Talk:Vincent Massey

Article milestones Date Process Result August 4, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 26, 2011, February 26, 2012, and February 26, 2015.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Military history: Biography / Canadian / North America / World War I C‑class 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Canadian military history task force North American military history task force World War I task force Canada: Ontario / Toronto / Politics C‑class High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Scouting Low‑importance Vincent Massey is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't dispute that he was entitled to DCL, LL.D, FRSC in appropriate contexts. However, it is normal practice not to use educational/professional postnominals where a person's name appears in a general context such as an encyclopedia. DCL and LLD would be fine in a legal context, but not here. JackofOz 04:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the use of postnominal letters is an iffy topic on wikipedia, see

Michaelle Jean's talk page for more on this. The way I see it those post nominal letters are part of his full legal name, particularly FRSC since he receieved it while in Rideau Hall. LL.D is an also contentious because in practical use it should be LL.D (hon). Currently articles like Adrienne Clarkson's page list LL.D (she easily has a dozen of them) but not her BA & MA. It also doesn't list the other honourary degree Doctor of the University (D.Univ) from U of Ottawa since that is a pretty obscure one. I think, considering Massey himself made a point of listing them in his autobiography it would be appropriate (on his page at least) to use them. However, I am open to more debate. Dowew 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

A side note, why wasn't Massey given the

Canadian Forces Decoration when he was GG ? Dowew 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Another user re-added FRSC but I have removed it in favour of adding a footnote. Dowew 21:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the Department of Veterans Affairs

Beginning with the first Canadian born Governor-General, the Right Honourable Vincent MASSEY, CC CH GCJ CD, each Canadian Governor-General has been awarded a CD on taking office. This tradition continues because the Governor-General is ex-officio, Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.

I have added this to the note, I think for now its just best to leave the postnoms as they are in his Order of Canada citation. Dowew 21:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a review of this as an A-Class article under the Biography project assessment guidelines. To see the discussion show the details under the Biography banner above. --KenWalker | Talk 05:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the persondata template as recommended in the A-class discussion but there is much else in the valuable ideas there to do as well. The persondata box could use the addition of the location in England where he died. --KenWalker | Talk 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article did not pass A-Class review. Please see the link in the "Article History" box at the top of the page. Sorry for the delay. John Carter 21:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massey was awarded the Silver Beaver Award of the Boy Scouts of America in 1933 for service to youth, not necessarily in the context of Scouting.

• "2007 Silver Buffalo Awards for Distinguished Service to Youth on a National Level". Scouting. Boy Scouts of America National Council. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-18.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sections Governor General, Later life and Honours are lifted verbatim, with some rearrangement of contents, from the Governor General of Canada website bio on Massey at http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/massey_e.asp . Presumably the editor who added this material did so in good faith, thinking they were acting in accordance with the permission to reproduce this material for non-commercial purposes set out out at http://www.gg.ca/in-ai/index_e.asp#1 .

However, as Wikipedia articles are reproduced on many commercial

I hope another editor will replace these sections in short order with their own work or else

Although this covers Massey to Jean - this is the where the 'disagreement' began. There's no reason for not compromising with me. Simply move the 'investiture stuff' to the top of the content. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GD, please choose one location to have this conversation. Will it be here, or at my talk page, where you began? --

MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Your talkpage will do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "But, he was not with his new bride long before, at the end of 1915, the United Kingdom, and thus Canada along with it, had declared war on Germany." However, the article concerning World War I, clearly states that the United Kingdom declared war on Germany, on 3 August 1914, which, to my mind is in the middle of 1914 not late 1915. Could someone with better knowledge of Vincent Massey's life correct this error and perhaps provide a clearer description of what Massey was doing during the early part of the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.171.90 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know much ado is made in some circles about Massey being the first Canadian-born Governor General of Canada. But, must we here? We don't note in the lead of any articles the first Irish-born Governor General of Canada:

Adrienne Clarkson's article did mention that she was the first Chinese-born in the lead, before you moved it. Michaëlle Jean's article also mentions that she was the first from the Carribean to be GG, but not in the lead. However, I am not seeking any changes there.

The fact that Vincent Massey was the first Canadian-born Governor General of Canada is at the core of his notability. It is what people know him for, and that is why it should be in the lead. Canadians had been asking for their own representation since the calls for responsible government, and the fact that it took 85 years since the Confederation of Canada for a Canadian to be appointed says a lot about its significance. This was a landmark event at the time, and it is what Massey will be remembered for; not just a GG, but the first Canadian-born. Ng.j (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

1. Between 1867 and 1952, all governors general were born beyond Canada's borders and were members of the Peerage; these viceroys spent a relatively limited time in Canada
2. Massey's appointment set an important precedent, and all GGs until Adrienne Clarkson were Canadian-born.
3. All GGs since Massey have been Canadian citizens
4. Being the first Canadian-born Governor General of Canada is at the core of Massey's notability
5. From
   WP:LEAD
   : "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects"

Ng.j (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massey's notability stems from the same source as the other individuals who were governor general: The fact that he was governor general. Can you help me understand why Massey's having been born in Canada makes him an extra-special governor general over the governor general who was born in Italy? Is it really that Massey was born in Canada? Or is it just that he spent more of his life there before becoming governor general than any other previous governor general?

Look at my five points above, plus the bit about responsible government. Is it really not clear? Imagine, for example, if instead of David Johnston, The Queen had appointed someone from the House of Lords who had never even been in Canada as GG. Look at this link as an example of notabilityNg.j (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that I did not look at your five points. I did. I just don't see in them any proof of Massey deriving some specialness from his being born in Canada. Point 1: True, but the question I keep getting no answer to is: so what? Point 2: Massey was the first of a grand total of eight governors general to have been born in Canada. Is that really so significant as to deserve a place in the lead? Point 3: Citizenship and place of birth are not necessarily related. Point 4: Already addressed: being governor general is "at the core" of Massey's notability. Point 5: This entire debate is over whether or not Massey's place of birth is one of his most important aspects. --

MIESIANIACAL 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As a corollary, if it wasn't important, why is it mentioned in the lead of his GG section and on the Governor General of Canada page? If it wasn't what "makes him an extra-special governor general" it won't be mentioned. Did you even look at the link, which states:"Vincent Massey is best remembered as Canada's first native-born GOVERNOR GENERAL"? Ng.j (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people at Rideau Hall are the ones who make the most noise about the beginning of Canadian-born governors general; ironically, the volume increased the most during the tenure of the first governor general since the Viscount Alexander to have been born outside of Canada.

I've never claimed the fact isn't deserving of some mention. I just don't understand why it needs to be put in the lead, thereby presenting it as though it was one of the most notable things about Massey. --

MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What else is Massey noted for, that people would know? If someone has heard of Massey, it is probably for a single fact: Being the first Canadian-born Governor General of Canada. That is why it should be in the lead. You are stated your opinion that you don't understand, but I have provided examples and a citation. It is not even a full sentence, so I still don't understand why you are oposed to this minor modification. Ng.j (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't understand why his place of birth is so significant is not my opinion, it's a fact. I still think the fact of where he was born is overplayed, but I've added it back into the lead in a manner similar to how

MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The place of birth per se isn't important. What is important or significant is that he was the first Canadian born Governor General of Canada. Before Vincent they were all imported from Britain -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I illustrated right at the beginning of this discussion, they weren't all born in Britain. --

MIESIANIACAL 05:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Massey is special, and noteworthy, because he was the first who was born in Canada. The first Canadian born Governor General of Canada. There had been a long history of Governors General who had been born outside Canada. Massey was the first to break that long history -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massey is special and noteworthy because some people place importance on where a person was born. I don't; to me it has a whiff of xenophobia about it, as though nobody is a real Canadian unless they were born there. Only eight governors general after Massey, Canada had a foreign born viceroy again, and then one more after her. What is the significance? None, as far as I can tell. But, to anyone whom I did hear an opinion from, it was symbolic of an immigrant invasion diluting the true Canadian blood. Such laments go hand in hand with those that cry for the "foreign" queen to be off Canada's money and out of its government.

Anyway, I'm just having a bit of verbal diarrhea this morning. The "Canadian-born" thing is in the lead now. So, I assume the matter is resolved. --

It won't be resolved until we can get you to understand why it's important :) It's not just where he was born that's important, it's that he was the first person who was Governor General of a particular country who was born in that country. It's important because he was first. Why do we remember Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing? Lots of people have climbed Everest since they did it. But they were first. Why do we remember Roger Bannister? Lots of people have run a sub 4 minute mile. But he was the first to do it. Why do we remember Vincent Massey? There have been lots of Canadian born Governors General since him. But he was first. Why don't we apply the same importance to the first Indian born Governor General or the first Italian born Governor General? Because they weren't Governor General of the country they were born in. Vincent Massey was. It's important that he was Governor General of the country that he was born in and that he was the first person to be Governor General of Canada when they were born in Canada. So it's the combination of those things, not just where he was born. As for your accusations of xenophobia, I'm British but I recognise and applaud the significance of an event like this -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But this seems to imply that the return to the appointment of non-Canadian-born individuals as governor general is un-Canadian and a step backwards. --

MIESIANIACAL 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It implies no such thing. It is only commenting on Massey's appointment. It makes no comment about anyone else -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Vincent Massey was the first Canadian born Governor General is a very important fact of Canadian history. I really feel that it should be worked into the opening header text. His period in office marked Canada's coming of age and is often used as a historical marker of the beginning of the individual Canadian identity...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the long discussion at Talk:Vincent_Massey#Place_of_birth. Some people don't realise the significance of that fact -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Canada, but in Australia the significance of the first Australian-born Governor-General is well understood. Nobody knows the names of those British chaps before and after, but Sir Isaac Isaacs is very well known. His uniform is on display in Parliament House. I would imagine that the first Canadian-born Governor General is likewise admired in Canada for precisely the same reasons. On checking, I see that the fact is in the lead, albeit reasonably well buried. --Pete (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, he wasn't just the first Canadian-born governor-general. He was the first Canadian governor-general. The others were all Brits who only lived in Canada while governor-general. Emphasizing the Canadian-born would seem to imply that some earlier Governor-General was a naturalized Canadian. But I don't believe that is the case. john k (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Massey-Diefenbaker-1958.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Massey-Diefenbaker-1958.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 08:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Though I'm almost certain the anon

It is excessive, inaccurate and it confuses rather than clarifies. George IV was King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas. 2.25.186.230 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are pushing this notion of a "Canadian royal family" too far, Mies. The situation for the dominions/realms is that the British monarch occupied the ceremonial pinnacle. Giving Queen Elizabeth II the title "Queen of Canada" or "Queen of Fiji" or whatever didn't make her into Canadian or Fijian royalty. I respect your views and your knowledge here, but it jars to think that you consider (say) the Commonwealth of Australia to be the Kingdom of Australia. The British royal family is precisely what it says on the label: British. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You responded! I'm surprised, but happy to have had my suspicions proven wrong.

The term "king of Canada" is not inaccurate. George VI was king of Canada. That is a fact rendered no less true by the other fact that he was titled as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Defender of the Faith. The title simply didn't reflect the position (which remained an ongoing problem for the Canadian government from the country's legislative independence in 1931 to the passage of the Canadian Royal Style and Titles Act in 1953).

I think your actions and expressed misunderstandings behind them demonstrate that the clarification is hardly excessive. --

MIESIANIACAL 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This is an encyclopaedia and we don't re-write history. The sentence clearly indicates the King was acting on the advice of his Canadian ministers alone. 2.25.186.230 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is attempting to rewrite history; let's stop putting up straw men. It may be clear on who's advice George VI acted, but its not clear what George VI's relationship to Canada was. Pointing out that he was king of Canada (or Canada's king, or the man who was monarch of Canada (though the last is a bit wordy)) makes it clear. --

MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. That he acted (and that he acted) on their advice adequately addresses the relationship. This is not the proper forum for anything more. 2.25.186.230 (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree that adding the capacity in which George VI was acting makes it clear in which capacity he was acting? Given how irrational that is, you must've made a mistake. Perhaps you meant it's unnecessary to add the capacity in which George VI was acting? If so, wouldn't a reader have to be already familiar with the constitutional arrangements of the Commonwealth realms post-1931 to understand that the Canadian prime minister was giving advice to the King as the separate king of Canada, rather than as the British monarch? You yourself, after all, have demonstrated some confusion with that particular subject. --

MIESIANIACAL 12:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not in the least confused. Let me clarify my remarks (as you clearly are): (a) King George VI acted, and (b) he did so on the advice of the Canadian PM. I disagree therefore, with your assertion that "it's not clear what George VI's relationship to Canada was." Besides, we would not use the construction: "George VI, King of the United Kingdom, opened the new hospital/ session of Parliament." Within the UK (or a UK context), George VI was The King. 2.25.186.230 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you indicated you read the words "king of Canada" as a title, you certainly seemed confused. Also, your edits here and elsewhere indicate that you might not fully grasp the implications of the Statute of Westminster.

Regardless, if you're so certain that readers are automatically familiar with the constitutional arrangements of the Commonwealth realms post-1931, will you be removing the "Queen of Canada" phrasing from the GG bio articles from

MIESIANIACAL 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not take my disagreement with you to mean that I do not "fully grasp the implications of the Statute of Westminster." As I pointed out, "the sentence clearly indicates the King was acting on the advice of his Canadian ministers alone." I said your edit was "excessive, inaccurate and [that] it confuses rather than clarifies," not that I was confused. I also said that this is not the "proper forum" for a discussion on "the constitutional arrangements of the Commonwealth realms post-1931." Queen of Canada is okay (after 1953), but you should seriously cut down use in a domestic context. 2.25.186.230 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying my edit was inaccurate is precisely the type of comment that indicates you're confused, either about what was indicated by the words "king of Canada" (i.e. it was a title) or the implications of the Statute of Westminster (i.e. there was no Canadian (or Australian, or Pakistani, or South African) king, just a British one). Of course, George VI was king of Canada, quite apart from being Britain's king.

But, now your inconsistency is confusing me. Use of the term "king of Canada" is unnecessary because it's apparently self-evident to everyone that George VI was king of Canada and acting as such when appointing his Canadian governor general, but use of the term "Queen of Canada" when discussing Elizabeth II's appointment of her Canadian govenrors general is okay? Inaccurate my edit was not; if it was confusing, that can be solved by rephrasing. However, neither matter if it's excessive, and it's either unnecessary or it isn't. --

MIESIANIACAL 23:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Try to stay focussed and avoid ad hominem arguments. For the fifth (and final) time: "The sentence clearly indicates [with the phrase 'on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada, Louis St. Laurent,' that] the King was acting on the advice of his Canadian ministers alone." If you really feel that doesn't clarify "the capacity in which George VI was acting," I suggest you pop along to simple English Wikipedia. 2.25.186.230 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the false ad hominem accusations, especially as you launch ad hominem attacks yourself. You made some statements that belie some misunderstandings on your part; that's all I pointed out.

Instead of repeating yourself, how about you address the question I raised? Why is it okay by you to say "[He/she] was in [year] appointed as governor general by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada [X]", but not okay to say "[He/she] was in [year] appointed as governor general by George VI, king of Canada [or some synonymous term], on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada [X]"? Please explain your inconsistency. --

King of Canada is a real title, just like Queen of the United Kingdom. 117Avenue (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King of Canada wasn't any part of George's title. He was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth. Canada was just part of the Commonwealth. The term "King of Canada" is meaningless and looks silly -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'King of Canada' was not a title George VI held. Nor, however, was 'King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth'. His title was, at the time of Massey's appointment: 'George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith'. That didn't mean he was any less distinctly king of Canada. Canada was an independent country by 1952, not a Dominion still subordinate to Britain. As testament to that fact stands the other fact that the aforementioned title was given in 1947 to the George VI by, in part, Canadian law.

I tweaked a couple of terms in the paragraph; I hope it now avoids any confusion between the title 'King of Canada' and the position 'king of Canada'. --

MIESIANIACAL 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You should update the title given on the page about George VI. That's where I got the one I quoted from. But it's always risky quoting Wikipedia, everyone knows it's not very accurate  :)
I like your tweaks -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]