Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

AIDs criticism

I see this was wisely removed from the article:

Mr. Harper was widely critized for snubbing a major international conference on AIDS and instead sent members of his party. This was seen by many as a distasteful choice, as he instead chose to tour the arctic aboard a naval ship. He received many boos from the audience at the mention of his name, including a remark by Richard Gere (a speaker at the event). His absence was also seen as mark against the TBLG community, as the disease is a large issue in this community (this after his refusual to attend the Outgames in Montreal a month earlier).

That Mr. Harper would have better things to do than attend celebrity events should be applauded in my opinion, but in the end, I don't think any of this is very wikipedia-worthy. Richard Gere is not a Canadian political figure and he can complain all he wants - AIDS is a 'celebrity' cause and non-attendance doesn't or shouldn't reflect on how the PM approaches his duties. I don't see what could have been accomplished by Harper's attendance. It is unfortunate that those who would seek to criticize both the previous Liberal govt and the current Conservative one for not sending medicine to Africa seem to forget that AIDS is largely a self-inflicted malady - the key to defeating the disease will be to education and getting people to keep it in their pants. Wasting money on sending bandaid solutions to Africa might possibly be addressed given the right sources, but partisanship in this arena is so intense it may be hard to find someone impartial. Kudos to editors here, at any rate, for keeping the whole ugly mess out of the page. I also don't understand why Harper's refusal to sponsor a fringe festival should be seen an encylopedic. But again, that is likely beyond the scope of this article and impossible to source well.Michael Dorosh 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. This AIDS conference is run by special interest groups anyways. SFrank85 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The AIDS conference is much more than a 'celebrity event' and AIDS is not a 'self-inflicted disease.' This is silly. The question for Wikipeida is whether Prime Minister Harper's decision not to attend the conference is a significant event or a short-term incident without longer relevance. This is a tricky issue for Wikipedia in that part of its value is its currency and another part of its value is the use of an interested community to ensure accuracy and objectivity. I would think that given the global importance of AIDS and what his decision not to attend says about Prime Minster Harper and his priorities there should be at least mention of the decision not to attend. If the relevance of this fades over time then in due course it will be edited out. I would like to see more discussion of this on this page. [[steven 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)]]


Talk instead about Harper's trip in the Artic and the issue of the soveringty of the North - you can put that Harper planned that visit before the AIDS conference or during that. The county northern soveringty is more article worthy, but do a brief mention about the AIDS absence only mainly due that AIDS has become a concerning issue in Canada with the rapid growth of the population infected by the disease--JForget 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[[steven, if it is not a celebrity event, then why did they cut off the time of a person who has AIDS in order for Clinton to speek? The poor person only got to finish speaking because the croud wanted that person to finish. SFrank85 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This page is being micromanagaged by Harper PR people to keep it markedly proHarper. Amazing that any criticism of Harper's evangelical approach to AIDS, homosexuality, faith-based charity, and Israel doesn't get any mention. The northern sovereignty crap is a red herring. - Danny Hochman Fe

"Harper Eats Babies" Incident

I've deleted the irrelevant stuff on the May 2006 Toronto subway advertisements (Harper eats babies) again, unless there is some convincing reason we need to have it under "background" in this article?Michael Dorosh 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting that. People seem to forget sometimes that WP is an encyclopaedia. This article is the biographical entry on Stephen Harper and such tidbits are fundamentally unencyclopaedic in nature and not worthy of inclusion.--Kalsermar 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the article will simply be too long if we include every little minor detail. Good work. --John Hawke 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Afghanistan

I've just added about the Afghan mission extension - feel free to add some extra stuff about it --JForget 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that he keeps saying "We will not cut and run from our international commitments", but apparently this doesn't apply to legally binding treaties like Kyoto... Wikipedia isn't really the place for political discussion, though. Rustalot42684 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet here you are trying to elicit a response. Just so you know, that's called baiting and it's not welcome here--207.81.147.69 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic content

Are the flag issue and the media-at-funerals issue really encyclopaedic or are they merely news items. In my opinion things like these two items are utterly unencyclopaedic in nature and do not belong in a biographical article in a general encyclopaedia. Not every controversy or issue is notable in and of itself and besides, are we going to include everything the opposition parties complain about? I suggest deleting both items.--Kalsermar 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just chopped the whole section considerably - it was full of editorial comments and non-NPOV. The flag stuff can go too, but I've edited the essential meaning - that Harper simply reinstated a practice that has long been traditional before the Liberals changed it. I've left out mention of the Liberals to avoid the appearance of bias. Hopefully it reads better. I thought it unnecessary to have paras starting with "Also" (poor writing) and the play by play was also unnecessary (you don't need to say "the House of Commons had a vote" and then give the results of the vote. Listing the results pretty much implies that the vote occurred).Michael DoroshTalk 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks a lot better now.--Kalsermar 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the content about the priorities of the Harper government read like and ad and I believe they do not constitute encyclpaedic content - especially the part about the Accountability Act. I agree with the above comments that some things should be moved to another page (or perhaps deleted entirely). Dunstanramsey 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

minority government win

ok if his party is in the minority then how did he win? --Gbleem 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple, the other parties got even less.--Kalsermar 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
To explain that a little better, there are a total of 308 seats up for grabs, and Harpers party managed to win 125 seats, while the other 183 seats are split between three other parties and one independant. Since no coalition was formed between the other parties, that makes the Conservatives the ruling party (as a minority, meaning they can be brought to another election after suffering a vote of no confidence or similar circumstance) To understand this further I suggest simply reading up articles on the Electoral processes of Parliamentary systems.--Etemenanki 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the "Formal" picture a heckuva lot better

That's a great pic of the PM (next to the Canadian flag).

Please use this one from now on as the main pic.

Thank you.

Whats wrong with Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg? P.S. I do like the one with the PM next to the Canadian flag. FellowWikipedian 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't like the 'blank' background. At least with the formal picture, you can see Harper in his office next to the flag. It just looks more akin to what other world leaders pix looks like.

Paul Martin and Jean Chretien both are in pix next to the Canadian flag (crappy looking pix though).

I agree with you about the blank background. FellowWikipedian 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed wording

I changed the line "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that said that Paul Martin supported child pornography." to "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that suggested that Paul Martin supported child pornography." because the press release was entitled "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" I believe there is a difference between said and suggested.

--Sasha

I've added a link to the external links section that includes edit reference to Wiki policy as to why I think this blog spot should be included. The link has continually been removed , despite Wiki policy to exceptions for blog links and citations of a blog on the United Kingdom Politics page. The blogspot is only one of several humour site I hope to build on as humour reflects grassroot reaction to governments of the day and adds valuable historic encyclopedic insight.

I am following Wiki's guidelines for dispute very diligently.

Since my last re-posting I was told , that's TOLD to not link the site again by a contributor. I ask him, politely, what authority he had but then someone tampered with my account and changed the password so I've had to create this new account. My polite, enquiring questions on some of the contributors sites who removed my links have dissapeard.

I'm wondering if political bias is interfering?

Please check out http://harper-valley.blogspot.com , http://www.mr.satire.com and http://www.thehammer.com...while it may not be your 'style' of humour , Wiki's definition of satire, parody and cynasim would be applicable to this site. Historical content (site links to news sites) also mandates relevance to Stephen Harper, as cited by Wiki guidelines.

Thank you I appreciate your support. Inspirit 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)inspirit sept. 4 '06 7:19

  • Response:
  • The Harper-Valley blogspot is not a credible link for an encyclopedic article. The humour is sophomoric, and must of it has little to do with Harper. More to the point, the site itself is largely unknown in Canadian culture and including it on the Stephen Harper page would effectively constitute a form of free advertising.
  • This has nothing to do with political bias, and everything to do with upholding the integrity of the project. Please do not take these comments as a personal insult. CJCurrie 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dispute continues over Wiki guidelines. Sophmoric is a subjective opinion. If you go through the archives much of it has to do with Harper. Largely unknown in Canadian culture is irrelevant and invalidates grassroots movements. Free advertising for whom? It is a non-commerical site with no affiliations to any blog or other alliance. Please follow guidelines and attempt dispute resolution which recommends compromise. If none can be reached then let's go to the next step.
  • No personal insult taken at all. Bias refers to someone changing my password. Integrity should be taken up with Wiki guidelines, no contraventions according to 'not normal links' 5. and 'recommended links 9. . Please follow guidelines and attempt dispute resolution which recommends compromise. If none can be reached then let's go to the next step. Inspirit 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)inspirit sept. 4 '06 10:27pm

I'm afraid your rationalizations aren't going to be of much use here: this isn't a serious content dispute, it's linkspam. I'm sorry about your password, but that's not especially relevant to this discussion. CJCurrie 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I thought it was common knowledge that WP policy is that external links are only considered appropriate if they aid the reader in a material way to better understand the subject of the WP article from which the link emanates. I don't see how a humour site does that.Michael DoroshTalk 06:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • CJC and Michael, thanks for your response. If it were not a serious content dispute then what constitutes 'serious' content, would external links not exist then? I see the link to 'Editorial Cartoon Gallery' has been placed under external links which would constitute humour as relevant content , mai non? Linkspam or Spamdexing does not appear to be justified, I punched the site into Google and it has passed their criteria. The other sites I had posted under humour were not blog spots yet they have been removed also. All sites referred to and linked to news sites which would help the reader in a material way to better understand the subject of this Wiki article as seen under humour. Again I refer to the editorial carton link.

Please see 'political jokes' under Wiki Jokes and Humour, Styles of Humour Parody, Satire, Sarcasm which refutes opinion of Harper Valley being 'sophmoric humour'. the satire page also refers to the importance of this writing genre in politics. It is noted in many interpretations that humour is an oft used tool for the oppressed. As the author of Harper Valley is First Nations and there are many items in reference to Stephen Harper's government handling of indigenous issues the link becomes relevant to expression of the oppressed to the Canadian Government and Stephen Harper.

Also note The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations and it's use of humour and humorous references. Also check out Political Humor.

While you may not consider this a 'serious content dispute' the person at Wiki I contacted seems to and wants to be kept updated. As I continue my attempt to resolve this dispute by Wiki guidelines I would suggest you do the same and try to reach compromise with me.Dancingwaters 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You just don't get it. This is an encylopedia and is for encyclopedic content. Whether the owner of the website is First Nations or not has no bearing on the fact that the website is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on Harper. Do you have any idea how many websites, satirical and serious, cover Canadian issues? There are tens of thousands of them and this particular humour site is no more relevant to Stephen Harper than any of the other ones. This is an encylopedia, not a link farm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marklp (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Election table removal

I would like to put out the question, are the election tables at the bottom of this article really relevant? I think the tables should only be in the riding profile articles, this article is long enough without them. --Cloveious 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree. There are similar tables for other MP biography pages, and I believe it's useful and convenient to have all of the information available in a single location (which wouldn't be the case if we divided them between Calgary West & Calgary Southwest). If someone doesn't want to read them, they're easy to ignore.

I think we should get rid of them. Harper isn't just any old MP now, he's the Prime Minister of Canada. Those can just as easily go on the riding pages.--SFont 08:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the ultimate compromise would be (and it would take some work), would be to create "master pages" of election results, which can be linked to. Then, on each individual MPs / notable candidates website, we can include a cute little box, with links to each of the results. I'll work on a mock up of what I think it might look like. --Hamiltonian 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary information?

On July 17, a group of protesters, primarily expatriate Lebanese, protested Israeli aggression in front of the Israeli consulate in Montreal; further protests took place July 22 in localities across Canada.

I'm not sure this sentence belongs here. It does not relate to Stephen Harper, only to Canadians and the conflict itself. It's like saying that some people protest gay marriage... bladebot 07:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Vandalism

Someone has to stop the vandalism on the is page. We must prevent people from abusing the privileges of wikipedia like for example, 74.106.195.189, who had just recently made disgusting edits to this article which are now removed by more decent users of wikipedia.

An admin has semi-protected the article. FellowWikipedian 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


TheAxeGrinder 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Indeed, those who feel the need to Harper bash should do it somewhere else or not at all. Go bash Martin or Chretien instead.

Martin should be bashed. Not Harper. FellowWikipedian 00:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the vandalism but TheAxeGrinder comment above demonstrates a strong bias. A click on their link takes one to a page that does not exist. There's always room to allow that AxeGrinder made an error. Dancingwaters 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is lots of vandalism on the Stephen Harper page. Mabie you should start checking this more often. FellowWikipedian 02:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the odds Harper doesn't last til the end of next year?

TheAxeGrinder 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Strong bias, my foot! What was that last line above for? If anything, Harper hasn't stolen millions of taxpayers money to fund failed sponsorship programs in Quebec.

Free Your Mind! 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Yes but at least the Liberals kept us out of Iraq and upheld equality rights by legalizing gay mariage, they also paid down some of our debt. Only thngs they did right really.

Pointless monarchist language

Gbambino, the Monarchist League of Canada Vice President, is a man on a mission to clog as much of Wikipedia as possible with unnecessary language that greatly inflates the relevance of the monarchy in Canada's political system. For example:

  • The page used to read "Harper selected the majority of his Ministers from Ontario and Quebec;" it now reads: "the majority of names which Harper put forward to the Governor General for appointment as Cabinet Ministers were from Ontario and Quebec"

Every other reference to Harper "appointing" person XYZ has been deleted in favor of references to the Governor General appointing the person. While obviously one can make the case that formally this is how it happened, it's pointless to fill the articles with such references. No newspaper or encyclopedia in Canada would ever phrase the nature of Prime Ministerial appointments in such a manner. It completely miscategorizes the nature of the term "appoint" as well. When people talk about the PM "appointing" a person, it means he chose them, which is the only relevant information to note. What figurehead signed the ratification is irrelevant, especially if there is zero chance any of the so-called "recommendations" forwarded to her will ever be rejected. Adding this kind of language is deliberately deceptive to those who may not be familiar with the Canadian political system, and serves no coherent purpose other than to inflate the appearance of relevance of the monarchy at the expense of factuality and clarity. Which is of course Gbambino's open agenda. J.J. 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

J.J., card carrying member of the Citizens for a Canadian Republic, and advocator of a U.S. presidential system for Canada, wording something exactly as it is outlined in the constitution is, in no way, deceptive. Nor is it an acceptable practice to dumb down an encyclopaedia's contents just to suit, and enhance, ignorance. In some instances the wording may be a bit over loaded, I'll concede that; so, if you want to suggest another way to construct certain sentences, then please, present your proposals. But, using newspapers as guidelines is not sufficient; though I'm interested to see examples of encyclopaedias that state the prime minister is the one who makes appointments to the Cabinet, Supreme Court, and appoints even himself, I suppose.
You may want to quit acting in bad faith, improve your courtesy skills, and work more productively. --gbambino 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that in the original phrase in question, "Harper selected the majority of his Ministers...", there is nothing wrong with the usage of "selected". I think this is a better way to phrase it than to say "the majority of names which Harper put forward to the Governor General for appointment as Cabinet Ministers...", because the inserted information about how the appointment process works is unnecessary and irrelevant to the point of the original sentence. I disagree with Gbambino that this would be incorrect or "dumbing down". However, I disagree with J.J. that it is fine to say the prime minister "appointed" someone, because this would be factually incorrect.
My suggestion would be that if the focus of a sentence is a prime minister's choices (as it would generally be in this article on Stephen Harper or any specific prime minister), it would be fine to say "the Prime Minister selected X for position Y". If the point of a sentence is on the general process or the constitutional role of the prime minister (as it would generally be in the Prime Minister of Canada article), then it should be phrased "the Prime Minister recommends X to the GG, who does Y".
In conclusion, I agree that we should avoid "duming down" or misleading, and I think that saying "the Prime Minister appointed" would fall into these categories. However, I think saying "the Prime Minister selected" is fine, because it is factually correct, and because we do not need to spell out how the entire appointment process works every time we list who was recommended for a position by a prime minister and subsequently appointed.
--thirty-seven 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with thirt-seven. I just had a look at the cabinet section and it sounds a bit silly now. I think "selected" would work a lot better. 69.156.57.195 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Jordan

Sure, seems fine in most cases, but perhaps not every one. --gbambino 20:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Here is a templated review to let you know that everything passed for the GA status :

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass (minor non-notable trivia to remove)
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Additional comments :

  • Harper speaks both English and French. is unnecessary in the lead section as Canada's official languages are both, it would be necessary to mention it if he didn't talk both.
  • The Background section should be more fluent and have less one-liner paragraphs.
  • Harper agreed to play a small role in the television show Corner Gas. It was filmed on August 29, 2006, and will be aired in spring 2007., Harper suffers from asthma. Harper reportedly owns a large vinyl record collection and is an avid fan of The Beatles and AC/DC. and is non-notable trivia and shouldn't really be included.
  • it was neck and neck right, isn't it neck to neck?
  • I doubt the section Electoral record is necessary to the article especiall if it isn't located near any section that talk about his election.

Lincher 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Election chart

We can keep it for now, but if others complain about it, it should be removed. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. FellowWikipedian 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper vs. government policy & initiative

I'm wondering if this article is becoming excessively long because it is blurring the lines between Stephen Harper the person, and Stephen Harper as some kind of personal embodiment of the current government of Canada. I realise he is the prime minister, but every announcement he makes is not his own personal opinion, nor is every move by the Cabinet a reflection of his personal desires, and he alone certainly doesn't have relations with other nations; in other words, sometimes (often?) he is merely a mouth-piece for the government. Perhaps all the sections that refer to the actions of "the Harper government" and "the Conservative government", as well as relations with the United States, and those about certain Bills in parliament should me moved to other, more pertinent articles. --gbambino 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of individual articles

Yeah but that article it already very long due to the list of MP's. I though maybe about those : Foreign Policy of Harper's government (Relation with US including the softwood dispute and the War in Afghanistan,) Domestic or Interior Policy of Harper's Government (social, environment, etc), Early Life of Stephen Harper, etc. Kinda like they've did with George W. Bush.--JForget 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In the same time, considering that the Government is under fire for several issues lately, can we also consider a page about the criticism or opponents of the Stephen Harper government, but trying to be neutral though - there is lots of them that been added lately. It is evident that the environmental, social and foreign (but especially the first two) policies have been widely criticized. --JForget 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of created a separate article Domestic Policy of Stephen Harper's government for its domestic policy afterwards, we could trim and rephrase portions of the existing info on the Stephen Harper article.--JForget 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just launched the article, but will need significant expension especially the sub-sections and to add other issues--JForget 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great - much of what's here about the government policies is quite comprehensive and probably simply needs to be transferred from here to there. The only negative thing I'd point out is that technically the government isn't Stephen Harper's - it's the Crown's government. Perhaps the article should be called "Domestic Policy of the Harper government"? It could even maybe be defined as the Harper Ministry. --gbambino 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I can used the first one then --JForget 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also jsut created the Foreign Policy of the Harper government separated article which will concentrate on its foreign policy. So far, more extensions of the article will be needed and we may now start trimming the foreign section on this article too--JForget 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've removed much of what was repeated between here and the two main articles Domestic policy of the Harper government and Foreign policy of the Harper government. What wasn't repeated, I moved from here to either of those two. Ditto for the election information, which has gone to Canadian federal election, 2004 or Canadian federal election, 2006. Only what relates directly to Stephen Harper should be left here.

I hope this was an acceptable move. I'm not sure what to do about the long list of footnotes, though. --gbambino 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comment about Harper being the first person appointed Prime Minister not to represent a riding in Quebec. Both John Turner and Kim Campbell represented ridings in British Columbia.

Good catch. The sentence had earlier said that he was the first "elected" PM since Clark but an editor had removed it citing a concern that PM's are not elected per se. It seems to have been an inadvertent error in that change. But the incorrect version stood since Oct. 5th. I'm surprised it got by us all for that long. That's a bit of a wakeup call, huh? --JGGardiner 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Walrus article - NPOV

Just a reminder, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SFrank85 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, however the article is massive, and seems to virtually ignore that Harper belongs to a very conservative evangelical group, and has ties to many very scary evangalicals, whose beliefs are completely outside of the mainstream. I don't think the article should focus on this, or even have a lot of information on this. But by ignoring it completely, are we not also having bias? The media often seems to try and ignore this issue; however on the rare occasion, that a mainstream media publication actually tackles the issue, we shouldn't completely ignore it. Evangalical Christianity appears to be important to Harper - but he has gone to great lengths on saying anything on the issue. However I think for balance, there must be some commentary here. Your are correct though, Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. I have restored some of the deleted text, in a manner that I think addresses that issue. Nfitz 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
And Paul Martin and Jean Chretien both belong to the Roman Catholic church, but I don't see you trying to add sections about the Catholic church's anti-condom programs in Africa or the dozen other things they can be criticized for. The other Canadian leaders have their religion listed and left at that, they don't go in depth explaining every belief or program those churches have been responsible for, so I don't see why Harper's entry should be any different. Marklp 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There should be a little info about Harper's religion for the people that are interested. Even though I agree with Wikipedia is not a Crystall ball. FellowWikipedian 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This is blatant POV. At least three different editors [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] have deleted the POV but they have all been restored by Nfitz. --Angrybeaver.bc 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV that I added yesterday. The Walrus quote has been moved to a separate section as it does not really belong in the "Prime Minister" section. Does anyone have opinions as to whether the Walrus quote should be kept or removed? (I also striked thru the blatant above, in retrespect it seems too strong) --Angrybeaver.bc 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Should be removed. Its just a guess on how deep Harper's convictions run. GoldDragon 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It was all removed from the article a couple before you posted this ... 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Size issues

I have split a few things off from the article and shrunk it a bit and did some major archiving and shrunk the discussion page significantly. Kc4 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah war against the Israel

There was, prior to my last edit, an attempt to infuse into the PM's public statements anti-Israel sentiment. This is clearly factually false and makes the PM appear ridiculous. Such a violation of WP:NPOV had to be removed.--Lance talk 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


The whole section on that was very poorly written...--User:Rabrams20

Use of YouTube Material on Canadian Income Trust Issue

I'm not sure its appropriate for this material to be posted on Wikipedia so I won't insert it into the article until I get a ruling.

The two clips are on YouTube and show Prime Minister Steven Harper promising not to tax income trusts. On October 31 Harper's broke that promise and this lead to Trust Investor capital losses of approximately $25-30 Billion Canadian Dollars.

I think the YouTube material is relevant and newsworthy but I want other points of view before I insert it into the main article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9mibZYpVPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtiykp-WDG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SD9rfeZxLE

Just because something is "newsworthy" doesn't mean it belongs here. This is an encyclopedia, not an ongoing news article. You people keep trying to add every single policy, decision and news item into the article, the vast majority of which, quite frankly do not belong in an encylopedia. Marklp 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just put it in the domestic policy article that I've created instead of here. I have briefly made mention of the income trust issue on the budget section. --JForget 23:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also some information on the Income Trust Issue loacated at CAIF which is relevant to this issue. Particulary a analysis by Yves Fortin called "Taxation of Income Trusts: Was it Worth the Cost and the Turmoil?

Regards DSatYVR 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The first photo - stop removing it

Can the IP's stop removing the first photo of the article, it's been persistant lately. maybe we should put with the Canadian flag in the back so maybe to imitate some of the U.S President articles which have their flag in the background--JForget 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note - can a better picture be used? The white background looks odd and it looks like the contrast has been turned down way too low. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need to find a better picture. There has been some discussion about this in the past. See [7]. FellowWikipedian 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the good images are not fair use. Darn images :) FellowWikipedian 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

When the first photo is very inappropriate (like a few weeks ago), then I simply remove it, and leave it to someone else to put a good photo back in. Sorry, but that's the most efficient way to keep the article respectable without having to search out and pick an appropriate picture, which apparently is a complicated process, judging from what other users are saying. I certainly never simply remove the photo ad hoc.72.1.218.94 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should add Image:Harper2.JPG temporarily? The article should have a photo of the PM. FellowWikipedian 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there some type of official government photo that can be used for here? Even if not, we need some type of photo at that top. What good is an article about a head of government without a photo. Kaiser matias 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

According to image, it says "© House of Commons". Therefore this identifies that the govt of Canada holds the copyright and therefore they are able to release the copyright for use in Wikipedia as the letter of permission shows.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk • contribs)

The Government and the House of Commons are two different things. --JGGardiner 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear why this has come up again. I will note that email license statements should go to permissionsATwikimedia.org, not be pasted on the image description page. Jkelly 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a well defined process for requesting permission to use copyright material. The exchange embedded in the image description is both insufficient and not in the right place. The request is misleading as it doesn't describe the full extent of the required licence or even mention it by name. The image should not be used until this has been resolved. It is important for Wikipedia to avoid copyright violations. KenWalker | Talk 03:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous Creative Commons licenced images available at Flickr. Would any of these meet your needs? Flickr images tagged 'Stephen Harper' with Creative Commons Licences DSatYVR 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha nice try. Go fight for your social justice, a word created by the Fascists by the way! SFrank85 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. If you are, please assume good faith and all that. Some of the pictures are indeed anti-Harper but many are not. They include him reviewing soldiers, attending Conservatives rallies (many of one for Peter Kent) boarding his plane and looking rather Prime Ministerial, etc. --JGGardiner 22:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. The Flickr images arn't even suitable for his article. But nice try anyways :-) FellowWikipedian 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
SFrank85, I don't think your baiting comments are appropriate to this webspace. FellowWikipedian, I'm not trying to fool anyone, but offer a solution to the copyright problem, no 'Nice Try' was attempted. I'm not interested in either of your politics. End of story. As JGGardiner pointed out there are many pictures that would get around the problem of copyright permission and be in good taste, although I admit you really have to look. Mr. Harper does seem to have numerous and vocal critics. Creative Commons Licenced pictures are more flexible and in this spirit I offer an solution to the problem. DSatYVR 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarity Act

How come it does not mention anywhere that Harper was the one who came up with the idea of the Clarity Act? SFrank85 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I added this a while ago, but someone decided to spin it off to the "Harper out of parliament" sub-article.
I'd be willing to return this, along with other pertinent information. I never thought the article split was a good idea to begin with. CJCurrie 19:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's a bad idea to mention that it was his idea, but we need not go into too much detail about the act itself, or its consequences, here. --gbambino 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The original reference was fairly brief. CJCurrie 20:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It was probably me who moved it. I've replaced it in the relevant section. --gbambino 20:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen these sources?

I just took these out of the main article, they were in a second references section, but unlinked to any statement in the article. Are these further reading candidates or did someone intend for them to verify something? Alan.ca 09:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • William Johnson, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, McClelland & Stewart, 420 pp. (June 2005) ISBN 0-7710-4350-3
  • Lloyd Mackey, The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, ECW Press, 221 pp. (August 2005) ISBN 1-55022-713-0

They are biographies, and I assume were included as general references. CJCurrie 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Harper/Archive_4&oldid=1137204925"