Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jeffery

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

Styles and Titles

[edit]

I will continue to reject this ridiculous competitive pedantry that inists on cluttering up the opening paragraph of biographical articles with styles, titles, ranks, honours and degrees. These belong in their appropriate place in the article, as is done in every other encyclopaedia. For purposes of comparison, I looked up Lord Salisbury in my three encyclopaedias: the Britannica, Colliers and Funk & Wagnalls. His articles begin:

  • SALISBURY, THIRD MARQUESS OF (1830-1903), British statesman (Colliers)
  • SALISBURY, Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3d Marquess of (1830-1903), British statesman (Funk & Wagnalls)
  • SALISBURY, ROBERT ARTHUR TALBOT GASCOYNE-CECIL, 3RD MARQUESS OF (1830-1903), British statesman (Britannica).

In other words, the correct encyclopaedic style is for full name and peerage title, dates of birth and death and nothing else until the appropriate place in the article. Adam 11:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You are correct in pointing out that mainstream encyclopaedias do indeed reference their entries alphabetically, therefore you should also have noted that Wikipedia is quite different from encyclopaedias. If you believe so strongly in your personal form of referencing on Wiki why don't you change His Excellency's entry to begin "Jeffery, Michael"? Why stop there I ask you? If you look at the entry for the Governor-General of Canada, for example, you will find that the correct form of address is employed there, aswell as in the entry for the Governor-General of New Zealand. User:Toryboy 15:54, 21 August 2005 (GMT)

Toryboy makes a strong point, wiki is not a conventional Encyclopedia and the manner in which electronic and conventional media are dealt with and cited differs vastly so comparing the referencing technique of Britannica with that of wiki is a pointless gesture and just a touch sad to be honest.


I find it rather...pretentious to try to stick an arbitrary distinction of what constitutes a proper encylopedia citation upon this entry, Adam. As others have stated, this is not a "proper" encylopedia, it is a free web reference source updated and self-moderated by its patrons. To disdain a man's proper title while including both military and peerage titles is a horrible disservice both to the man and to others who might be researching him. He has earned his distinctions, and while others may seek to bury a person's accolades into subparagraph 3c or whatnot and so downplay their importance, I would ask you to consider correcting this deception on your article at least.

I never heard such piffle in my life, but since I have a rule not to respond to anonymous comments (talk about disrespect!) I'm not going to argue with you about it. Do as you please. Adam 23:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My prime concern is that if the styles and titles of important people such as Michael Jeffreys are not listed at the beginning of articles, in their full form then they will not be correctly observed.

--Jason Hughes 10:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was it the job of an encyclopaedia to ensure that "styles and titles of important people" are observed? Have we returned to the Middle Ages and I haven't noticed, or what? Adam 12:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think that is a little 'POV'.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the use of such titles and distinctions is besides the point. They are - as a matter of fact - the titular designations of this particular person.

In my opinion orders of chivalry, and office based titles should be adherred to with the same regularity that is showed to academic titles, such as PhDs and Professorships et cetera.

Consider the Major-General is the Governor-General his styles and titles are intrinsically linked to who he is, and what he does.

You clearly dislike the use of titles, Dr.Carr, but please avoid POV regardless of the irresponsible vandalism of others.--Jason Hughes 15:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No-one, not even Adam, disputes that Wikipedia should mention Michael Jeffery's style, title, honorifics, etc. The issue here is whether Wikipedia should use his style, title, honorifics, etc. There is a massive distinction between mentioning and using. Mentioning is inherently NPOV; using may not be. A good example, because it is obviously controversial, is the use of "His Holiness" for the Pope. The fact that the Pope is styled "His Holiness" is an NPOV fact that should be mentioned in Wikipedia. But to actually refer to the Pope as "His Holiness" may be offensive to persons who do not believe that the Pope is holy. For this reason Pope Benedict XVI mentions but does not use this style. Hesperian 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Also (and I'm getting sick of saying this), he is NOT a Major-General. He has RETIRED from the Army. So his correct "style and title" is "Mr". Adam 00:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Commonwealth countries retired officers over the rank of Captain, ie, Major-General upwards, are permitted to use their relevant military title after retirement as a part of the name - with the qualification [Retired] or [Rtd].

I think the example of the Pope's designation "His Holiness" is not directly comparable to the Governor-General's prefix "His Excellency". Almost uniquely, along with perhaps Ambassadors and Lieutenant-Governors 'His/Her Exellency' is effectively part of the titular designation, indeed that is how it correctly cited, especially considereing the Vice-Regal nature of the office. For example His Royal Highness [HRH] the Prince of Wales, is not correctly listed as just The Prince of Wales or Her Majesty [HM] Queen Elizabeth II of Australia is not just Queen Elizabeth. Therefore I maintain it is "His Excellency [HE], Major General Michael Jefferys"--Jason Hughes 07:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's wrong to refer to him as a Major-General, retired or otherwise, notwithstanding the above permission. Because now, as far as the ADF is concerned he is not only a retired officer but also the Commander-in-Chief - which is a much higher office. Grassynoel (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Logohu (PNG)

[edit]

We show the postnominal GCL. I wonder if this is right, and would appreciate others' opinions.

  • It was an honorary award by the PNG government [1]. Gough Whitlam was given the same honour, as well as the title "Chief" for use in PNG, but his page has no reference to GCL or Chief. There are no Google hits for Jeffery GCL (apart from w/pedia), or for Whitlam GCL. The GG's website makes no reference to this award. I suspect it's appropriate only in a PNG context, not generally.
  • Michael Somare has the same (substantive) award. His GCL seems to take precedence even over his knighthood (GCMG). On that basis, Jeffey would be GCL, AC, CVO, MC. But that assumes the GCL is appropriate at all. JackofOz 10:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GCL would come afterwards in Australia as an honour from another Commonwealth country. Somare takes it before the others as that is what the PNG Order of Precedence states. --Ibagli (Talk) 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star of the Order of Australia

[edit]

I found this photo [2] which shows Michael Jeffery wearing the Knights star of the Order of Australia. Is this some special emblem allowed to him as GG ? Dowew 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey is wearing the isignia as Principal Companion and Chancellor of the Order of Australia. The Queen as Sovereign of the Order of Australia has a similar insignia.

the lead

[edit]

Major General Michael Jeffery? Since when did Major General become a part of his name?. MG is a military rank, not a name & Jeffery no longer holds the rank anway (he's retired from the Army). GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation?

[edit]

It’s been reported that he has “resigned” [3], and this form of words has now found its way into the article. But I really wonder what the journo meant by this. He certainly isn’t leaving the post in the immediate future, but carrying on till around August, as was always intended. There's nothing on the GG website about any resignation. Some G-G’s have actually resigned, in the sense that they have voluntarily cut their term short for various reasons – but I see no evidence that this is the case with Michael Jeffery. If he really had resigned, he’d have to leave Yarralumla ASAP. Anyone care to comment on this? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear from the SMH article he has given notice and the SMH article has been included as a ref now. You can resign without stepping down right away. I think it is important to leave in to make sense of the Quentin Bryce article. --Matilda talk 01:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this announcement from the GG http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/news.php?action=view&id=227 he makes it clear he will be stying in office for the next 4 months --Matilda talk 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2008/media_release_0193.cfm = resignation I will include as cite in article--Matilda talk 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that, Matilda. It seems it's definitely happened, but it still seems an unusual way of doing things. I appreciate that G-Gs are not appointed for a specific period, but there is a general understanding that they'll be there for 5 years, subject to extension. When the 5 years or whatever agreed period is up, their appointment is terminated, and their successor takes over. A resignation would be appropriate if he left at any time before the agreed period was finished, cf. Hopetoun, Kerr and Hollingworth. Jeffery's resignation is in a completely different category than those 3. He was appointed on 11 August 2003 and it's been reported many times that he was due to leave around the 5th anniversary in August 2008, which is why there's been recent interest in who his successor would be. Far from cutting his term short, he’s actually staying for 3 weeks longer than the originally agreed period. So, I honestly can't see any rationale for a resignation in these circumstances, because it defies logic. Maybe being from the old school, and a military type, he felt it appropriate to be proactive about handing in his commission rather than waiting for the Queen to withdraw it. Even so, a resignation of a commission normally takes effect more or less immediately, not in 4 months time. Strange, very strange. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I believe it was simply shoddy wording from whoever drafted the PM's press release. If Rudd used this word himself at the press conference, well, we know he's not exactly the world's best wordsmith. The media, and politicians themselves, get this sort of terminology wrong all the time. Members of parliament who announce they're not contesting the next election, but staying put until whenever it may be called, are often reported to have "resigned". That's quite inaccurate. What they're doing is "retiring". They give themselves the postnominal "MHR" but there's no such thing - it's "MP". They talk about their "electoral offices", but it should be "electorate offices" - the AEC is the only electoral "office". And so on. I think the same sort of terminological inexactitude has happened here. In no sense is Jeffery resigning; Rudd's announcement was intended to convey that Jeffery had signalled his intention to continue until QB is appointed. It was not only a completely unnecessary announcement, it was actually misleading. We shouldn't take the announcement at face value but interpret it in an appropriate way. Our reputation is at stake here. I'm going to remove all references to Michael Jeffery resigning. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style "The Honourable"

[edit]

This keeps on getting put in, but I have serious doubts about it. I know of no protocol whereby an ex-governor-general gets to be The Hon solely by virtue of that office. Peter Hollingworth is definitely not. Most of the others are, but that's because they were Ministers (Hayden, Hasluck, ...), High or Supreme Court judges (Deane, Stephen, Kerr, ...), or Rt Hon because they were members of the Privy Council (Cowen, Casey, De L'Isle, ....). If I'm wrong, can anyone provide a cite? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until such a citation appears, I'm removing it. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Australian?

[edit]

His appointment was generally welcomed, although there was some critical comment about the appointment of another Anglo-Australian male to the post

Is this vandalism? If not, in what sense is he an Anglo-Australian? Or were they making a distinction between males of Anglo-Celtic origin vs. indigenous or other-ethnic men or women vs. any women at all? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:VietnamMedalRibbon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected PalawanOz (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikepedia's policy on academic and professional titles

[edit]

Below is the relevant part of the Wikipedia policies on academic and professional titles in articles. Military titles are included in "professional" titles. The rest of the policy can be read at the shortcut link on the right.

Shortcut

<< Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line (although they may occasionally be used in articles of which the person with the degree is not the subject to clarify their qualifications). >>

Afterwriting (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. But so what?
EVERY Australian military bio includes the rank at the start of the lead. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then "EVERY Australian military bio" requires editing so that they follow the established policy - that's "what". Afterwriting (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think a major change like that just might need a little discussion & consensus before an individual editor makes unilateral decisions? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO. It's not a "major change" ( no pun intended presumably ) and doesn't require any "discussion". Show me your alleged "consensus" that's contrary to Wikipedial's established style policy. And please explain how editing according to the established policy is somehow "unilateral". Afterwriting (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in arguing with bigots, thank you. You can read. I've said my piece. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then obviously the only "consensus" is the one inside your head. "Bigots"? Your cheap and gratuitous use of this very offensive term tells us more about yourself than anyone else. Afterwriting (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me your alleged "consensus" - Oh. Sorry.

Is that enough? How much evidence do you require? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "evidence" of any "consensus" here - only that one or more editors either don't understand or just ignore the established Wikipedia policy on professional titles. Afterwriting (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you both should have a good read of WP:CIVIL. However, I believe you are mistaken, Afterwriting, as it is perfectly acceptable to include ranks within the lead and the vast majority of articles on senior military personnel do so. The section you refer to solely pertains to academia, and the titles and honours associated with such, not other professions such as the military. Additionally, this is potentially a major change in practice and would require discussion (preferably at WT:MILHIST) if you were to systematically remove ranks from leads, due to the fact that, as aforementioned, a significant number of articles hold this practice, as do editors. Also, I will point out that pretty much every Featured Article on a senior military officer includes the rank within the lead, and if it were a breach of policy as you suggest, it would have been picked up on during the Featured Article review process and removed, but to my knowledge and in my experience this has never been done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to include mention of a person's military rank in leads - but not to use such ranks as titles before names. The policy section I have referred to is for both *academic* and *professional* titles and military titles and ranks are included under professional titles ( under the general term of "officer" ). You have obviously misunderstood the policy and the distinction between including information about a military rank and using such ranks as titles. In this instance it is perfectly okay, for instance, to write that "Michael Jeffery is a major general in the Australian army" but it isn't okay to write that "Major General Michael Jeffery is ..." Please read the policy more closely and you will see that I am correct on this matter. Afterwriting (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what Abraham, B.S. has written and answer his implied questions. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably won't surprise people that this isn't the first time this general issue has been discussed. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Archive 6#Military Rank and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#First word in biographies. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood what I wrote. When I say include in lead, I mean include before name. I'm sorry, but you are mistaken; the policy solely refers to academia, hence while its title within the MOS is "Academic titles" and has a shortcut as "credential". Aside for that, also, ranks are not titles and the policy makes no mention of "officer". Furthermore, if one has a look at the examples given for that policy, they support the fact that it only refers to academia given that the examples refer to academic degrees and professorships. My latter points regarding the practice as widespread and prefectly acceptable in Featured Articles—which strictly adhere to policy—further supports that including a military rank before a name in the lead is not a violation of policy and perfectly acceptable practice. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you missing here, Abraham? If you read the relevant section of the policy it explicitly refers to *both* "academic" and "professional" titles - and military titles are considered as "professional titles". In the list of professional titles "officer" is used to generically include all military ranks and any associated titles. The policy is clear and straightforward and applies to all articles and all editors. I suggest that you read it again - and this time note that it includes "professional" titles and not "solely" academic titles. Afterwriting (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have another look at WP:CIVIL, the examples provided in the quoted policy and the discussions Jack has listed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For further clarification, if an academic position such as a professor is also used as a title ( "Professor" ) the same principle applies to a military rank such as a major general also being used as a title { "Major General" ). To claim that it is just being used as a rank before a name and not as a title is a nonsensical argument. Articles on archbishops, for instance, don't begin with "Archbishop Fred Nerk" on the basis that being an "archbishop" is a rank within the church. With only a few specific exceptions biographical articles begin with the person's name without any title or style or rank. Where is there any exception in Wikipedia's policies on this matter for military titles? Unless you can demonstrate that there is an exception then any military biography articles that begin titles before the person's name are not following the policy - and therefore can be edited to conform to the policy. Also, there was nothing uncivil intended in my previous comments and falsely accusing other editors of incivility is itself uncivil. Afterwriting (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20:25, 29 May 2010 Afterwriting (Undid The policy is clear on this matter.)
  • 19:17, 29 May 2010 Afterwriting (Undid Reverted persisent policy violation regarding titles.)
  • 01:53, 29 May 2010 Afterwriting (Undid As per Wikipedia policy on this matter.)
  • 22:35, 27 May 2010 Afterwriting (Undid Reverted contentious editing contrary to established policy.)
  • 21:56, 27 May 2010 Afterwriting (Undid It's Wikipedia policy regardless of what other articles mistakenly do.)
  • 18:19, 27 May 2010 Afterwriting (Title and styles aren't used in introductions - there are some exemptions such as "Sir" and "Saint".)

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call edit warring, POV pushing and ignoring four-fifths of the information, as well as the overwhelming consensus in both this discussion as well as that in the linked ones, presented to one as being civil. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary sub-heading to facilitate editing
[edit]

Dear Mr Afterwriting,
Let's look at the facts - not people's opinions or interpretations - the facts.

  1. ALL Australian milhist bios for Generals include the rank as the first word or two of the lead.
  2. Many of these bios are Featured Articles, A-class Articles, Good Articles, etc. and have been reviewed and approved by people who know what they are talking about, and are VERY familiar with wikipedia policies.
  3. There is a consenus amongst editors of Australian milhist bios for Generals (and there are many such people) that the rank appears as the first word or two of the lead.
  4. MANY British, American, Australian and other countries' milhist bios for ranks of Major / Squadron Leader / Lt Commander and above include the rank as the first word or two of the lead.
  5. There is a consenus amongst editors of these milhist bios that the rank appears as the first word or two of the lead.

Before you continue your uncivil behaviour, please stop and think about these FACTS.
Pdfpdf (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Jeffery/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has good info and a picture/infobox thing, but needs to be expanded and info needs to be organized. Green caterpillar 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Jeffery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Michael Jeffery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Jeffery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jeffery&oldid=1207810889"