Talk:Order of Ontario

I'm not sure this is the place for it, but it does seem that one rather notable young Canadian who is listed here, (an Order of Ontario 2003 Recipient) Ryan Hreljac, may be deserving of having an entry here in Wikipedia. In terms of information for such an article, there is a book about him (Ryan and Jimmy : And the Well in Africa That Brought Them Together), as well as a website: [[1]]. Maybe he's a good basis for a first original article for someone like me to contribute?

Reecesel 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 appointees

Please see http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/about/b121206.htm for a list of the latest appointees to the Order of Ontario. The 2004 appointees (announced in 2005) are listed at http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/about/n070905-2.htm --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of precedence

what is the rationale for precedence among the provincial orders? i realize that this is mostly academic, as the probabilty is slim of one individual holding more than one. Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All recipients added to date

Many recipients from 1987 to 1999 were missing. I have filled the list with all current recipients, but will need help adding a note about who many are.Guinness323 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I will lend a hand when I can.......PKT(alk) 11:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Full list versus partial list

This article should not just include the names of those prominent enough to warrant a wikipage, unless the article states that this is a selected list of prominent members, and another article with a full list is created and referred to in this article. Note that several "wiki-less" names have had wiki articles created (example: Angela Coughlan) or have been linked to existing pages once name changes have been made to conform to article title.Guinness323 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You could perhaps have either checked my edit history to see that I have created the separate article, or given me a second or two to add a link here amongst the other edits I was in the middle of before dropping them to make the separate list page. I will still do so, and am planning to shave the list here down to include only the more prominent individuals in the order, akin to the list at Saskatchewan Order of Merit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In future, I would suggest you create the second article, then change the original to refer to the second.Guinness323 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant-Governor as member

The L-G appears to only be chancellor during his or her term in office, and does not seem to retain membership beyond this. Otherwise, why have former Chancellors Lincoln Alexander, Hal Jackman and James Bartelman been inducted after their term is over? If you can source an explanation, excellent. Otherwise, I have removed that point for now.Guinness323 (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found a ref that states the Lieutenant Governor is both a member and the Chancellor. I've yet to find one that shows they retain their membership after leaving office, but surely the fact that all former LGs are members of the order is proof enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not questioned whether the L-G is a member while he or she is Chancellor. In fact, saying "Chancellor and member" is much like saying "Saku Koivu is the captain and a member of the Montreal Canadiens." It's redundant because one cannot be the captain without being a member of the team as wellas well. Likewise, one cannot be the L-G of Ontario without being the Chancellor, and thus a member of the Order. The question I originally raised and which I don't bnelieve has been answered with a source yet: Does being L-G confer a lifetime membership, or is the membership only during the term of office? If it is lifetime, then why is it necessary to induct former Chancellors into the order following their term of office? I am looking for a source for this, but have not been able to confirm one way or the other yet.Guinness323 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ontario government source makes the distinction between the LG's position as both Chancellor and member. Perhaps it was driven by a wish to dispel any possibility that the Chancellor may not be a member of the order; there are other officers of the organization who are not members of it. I'm also aware of what other evidence you seek, as illustrated by the fact that I made specific reference to it. I have never heard of a former LG being inducted into the order after his or her time in viceregal office; in fact, the Lieutenant Governor's website states that the LG was invested into the Order of Ontario the day of his installation. I'd find it extremely odd if the LG was removed from the order once finished in viceregal service only to be re-appointed afterwards. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexander, Jackman and Bartleman were all inducted into the Order the year after they left office. See http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/honours/orderofontario/appointees.shtml Guinness323 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But I see neither Weston nor Bartleman in there. Was the constitution of the order changed at some point between Jackman's and Weston's tenure? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All recipients removed

Since recipients were being removed first by not having a wiki article of their own, and then by some perceived notion of "importance", it is clear that choosing who stays and who goes is a subjective exercise subject to endless argument. The most logical solution is to remove everyone and refer to article with entire list.Guinness323 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That "logical" solution isn't used elsewhere, so why here? A person's noteriety is easily measurable by the frequency with which they are referred to in other media. I shall restore a version of the list soon; though, input is welcome as to who should be included in it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But by what measure will each person be chosen? Is a former premier worth more than a former lieutenant governor? Or a Nobel laureate? At the end of the day, the choices made are arbitrary and subject to endless debate/argument/edit wars.Guinness323 (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say all of the above should be included. Relatively obscure lawyers, buisinesspeople, minor artists, and the like, on the other hand, should probably not be. It seems a shame to remove the list all-together; a quick survey of other articles on provincial orders seems to show that a list - even partial - of members is common. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion serves to emphasize that the original action of moving the list of members and presenting an abridged version ought to have been discussed here first. That said, IMO there should be one list of members, and it's better to have that list in a separate article. PKT(alk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as they say, hindsight is always 20/20. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedantic language

I have updated the language from mid-nineteenth century to early 21st century. For a good lesson is modern English encyclopedic language, see corresponding article in Canadian Encyclopedia.Guinness323 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia is written for someone with a Grade 5 grasp of the English language. This is not Simple Wikipedia, and many articles on this project use a level of language far more advanced than this page now (and once again) does. I thought some of your edits were valid and retained them, but it seems you only wish to impose your version on this page. Is that really the case? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia is written for all Canadians, not just those with a degree in English; its articles use strong and direct language in a logical and comprehensive manner. It is you who arrived a few days ago, took a fairly direct article and imposed pedantry upon it. You have added some good content, and I retained the content, if not the arch style. Canadians prefer strong and robust language (see Canadian writers such as Robertson Davies, Margaret Atwood, Morley Callaghan, etc.) Since this article is about a Canadian order, perhaps we could make it sound more Canadian and less like a frustrated Oxford don.Guinness323 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your pejorative tone aside, I "arrived here" as a part of my goal to improve the whole series of pages on Canadian honours; through nine previous articles, only now has someone attacked my writing style as being, of all things, too high brow. As we've both made a flurry of edits in a short stretch of time tonight, I don't know who's reverted what how many times. So, I'll leave it 'till later today before I take another look at things. If we can work out something agreeable here I can at least use it as a template for the articles on other provincial orders. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:TONE: "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." [emphasis mine] Further to this, under Legal writing: "These features tend to make legal writing formal. This formality can take the form of long sentences, complex constructions, archaic and hyper-formal vocabulary, and a focus on content to the exclusion of reader needs. [Again, my emphasis.] If a 12-year-old is researching a project on O.Ont., would she be able to navigate your syntax and grammar and understand what she's reading? What about a person using English as a second language? At the end of the day, are you writing for yourself, or are you writing in order to pass on information to the world community in a clear and comprehensible manner? Guinness323 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't see how what I wrote contravenes anything you highlight; you infer that I was using language resurrected from a medæval tome. It seems to me that we, as editors, should be trying to maintain a certain professional, encyclopædic standard, which means employing a certain level of vocabulary and syntax. Are we going to strive for a university standard, or junior high school? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[redent] From Wikipedia:About :"Many visitors come to this site to acquire knowledge..." Note that it does not say "Many university students come to this site" or "Many people with excellent English skills come to this site". Therein lies your answer. Write for your audience--that is to say, everyone. Guinness323 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that means people with few English skills are excluded. The question is: where is the line drawn? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All that it means is that you can expect anyone and everyone with reasonable English skills--reasonable, but not necessarily university-level language skills--to read this article. Does using abstruse Latinate constructions, run-on sentences of vaguely interconnected clauses, and use of the passive voice add anything to this article's actual content of? Are you trying to convey information, or trying to make it sound important? Guinness323 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[ec] I'm trying to make this project look like it hasn't been written by grade school students. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This has become a pedantic discussion, and a rather pointless one. The article at present uses reasonable language. If there's a specific problem, let's focus on that. Otherwise, please drop this discussion or take it to your own talk pages. Thank you. PKT(alk) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken nomination

There is no name attached to this, no details, and no way to find them out due to ministerial secrecy. Is this non-story an integral part of this article? Bureaucratic mistakes happen in any organization, so unless it has a significant impact on the structure of the award e.g. this error led to changes in the nomination process, it seems to be grafted onto an otherwise useful article. Guinness323 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the bureaucratic mistake, but the legal action that followed. I'm sure I read about this in the media before (looking at the source used now reminded me of that); but, I could be wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OOnt versus O.Ont

Government documents on-line spell the post-nominal as "O.Ont." ("Members of the Order of Ontario can use the initials ‘O. Ont.’ after their name." from http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/honours/orderofontario/) However, this article describes the post-nominal as OOnt, sometimes rendered as O.Ont. Should we not follow the official government documentation, or at least list "O.Ont" first, perhaps as simply as new Members are entitled to use the post-nominal letters O.Ont or OOnt? Guinness323 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:INITIAL seems to imply that periods are not used in post-nominal letters within Wikipedia. I suppose we could say the government of Ontario renders the letters as O.Ont, though I hesitate to say a website is official documentation. I wish I could find the actual Orders-in-Council constituting the order. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about how postnominal letters are used in Wikipedia articles (which, yes, do not use periods as per WP:INITIAL]]), but how people themselves style the postnominal letters (on personal or business letterhead, for instance.) I too hesitate to call one government website the ultimate source, but in the absence of other sources to the contrary, it is at least a government website; therefore "O.Ont" would seem to be at least as "official" as "OOnt".

Well, we have to take Wikipedia's rules into consideration. What are we proposing, then? Something along the lines of: ...new Members are entitled to use the post-nominal letters OOnt, which can also be rendered as O.Ont.? Or: ...new Members are entitled to use the post-nominal letters OOnt, rendered by official sources as O.Ont.? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest "...new Members are entitled to use the post-nominal letters OOnt or O.Ont." Accurately defining the choice of style by the inductees is totally divorced from Wikipedia's style guide; we are merely reporting on how the recipient can style the postnominal letters. Guinness323 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Civilian honour

The mention of the Order of Ontario being a civilian honour has been removed, with the explanation for this move being that provinces don't have military honours, thus rendering the civilian distinction redundant. What about police honours, though? I believe they are not defined as civilian. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, there is a provincial medal for police bravery (and one for firefighter bravery), but these rank well below OOnt in precedence. By saying OOnt is the highest-ranking civilian award, it seems to infer that there is a higher-ranked non-citizen award, which there is not. Guinness323 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. With that in mind, I've added mention of it at another point in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Guinness323 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Order of Ontario. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618144542/http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca:80/english/honours/orderofontario/ to http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/honours/orderofontario/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of Ontario. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323114038/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/hon/nat-honour-honneur/index-eng.htm to http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/hon/nat-honour-honneur/index-eng.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)