Talk:Jeanne Sauvé

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

Collège Jeanne-Sauvé[edit]

Should there be mention of Collège Jeanne-Sauvé in Winnipeg, Manitoba? it was the first French immersion high school in western Canada and was named after Mme. Sauvé --24.77.35.110 04:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Biography plagarism?[edit]

Large portions of the section about her time as Governor General seem to be ripped directly from here: http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/sauve_e.asp I don't know the tags very well, is there a way of indicating this on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.213.2 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is 23rd rank?[edit]

In the line immediately below the photograph, it says "Rank : 23rd". What exactly does that mean? Moriori 03:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

She was the 23d governor general. Adam Bishop 04:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Adam. Shouldn't we say that? Ranking suggests to me she is 23rd in line for something. Moriori 08:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Honours chart[edit]

I "updated" the chart, but now the functions make it look worse. Can someone please fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.103.121 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vicereine[edit]

In Canada she was either the Governor General. Vicereine has no meaning in Canada. Maybe vice-regal, viceregal, viceregal envoy, but never vicereine or viceroy. Yowwiki (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Yowwiki[reply]

Governor Generalship[edit]

Governor is the noun, General is an adjective, therefore it should be Governorship General. Yowwiki (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Yowwiki[reply]

Jeanne Sauvé Catholic School ref[edit]

Why on earth shouldn't that reference be named? You should always name your references as you go, to save you a job later.--Launchballer 18:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Why should it be named? There's no other use of that reference in the article; ergo, the naming of it is entirely unnecessary. If it's ever in future used more than once, it can be named then. It will take the exact same number of keystrokes to name it in future as it does now; no energy's saved by naming it preemptively. Indeed, it's more probably entirely wasted, since it's more likely than the opposite that the reference won't later be used more than once in this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, for a number of reasons: just because it won't be used again on this page doesn't mean to say it won't be on other pages; many editors edit individual sections; schools are inherently notable and so references used here will almost certainly be reused (I am just about to write an article on this one).--Launchballer 21:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's may or may not be done somewhere else is irrelevant. If the reference is used in another article, it doesn't need to be named here for that to happen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jeanne Sauvé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I found a free use image on Flickr that can be cropped to replace the fair use image used in the article. MB298 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speakership succession box in main sidebar[edit]

I spent a considerable amount of time making sure that each House of Commons Speaker had a speakership succession box included in the main ID box on the side of the article. Miesenical has reverted the two instances in which this was done on the page of a Speaker who was also a GG. I think his decision is arbitrary and interrupts the flow of the speaker bios and is also inconsistent with the layout of pre-1952 Canadian GGs who have various other postings listed in their sidebars. Alexander's Hood (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing included in the infoboxes for the bios of Canadian governors general is their position as governor general, or positions if the individual was a viceregal representative in more than one country/Dominion/region or also a prime minister (though, I believe things get messy around Lord Stanley and earlier; but, that is in general, not just specific to infoboxes). The only exception, as far as I know, is Michaëlle Jean, who has the headship of the Fracophonie in her infobox. So, it's pretty clear the standard is, and has been for a long time, include only viceregal posts, premierships, and tenures as the head of a multinational organisation. Speakerships (if that's a word) and other positions are lesser and therefore shown at the foot of the article, though that is linked to from the infobox.
Things have evolved that way and been stable as such while under the eyes of many, many editors. Changing the "rule", therefore, shouldn't be done just by one person; if anything new is accepted, it's going to affect future articles and, without discussion and decision, the door is opened for anyone to start adding every position an individual ever occupied into that person's infobox (which leads to unweildly messes).
A cut-off line has to be drawn somewhere. If not after the country's highest offices (governor, premier) or the top of international organisations (the UN, Francophonie, Commonwealth), then where? And if at Speaker of the House of Commons, then why? The Speaker of the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court outrank the Speaker of the House of Commons. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about the "standard" in regards to infoboxes for viceregal posts. Is there an actual policy regarding the use of infoboxes for high state positions because otherwise I would argue that rather than being a "standard" it's actually an arbitrary decision. What is actually the standard practice overall in regards to exluding items from the infobox and replacing them with a "more..." link to the bottom of the article? From a logical position I could see using "more..." after 3 or 4 succession boxes so as not to create clutter but doing it after a single succession box, again, appears to be arbitrary.
The way to judge whether or not there is in fact a "standard" is to look at practice in similar articles. You claim there is a "standard" for vice regal articles (but no policy). I hesitate to cite counterexamples becuase I susepct you'll just dismiss them as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (which, by the way, isn't a policy). However, your reference to a "standard" open the door to examining evidence on whether in fact there is a standard. I will be pointing to these counterexamples not becuase they are binding precedents but simply as part of an examination of what, if anything, the "standard" is. In fact, what you claim is the standard is not the case. For example, the article for former Ontario lieutenant-governor Lincoln Alexander includes a succession boxes for the position of Minister of Labour and MP for Hamilton West in his infobox. Similarly, the John Crosbie article has an infobox level succession box not only for his LG position but for his posts as MP, MLA, and no less than five ministerial offices.
"But wait!" I can almost hear you saying, "these are subnational vice-regal representatives. The standard only exists for vice regal representatives at the national level."
"Oh really?" say I. "What about Peter Hollingworth's infobox which includes a succesion box for his position as Archbishop of Brisbane? William Deane which includes his position as a High Court Justice (not Chief Justice), or Bill Hayden, which includes infobox level succession boxes for his position as MP as well as various ministeral positions."
So there is no standard either for vice-regal reps in Canada or elsewhere in the Commonwealth. And frankly, Barack Obama's infobox includes not only a succession box for his position as United States Senator but for his position as Member of the Illinois Senate from the 13th district. It's a bit bizarre to argue that being Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons is too lowly a position to include in the infobox of a Governor General of Canada when Illinois State Senator isn't too lowly to include in the same box for the most powerful head of state in the world. To argue otherwise is to fetishize the position of Governor General as if the position is so exalted that any lower office is unworthy of being listed in the infobox. Alexander's Hood (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I quite clearly said things evolved and have remained fixed through years of many, many editors passing through these pages. Thus, a "standard" has sort of established itself; silence can equal consensus. I also quite clearly spoke of that "standard" as existing throughout articles on Canadian governors general; what happens on pages for lieutenant governors and non-Canadian governors-general is therefore not relevant (though, what's done at bios outside this series might serve as a guide for what to do and not to do within this series).
Now, do you have a suggestion as to where to draw a line between what goes in the infobox and what doesn't and why it should be drawn there? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Canadian order of precedence I see that after the GG, the offices listed are the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, Speaker of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Commons. As, with the GG (and excluding spouses who are listed by virtue of their partner's office), these are the 5 pre-eminent positions I would say they all merit inclusion. While provincial permier is far lower on the list, I think it makes sense to include that office (and in deed the position is listed in the infobox for former GG Edward Schreyer. I think there's also an argument to be made to include senior diplomatic positions such as High Commissioner to the UK, Ambassador the US, and Ambassador to France (Canada's three oldest diplomatic missions in order of establishment, if my memory serves correctly). I don't think it's necessary to include cabinet positions though, if one does follow the order of precdence, they do rank above provincial premier so I suppose it depends on how strictly one wants to use the order of precedence as a guideline. (While Canadian envoys abroad are not included in the order of precedence - arguably because as they are outside of Canada doing so would serve no pupose, ambassadors and high commissioners to Canada are listed below parliamentary speakers but above cabinet ministers which suggests that as a rule of thumb that is where the general rank of "ambassador" or "high commissioner" resides.) Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly obvious, though, that governors general, lieutenant governors, and prime ministers (which is what provincial premiers are) are all directly involved in governance; they are either "heads of state" (in the name of the sovereign) or heads of government. A speaker, however, is merely a parliamentary referee who rarely even votes on bills. But, fine, I guess we can put the cut-off line at speakers. So, what can be included is governor general, lieutenant governor, prime minister (provincial and federal), speaker of a legislative chamber, and justices of the supreme court, as well as heads of multinational organisations. I don't think there's much chance of someone occupying more than two of those offices in a lifetime. Ambassador and high commissioner should be left out, as one can hold a number of those positions. The same goes for minister, other than the prime minister. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Massey's and Vanier's high commissionerships to London were significant features of their lives and careers and were objectively important in terms of Canadian history -but that's an argument to be made on those talk pages. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with your list. Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On another somewhat related matter: Is it pertinent to show the monarch(s), governor(s) general, and prime minister(s) in office while the individual acted as speaker? None of those figures seem to be closely associated with the Speaker of the House of Commons. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion either way. I noticed that some succession boxes for Speaker had this information and others didn't so I included the info in the ones I created (and added it to the ones that were missing it) for the sake of consistency. I think listing the PM is relevant (particulary as the PM nominated the Speaker prior to 1986 and because it helps locate the Speaker in time for those who aren't intimately familiar with the chronology) but the GG and monarch not so much so I'd prefer to keep the first but am fine with doing away with the other two. Alexander's Hood (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What connection does the PM have to the Speaker of the House of Commons? As far as I know, there's very little. The speaker is elected by the commons and thereafter doesn't answer to the prime minister. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to 1986 the Speaker was nominated by the PM. Alexander's Hood (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; I did not know that. Is that one-time act important enough to warrant the inclusion of the PM in the infobox, though? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It happened 29 times, Sauve being the last Speaker chosen in that manner. See How Canadians Govern Themselves on the parl.gc.ca website. Alexander's Hood (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to the one time it happens for each speaker. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removing the references to GG and monarch (though I don't have the time to do it myself). I think listing the PM does serve some purpose - even if it's a "one time thing" (as most appointments are - and looking at the list of Speakers and parliaments, there are some Speakers such as George Airey Kirkpatrick because the government, and presumably the PM, was dissatisfied with them) it's still relevant and, as I said, helps situate the speaker in time for people who aren't intimately familiar with what government was in power in what year. Alexander's Hood (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mm... I just don't see the connection beyond the nomination. Even if the prime minister puts forward a candidate for speaker, the choice is the commons' to make; the speaker is elected by the house, not appointed by the PM. Further, unlike governors general, once in office, a speaker hardly, if ever at all, officially interacts with the PM for matters of state or governance.
Regardless, it was just a query. If nobody has time to make changes, there's no pressing reason to pursue this. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jeanne Sauvé. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeanne Sauvé. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeanne Sauvé. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeanne_Sauvé&oldid=1206331916"