Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Harper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleStephen Harper has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
October 21, 2020Good article reassessmentKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 26, 2011.
Current status: Good article

GAR

[edit]

Stephen Harper

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Tags and major concerns appear to be resolved Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has several citation needed tags, a lead that doesn't meet MOS:LEAD, and a four-year old neutrality tag on one section. These issues need to be resolved for the article to remain a GA according to GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username6892 (Peer Review) 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would seem that User:Randusk recently did some very good work to fill in requested citations. I no longer see any cleanup tags. As for the lead, it seems okay to me, other than being a smidge too long. But I wouldn't flunk this for GA because of that. (@Buidhe: perhaps you could elaborate on the MOS:LEAD issues you see, assuming they still apply?) Colin M (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see the cleanup tags have been dealt with, but there remains further clearly unsourced text throughout the article, a series of single paragraph sections, and various sections that read as wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting looking at older revisions of this page to see how the infobox pics have changed over the months (not years) ...

* The 8 citation needed tags mentioned by User:buidhe have all disappeared ...

  • Agree with other comments, the lead is far too long. The third paragraph needs considerable trimming.
  • I am not enamoured of having three photographs in the Foreign Policy section. Looks a bit WP:CRUFT to me.
  • Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? I cannot see why this is necessary. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this particular editor's point is in creating a so-called (→GA Reassessment: new section). Is there a direction to this effect that is to be done? I'd like to know.
  • 72 bots on page with Internet Archive bot visiting on 1 February 2020
  • Page created on 7 June 2003 with 8,031 edits by 2,708 editors. 3,873 edits in the year 2006.
  • 31 protection events for this page. Sensitive.
  • Justin might be Prime Minister but this fellow is still getting a lot of page views: 116,578 in the last 90 days with daily average = 1,281
  • There is a statement on Electoral history of Stephen Harper the to the effect that Harper led the Conservative Party in five general elections. He won three (2006, 2008 and 2011) and lost two (2004 and 2015). He won minority governments in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a majority in the 2011 election. He lost the 2015 election to Justin Trudeau. This might be an appropriate inclusion at the end of the lede.
  • I am not comfortable with the relevance of this particular citation: In 1994, he opposed plans by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to introduce spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Citing the recent failure of a similar initiative in Ontario, he was quoted as saying, "What I hope they learn is not to get into it. There are more important social and economic issues, not to mention the unity question. Given the current mileau of rights for same-sex couples, this is a bit of an anachronism if not a particular POV inclusion.
  • The sections Reform MP, Out of Parliament and Canadian Alliance leadership all suffer from WP:Proseline, he did this, he did that, he aligned with this fellow, he aligned with that fellow, he made this statement, he made that statement. A bit of cleanup could be done in these sections. Are the MP's he aligned with or won support of really relevant?
  • There is a bit of proseline or waffling around Zytaruk in the Leader of the Opposition section; this and the following paragraph might be surplus to needs. (This accusation, that investigation, that accusation, this investigation ... see earlier paragraphs about seizing power)
  • The paragraph In his first address to Parliament as Prime Minister, is not necessary; the section is about the election and throws off to a main article.
  • Reading Reference 153, it is not made clear - there, or in this article, why the government lost the motion of no confidence. Is this able to be rectified?
  • Official Opposition → Is "Official" really needed with regard to an opposition?
Yup. That's the term used in the House of Commons for the second largest party. The Leader of the Official Opposition has privileges that leaders of the third parties don't have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constitutional issues section does not appear on the main article Domestic policy of the Harper government. Why is it here? Why is it not mentioned on that page?
  • Ditto 2011 Census, not mentioned on that page.
  • Israeli and Jewish affairs is too long and needs to be reduced as this matter is covered on the Foreign Policy main page.
  • Keep after attending to issues raised. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Stephen Harper

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Tags and major concerns appear to be resolved Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has several citation needed tags, a lead that doesn't meet MOS:LEAD, and a four-year old neutrality tag on one section. These issues need to be resolved for the article to remain a GA according to GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username6892 (Peer Review) 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would seem that User:Randusk recently did some very good work to fill in requested citations. I no longer see any cleanup tags. As for the lead, it seems okay to me, other than being a smidge too long. But I wouldn't flunk this for GA because of that. (@Buidhe: perhaps you could elaborate on the MOS:LEAD issues you see, assuming they still apply?) Colin M (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see the cleanup tags have been dealt with, but there remains further clearly unsourced text throughout the article, a series of single paragraph sections, and various sections that read as wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting looking at older revisions of this page to see how the infobox pics have changed over the months (not years) ...

* The 8 citation needed tags mentioned by User:buidhe have all disappeared ...

  • Agree with other comments, the lead is far too long. The third paragraph needs considerable trimming.
  • I am not enamoured of having three photographs in the Foreign Policy section. Looks a bit WP:CRUFT to me.
  • Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? I cannot see why this is necessary. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this particular editor's point is in creating a so-called (→GA Reassessment: new section). Is there a direction to this effect that is to be done? I'd like to know.
  • 72 bots on page with Internet Archive bot visiting on 1 February 2020
  • Page created on 7 June 2003 with 8,031 edits by 2,708 editors. 3,873 edits in the year 2006.
  • 31 protection events for this page. Sensitive.
  • Justin might be Prime Minister but this fellow is still getting a lot of page views: 116,578 in the last 90 days with daily average = 1,281
  • There is a statement on Electoral history of Stephen Harper the to the effect that Harper led the Conservative Party in five general elections. He won three (2006, 2008 and 2011) and lost two (2004 and 2015). He won minority governments in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a majority in the 2011 election. He lost the 2015 election to Justin Trudeau. This might be an appropriate inclusion at the end of the lede.
  • I am not comfortable with the relevance of this particular citation: In 1994, he opposed plans by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to introduce spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Citing the recent failure of a similar initiative in Ontario, he was quoted as saying, "What I hope they learn is not to get into it. There are more important social and economic issues, not to mention the unity question. Given the current mileau of rights for same-sex couples, this is a bit of an anachronism if not a particular POV inclusion.
  • The sections Reform MP, Out of Parliament and Canadian Alliance leadership all suffer from WP:Proseline, he did this, he did that, he aligned with this fellow, he aligned with that fellow, he made this statement, he made that statement. A bit of cleanup could be done in these sections. Are the MP's he aligned with or won support of really relevant?
  • There is a bit of proseline or waffling around Zytaruk in the Leader of the Opposition section; this and the following paragraph might be surplus to needs. (This accusation, that investigation, that accusation, this investigation ... see earlier paragraphs about seizing power)
  • The paragraph In his first address to Parliament as Prime Minister, is not necessary; the section is about the election and throws off to a main article.
  • Reading Reference 153, it is not made clear - there, or in this article, why the government lost the motion of no confidence. Is this able to be rectified?
  • Official Opposition → Is "Official" really needed with regard to an opposition?
Yup. That's the term used in the House of Commons for the second largest party. The Leader of the Official Opposition has privileges that leaders of the third parties don't have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constitutional issues section does not appear on the main article Domestic policy of the Harper government. Why is it here? Why is it not mentioned on that page?
  • Ditto 2011 Census, not mentioned on that page.
  • Israeli and Jewish affairs is too long and needs to be reduced as this matter is covered on the Foreign Policy main page.
  • Keep after attending to issues raised. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Second longest PM from right of centre party

[edit]
I have closed this due to me now supporting removing the fact altogether. It's not relatively notable. Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which paragraph should "The longest-serving prime minister from a right-of-centre party since John A. Macdonald," be in? Option A has this fact in the first paragraph of the lead whereas option B has this fact in the fourth paragraph of the lead.

Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Option C (remove)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Option A - reasoning stated in discussion Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - Though I would argue that "a party with Conservative in the name" would be more accurate wording. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - or even not at all. It’s not that big a deal. He is not the longest ever, even within his party, and it’s not something frequently said or making a functional difference to his life. Cheers
  • Option C should not be here at all. This is not wording used in any academic publication to describe any conservative leader in this type of context. Should have been removed off the bat not and rfc as to where. Lot of cleanup needed in our PM articles and this could be a start.Moxy- 00:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I have opened this RfC due to debate on whether this fact should be included in the first paragraph. In my view, it is very notable that Harper was the longest-serving right-of-centre PM since John A. Macdonald due to the Liberals dominating Canadian politics for the entire 20th century (hence I think it should be included in the first paragraph). However, a user made a good point saying it doesn't fit MOS:LEADBIO, which is why I started this consensus to see what everyone thinks. Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for wording in this context.... not a synthesis of sources? This isn't something academics word in this fashion..thus for sure shouldn't be in the lead. Conservative leader is what is used even in tertiary sources like us.Moxy- 00:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Economic management

[edit]

The original text is far too wordy and precise, if people want exact data they have the sources for that exact purpose (rewritten parts in brackets), remember that this is Wikipedia, not datapedia

<<During Harper's tenure, Canada had [ significant budgetary surpluses in 2006 and 2007 ]. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Canada ran deficits from 2008–2013. The deficit was $55.6 billion in 2009 and was gradually lowered [until 2014 when it was balanced with a surplus]. For the first 11 months of the 2015–2016 period, the federal government was on track for a $7.5 billion surplus. [] Following the 2015 federal election and a change in government, the 2015 fiscal year ended in a $1 billion deficit instead. In 2010, Canada had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies. The Economist magazine stated that Canada had come out the recession stronger than any other rich country in the G7. [ ]>>

Of course you might not completely agree but a rewrite is in order for at least some of that. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only edit I have to the above.
recession of 2008-2016 2601:248:C000:3F:41AF:BA75:2DBE:F0B2 (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<<During Harper's tenure, Canada had significant budgetary surpluses in 2006 and 2007 . Following the 2008 financial crisis, Canada ran deficits from 2008–2013. The deficit was $55.6 billion in 2009 and was gradually lowered until 2014 when it was balanced with a surplus. For the first 11 months of the 2015–2016 period, the federal government was on track for a $7.5 billion surplus. Following the 2015 federal election and a change in government, the 2015 fiscal year ended in a $1 billion deficit instead. In 2010, Canada had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies. The Economist magazine stated that Canada had come out the recession of 2008-2016 stronger than any other rich country in the G7.>>
Any disagreements? I'll give it a week or two CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The more precise the better because it provides complete information about the government's economic management. You can not change it just because JJ McCullough said it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with you, the more percise the less it provides useful information, the overwhelming majority of users won't be gaining anything from something so pointlessly precise CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, what does a NJ senator have to do with this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._McCullough CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the orignial vs mine above, which sounds most enticing?
During Harper's tenure, Canada had budgetary surpluses in 2006 and 2007 of $13.8 and 9.6 billion respectively. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Canada ran deficits from 2008–2013. The deficit was $55.6 billion in 2009 and was gradually lowered to $5.2 billion in 2013. In 2014, the federal budget was balanced with a surplus of $1.9 billion. For the first 11 months of the 2015–2016 period, the federal government was on track for a $7.5 billion surplus. For 2015–2016, the federal government projected a $1.4-billion surplus. Following the 2015 federal election and a change in government, the 2015 fiscal year ended in a $1 billion deficit instead. In 2010, Canada had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies. The Economist magazine stated that Canada had come out the recession stronger than any other rich country in the G7. In 2013, Canada came out with Global Markets Action Plan to generate employment opportunities for Canadians. CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harper as a member of the committee of 300

[edit]

Stephen Harper is a member of the committee of 300. A significant part of his biography that is omitted. A part of such an entry should include what is the committee of 300 and how did Harper end up on it. 66.185.202.161 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preceded by John Key

[edit]

The article currently lists John Key as preceding Stephen Harper. They must mean Jean Chretien.

Semi-protected, so I'm unable to edit, but this is a no brainer IMO. 198.2.78.141 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Or I suppose it should be Paul Martin, but either way, it certainly isn't Mr. Key.) 198.2.78.141 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look more closely at the infobox. He was preceded by John Key as IDU chairman. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are. Thanks for the correction! 198.2.78.141 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Harper&oldid=1252190788"