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It does, and that is my presumption. In any case, I intended that my above post to be two separate suggestions: 1. That this article be called "David Johnston" because that is what he seems to be commonly known as, not "David Lloyd Johnston"; 2. That this David Johnston get the so-named article and not the disambiguation page. But even if #2 isn't accepted, #1 could be by moving this to "David Johnston (Canadian Governor General-designate)" or the like. --thirty-seven (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Do not replace the disambiguation page that is there until it can be shown that this is the primary use of the term "David Johnston". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it probable that he is seldom known as "David Lloyd Johnston". It seems to me that there isn't a clear case for this guy being the primary David Johnston. That said, what would be the disambiguator? I think "(Canadian Governor General-designate)" is too long. Perhaps "(governor general)" would work as there is no other governor general by that name, but it would be premature. Something like "(lawyer)" would work, since many politicians and government officials have it for a disambiguator. Anyway, that's my two cents. -Rrius (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think holding high office, ie de facto head of state of Canada, qualifies him as the "primary" Johnston. Be in Nepean (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the precedent here is John Roberts which points to the US Supreme Court Chief Justice by virtue of his high office rather than to a disambiguation page even though if you look at John Roberts (disambiguation) there are a number of other John Roberts' including the CNN anchor (who is arguably better known than the judge) and various politicians and academics. Be in Nepean (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you make the point more forcefully than "think" ("think holding high office")? Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation and specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discuss the guidelines. We may want to ask a few more people than those interested in the article presently to discuss. Possibly including the watchers of the other David Johnston articles as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the others is an Australian former Cabinet minister and current Shadow Cabinet minister. Can you honestly be sure that this David Johnston will be what people are searching for more than all the others combined? I just don't see a credible basis for saying that this guy is the David Johnston. -Rrius (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we proceed, then? Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone in the above discussion opposed the idea of renaming the article to the name under which this person is commonly known. However, there is clearly opposition to giving him the "main" David Johnson page. So, can we reach a consensus on a disambiguator? May I suggest simply "David Johnston (academic)", since this is how he is introduced in the article, and that is probably because after all it will still seem the best single word for that. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anglican isn't a religion

Noticed it was added to the infobox. Also noticed that previous GGs list it, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox, etc. as religion. They're all technically Christian with their denomination being the aforementioned "religion". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Curriculum Vitae, University of Waterloo

Isn't this technically a self-published source? Should it be used as a reference? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

sources

(→Governor general-designate: no media release on PM's website or mention in Globe that any release states who was committee's chair; & why does the anon love bare urls so much?). This is brought to you by the same editor who wrote "It was on July 8, 2010, announced from the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada that Queen Elizabeth II had, by commission under the royal sign-manual and signet" with the comment (→Governor general-designate: c/e, fix refs (why are the authors' names consistently left out?)). If I'm not mistaken, there is no mention of royal signs-manual, or signet rings in the sources. So I'm confused why one editor may freely edit the article to include information not included in sources while another editor may not. Is it presumed? Is it common knowledge? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Signet does seem incorrect; the Letters Patent 1947 constituting the Office of Governor General state that the appointments are made under the Great Seal of Canada. "Royal sign-manual" is only a term for the king or queen's signature, which goes, along with the great seal, on the governor general-designate's commission. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the whole section, which now reads "by commission under the royal sign-manual and Great Seal of Canada", has no citation. The refs make no mention other than one reads "seal of approval". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that I wasn't clear enough. Sorry for that. I have marked the sections in question with citation templates. I trust that this addresses my concern more fully. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"...ppointments to the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada shall be made by Commission under Our Great Seal of Canada."

"GIVEN under Our Royal Hand and under Our Great Seal of Canada..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good links. Neither refer to Johnston in specific. Is it an assumption that these have been granted? Have you created a synthesis of published materials? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Letters Patent are obviously applicable to all appointments. Yes, the second link is to the royal commission for Michaelle Jean. But, do you think hers was somehow unique? Are you saying it's conceivable to have such a commission issued without the monarch's signature on it? We could wait and hope Johnston's commission is eventually published in the Canada Gazette. However, the commissions seem pretty standard fare; Clarkson's was the same: "GIVEN under Our Royal Hand and under Our Great Seal of Canada..." (The Gazette online doesn't go back farther than 1998.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that there's no citation here or at the Michaëlle Jean article to verify the formal terms listed there and there should be. If I were to dig deeper I'm sure that there would be no citation at other GG articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you now have citations that illustrate the procedure by which, since 1947, a person is commissioned as govenror general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a document that states this about Johnston. It appears you're assuming that there is or at least should be one but can't find it. Have you created a synthesis of published materials? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please either provide a citation or remove the statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You have the necessary citations that affirm the existence of a standard practice for the appointment of governors general. Unless you can affirm that Johnston is the odd one out of all other governors general, there's no unverified claim in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am very close to deleting those phrases as WP:OR if you cannot provide a source to back those terms with Johnston's name attached to them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide alone whether they stay or go. I can see this is going to have to go to the next step of dispute resolution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have no sources to back your addition. You have simply synthesized what you know from previous appointments. That constitutes WP:OR. It's not my decision, it was yours to fight against what is obvious. Feel free to open up to the next level of dispute resolution since you're being stubborn and not seeing that you have added WP:OR. I wasn't going to point it out until you did so to the anon editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a request for a third opinion. (Though, I could just adopt your method of settling these "bloody obvious" matters. ;} ) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Or your could show civility. You never seem to recognize the log in your own eye. You called-out the anon for not providing a source. The anon adds a source to restore the edit. Yet you do not add your own source even when it's shown that you are synthesizing sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the case is not that I haven't added sources to support the claim; it's that I've provided some and you say they're not good enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have no document that shows that Johnston has gone through this process. For all you know, the process may have started and will not conclude until the current GG resigns and Johnston takes her place. You have made an assumption that this has happened. You have not provided a document that it has happened in Johnston's case. It's not that I don't feel they're good enough M. It's that they're not good enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then will you be happy if I remove the sentence until Johnston's swearing-in? I am willing to do that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that the sentence be removed until a document exists to back the claim of royal assent occurred in this way in relation to Johnston. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence until he's sworn-in. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PMO Press Release on GG Committee

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=546739 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.170.73 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Does an unpublished email qualify as a source? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See the url at the top. 64.229.170.73 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The link you added to the article is a superb source; thank you. But, for future, please use appropriate citation templates; they can be found here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be published. Any chance we could get a source for that signet ring information? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• High-importance Canada-related articles
• Start-Class Governments of Canada articles
• High-importance Governments of Canada articles
• Start-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• High-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• Start-Class History of Canada articles
• High-importance History of Canada articles
• Start-Class Education in Canada articles
• High-importance Education in Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Ice Hockey articles