Talk:Governor-general/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cleanup

I don't know how to edit this thing, but here is the link of the Saint Cristopher & Nevis Governor General: http://www.gov.kn/default.asp?PageIdentifier=36 . Also, the St. Lucia link is broken, so here is the right one: http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/agencies/office_of_the_governor_general.htm . I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

I've completely rewritten this article for clarity, brevity, and to reduce reduncancy. I've been very careful to respect all and retain most of the pre-existing information in the article (though it's been entirely re-arranged), and have noted anything that was actually removed, along with my reasons for doing so. I discuss specific changes below.

All in all, the article is much cleaner, clearer, and all but one or two bits of information are retained (though sometimes removed to a more appropriate location). The cleanup also makes fairly obvious what the article needed all along: more information on Governor-Generals in general and a balance to the Anglo-centricism of the article.

Appoitment Section =

The substantic information in this section is already explicit in much of the article, and many of the particular points have been subsumed under the more chronologically oriented discussion. The original had a lot of duplicate information (even before the rewrite), and when that was removed, it just wasn't very substantive on it's own. Plus, the paraticular points merged well with the rewritten article. The points that were particular to a particular terratorial Governor-General history were moved to that article:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governor-General_of_Australia&diff=39592743&oldid=38482756
  2. I was going to move the bit about the Governor-General of India to the specific Governor-General of India article, but it seemed to contradict information in that article, so I took the latter as controling and merely deleted it.

Commonwealth Countries with Governors-General

I simplified put this information under the "see also"; while British Governor-Generals are probably, especially from an Anglo-centric viewpoint, the most important of the governor generals, this is an article about Governor-Generals and not only Commonwealath Governor-Generals. The additional information of the dates and websites seems like it would be better placed in the specific articles. In addition to cleaning up the article as viewed, it's also worthwhile to simplify the Wiki-code itself where reasonable to do so. I also alphabetized the list.

Other Attributes

This section was removed. The first part had redundent information that users could access by going to individual articles. Also, it was at too specific, talking about the differences only between former commonwealth territories. If someone can formulate a concise way to state the differences between the post in a more general sense, that may be worth putting back into the article somewhere.

The main point in the paragraph on presidencies is already captured in the section "Modern Times: In the Former British Colonies", and the specific detalis are already captured in the articles pertaining to the particular posts.

The bit about the uniform was largely incorporated into the historical context. The bit about the South African Governor-General was removed as being too specific. (I have not checked to see if the information is in the article on the South African Governor General).

The bit about the flags of the governor general was removed. This is actually something I'm not sure about, but the problem is that it really didn't fit nicely in the historical discussion, and it just didn't seem very important. Certainly not important enough to warrant it's own section. If someone feels strongly about it, they can put it back in somewhere. The bit about Canada changing the flag, though, was way to specific and should go in the Canadian Governor-General article.

I also removed the bit about addressing the Governor-General for the same reasons.

Former colonial Commonwealth posts and Former post-colonial posts representing the British Sovereign as local Head of State

I checked each and every entry, and there was already a listing for "Governor-General of X", or where there was not, I created one. I did put these in the "see also", but did not give them seperate lines as they are mostly quite trivial and the vertical size of the list was absolutely dominating the article. In many cases, the info on the more specific page was far more complete.

The one exception is this bit:

  • 1 August 1953 - 31 December 1963 The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (also called the Central African Federation) comprising Southern Rhodesia (present Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (present Zambia) and Nysaland (present Malawi)

I simply removed this as it does not actually list any Governor-Generals.

New articles:

There was never an entity called British Guyana - it was British Guiana and then it became Guyana in 1966. There was never a Governor-General of Sri Lanka, only a Governor-General of Ceylon. Sri Lanka is and always has been a republic. Quiensabe 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Same with Tanzania and Rhodesia - neither had Governors-General (for different historical reasons) I have changed the text and moved them to Ceylon, Tanganyika, and Guyana, and Governor-General of Rhodesia to Governor of Rhodesia Quiensabe 14:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Other equivalents

This section was empty.

Source and References

I removed the intra-wikipedia references (which was all but one) as it's rather innapropriate to cite a thing as it's own reference. :) Forgive me if this is presumptious, but I don't see the difference between this and if World Book were to cite it's own articles as justification for another. In that case, it's manifestly of little value, and potentially very harmful. If something becomes merely self-referencing, then it can easily float away from reality. Yet the presence of 'references' tend to lend an air of credibility and research which is somewhat disengenuous.

Misc Bits I removed

  1. Picture of Canadian Governor General: this just didn't add anything to the article and seemed more appropriate under the [ [Governor-General_of_Canada] ] article; I was going to put it there, but there's already a very similar picture. Code:

[ [Image:btweedsmuir2.jpg|right|frame|[ [John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir|Lord Tweedsmuir] ] was [ [Governor General of Canada] ] from 1935 to 1940. The uniform worn here was the customary ceremonial dress for Commonwealth Governors General until recently.] ]

  1. The talk about Governor-Generals in modern times beginning with In its modern usage, the term "Governor-General" originated in those British... was confusing. It seemed to be saying that the title Governor-General was not historically universal in all colonies, though it's usage has been regualised. I retained that. Some of the specific mentions, such as Canada and Australia, where confusing each had the post at different times, whereas the mentioning here seemed to imply that there was some universal regulation. I would suggest that the particulars of the particular realms, which readers can reference through the "see also" notes or through the Commonwealth realm article linked in the paragraph would be a more appropriate place to make the point of titular changes for each of the territories.
  2. Image of Governor-Geniral of the Irish Free State: again, not directly relevant to this article moved to the Governor-General of the Irish Free State article.

WikipediaAdventures 16:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Zane Rockenbaugh)

What the heck? What you are done in a whole range of areas is wrong. For a start cutting out images is dead wrong. A professional encyclopaedia uses images of the holders of the office for layout reasons. A text-alone article is a non-starter. So the images have to go back. For a start the Buchan photo is directly relevant in showing the standard visual representation of a Commonwealth GG until recently. The Healy photo is 100% relevant. The manner of his appointment, in which the native government was directly involved, albeit informally, broke new constitutional ground in the then empire so he is an automatic have to include. Secondly you have removed important contextual information. The whole point of an article like this is to pull together information, not scatter it around into other articles. Articles like this pull together themes and draw attention to parallels, similarities and differences. That requires a lot of the detail you removed.
I don't doubt the sincerity of your edits, but I doubt the wisdom of removing a lot of stuff. But I do appreciate your decision to explain your edits. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It would help if you could identify yourself. Hit the ~ key four times. A lot of the stuff is sloppy and inaccurate (references to Commonwealth realms as British Commonwealth and non-existent places like British Guyana) and the English needed working on - the word is colonial outpost, not colonial post and virtually nobody says autochthonous in English. By all means include references to usage in other parts of the world, but current usage is confined to Commonwealth realms - Netherlands Antilles and Aruba have Governors, not Governors-General.Quiensabe 13:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hyphen

OK, I'm going to start the discussion here, so we don't keep moving back and forth between my, Jtdirl, and Cafemusique's talk pages. It appears that sometimes the hyphen is used, and sometimes it's not; in Canada it is apparently official that there is no hyphen. I'm not convinced that it would be an error by the people who made the webpage to leave out the hyphen...and while it may be official to use the hyphen in Ireland or Australia, I don't think that means it is necessarily official in Canada.

Personally, I don't think it matters, as long as one redirects to the other, since searching for governor general with or without a hyphen makes no difference (either on Wikipedia, or Google). Perhaps we could just make a note about the hyphen use on this article's page, if it turns out Canada doesn't use the hyphen. Adam Bishop 23:09 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Certainly if Canada dropped the hypen it is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921) the Irish "Representative of the Crown" was modelled on the Canadian Governor-General. In the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922 the term governor-general was used and it was taken exactly from Canada. If Canada had no hypen then, Ireland wouldn't have had one either.

I'll check with Buckingham Palace to see if they know whether the Letters-Patent governing the GG were varied to drop the hypen. The Letters-Patent are the definitive source because they define the office and are drafted by the Canadian Government. If they use a hypen, then the GG is hypenated. If they don't anymore then it no longer is. What is the GG called by French canadians? Might the hypen have been dropped to suit the linguistic needs of Quebec? FearÉIREANN 23:33 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In French it's just Gouverneur Général, with no hyphen. But there are French words with hyphens, so I don't think that is a problem. Adam Bishop 23:40 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In NZ ...

it's Governor-General

[[LETTERS PATENT CONSTITUTING THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND]]

No Second-in-Line in Australia

I can't speak for other countries, but in Australia it is most definitely not the case that there is any "second-in-line" to the GG. Where the GG goes overseas in an official capacity, dies in office, goes on leave, or is prevented by illness from performing his duties, the convention is that the most senior state Governor is appointed Administrator of the Commonwealth. However that appointment is an explicit appointment made by the government of the day; it is not some sort of automatic succession to the office like the US V-P succeeding to the Presidency on the death of the President. The government is under no obligation to appoint the most senior state governor. In fact Gough Whitlam removed the capacity of the then Queensland governor Sir Colin Hannah to be appointed Administrator in such circumstances, due to Hannah's grossly inappropriate partisan political public comments. Hannah wasn't the senior governor at the time, but he was prevented from ever being made Administrator in the event that he were ever to become the senior governor. The subsequent Fraser government (and of course Gough himself) could have reversed that decision, but to my knowledge never did. But the point is that the government decides who the GG is, and the governemnt decides who the Administrator is. I even doubt that a government is under any obligation to appoint any state governor at all. What's to prevent, say, a Chief Justice or indeed any eminent person from being appointed Administrator? Nothing as far as I'm aware. JackofOz 04:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In Canada, the Chief Justice is, by convention, appointed as the Administrator of Canada if the Governor General were ever to die, be incapacitated, be unable to perform his or her duties, or to be absent from the country for a period of longer than one month. This happened in the recent past when the Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson, PC, CC, CMM, COM, CD, LL.D. was unable to perform her duties due to the installation of a pacemaker; the Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, PC, automatically became the Administrator. I just thought that maybe Canada's procedure might help? FiveParadox 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Governor General Ceases to Represent British Government

There is a contradiction in the article on the issue of when the Governor General ceased to represent the British government. At one point the article states that the change took effect in 1927. Then, only a few lines later, we learn that the Governor General still represented the British government until 1929 when there was a dispute over the appointment of the Australian Governor General. Is someone able to clarify this? HistoryBA 00:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some realms kept the G-G as a representative of the imperial gov't longer than others. This was the case in NZ until 1939. Alphaboi867 02:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Governor General and Queen's Powers

This article needs to make it clear that the Australian Governor-General's constitutional powers are his own, unlike Canada or New Zealand where the Governor-General's powers are exercised on behelf of the Queen. There is no possibility of the Queen over-riding the Australian Governor-General, for instance. She doesn't hold his powers, may nnot exercise them, and may not instruct him on how to use them. Skyring 18:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Netherlands

I've removed the Netherlands Dependent Area entries from the list, to a separate list. The section headings go: 

1 Commonwealth Usage
    * 1.1 Appointment

In the Commonwealth Usage section of the article, there is a list of Commonwealth GGs. I've created a Dutch section for the Netherlands GGs. Even though the idea being followed with including the Dutch GGs is that "a viceroy is a viceroy", the different histories etc between the two flavours mean that the two cannot be mixed—you can't compare apples and oranges.

DiamondVertex 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Something wrong

Actually its wrong. The Queen (or more likely King) has overruled the governor general at least once in the 20th century. Governor General Byng left Canada for England when it came time to choose a new Prime Minister, and the King ordered him to return for the election. AllStarZ 04:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Later political careers

When Lord Alexander of Tunis ceased his term as GG of Canada, he became Minister for Defence in Britain. Is there any other case of a GG or vice-regal rep coming down from the non-partisan Olympus and rejoining the political fray? I would have thought that could be seen as casting a light on his actions as GG, not a perception the Crown would be keen to foster. JackofOz 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ed Schreyer, former Governor General of Canada, ran unsuccessfully for the House of Commons in the 2006 federal election. Masalai 09:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. How very interesting. JackofOz 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

India

Regarding hyphenation see Talk:Governor-General of India. Greentubing 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Governor[-]General

Is the bracketed hyphen in Governor[-]General really necessary? I understand that there are differences between Canada's (& India's) style and other styles, but it seems absurd to add a bracket in every instance of the term. Think of how unwieldy the article on color would be if it was written as colo[u]r throughout the entire article! I really suggest that it be "Governor-General", the name of the article, in all instances not regarding Canada or India, and "Governor General" in those places. Comrade4·2 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the [-] is ugly and unnecessary. I'm going to get rid of it. FiggyBee 14:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Equivalence to Lord-Lt.

Is this a valid comparison? Though I understand that both offices are offices representing the Queen, they have totally different origins... 202.89.155.105 10:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

category

Wrong category; Governors-General are not politicians.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian Governor-General appointed by British Queen

The Queen in the Australian Constitution is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not the Queen of Australia. I know that they are the same person, but if anybody wants to say that the Australian Queen appoints the Australian Governor-General, could they find a high level source, please. Like one that over-rides the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this is an interesting question. See discussion below, concerning what governors-general 'can' & 'can not' do.. @Miesianiacal: should be welcomed 'here' & 'there'. GoodDay (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

General statements that aren't necessarily true

There is no legal relationship between any realm that acknowledges Elizabeth II as their monarch. They are all completely independent from one another.

This is obviously true for some of the commonwealth realms. It is certainly not generally true of all of them. Several of the Commonwealth realms are joined in that their highest court of appeal is the Judicial Committee of the (British) Privy Council. Just because this is (no longer) true of Canada doesn't mean we can make generalizations of this sort about all of the commonwealth realms. john k (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands

Did not the Spanish and Austrian rulers of the Netherlands have the title of Governor-General? john k (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Healy not the first non-British peer

In December 1922, Tim Healy, an Irish Catholic politician, was appointed as the first Governor-General of the Irish Free State. This was the first time that someone other than a British Peer was appointed as the Governor-General of a dominion within the British Empire.

Not true. In 1914, Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson became Governor-General of Australia. He remained in the post throughout World War I, and left the post in 1920 and returned to Britain, after which he was created Viscount Novar. As G-G he was a knight but not a peer. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, Sir John Young (G-G of Canada 1869-1872) was only created Baron Lisgar in 1870; Lord Lorne (G-G of Canada 1878-1883) was only a courtesy peer; and Prince Arthur of Connaught (G-G of South Africa 1920-1923) was not a peer either, although he was a prince. john k (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Who commands the defence force?

Looking at this statement, The Australian constitution provides that the command-in-chief of the Defence Forces is vested in the governor-general, though, the power to act is constitutionally vested in the monarch, the first half is unquestioned and well-sourced. There is no source for the second statement, and I have placed a "citation needed" template there. If any editor could provide a source explicitly stating that "the power to act (as commander of the defence force)" is vested in the monarch, that would be helpful. We need a direct statement, not a confected argument, please. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd better alert Qexigator, since it's his composition. You know, the one you let pass twice at Talk:Head of state and then again once he added it into that article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about it now, and you're the one who removed the "citation needed" template. We need a source, don't you agree? Perhaps it would be best just to remove the unsourced statement - I can't see that it adds anything. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a source there. You know that because you put your "cite needed" tag right next to it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The cite supports the statement that "the command-in-chief of the Defence Forces is vested in the governor-general", which is uncontroversial. If it supports the statement that "the power to act is constitutionally vested in the monarch", are you able to quote the exact words used in the source, please? Just cut and paste them, that will be fine. --Pete (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You'd better alert Qexigator, since it's his composition. I'm sick of arguing with you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this discrepancy to light. The wording in question stems from Talk:Head of state[1]. What was intended per source became garbled. The source[2] says: ...while the Australian Constitution provides that the Command-in-Chief of [Australian] Defence Forces be vested in the Governor-General, the corresponding Canadian provision vests the Command-in-Chief of the Canadian naval and military forces in The Queen. The passage in the article needs a rewrite to that effect. Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Full of nonsense

This personal essay is just one more example of the habitual nonsense written by those quaint British/Canadian/Australian ultra-monarchists.

First line: A governor-general or governor general is a vice-regal representative of a monarch in an independent realm or a major colonial state. Leaving aside the fact that our quaint ultra-monarchists succeeded in having three monarchy-related words in such a short sentence, they are dead wrong, because (as they know very well) you had governor-generals under republican regimes in France and Portugal, who obviously were not vice-regal representatives of zee "monarch" (Governor-General of French Indochina, Governor-General of French West Africa, Governor-General of Angola, etc.)

In modern usage, the term governor-general originated in those British colonies which became self-governing within the British Empire. Who says!!! You had governor-generals in the Spanish Netherlands and the Austrian Netherlands, you had governor-generals of the Dutch East Indies, etc.


My quaint suggestion: Retitle this page Vice-Regal Governor-Generals in the Realms of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth of Nations. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, WP:BOLD.
There is no longer any such thing as the British Empire or the British Commonwealth of Nations. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, Mies. Lubiesque has a point.If rebublican nations such as France and Austria had governors-general - possibly they still do, what do I know? - then the opening sentence of the lede is incorrect. No monarch to represent. Just a title for the head of the local executive. As we see with the term "Governor", in common usage in the USA and elsewhere. There's nothing particularly monarchist about either term - governor or general - and yet our article casts it in this light.
The British Empire may have seen its last sunset some time back, but it's news to me that there is no such thing as the British Commonwealth of Nations. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you meant? --Pete (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The word "British" has not been part of the name for many decades now. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BOLD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
So we're just talking about the title. Fair enough. I spot a few problems in the proposal. "Governor-generals" leaps out at me. How about Governors-general in the Commonwealth of Nations? --Pete (talk)
Evidently you haven't even looked at the full content of the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Let us be straightforward, then. The definition in the lede needs changing. It is incorrect, as Lubiesque has pointed out, albeit less than diplomatically. --Pete (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a not too difficult matter of editing the lead, and no need to get unduly excited about. Given that the article has a section "Other colonial and similar usage", its content should be mentioned in the lead. Qexigator (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Would something like this be acceptable? "A governor-general Governor-general or governor general is a vice-regal representative of a monarch in the title of an office-holder appointed to represent a sovereign in the government of an independent realm or a major colonial state or other territory held by a monarchy or a republic. Depending on the political arrangement of the territory...."
Qexigator (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Lubiesque should comment, given his initial concern. Thanks, Qexigator, for your definition above. However, looking at our article, we find:

From 1887 to 1945 the French appointed a governor-general to govern French Indo-China

The French Second Empire ceased in 1870, replaced by the Third Republic, which endured until 1940. French government of Indo-China was undertaken by the Vichy regime and later the Free French of de Gaulle, interrupted in practical terms by the Japanese occupation in 1941/2, lasting until 1945. At no time during this period was France a monarchical state. There was no sovereign for the Governor-General to represent. The definition given in the lede is therefore incorrect. Similar instances of governors-general appointed by republican regimes may be found as we continue down the list of non-British officials.
The common element, whether they represent a monarch or not, is that they are the head of the local executive. Their function is given by their name; they govern. Representation is a secondary concern. Do US Governors represent the US head of state? Of course not. They govern. We may not be able to find a sovereign for a governor/governor-general to represent, but we can always find a local government of some kind for them to lead. Even if it is only an appointed advisory council rather than an elected parliament. The final point to consider is what distinguishes all governors-general from all governors. We may be able to find alternative definitions, but what strikes me is the factor of seniority. Governors-general administer polities of a national or supra-national scale, perhaps overseeing regional governors. Size alone is not the criterion - both Belize, of 230 000 square kilometres, and Australia, occupying a whole continent, have governors-general.
  • Governors-general do not always represent a monarch.
  • Governors-general always govern
  • Governors-general administer colonial or post-colonial territories of national size or status.
Accordingly, I suggest: "A governor-general is the local head of executive government in a colonial or post-colonial state of significant size or status."
Are there any exceptions to this definition? Is it inaccurate in any way? --Pete (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I have tweaked. In the case of a republic it is the republic which is the "sovereign". I don't think we need add more in the lead or the article, which I feel would be little better than verbiage from a reader's pov. Qexigator (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It is odd to refer to a republic as "a sovereign". In fact, I have never encountered this usage before. We sometimes refer to a "sovereign state", however.
But we now have another problem. The definition we have now includes another class of official. People who are not governors-general. Ambassadors and diplomats such as High Commissioners. They are also representatives of "sovereigns", are they not? --Pete (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any conflict or ambiguity here due to other appointees representing a sovereign, whether in other ways (such as ambassadors), or the same way; "in the government of" could be added, but would be unneeded surplusage. Let it be "sovereign state", though students and their professors will be aware that a republic is sovereign in and of itself no less than a monarchy, having regard to the theories of sovereignty advanced by the European writers of 16th and 17th centuries in Head of state, though I do not propose to discuss that further. Qexigator (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I'd like to hear what others think about the points raised.
Looking at WP:LEDE might be helpful; it offers all sorts of information about the first sentence, such as:

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.

In particular, we cannot assume that a reader knows what a governor-general is. The definition we use should be exact and specific.
We cannot have a definition that is too broad. If the subject were geometry, and we wanted to define a square, it is not enough to say that a square is a quadrilateral, because that includes all four-sided figures, regular or not, rightangled or not. Our definition of Square is: In geometry, a square is a regular quadrilateral. This excludes rhomboids, rectangles and so on. If the definition of governor-general includes ambassadors and High Commissioners, then it is not specific enough. We are not writing this article for those who know exactly what a governor-general is - we are writing it for those seeking information.
Likewise, we find governors-general representing various entities: monarchs, republics and private organisations, such as the VOC. If we say that a governor-general represents a monarch, then we are being overly specific and, as pointed out by the first contributor to this discussion, incorrect.
The current first sentence in the lede is thus both overly broad and incorrect. Wordy and confusing to boot. I think we may improve on it, and I offer an alternative definition for comment.
  • "Governor-general or governor general is the title of an office-holder appointed to represent a sovereign (monarch or republic) in an independent realm or a major colonial state or other territory held by a monarchy or a republic." (Current)
  • "A governor-general is the local head of executive government in a colonial or post-colonial state of significant size or status." --Pete (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that as a general principle of homespun philosophy a good guide to observing the purport of WPs, as well as most things in real life, is that little or nothing is perfect, and noting your reasoning, to my mind (such as it is) the present version satisfies the portion of WP:LEDE quoted above, and in the context of the article is more encyclopedically suitable than the alternative you have offered. But you, and others, may agree (but, of course, may not) that a notion that persons as editors of Wikipedia will invariably be able to craft a single sentence definition for the purpose of any given article, where countless specialists have not, is... well I am lost for a word that might not be taken amiss: something that would convey unduly credulous and naive, but without giving offence. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, is there a translation service available? --Pete (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This may help: εύπιστος, ευπιστία; example of parallel text.[3] Qexigator (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but it won't allow the whole paragraph. :( --Pete (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Trimming the lead

To my mind, a recent revision of the lead has overtrimmed.[4] The single sentence A governor-general (or governor general) is the principal governor of a territory, superior to other more local governors, does not suffice, given that the main content of the article is shown by the section headings: 1 Current uses, 2 British colonialism, and the governors-general, 3 Modern Commonwealth, 4 Other colonial and similar usage. One major objection to that single sentence is the link to "Governor" which has an opening paragraph that is more about an individual public official with the power to govern the executive branch of a non-sovereign or sub-national level of government, ranking under the head of state. In federations, governor may be the title of the politician who governs a constituent state and may be either appointed or elected, and historical use, while "Governor-General" is about Current uses: In modern usage, the term governor-general originated in those British colonies which became self-governing within the British Empire.[5] Qexigator (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

+Would the following revised vesion of the longer lead be acceptable? Qexigator (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Governor-general or governor general<insert> in modern usage </insert> is the title of an office-holder appointed to represent a monarch or republic sovereign monarchy or republic in an independent realm or a major colonial state or other territory. Depending on the political arrangement of the territory, a governor-general can be a governor of high rank, or a principal governor ranking above "ordinary" governors.

Qexigator (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A monarch and a republic aren't comparable. So, as governors-general represent people, not forms of government, the opening sentence should be "Governor-general or governor general is, in modern usage, the title of an office-holder appointed to represent a monarch or president." (Is there a governor-general who represents any other type of figure? Pope? Prince? I don't believe so...)
Additionally, Pete/Skyring needs to familiarise himself with WP:LEADLENGTH. For an article this size, the pre-"trimmed" lede is already too short. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see revision, which is open to further improvement. Qexigator (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Qexigator. Good to see some discussion on this. I draw the attention of other editors to Governor, where the principal function is described as heading the executive government of a territory, rather than representing some distant head of state. What magic makes a governor-general - a senior governor - have a different set of priorities? --Pete (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
As above mentioned, the function of g-gs which are the topic of this article are too unlike governors of the type who are the executive officer under the constitution of a state of USA. Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Governors - leaving out the US examples - are the executive heads of territorial governments. That's their job. That goes for governors-general as well. Pretending that they do something else as theirr main function isn't helpful or informative. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Mies, do you have a source for saying a governor-general of (say) a French colony represents a president? It looks like you are constructing some chain of logic from your own inner conviction. Without a source, we cannot make blanket generalisations which may be untrue for some cases. --Pete (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no governors-general of French overseas departments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So you don't have a source for "governors-general representing presidents". Why not just say so to begin with? --Pete (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Because that's not what you asked for. It would seem you meant to ask "do you have an example of any governor-general currently representing a president?" But, you didn't.
The opening sentence has been changed and I haven't contested it (a good part of the reason for that being I never added the bit about republics or presidents in there in the first place, contrary to what it seems you've assumed). So, why are you still going on about it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Another point: given that there is no mention in the article below the lead of a governor-general as a governor "of high rank", while governors of the constituent states of the federal Commonwealth of Australia are specificaly mentioned, the wording would be clearer thus: "a governor-general can be a high ranking office-holder, or a principal governor ranking above governors, as in Australia. Qexigator (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be careful with the "ranking above" part. In Canada, the lieutenant governors are equal with the governor general within the federation (the provincial and federal jurisdictions are 11 equal partners). I believe it's the same in Australia. The governors certainly don't "answer to" the governor general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point, but if there is nothing else in the article all of it can go: "a governor-general can be a high ranking office-holder, or a principal governor ranking above governors". Qexigator (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess. But, everything that's removed from the lede gets it farther away from meeting WP:LEADLENGTH. (Not to say we should add in confusing or inaccurate info just to make the lede longer.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that the topic is current use, I don't see what else needs to be covered which that doesn't. After describing usage in the Queen's realms, and mentioning France, the rest is a list of variants, mostly historic. Qexigator (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Governor-General. 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 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Governor-General → Governor-general – In accordance with MOS:TITLES and WP:JOBTITLES, and per articles: Prime minister, Chief minister, Head of state, Head of government, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neve-selbert (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support The article title is a common noun. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:TITLES & WP:JOBTITLES. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. ...and for all the categories and articles where the common noun (governor-general) is used Epistemos (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sections confusing

There are 2 very different In Asia sections here. (And the couple of Feb 2016 IP edits look a little iffy.) Not a subject I know about so leaving it to those who do. JennyOz (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Governor-general. 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) 17:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Governor-general. 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) 20:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are governor general of India mention various taxes you would implement on the citizens

???? 106.78.66.19 (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governor-general/Archive_1&oldid=1136773258"