Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 6 June 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Johnston (governor general) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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. Biography: Politics and Government / 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 politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). 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. [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

A news item involving David Johnston (governor general) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 October 2010.

[REDACTED]

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Cullen 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-- (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. Misplaced Pages 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

1. http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/how-much-does-your-universitys-president-make/
2. http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/gg-johnston-earned-more-than-1m-in-2010-at-waterloo-1.625946

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)

Removal of content relating to appointment as Special Rapporteur

Do criticisms raised by opposition political parties and media regarding David Johnston's appointment as Special Rapporteur merit article inclusion? ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely 71.17.137.94 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Beginning an informal discussion here regarding coverage of Johnston's appointment as Special Rapporteur and coverage of media criticism of the appointment. Should this content all be removed as per User:MIESIANIACAL/ or should such content be included in the article? My interpretation of WP:REL is that it merits inclusion. ScienceMan123 (talk) ScienceMan123 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Info about Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family has been part of this article for a very long time.

Quotes of every thing Trudeau ever said about Johnston is trivial.

Criticism of state visits belongs on articles about those responsible for the state visits; in this case, Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. Johnston did not decide to go to China; Johnston could not have said no to going to China.

Undue weight given to criticism violates WP:NPOV. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have compressed and integrated the additional information about Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family and moved it next to the existing sentence in the article. Hopefully this addresses your concerns.

Regarding criticism of Johnston's visits to China, please let me be clear that I am not criticizing Johnston. I am describing media criticism of Johnston, with appropriate citations. If you disagree with that criticism, I would suggest raising your concerns with the originating media sources. Blanket removal of criticism is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. ScienceMan123 (talk) ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What you've added to the part pertaining to Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family is a redundancy: Mont Tremblant is in the Laurentians.

It doesn't matter what media sources say. Johnston did not decide to go to China; Johnston could not say no to going to China. To claim otherwise in this article contradicts everything else said on Misplaced Pages about constitutional monarchy, responsible government, the governor general's role and powers, state visits, and more. That is not permissible. At best, you could insert:

"Terry Glavin criticized Johnston for visiting China—on his Prime Minister's advice, which the governor general is constitutionally required to follow—and for not addressing the Canadian Cabinet allowing Anbang Insurance Group to purchase Retirement Concepts, though the governor general is, by constitutional convention, disallowed from speaking publicly on policy matters. Glavin's main concern was with what he perceived to be Johnston ignoring Liu Xiaobo's status as a prisoner in Chinese jail. Johnston stated to CTV News he raised the matter of Xiaobo and China's human rights record with Chinese President Xi Jinping."

But, such extensive coverage of one journalist's opinion would seem to go against WP:DUE. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what is there right now is appropriately balanced and detailed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether Johnston was ordered to visit Xi by Prime Ministers or not has no bearing on whether his visits meet significance requirements for inclusion in the article. They merit article inclusion because they were reported on and he was criticized extensively in the press for his visits. Again, I am not the one criticizing him. I am describing the criticism that he received in the press, with appropriate citations. For now, I have left the unsourced claim that Johnston was ordered to visit Xi by Harper/Trudeau due to WP:AFG, but it would be helpful to find a source.ScienceMan123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a straw man. The issue isn't whether or not Johnston making a state visit to China is worthy of inclusion. The issue is whether or not criticism that is ignorant of how constitutional monarchy and responsible government works can pass Wikipeida policy and be included; at least, without explanation of the facts to clear up the misconceptions Glavin creates. This is an encyclopedia; not a political magazine. It's ludicrous that you think stating the most basic fact of Canadian civics even requires your gracious permission to let it stand, for now, until it's been sourced. Just read the articles Monarchy of Canada, Governor General of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada, Government of Canada, Cabinet of Canada, King's Privy Council for Canada, Constitutional monarchy, Responsible government, and others, if you want more. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I would request that you please keep this discussion civil and focus on the content. ScienceMan123 (talk) ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"If you disagree with that criticism, I would suggest raising your concerns with the originating media sources." With that bit of sarcastic condescension, you lost the right to lecture on civility. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm or condescension in that statement. The originating media sources are the correct venue to address criticism of their reporting. Again, I would ask to please keep this discussion civil. ~~ ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Neutral - Its inclusion or exclusion is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with Miesianiacal that the criticism from Terry Glavin under#Continued viceregal service doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's standards of inclusion, on basis of WP:UNDUE. As far as I can tell, criticism about the state visit came only from Glavin, and while Glavin is a notable journalist, he's still only one man — it doesn't make sense to elevate a single take like this. Moreover, the rest of the paragraph is a mess. The following line During that meeting, Xi described Johnston as an "old friend of the Chinese people." seems to be there to make insinuations about Johnston's connections to China, but it's really just boilerplate diplomatic language. After that, it's a couple sentences explaining how viceroys work, effectively there to counter Glavin and the earlier sentences, which just makes it awkward. The whole thing should be junked.

I'm also a little unsure about the criticism under #Post viceregal career, relating to his appointment as special rapporteur. My thought is, opposition parties always find something to criticize the government for, so that they found fault here is not necessarily notable; and the massive number of citations that follows it feels an awful lot like a WP:REFBOMB. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion of Johnston's state visits to China under David_Johnston#Continued viceregal service has become a mess. I will remove both Glavin's criticism and the defense to that criticism, leaving only a brief statement of fact about his visits. User:Miesianiacal please revert if you disagree.

Regarding David_Johnston#Post_viceregal_career, there are definitely more citations than are necessary at the moment. There was concern about the criticism not meriting inclusion under WP:UNDUE, which the citations were meant to address. WP:REFBOMB does not apply in this case, since these are valid references that focus on criticism of Johnson's appointment. But there are indeed too many of them. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

My concern was essentially that the sheer number of refs, made it look like an attempt to 'prove' relevance, especially since the criticism felt a bit harsh to me. But the current version looks a lot better (thanks, Miesianiacal) and I don't have an issue with it as it stands.

Was trying to clean-up the paragraph on Johnston's state visits (first by putting it chronological, which seems more neutral to me), and in the process found that there actually was a bit of criticism about the 2017 visit… so I've included that, and reinstated the Glavin ref per that (though I still don't think his editorial needs to be specifically noted in the text). — Kawnhr (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean-up/ref grouping, the text regarding Johnston's current appointment reads well now. I have no more concerns regarding article balance on this topic. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Miesianiacal and I seem to be in disagreement over whether mention of Johnston family ski trips with the Trudeaus are worth including in the article. Since they have been extensively mentioned in the media, I am of the opinion that they are worth including as a separate item from vacations in adjacent cottages. ScienceMan123 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Seem to be? Three times I've said the information is redundant. The families go to the cottages in the Laurentians to ski because the Laurentians are mountains and people ski on mountains and often have cottages nearby as convenient places to sleep and be when not skiing.

Kawnhr was right to be suspicious of attempts to make insinuations in the article. What point are you really trying to make by insiting the skiiing be in there except to mislead readers into believing the Trudeau and Johnston families spent more time together than they really did? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You're wasting your time arguing with partisan editors. See their contribution histories. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of their contributions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The information is not redundant. It was extensively reported that they spent time together at their adjacent cottages and during ski trips. Just because both sets of events occurred in the Laurentians does not make them redundant. They constitute separate activities. Why do you not want that information in the article?

I do not appreciate the continued personal attacks. ScienceMan123 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't hide behind feigned personal offence. You are the one making the edits. And you still have not explained the pertinence of the skiing detail nor justified the way it's been misleadingly inserted to say the Trudeaus and Johnstons spent time both at cottages and on skiing trips, when both are the same thing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not clear on how it is misleading to include mention of both summer trips to adjacent Laurentian cottages and ski trips to Tremblant. Both were reported in the media, and constitute separate sets of events. Can you please clarify why this was tagged as disputed? ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a repository for amateur original research projects. Unless you have facts, you shouldn't be editing articles. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any specific content that you disagree with, or is this just a personal attack? ScienceMan123 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe you are very clear on how the editing of information leads or misleads, since literally the only thing you ever add to this article is more and more minutae about one aspect out of Johnston's long and varied career, even now going so far as to bring one aspect of his daughters' educations into this article. Your aim is transparent: hightlight every and all connections between Johnston and China, no matter how small or how tangential, to the exclusion of all others, in order to paint Johnston as a Chinese agent. This is the same pattern as seen in your imbalanced edits at 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot. This heavy, forced one-sidedness violates the core principle of WP:NPOV. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

All content that I have added is well-sourced, relevant, and not a matter of opinion. In no way is it misleading. During his time in academia Johnston formed close partnerships with China, partnerships of a level that he did not form with any other nation. This has been covered in the media, and was sadly lacking from this article.

I wonder why all criticism and related content of Johnston was missing from the article? One possible reason is that certain editors edit articles relating to the Canadian monarchy and associated officials to remove inconvenient content and make them look as favorable as possible. Looking at your edit history, it appears that your entire purpose is to defend and promote the monarchy and anyone associated with them. Talk about WP:NPOV, you're like the monarchy whitewash team. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you keep falling back on the "it's sourced" argument, which has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Or perhaps we should be looking at WP:OR: you can add all the sourced material you want. It's still invalid if it's cherry-picked and edited, including using overload, to communicate your personal opinion. And a false dichotomy isn't a defence: the answer to no criticism isn't EVERY CRITICISM FROM EVERYONE EVERYWHERE. Besides, Johnston's daughters doing some of their schooling in China isn't a criticism of Johnston. Nor is happenstance landing him in a cottage next to the Prime Minister's. Nor is making state visits exactly as his job entailed. That's the information you've inserted. It's interesting you now call it "adding missing criticism". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that all content has been well sourced is very relevant given your repeated false accusations that I have posted misleading information. Now that you are also making false accusations of WP:OR, it is doubly so.

Criticism that is covered extensively in the media is relevant and inclusion is essential to establish a WP:NPOV. I am sorry that this interferes with your singular objective of portraying the monarchy and all related Canadian officials in the most favorable light possible. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's all assume goof faith, focus on content and keep building a better encyclopedia. FWIIW, I think statements of support (and criticisms) of Johnston's appointment are appropriate, but should generally be focused in the portion of the article where the appointment is discussed in detail. Even that might be unnecessary in this article, since the appointment will is addressed in the related 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot#Appointment of Special Rapporteur article/section and these matters are addressed there. If this article directs there, it may be unnecessary to reproduce some of that material here. I will comment on the daughters' education point below, but on the other issues, I think the best way forward is to identify specifically what content is still in issue. At this point, I am not clear on that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree the edits are apt and should be included in this. The other editor is just a Liberal Party shill trying to protect Trudeau. 70.31.26.72 (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, IP 206.45.2.52 has been blocked for a month. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaders' Debates Commissioner

Hello Wikipedians! I want to have a civil conversation about this since I am new to Misplaced Pages and I am just simply trying to help in collecting accurate and helpful information. I am curious why his status as Commissioner of the Leaders' Debates Commission shouldn't be included in his inbox. Other people holding office of similar status like Official Languages Commissioner Raymond Théberge, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion to name a few all have their respective offices in their infobox. I would argue that his status as leading an agency of the Privy Council Office is a senior position and more deserving of being in the infobox than other positions and chairmanships he's held.

Of course, there may be precedent for this kind of thing that I am unaware of, so please feel free to educate me to that.

I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to engage in a discussion about this topic. Factchecker72946482 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no supporting policy, but I agree that it would seem reasonable to maintain his status as Commissioner of the Leaders' Debates Commission in the infobox for at least some time longer. As you note, it was a senior position, and he just resigned a few days ago. ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a matter of notability. Johnston has been head of a number of organizations. That doesn't meant hey're all worthy of inclusion in the infobox. The Leaders' Debates Commission is a barely-known entity and Johnston was head of it for, what? Five years?

Perhaps you'd want to bring this up at WP:CANADA.--₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to say whether this role is significant enough to be in the infobox. I agree it wouldn't be a bad idea to discuss on the Canada project. I tend to think it is a pretty significant role, but since the Leaders' Debates Commission has only been around since 2018, only organized two sets of debates (2019 and 2021), and since so far Johnston is the only person to have held the role of Commissioner, it is hard to say whether it is significant enough a role to be in an infobox generally, and also if it is in this case. Obviously, the role of GG is more prominent and should be treated as such for our purposes. Once the government appoints a new commissioner editors on the page of the new commissioner will need to grapple with similar considerations. Might also be useful to consider MOS:INFOBOX, we are not the first editors to grapple with such issues.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that's what I was trying to get at: the commission's just not that prevalent; most Canadians don't know it exists. That's not necessarily an argument to exclude it, per se. But, I'd say, at best, it's equivalent to him having been dean of Western's law school, principal of McGill, and President of Waterloo, and none of those are in the infobox. MOS:INFOBOX does state, "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Is being the head of a relatively obscure commission, that he didn't exactly elevate into the national consciousness or anything, a "key fact" about Johnston? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we have other bios with this position mentioned in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, he is the first (and only) person to have held the position so far. So no.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't add it to Johnston's infobox, if this is so. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. I am not sure the position is less significant or well known than some other commissioners like the Ethics Commissioner, which is also fairly new (and only on to its third office holder now). I think the better reason to exclude it here would be that in the case of Johnston his most prominent role is GG, and including many others could be distracting and perhaps not a summary in the spirit of MOS:INFOBOX. That said I tend to think the Debates Commissioner role is more prominent than academic roles, but others seem do disagree. Reasonable arguments could be made both to include the role in Johnston's infobox, or to exclude it. Just saying, I don't think this discussion should be read to suggest the 2nd Commissioner not have that role included in an infobox (that would likely depend in part his/her/their background). However, if that happens, it might circle back to this page again, because we then might want to consider navigation across the encyclopedia. That is a question for another day though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Daughters' university educations

Do we really need to cover his daughters' university education in this? I get that there has been some public criticism of Johnston's appointment as special rapporteur due to percieved closeness to the Chinese regime or people. It may be appropriate to note that the appointment was praised by some, criticized by others, and to include brief summaries of the reasons for each. But do we really need to go into his daughters university educations? Is that relevant to an article about *him*? Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not in the least bit needed. Unless one has a goal of weaving a particular tapestry of one's own preference, that is.

The quotations are also needlessly excessive; Johnton's quote about his supposed feelings towards the Chinese people is pointless (he's probably said similar things in other countries during his many goodwill, collaborative, and diplomatic trips), let alone two and three quotes saying the same thing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Details of his daughters' education was brought up in the news as a source of criticism related to Johnston (rather than his daughters), so I thought it relevant to include the details. But I'll cut out the specific details and just leave the references to address this concern. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the details of his daughters' education are needed. This article is about him. We don't need to include the details of where his daughters went to school just because some WP:RS have mentioned it. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. If the reason to include it is to give context to criticisms about his appointment as special rapporteur, that can be done in that section (without mentioning his daughters). As has been done in 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot#Appointment of Special Rapporteur, prior to the most recent edit there, by simply noting general concerns about his own ties to China (through his own travel and academic career). General WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME concerns are also a good reason to avoid putting unnecessary details in about his non-notable daughters.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The details of his daughters' education have already been removed. Probably the other discussion of his associations with China would be better moved to the section on his appointment as special rapporteur. Originally context to criticism of his appointment as special rapporteur had been placed in that section, but its placement there was a point of contention. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What I am saying is I am not sure we should even be including this sentence: Three or four of Johnston's daughters studied at universities in China.. That is still in the article as currently written. Do we really need it? What does it add?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It adds context to the great affection for China in the Johnston home, which was one of Glavin's main sources of criticism on the appointment. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. But we don't have to include any of Glavin's criticisms just because they WP:EXIST. It may be appropriate to include general criticisms of the appointment (ie that he is perceived to be too close to China, or too focused on improving relations as Glavin writes), but that we already have info about *his* work in academia, travels, etc. Why is it nessisary to include his daughters' education to further show that criticism? I just don't think it is, and there are decent reasons not to, ie his non-notable daughters' privacy which newspapers are less concerned with than us (Misplaced Pages).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that his daughters are not named, it does not pose a privacy concern from the Misplaced Pages side of things. My opinion is that the information helps readers to understand why the attitude towards China in the Johnston home was criticized following his appointment as special rapporteur. But it's not a hill that I'm willing to die on, so if you feel particularly strongly on this topic feel free to take out the sentence. We can then revisit if additional criticism on the Johnston family attitude towards China comes up in the media. ScienceMan123 (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Canada (21 October 2013). "Canadian Governor Johnston: Met my home away from home in Nanjing". ca.china-embassy.gov.cn. Retrieved 24 March 2023.}}
2. ^ "Keynote Address at CCBC 35th AGM Banquet Luncheon" (PDF). Canada China Business Council. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 March 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
3. ^ Dacheng, Zhang; Li, Shi (18 October 2013). "My feelings for the Chinese people last forever". Xinhua (in Chinese (simplified)). Archived from the original on 24 March 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
4. Glavin, Terry. "Terry Glavin: David Johnston the right man to whitewash Chinese interference". National Post. Retrieved 24 March 2023.

The article Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections exists for that very purpose. This is a biographical article about David Johnston, not his daughters. Unless you can prove he forced his children to attend university in China, the very neatly cherrypicked info about where they went to school doesn't belong here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Except that it is being extensively discussed in the news in the context of Johnston's potential conflict of interest as special rapporteur, making it of relevance in a biographical article about David Johnston. Such cursory family details of interest would also not be out of place in a biographical article on any other individual: what makes Johnston special such that no details of his family should be included? ScienceMan123 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Needs new edits in light of recent events

Unlock the profile so it can be updated to include recent events of Mr Johnstons participation into Foreign interference. 70.31.26.72 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Latest May 2023 edit war

User:Miesianiacal and I seem to be in another edit war over the inclusion of politically-inconvenient content in the article. I have been accused of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR, neither of which I believe have any merit, while I believe that Miesianiacal has been persistently violating WP:NPOV by attempting to sanitize/whitewash the article. Based on edit history, I suspect that WP:COISELF may apply due to a personal relationship between the user and the subject of the article. Input by other contributors would be most welcome. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If you really think there is a WP:COI you can report it at WP:COIN, but you should be able to show reasons why you belive that. I wouldn't discuss it here since editors have the right to remain anonymous. When reporting it is also wise to be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. That said you have already heard what I think about going into detail on Johnston's daughters: it just isn't necessary or really relevant to the article. I question whether any of them are notable, despite the article about one of them you created. It is appropriate for some limited amount of the content from the Allegations article to be included here, but it needs to be porportional. There have been many recent pieces where politicians, accademics, columnists and editorial boards have mentioned the issues with Johnston's past friendship with Trudeau, and perception issues affecting his current role. I would encourage you to find those sources and work towards an agreement on the talk page about what mention of those criticisms is appropriate for this article. Good luck.--

Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, ScienceMan123 is choosing to simply ignore the earlier discussion about Johnston's daughters and the reception of Johnston's appointment as rapporteur is already covered in this article, with expanded information appropriately at Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections (none of the examples of support added there by ScienceMan123, of course). But, nothing short of blasting every criticism, every insinuation, and every possible besmirchment, in excruciating detail, everywhere and anywhere, will do for ScienceMan123. They can feign offence at the bias being pointed out; but, their edit history stands as irrefutable evidence. I can't find one instance where they added anything that balances out their preferred portrayal of Johnston as some kind of Chinese spy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your response is as usual a complete mischaracterization of previous discussions and events. The content in the article that you insist on whitewashing (now that Johnston is back in the public spotlight) already was a cursory summary compared with the original, reduced in detail in a good faith attempt to address your past concerns. It had seemed that we had reached a consensus in including at least such cursory details from media reports about Johnston's alleged conflicts of interest. But apparently including any coverage at all of the reasons for the allegations of conflict of interest is too much for you, despite it being a central topic of a federal political scandal and covered in numerous news articles. You are doing a disservice to readers with your one-sided editing in an attempt to censor content. I likewise cannot find a single instance where you have added anything critical of Johnston to the article. Censorship seems to be your sole purpose. ScienceMan123 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the discussion at WP:DRN failed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

HoC vote calling on Johnston to resign

I do think that this House of Commons vote calling on Johnston to resign needs to be noted here. It is already covered in article Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections, but I think it is significant enough that it will always be an important footnote on Johnston and his career.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

But, Johnston hasn't resigned and a motion passed by the House of Commons--which, at present, seems like little more than minority parliament political theatrics--doesn't have the authority to compel him to. I'm not convinced it deserves a mention in this article. If it does, though, it can't warrant more than half a sentence. This rapporteur job has taken up a total of two months out of Johnston's whole life.

Regardless, the article's locked until the dispute over how much China stuff to include is resolved. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Would support inclusion, seems like a significant step to take even if non-binding. One sentence should suffice. ITBF (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. So, after "serious matters", something like, "the House of Commons in May passed a motion requesting Johnston resign the appointment, which Johnston declined on the grounds his mandate came from Cabinet, not Parliament"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

To respect WP:NPOV, if explanation is provided for why Johnston declined to resign, explanation should also be provided for why Johnston was asked to step down.

Something like, "the House of Commons in May passed a motion requesting Johnston resign the appointment due to serious concerns about the special rapporteur process, the counsel retained, his findings, and his conclusions, which Johnston declined on the grounds his mandate came from Cabinet, not Parliament." ScienceMan123 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's too much for this article and 18 words to 10 words is not balance. The "on the grounds" part isn't Johnston's opinion, it's a matter of fact that needs to be made clear so readers don't assume parliament has control over who is rapporteur. We can instead go with, "Though the rapporteur's mandate comes from Cabinet, not Parliament, the House of Commons in May passed a motion, by 174 votes to 150, requesting Johnston step aside from the role, which Johnston declined." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it is worth this is the actual wording of the motion. It says "serious questions have been raised about the special rapporteur process, the counsel he retained in support of this work, his findings, and his conclusions". The motion does not explicitly refer to a conflict of interest or an appearance of one, regardless of what Singh, Poilievre, and Blanchet said before and after the motion passed. Since there have been significant reaction, it seems some takes the stance that opposition parties are treating Johnston unfairly. Others say he has lost the confidence of "opposition politicians, editorial boards and the public, according to a recent poll", that his position following the vote is "barely tenable", and that his refusal to resign will "destroy faith in democracy". It is worth considering how to deal with this in a manner that takes a long term view and isn't sensational or newsy. That said, I do think this section is going to need to grapple more seriously with some of the criticisms Johnston is facing. Some of which have been mounting for some time, even before this vote, including these , , , , , , , , , . I don't think the solution is to essentially push the nature of these criticisms over to other articles, like Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. I think we need to explicitly note that it has been said he is in a conflict or a perceived one (or something like that) with appropriate attribution. Some of the criticism has been pretty blistering. I don't want to give too much focus to sensational statements, but I don't think the current wording appropriately addresses this. Since the protection continues for another three weeks, we have time to take a deep breath, and calmly think this through.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thea article already mentions the opposition to his appointment. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a difference between the initial opposition to his appointment (on which that is based), and that which has occurred since the release of his first report. The motion is a sign of that. But so are editorial board and other commentary, and opposition statements. The current wording is politicians and journalists voiced both disapproval—concerns mainly focusing on Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family, membership in the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, and state visits to China he made as governor general. No longer are there just simple concerns about relationships etc, now the opposition is jointly saying he is in conflict (Poilievre) or at least there is an appearance of conflict severe enough that he should resign (Singh, Blanchet?, May?) and that the public does not have confidence in him, and that doing damage to public confidence in institutions. I don't think we can or should include all of the commentary, but as noted above the tone has shifted to a point where the language in major papers includes saying he is in "a clear conflict of interest", that he should feel "shame" for his involvement, that he is complicit in an "assault on democracy", that he is a Laurentian elite, that his reputation is in "smouldering ruin", that his report amounts to sneering at the public, that his decision to stay on is "barely tenable", that he is "determined to destroy faith in democracy". There are others out there, but these gives a pretty clear idea of the amplified nature of the criticism since his report. In the circumstances, I don't think the current wording is sufficient. Nor do I think mentioning that the House of Commons voted he should resign, without saying why, is sufficient.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is not about achieving balance by using an equal number of words, but by assigning weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in sources." If anything, based on media coverage of the NDP motion and Johnston's response, there should be an even greater emphasis on the reasons for the NDP motion relative to what I have suggested. Probably 50 words to 10 would be more reflective of prominence in the sources. But I think just including the key words from the passed motion would suffice. ScienceMan123 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

References

1. "Liberals voice support for embattled rapporteur Johnston, as MPs debate asking him to step down". CTVNews. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 31 May 2023.
2. "PM dismisses calls to remove David Johnston as special rapporteur". nationalpost. Retrieved 31 May 2023.
3. Fife, Robert; Chase, Steven (May 31, 2023). "MPs vote to call on David Johnston to step aside as special rapporteur on foreign interference". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved May 31, 2023.
4. Taylor, Stephanie; Rabson, Mia (May 31, 2023). "David Johnston plans to stay on as special rapporteur after Commons votes for him to step aside". CBC News. Retrieved May 31, 2023.

Clear Bias by certain editor

I'm wanting to confront this issue head on. What ive seen here on this subject over the last few weeks is a concentrated effort by one and one individual only to stifle, threaten and pervert discourse/truth on the subject of Mr. Johnston. Frequent bans, and blocks against anyone daring to question their narrative and stifling relevant and apt information about the current Rapporteur role. I'm asking for every editors on here honest input on whether they feel a certain editors heavy handedness is clear and apparent bias. I will abide by the majority of posters decision if they feel differently I will cease edits/complaints. I will venture a guess that this post gets removed by said individual and my IP banned from commenting, so if you don't here from me that is likely why. I feel that this subject is too important not to fight for and that Misplaced Pages needs to be an unbiased bastion of free and accurate information which this individual is abhorrently apposed to. We all know who this person is, I cant name them outright or else my account will be banned ironically by them. 65.93.214.95 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Canada-related articles
• High-importance Canada-related 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
• B-Class Education in Canada articles
• High-importance Education in Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• B-Class Ice Hockey articles
• WikiProject Ice Hockey biographical articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Canadian English