Talk:Michael Jeffery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Michael Jeffery is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Styles and Titles

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)

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)

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)

  • Article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom refers to its subject as Queen Elizabeth II, and mentions that she is styled HM The Queen. Article Charles, Prince of Wales refers to its subject as The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and mentions that he is styled HRH The Prince of Wales and in Scotland HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. If you don't think the Pope is a good comparison, pick either of yours. My point stands. Hesperian 23:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Order of Logohu (PNG)

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)
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)

[edit] Star of the Order of Australia

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)

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.

[edit] the lead

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)

[edit] Resignation?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

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