Talk:David Johnston

gazette link

To save @Miesianiacal: from blatantly breaking the WP:3RR for repeatedly reverting without starting a dialogue, can I ask @Mabelina:, what it is in that link that you think is useful to the article? I don't really understand either. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the link before, but it has no encyclopedic merit. Other than mention his name, what does "THE ORDER OF MERIT OF THE POLICE FORCES" have to do with the subject? Also, he wouldn't break 3RR, bit it could be considered edit warring on both sides. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see anything of value either, but Mabelina seems to be a perfectly competent editor and made some reference to "ref GCStJ" in his/her edit summary, so I thought I'd give Mabelina a chance to explain in more detail, instead of just continuing to revert the addition.. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a very odd page to link ...one of hundreds if not thousands of pages listing the duties hes preformed. Useless. and hopefully not the type of link added all over. -- Moxy (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - Wikipedia is constantly looking for references & citations and here is one of the most official sources you could find ref appointment to the Order of St John. Why has the Order of St John been targeted by a bunch of people incl Miesianiacal who reveal limited knowledge of the subject - David Johnston is a GCStJ so surely this is relevant?

qte MOST VENERABLE ORDER OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM

His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, is pleased hereby to appoint the following Canadians, who have been recommended for such appointment by the Grand Prior of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem:

Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St. John

As of March 14, 2012
unqte M Mabelina (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit concerning are you saying you added these all over and there being reverted? (I see why) Can you explain why your adding a link to the external link section listing random people? Perhaps best to read over WP:LINKSTOAVOID before proceeding. If your looking to add content like ..."one of his official duties was to present the Order of St John to ....." then it may be ok ..but I think a better source could be found...one that mentions his obligations. -- Moxy (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I added it there because I have had so much difficulty engaging with folk who display next to no knowledge about the Order of St John but persist in reverting everything I didn't want to become embroiled in yet another set to over nothing. Basically he is a Bailiff Grand Cross, which is an honour involving no duties (but a very high honour so more than worthy of mention) & Wiki loves (or did love) official citations so here is one. M Mabelina (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK still have no clue what your doing the website your using as a source says nothing about him receiving the honour. The page is about how he presented people with the order. -- Moxy (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a random example of gazetted appointments to various orders. It's so tangential to the subject of this article as to be useless to it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Moxy talk - more rubbish from Miesianiacal - please deal with it & view my discussions with Qexigator - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina what are you trying to say.... that David Johnston has been presented with the order or that hes presents the order to others.? The source talks about how he presented others with the order not that he received it. -- Moxy (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

hi Moxy talk - look what I am up against - a maniac - qv: https://www.sja.ca/English/Order-of-St-John svp.... M Mabelina (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain, please:

• Why Johnston's apparent appointment as a Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St John is listed apart from his other appointment/promotions in the order?
• Why the flag icon associated with his appointment as a Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St John is that of the UK, given the order is part of the Canadian honours system?
• More importantly, where in the source you provided does it state Johnston was appointed a Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St John?
• Why the ribbon bar of the Order of St John is placed following the Order of Canada ribbon bar, contrary to the established order of precedence for honours in Canada?

Thanks in advance for your direct and detailed response. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal - I have absolutely no time for your constant interference & lack of understanding about the Order of Saint John so the answer is NO. Got it? M Mabelina (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked you politely. Can you please give a direct and explanatory response to each of the questions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I found the source that we can use. I have no problem adding this to the honours section with the right Canadian image because the order is found in the "The Canadian Honours System by Dr. Christopher McCreery" Source... "The Order of St. John - Membership Roll of the Order". Order of St. John Secretariat. 2015. p. 66.  . Hard to move forward when questions are no replied to!!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That source says Johnston was appointed a Knight of Justice in 2010. That fact was already in the article and sourced. There's no source affirming he's a Bailiff Grand Cross. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I see thank you ...only if questions were replied to.. not fun talking to myself over and over LOL. But that was the problem I was seeing not in the so called source. Has there been more of this type of thing affectingc other Canadian articles?-- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you may prefer no reply to replies that accuse you of being a rubbish peddling, revisonist, maniac.

I see no reason to leave any of Mabelina's edits standing. I suspect, though, undoing them will only result in her revert warring.

She's been causing some trouble at Order of Saint John (chartered 1888), too. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Touchée M Mabelina (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I reverted it ...fake source - no mention of this in source.. plus..source from 2012 last updated in 2013 for an honour received in 2014 simply does not add up. Best not added back unless a new source is found. Editor un-willing or unable to reply to concerns. -- Moxy (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Message to you Canadian dudes - why not add something to Wiki about Eric Barry (by creating an article) - that is if you really know anything about the order? Ciao M Mabelina (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Questioning your ability to comprehend a source or provide one is a serious concern that you should address when re-adding content. In the future if it arises again pls try to be more aware of the concerns raised. Happy editing -- Moxy (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Mabelina: I'm glad I decided to take the day off. This is not a personal attack: your literacy and attitude suck. In reading what you wrote I was left confused. I understood more my reading Miesianiacal's replies than I did from reading your attacks on him. I agree with his assessment that the source is unclear and poor—you can see that in my comment above—and was hoping that communicating here would give clear reasons why the source you added should or should not be included. Moxy made several good suggestions, but you ignored them. I trust from your final comment you're done with this. Let us know if that changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: - I don't know why you have waded into the dispute (but I have heeded your advice & attempted to calm things down with Miesianiacal, altho he doesn't seem to be a calming down sort of chap). Trust this amply advises you of a change in situation and more than refutes something you attempted to make an allegation about sucking and illiteracy..?? It would be heartening were Wikipedia able to stick to facts & not impose MOS - much look forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Why did you get involved anyway?

What an ignorant question. Take a look at the history of this discussion: I was the second editor here. Take a look at the history of this article.

A better question is why you added the link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line...... -- Moxy (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Flags

I'm not sure if all, but certainly many, of the articles on Canadian governors general use flag icons in the honours and awards sections. So, it should be decided what to do for all of them.

Though most of the flags seemed superfluous (I think they were there simply to follow on from articles like List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II), I wonder what to do about honours from foreign countries, such as Johnston's Fulbright Canada Award (which came from the US Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs) and Jean's appointment to France's Legion of Honour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If the honours are from the country, it's acceptable to list the flag and list the nation as well, probably linked. Otherwise the link to the institution is sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to "trivia" or "smear"

Salaries of public figures are becoming increasingly present in public debate. The fact that he has made a significant amount of money during his stint as University President is an important piece of information for those who wish to write about this topic. Take for example the Maclean's article: or this one:

Students have a right to the information to hold their presidents accountable for their work, among other factors. Despite that the Ontario government releases public salary information, yearly, having the data on Wikipedia is far more accessible. Ashvin83 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

When you drop in information about Johnston earing large sums of money in a short period of time and provide zero context, as well as use words like "significant increase", it comes across as though you are trying to make a particular negative point about what may well be common practice. This isn't a place for political debate. It's an encyclopedia and we must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. You need to provide balance and/or context--why is the salary and bonus of particular note? Was it mentioned in any reliable secondary sources? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ashvin83. My brother's salary is published by the Ontario government but he's not a notable subject and media outlets did not pick-up on that. Johnston clearly did. By itself, it meets WP:GNG, but not enough content to merit an article. It should be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The threshold here however is much higher than a normal article (WP:BLP). I don't see what it is adding here or how it is relevant. Not having it included does not harm the article or take away from the reader. Having it included can easily be contentious or seen as POV. trackratte (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly in BLP is reproducing this content supported by multiple RSes? I have no problems taking this to RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The pertinent part is likely WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." So, why the information about his salary/bonus is being presented and how is important here. Without context and with words like "significant increase" (over what? Where's the line between significant and insignificant?), it appears as though the numbers are there to imply Johnston got some kind of shady pay-out. More is needed to establish how the amounts are more than just trivia to a man's biography. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you planning on using the sources to write a cautious and dispassionate section on it so it doesn't offend that section? If not, it's just censorship. The second RS discusses the subject at length. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The first source does not even mention Johnston so is of no use here. The second source devotes three sentences to his 2010 salary, without any hint of criticism or accusation of impropriety. That's not "at length", in my opinion. Content added because an editor thinks that "Students have a right to the information to hold their presidents accountable for their work" is a strong indication that the goal is soapboxing. "Students" have no inherent right to add any information to this encyclopedia, as they enjoy no special status here. The possibility that that content violates the neutral point of view must be considered. I fear that it does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So students have no inherent right to add information? Have you read WP:5P3 recently. Anyone can edit it. With that said, you're out to lunch on that slant because it's information for the students, not by the students. As long as WP:5P2 is honoured, it's not a violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone, student or non-student, can edit Wikipedia, in compliance with policies, guidelines and community consensus. Our articles, however, are written for all readers, not for Ontario university students. I see no criticism or controversy regarding his 2010 salary. So should it be included, as opposed to his 1997 salary or his 2013 salary just because it went from six to seven figures? That's undue weight. That's a factoid out of context. Or perhaps we should list his salary for every year he has been a public servant. But that would be just plain ridiculous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Given we've got an article on his salary at that point, I don't have a problem saying it is worth covering here. Certainly not a BLP problem to cover it. I can see the UNDUE weight issue, but not if it's done without judgement "XXX had the second highest salary of any YYY" seems reasonable if well sourced (which it would be). Hobit (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Context is necessary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, context is that was a lot of money for a public official--per the source. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources--[1] [2] [3] [4] (the last being the exact same article as the one before it)--say that. They each outline many individuals' pay. To conclude from those sources that Johnston's earnings in 2011 are somehow scandalous or, at least, suspect is to engage in editorialising and original research. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We've got an article where the headline is about his pay in this job and the lede is "Canada's new Governor General earned more than $1 million in 2010, making him the second-highest Ontario employee last year according to the province's co-called sunshine list." Nothing about scandalous, but something found by the media to be worth having a headline about. I don't see how there is an issue including it in the article. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Some media want to imply shady goings-on and taxpayer waste to sell papers and get clicks. Wikipedia shouldn't do the same. Unless the raise was, or was a key part of, a major event in Johnston's life, why should it—and it as the lone information on salary—be in his biography? See: WP:BALASPS. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Good thing that we're not like other media. We're an encyclopedia and we would present it as simple fact. I'm not sure how being the second-highest paid employee of Ontario is not encyclopedic. It does not give undue weight and so does not go against BALASPS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)