Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 5

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

Weight Issue

I think its time we include a paragraph on Harper's rapidly expanding waistline. This is probably the first time in Canadian history that we have seen a major politician expand his girth dramatically while in the public eye. I think it deserves to be mentioned.


That's ridiculously trivial and is not worth mentioning - and a dubious statement anyways (have you taken measurements?). --72.139.40.189 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This may be the first time I've ever found myself agreeing with an anonymous IP editor, but 72 is correct: it's inappropriate, dubious and superficial, and unless the media suddenly latch onto his weight and start publishing articles about it — and I sincerely doubt they ever will — it would be highly unlikely to survive a review for either WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

2004 federal election

What the hell is this? It suggests plenty of arguable things while not providing any citation. Just to show few examples "TV attack ads suggesting that the Conservatives would make Canada more like the United States, caused Harper's party to lose some momentum." or "The Conservatives managed to make inroads into the Liberals' Ontario stronghold" or maybe "Harper, after some personal deliberation, decided to stay on as the party leader". Um, like what the hell?

Support for the Invasion of Iraq

shouldn't Stephen Harpers support for the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 be mentioned in this article. It is mentioned in Stockwell Days and seems to be intentionally left out of this article. There are various sites which display their ignorant remarks about Jean Chretiens decision not to join the multilateral force, such as this one www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879589/posts

It should absolutely be included in the appropriate section of this page (ie under whichever position he held at the time of making his views known). Ummcke09 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OfficialPhoto.jpg

The image has been approved by an administrator at Commons Wikipedia. Now I'm looking to get "permission" from User:Alan.ca even though I shouldn't have to.
This is in the email that I received from Commons Wikipedia

We have received the permission for the image(s) and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page(s).
Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons.
Yours sincerely,
Cary Bass

So, comments User:Alan.ca? Thank you very much. ViriiK 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If the photo exists on Commons with permissions all taken care of, there should be no approval from any other editor and thus anyone can go forth. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. ViriiK 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I honestly can't believe that after all that correspondence from the PMO, someone still had problems with the photo. Oh well. Thanks for taking the time to make sure everything worked out, ViriiK. :) John Hawke 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper?

I believe tough the title of the article should be Stephen Harper, he is styled the right honourable as in accordance with Canadian tradition and law, and therefore the first line should read : The Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper. I'm going to make this edit now, if someone objects please post here or on my talk page TotallyTempo 01:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this talk page posting. I reverted that change, based on this comment at that point in the article:
Before putting The Right Honourable in front of his name please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes
-- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on environment?

I know, I should write it instead of complaining here! In any case, given recent events it seems incredible to me that the Harper article does not contain any of the words "environment", "global warming", or "climate change". It should, though obviously the focus of the Conservative government's position on these issues belongs elsewhere. --Saforrest 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

-- If you do decide to write something on this topic, I must remind you in light of your statement to please ensure that it is NPOV. John Hawke (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I should also just write it somewhere instead of complaining, but I don't feel I know the details well enough. I would appreciate information about Harper's views on these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.170.89 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

High School Average

How is Stephen Harper's high school average known? What source was used for this entry? Unless Harper himself made his high school grades public, I don't know how this information could have been obtained. I suggest this information should be removed if it cannot be verified. Furthermore, I find it odd that Harper graduated with such a high average and did not go on to finish a university degree immediately after high school. Perhaps it was simply a personal choice, but it would be interesting to learn the story behind his initial decision to move out West.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.97.2 (talk • contribs)

Actually it was rather common for Canadians at that time to forego University right after high school.70.48.205.126 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Page 7 in William Johnson's book. SFrank85 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a gold medal for his achievment in high school, so records exist in public. He had the highest average, this is often the case in Canada, perhaps like the deans list in the US. If you want to know more read William Johnson's book, I did. The richest man in the world (Bill Gates) left university to get rich. Smart people don't really need a paper saying how smart they are. He went out west to make some money, and then excelled in a University in Alberta a little later on. What is hard to understand about that. Maybe if he was a liberal he would have bummed around Europe for a few years, instead of getting a job and making money. Jeremy99 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey,I'm a Liberal and went to work as soon as I could.lol:) 70.48.205.126 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I've still got a big student loan to repay,not like the rich conservatives with the silver spoons:) 70.48.205.126 22:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on now, this isn't a site for fighting. I'm a liberal in school haha... in the forces... not "bumming" around lol... stephen harper is alright, as far as conservatives go... atleast lately —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeonatrike (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
User 70.48.205.126 - by 1978 it was no longer all that common for someone to have a break between high school and university, especially one who had such a high average and was a gold medal winner as well as a high-performance monkey on Reach for the Top, and particularly not from Richview which still is one of the most snobbish public schools in Toronto. If he dropped out two months into his freshman year at U of T you can be certain that he was finding it rather different from the memorize-and-regurgitate atmosphere of high school. His move out west may have been to protect his obviously rigid personality from the challenge of loose living and constant questioning of everything that is a hallmark of university life. And working in the mail room of an oil company? Suggestive of either a break with his family, break with their expectations, break with his own expectations, breakdown or all of the above.Freiherrin (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed from article's page

Someone wrote this into the top of the page. under what authority or consesus, I don't know, but this sort thing is useless for people who edit it in sections.--Mikerussell 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting now any additions linked to foreign affairs or events such as the War on Terror or relations with the United States will now go under the new article Foreign Policy of the Harper government while domestic or interior issues such as the environment, agriculture, tax cuts, etc. will go in the new article Domestic Policy of the Harper government. The links are available in the See also section. at the end of the article. The article will be trimmed furthermore in order to focus more on Stephen Harper itself

I'm sorry about the "Stephen Harper is a fuckin' asshole" reference I made which is not neutral at all, but it doesn't matter since the page is "protected" it seems.

However the secondary comments...

" (educated economist?) with no concept of environmental or social "externalities", principally believing in "might is right" economic western military imperialism, who was born in Toronto. "

I still stand by.

Ken - not born in but trying to live in peace in toronto.

polls in 2006 election

The part on the 2006 election claims the following: "The Conservatives were soon leading in the polls, including in Quebec".

This is not accurate - the Bloc Quebecois was consistently ahead of the Conservatives throughout the 2006 campaign. Perhaps this section might make reference to the Conservatives being ahead of the Liberals in Quebec (considering the importance of his December speech in Quebec City, this might also be worth mentioning - as it somewhat altered the underlying coalition of interests that makes up the Conservative Party). Furthermore, by mentioning one region explicitly, it is uncertain as to whether the statement is claiming that Harper was in the lead nationally, or in each region of Canada (this would not be true, in Ontario and the Maritimes Harper trailed the Liberals - though some polls in the former did have him ahead). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.56.196.99 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

It is 2007 and he sure leads in Ontario now. HA HA. Good catch, the sharp rise in Quebec was meaningful, but never did he lead. He went from 0 to 10 seats in that province, so it was important. It is hard to discuss polls of the Maritimes because of the small population, and sample size, leading to stated error of sometimes 6-15 points, 19 times out of 20. I would prefer to keep poll talk to the barest minimum in articles like this. PM Harper did rise in polls during and after the Christmas Holiday, that mention, as well as his speech in Quebec and the positive reception by many French language newspapers, as well as the buzz that the Conservatives were alive again in Quebec is interesting and noteworthy. Jeremy99 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors launch Billboard campaign

I'm looking for suggestions on how to integrate this material into the domestic policy section of the article.

Links removed see WP:EL

Is criticism of Stephen Harper's Income Trust Txation policy allowed? Regards, DSatYVR 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is a scandal that you or they make it out to be. SFrank85 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't integrate it! If you want to introduce noteworthy information to Wikipedia you may want to attempt to seek out a neutral source. I removed your links from the talk page. Alan.ca 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If I was only seeking your opinion in particular Alan.ca, I would have posted the links on your talk page. But I am seeking an opinion of all users other than yourself, although that doesn't diminish the importance of your comments. All users need to see the links to form an opinion. Please don't delete the links, it looks like you are trying to suppress an opinion rather than seek consensus. Regards, DSatYVR 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Harper's $35 Billion Income Trust Scandal - CAITI Billboard Artwork
Billboard locations
Lie. Conceal. Fabricate
I'm against any insertion of this because it's not that big of a scandal that you make it out to be unless you can provide neutral sources. Thank you very much. Edit: I like to also comment that from your edit history, you have 1 objective and that is supposedly to promote a scandal regarding the "Income Trust Taxation policy". We do not allow POV edits here at wikipedia and they will be either removed or edited to show NPOV. ViriiK 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is a big scandal, little scandal or no scandal is of no particular interest to me. What is of interest is to have a record of the event(s) I'm writing about. I have an agenda? Look around you ViriiK, who doesn't? The whole idea IMO is to collaborate and get the articles as NPOV as possible. What I see happen most often is revert and deletion wars and very little effort to build. I can play it both ways but I do think better articles are built thru collaboration and cooperation. Thats my preferred method, what is yours? Regards, DSatYVR 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not my problem if this is such a big deal to you. If you write it up it will be held to the NPOV standard, if not, it will be removed quickly. These links you cite are not NPOV sources whatsoever. A NPOV source would be for example like CBC reporting surrounding the advertising scandal during Martin's government. But when you use these sources to input any subsection into the biography of Stephen Harper regarding what you're talking about, then we got a problem. ViriiK 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be against insertion as well. This should be an unbiased profile of Stephen Harper, not a contrast of how people felt about decisions as Prime Minister. If it were something of historical importance to Canada I could understand an insertion, however I don't suspect it is as of big importance as you sugest. Canuckman55 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Canuckman55

criticism section

Is this needed? There are no sources and his policies are mentioned in other parts of the article. Tkyle 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That flag icon...

I'm really tired of this. But let me explain it on this page. An obsolete, never official flag icon has no place on the infobox. For one thing, put right after the province, it looks like the Ontario flag icon, which it is not. Second, by itself, without the word Canada next to it, it is obscure: few people know what was the unofficial flag of Canada back when Harper was born. With no context, this flag icon has no meaning, and has no place within an infobox. As national flag icons are not in all infoboxes, without a Wikipedia policy, there's no point to keep putting one there. Also note that flag icons at birth of, say, Michaëlle Jean and George W. Bush are the current flag of their respective countries, not the one in use at their birth.--Boffob 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When you say "never official flag", it was actually the official flag of Canada before the Maple flag was adopted. ViriiK 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not what the Great_Flag_Debate says. It was in use, but not the official flag, just like O Canada wasn't officially the Canadian anthem until 1980.--Boffob 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well Canadian Red Ensign contradicts your argument
the Canadian Governor-General signed an Order-in-Council (P.C. 5888) which stated that "The Red Ensign with the Shield of the Coat of arms in the fly (to be referred to as "The Canadian Red Ensign") may be flown from buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian federal Government within or without Canada shall be appropriate to fly as a distinctive Canadian flag. So in 1945, the flag was officially approved for use by government buildings inside Canada as well, and once again flew over Parliament. ViriiK 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Semantics. Whether it was official or "appropriate to fly" is a red herring anyway. It's an obscure, obsolete flag, with no context. Given that there is no official policy on whether to put a flag at all, it shouldn't be in the infobox.--Boffob 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because you don't like it does not mean the rest of us has to live with it. Flag Icon stays! SFrank85 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Both of you please stop edit warring, and SFrank please try to make an an argument rather than simply declaring what you feel are truths. My personal opinion is that the flag adds nothing to the article, and is a potential source of confusion so should probably be removed. - SimonP 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got to agree with SimonP. The similarities between the Canadian Red Ensign and the official Flag of Ontario is more than a little confusing and it's not especially adding anything to the article. How about as a compromise you use the flag of Ontario? That way you still get a flag icon and it's not confusing. --Bobblehead 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be the flag of Ontario that was created six years after Harper was born? Ontario didn't have its own flag when Harper came into this world. I vote 'no flags in infoboxes'. Let's end the clutter here. Ground Zero | t 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So far only SFrank85 seems intent on keeping the flag icon there, with no other reason than his own preference. As I don't wish to break the 3RR rule, who wants to remove it?--Boffob 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the prime minsters have at least one tiny flag in their infoboxes. I'm re-adding it to make it consistent with John A. Macdonald, among others. dcandeto 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you people decide to do with this, it should be done the same way among all the entries for Canadian Prime Ministers. Some have flags, some don't. James Warner-Smith 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you people decide to do with this flag issue...will be changed by someone else later on who has a different opinion. Tis forever thus. Personally speaking, I like to keep the flags, but others (above) call it "clutter." Que-Can
Well, where do we go to discuss a formal, uniform policy then, to avoid this kind of trouble?--Boffob 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography might be a good place to have this discussion. I'm not inclined to continue the revert war by deleting the icon at this point. There has been a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RE:_Flag_Icons-_New_Table that did not resolve the issue. Ground Zero | t 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if there was a policy which allowed flags generally, this particular flag has unique problems. It isn't the current or a very widely recognized flag, is positioned after the province's name, looking like the province flag (at 25 pixels) and it is debatable that it was even a national flag at the time. I think that any inclusion should add something meaningful to the article. Anybody who does not know where Ontario is will most likely not know about the Engisgn. I think that it just stands as a decorative element and I think that we should remove it. --JGGardiner 00:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I removed it as concensus appears to be against it. Any reinstatement should be explained and justified on this page.--Boffob 01:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sick and tired, every damn time you people remove my edits. I have done alot of work here on wikipedia. I put the current flag in as a comprimise. SFrank85 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You still have yet to explain why you want that flag icon in the first place.--Boffob 01:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It provides context. dcandeto 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't provide any more context than saying which was the national anthem at the time, or the current pope. It's obsolete and easily confused with the Ontario flag at 25 pixel. Consensus appears to be against it. I'll remove it, again, unless the pro-flag contingent provides much better arguments.--Boffob 00:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That argument is just as valid against Harper's signature, which provides even less context, and adds no information, unlike adding the Canadian flag. dcandeto 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Harper's signature can be removed too as it is unnecessary. The flag issue is more contentious because it does lead to confusion. The first time I noticed it was I think in the Gilles Duceppe article, with what appeared to be an Ontario flag icon next to the word "Quebec". I figured it was vandalism, but it turned out to be an old Red Ensign when I went to edit. Since then I have yet to figure out why some people are so eager to put old obsolete flags in infoboxes. There's little difference between the 3 or 4 Red Ensigns used over the years for Canada and some provinces like Ontario. There are problems on picking which flag icons with respect to time frame and location. Why pick the Scottish flag over the Union Jack, but never pick a provincial flag over the federal one? Why pick the Union Jack (a flag still in use today) next to province names for dates prior to the Confederation? It's just puzzling and adds nothing to the article. Instead of reverting my flag icon removals, simply removing Stephen Harper's signature (signatures don't appear in other infoboxes anyway) would be a better way to enforce uniformity of (useful) content.--Boffob 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, for uniformity, I removed all flags from Canadian Prime Minister infoboxes. That way it's uniform and there is no debate as whether it should be a provincial/national/subnational/then/now flag...--Boffob 00:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's improper. I'm reverting the ones I didn't add the flag to. dcandeto 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a flag icon here at all; it adds nothing and as the discussion shows, it causes unnecessary arguments. --John 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, John. You're my hero for the next 20 minutes. Ground Zero | t 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto statement

Should this paragraph be included in the article:

"Harper dismissed the Kyoto Accord as a 'socialist scheme' designed to suck money out of rich countries in a letter he wrote to party supporters in 2002.[1] The letter was made public in 2007."

GoldDragon thinks that the statement is somehow unfair to Harper. Does anyone else agree? CJCurrie 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be like saying that Goodale's office was investigated, without noting that he was later exonerated. Second, this does not do justice to what he has done so far regarding the environmental. GoldDragon 21:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(i) This analogy would only make sense if Harper a) was found not to have made the comment attributed to him, or b) repudiated it subsequently. To my knowledge, he's done neither. He made the comment in 2002, and has refrained from comment on it now.
(ii) Whether or not the comment does justice "to what he has done so far regarding the environmental" [sic] is frankly not relevant to the question of its inclusion. CJCurrie 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Still does not adequately describe his environmental policy. GoldDragon 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said it did? I believe you're in non-sequiteur territory. CJCurrie 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So why is it there? GoldDragon 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a comment that he made about a major international treaty (which later became a prominent domestic issue). I daresay it's relevant. CJCurrie 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Most Canadians are aware that Mr. Harper was a firm "unbeliever" for years, but that in the last few months he is now warming to the topic of climate change. He still hasn't said that the Kyoto Accord is worthwhile, however. I think his letter from 2002 provides a useful context and contrast, i.e., where he was in 2002 vs his current policies, and so excerpts should I think be in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't just about what's happening "today."Que-Can 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the letter itself is taken out of context. It would not be a problem if it was mentioned as part of his environmental policy. GoldDragon 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether it was fair to Harper or not, the incident got a lot of attention. Like Stephen Colbert says, "reality has a liberal bias". =) I think that it deserves some mention in the article. --JGGardiner 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes made at 18:03, 25 May 2007 by Lonewolf BC

I don't agree with two of the changes by Lonewolf BC to the Harper article. We know that Lonewolf BC has made some excellent changes to the article in the past, but I don't see the need for some of his new ones. I don't think they improve the article at all. While I would be tempted to reverse the two changes, instead I would be interested in what others think. Here are the two examples of the new wording that are of concern: "Harper became Prime Minister after leading his party in their winning of a minority government" and "He is the first ever Prime Minister from his current political party, and the first since 1993 from any "Conservative" party, power having been held by the Liberal Party for the twelve years in between." Awkward phrasing, I think, but do others agree?Que-Can 02:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's awkward, although it may be more technically accurate than the previous wording. I think a rewording, rather than a reversion, might be in order. CJCurrie 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"Conservative" in quotation marks looks like an ironic usage, that is, derisive of the fact that the party calls itself "Conservative". May be better to write "any of the conservative parties," without the quotes. Not sure if "conservative" should be capitalized or not. —Michael Z. 2007-05-31 02:41 Z

I've tweaked it again, and hope this satisfies most of the objections. I disagree about "Conservative" appearing ironic, though. Despite the trend (an unfortunate one, I think) for using quotation marks to cast doubt, I think that the capital C shows well enough that they are being used straightforwardly in this instance -- "Conservative": a party called "Conservative", whether formally (the current one) or informally (the old PCs); not "conservative": a party whose conservatism is moot. -- Lonewolf BC 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the intent of your edit is to show that this is the first time since 1993 that a person from a party with a conservative viewpoint has been PM. If that's the case, then perhaps a link to Conservatism would be better than quotes? So something like "the first since 1993 from any conservative party". --Bobblehead (rants) 19:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the reference is only to what the parties concerned are (or were) commonly called, leaving closed the worm-cans of the aptness of those names and the true nature of conservatism. -- Lonewolf BC 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph of the article reads better than it did on May 25th, but I don't agree with the most recent changes (reversal) by Lonewolf BC (16:58, 1 June 2007). The text now reads "...the first ever Prime Minister from his current political party..." To me, the word "ever" is redundant as is the word "current." They add nothing to the sentence. Also, "following twelve years of government by" is awkward phrasing. I don't believe in making changes for the sake of change, or wordsmithing. Change has to be made when it improves readability. Again, I am reluctant to reverse reversals, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the writing should be top-notch. Anyone want to tweak or re-tweak the text, or should we give it a rest?Que-Can 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Personal Life and Sport"

Under the "Background" section, there were three paragraphs about Stephen Harper's links with sport. I am not Canadian, so I don't know whether that background is very significant. I hope that a Canadian can look at that section -- either move it lower in the article, or say why three paragraphs near the beginning of the article about the Prime Minister should talk about his enjoyment of sport. Chip Unicorn 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be sprotected in some way? 70.48.205.126 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION:

In 2007 Stephen Harper was call for defrauding the international community through his actions and comments at the United Nations General Assembly by the Civilain youth group the Street Kid's Project..

BACKGROUND:

Stephen Harper's mother is half Lebanese. So thta makes him 25% Lebanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

David Orchard Event

I think this event should have more development; "In undertaking the merger talks, PC leader Peter MacKay reversed his previous agreement with leadership opponent David Orchard not to merge with the Alliance". 70.48.205.126 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Flames vs Toronto Maple Leafs

Quoting from the article:

"He is an avid fan of ice hockey and of the Calgary Flames, although on a October 4, 2006 Toronto Maple Leafs game, cameras had caught him raising his arms after a Toronto goal which raised questions by hockey fans. His son Ben was wearing a Maple Leaf jersey at the game.[6]"

When I read it, I was like, HOLY GOD, WHAT AN UNFORGIVABLE CRIME, I HOPE HE ROTS IN JAIL, HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE FROM THE PRIME MINISTER.

And then I thought... HOLY GOD, HOW USELESS A TRIVIA CAN THAT BE? It's like, not only is it oh-combien useless, BUT there's also a proof to make sure that it's true. I mean, seriously... I don't think people reaaaaally care. Give us a break. Seigneur101 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Control of Party, Parliament, and Government

I'm looking for views on the inclusion of a section on Harper's handling of his party, parliament and government. It might be difficult to avoid bias here, but one of the most discussed items when it comes to Stephen Harper has been his strong control of things. It seems kind of misleading to talk only about his senate reform agenda because it makes him seem like a reformer. But this ignores his approach to the rest of Canadian politics which are more in line with his predecessors at Prime Minister. Some argue he goes further to maintain control than his predecessors as well. Some things that could be included: Canada's New Government meme, Bill Casey story, but there could be some "on the other hands". Such as, free vote on same-sex marriage, not kicking BC MP John Cummins out of the caucus despite brutal criticism. There are also some interesting tidbits like Harper's apparent reading, mastery and even some application of Josef Stalin's leadership style. Sort of a machiavellian approach. Finally the section must probably conclude that this is to appear as a strong leader in comparison to the oppositon. Thoughts? I think without some mention of this discussion anywhere on this page, or the other pages dedicated to Harper's reign then this is somewhat lacking. Ummcke09 04:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "application of Josef Stalin's leadership style"? That seems unlikely, simply because I don't believe Harper has ordered any killings (yet).Bdell555 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More info

It has been a wile since he came into office. Perhaps there could be more information added? This is out of date. Contralya 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox -- include GG and monarch?

In order to help avoid this article being locked, it's best to start discussion on proposed changes. Should the Canadian monarch & Governor-General be mentioned in the PM's infobox? I'd say no, it makes the infobox crowded and confusing,. This article is about the PM (only). If we add this extra info here, we must add them in the Canadian PM bios, going back to 'at least' Louis St. Laurent. GoodDay 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on why the monarch and the viceroy should be included in the infobox on this page: the sections are included in the infobox template so as to put in the names of those whom the minister ministers or ministered during their time in cabinet. Hence, the following articles on people who are or were prime ministers list in their infobox the monarch and/or viceroy or president they minister or ministered: Anthony Eden (Elizabeth II), Benjamin Disraeli (Victoria), Clement Attlee (George VI), Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (William IV), Gordon Brown (Elizabeth II), Indira Gandhi (Neelam Sanjiva Reddy and Giani Zail Singh), John Major (Elizabeth II), Jawaharlal Nehru (Rajendra Prasad and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan), Margaret Thatcher (Elizabeth II), Silvio Berlusconi (Carlo Azeglio Ciampi), Ramsay MacDonald (George V), Junichiro Koizumi (Akihito), Lee Hsien Loong (Sellapan Ramanathan), and so on, and so on.

Though I don't see any guideline that requires the head of state be included in the head of government's infobox, precedent would indicate that its a common practice and not irrelevant. --G2bambino 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree (see above). GoodDay 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how you "must disagree" with anything I've sated above. --G2bambino 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:::It's extra info that's not needed. These 'office' Infoboxes need only the current officer's facts and a listing of his/her immediate predessor & successor. GoodDay 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Checked the other Commonwealth realm PMs. Very well, keep Elizabeth II [but remove the (2006- ) as it appear she only accended throne in 2006]. However, leave out GG (as box should show only Head of State & Head of Goverment). GoodDay 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not important to the subject, so it does not belong in the infobox. -- Lonewolf BC 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of adding the Canadian Head of State? it does belong (but the Governor-General shouldn't be added). GoodDay 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Needless clutter in those other infoboxes, is no reason for needless clutter in this one. -- Lonewolf BC 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Care to back that up with a detailed argument as to why it's "not important" and "needless clutter"? Nobody has to just take your word for it. --G2bambino 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The addition Elizabeth II won't clutter things. Furthermore, it's sorta a compromise between G2's proposal & LwfBC's proposal. GoodDay 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be careful in this situation, though. On a day-to-day basis a Canadian PM deals more with the Governor General, but does still remain a minister of the sovereign. --G2bambino 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a tricky sticky situation - The Canadian monarch is Head of State-in fact, where's the Governor General is Head of State-in practice. I'd still go with Elizabeth II only, it would show Canada as an equal 'Kingdom' to the UK (under E2), where's GG's addition may not make it appear so. GoodDay 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll compromise and take either or. If you feel the de jure head of state is more appropriate, then I'll accept that. --G2bambino 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Either will do (though I'd prefer 'Lilibet'). GoodDay 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I added EIIR, but, as I'm sure you'll note, with a possible solution to the GG problem. --G2bambino 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Tweaked it a little, so as 'Governor General' is together. GoodDay 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I was about to remove Governor General, but you beat me to it. We were seconds away from 'edit conflict'. It looks better, less cluttered. GoodDay 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Great minds think alike, eh? ;) --G2bambino 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees with our proposals, though. GoodDay 18:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf's got a point (regretfully IMHO), there's no consensus to add Elizabeth II and/or the GG. GoodDay 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus to not add it either. Presently, the format of the template, Wikipedia precedent, and common logic stand in favour of adding it (I'd say it's almost expected that a PM's head of state be included; after all, whom else appointed him/her, and whom else does he/she advise?). So far, nothing but Lonewolf's personal and unfounded assertion that it's "clutter" and "unimportant" stands against it. --G2bambino 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I too disagree with the objection reasons. However, the burden of consensus falls on the editor(s) who wish to change things; not the editor(s) who oppose changes. GoodDay 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I believe that request has already been well satisfied, and, indeed, actually remains unchallenged. --G2bambino 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
We need more opinons on this subject. I'd recommend contacting Wikipedia: WikiProject Canada, see what they have to say. GoodDay 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. -- Lonewolf BC 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more interested in what Lonewolf has to say, beyond "it's clutter" and "it's unimportant," that is. --G2bambino 19:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've contacted the WikiProject, inviting them to this discussion. GoodDay 19:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that G will at least agree that if it is unimportant in relation to the subject then it is just clutter in the infobox. -- Lonewolf BC 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I will. We await, then, your explanation as to why the person(s) who appointed the prime minister for the sole purpose of ministering them should not be included in the relevant minister's infobox (especilly when the infobox template provides a section explicity for that information). --G2bambino 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to consider in this matter is the discussion that took place at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder in which it was decided a "governor general" field be added to augment the "monarch" field specifically for non-UK Comonwealth Realms. --G2bambino 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(Moved hence from my talk-page -- LW)
I had the patience to allow the discussion [here], regarding the mention of the head of state in the infobox, to sit open for more than one week before acting. Even at a busy article such as Harper's, not one person besides yourself expressed any objection to the inclusion of the information; in fact, nobody but you, I, and GoodDay commented at all. On what grounds, then, do you feel there's been some consensus to not add the information? No new addition to an article needs the approval of every editor before being inserted; only something disputed need be discussed. The discussion over what you dispute has been dead for some time; in essence, nobody supports your stance. What do you propose to do? --G2bambino 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

With so many false assumptions woven into your remarks, it is hard to know where to begin, in answering them.
All revisions need consensus. This may be merely a passive consensus -- no one objects to the edit. When an edit is contested, though, a showing of general support for the revision is needed. Unless and until that is gained, it is not legitimate to make the contested edit again. The burden of proof (of consensus for a given revision) is thus on those who wish to make the revision. (And no, I am not saying, nor have I suggested, that unanimity is required.)
You had not gained such consensus. Even if matters had been as you would portray them, with only three editors involved, and standing 2:1 in favour of the edit, that would have been a really lame sort of "consensus". In truth, though, another editor had also opposed the revision, by reverting it and giving reason in the edit-summary (diff). (You should have been aware of this, whereas you reverted that reversion a few hours afterward. A couple of other editors had been slightly involved, too, insofar as having made related edits lately.)
Given the lack of a consensus in favour of your desired edit, it is scarcely to your credit that you waited a spell before making it again. Doing so without waiting would arguably have been worse -- though it might also be viewed as at least acting more straightforwardly. However, when you lack a favourable consensus, then after a few days during which there is no further comment you still lack such a consensus.
-- Lonewolf BC 09:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What tripe. Lonewolf, you alone are not a consensus; these articles do not belong to you. You opposed an edit, were given ample time to explain your opposition, and did not bother to do so. At the same time, the reasoning for doing that which you oppse was clearly presented above. The discussion was left open for more than a week, allowing plenty of opportunity for those to whom this might matter to weigh in with their opinion; notices were even left at related WikiProjects to seek out input from those involved with the subject matter. Regardless of this, nobody but two other editors cared to express favour or disfavour with the contested edit; that can't mean anything other than: to most people this simply doesn't matter. We can't leave this open and sit around waiting indefinitely until a consensus you personally approve of happens to form.
Amongst those who have chosen to involve themselves in this matter: 3 support, 1 opposes. Perhaps you feel strongly that this needs to be taken to the next step of dispute resolution; but the onus is on you to do so. Not me.
Let us know, within a considerate time, how you'd like to proceed. --G2bambino 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that the person who appoints the PM is as relevant as his/her predecessor and successor, and should have a place in the infobox. All British Prime Ministers' infoboxes contain the relevant monarch and some contain their deputies as well (Tony Blair for example). I don't feel this clutters the infobox in any way and it is perfectly relevant to the page.--Philip Stevens 12:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, restore the Head of state to the Infobox. PS- isn't it now 3 to 1? GoodDay 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. How long do you think we should wait for added input? Your calls for opinion at other talk pages have garnered little interest. --G2bambino 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
All that's needed is one more editor agreeing with the Head of State additon (thus 4-to-1). Then we'd have a consensus for keeping it. GoodDay 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any requirement at WP:CON for what constitutes a consensus. The more people who weigh in, the better; but, really, it seems the edit we want isn't controversial enough to attract attention, and WP:CON just states that a consensus be formed amongst those involved in the present discussion. --G2bambino 22:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It's the only thing I can think of at the momment, unless those who oppose the additions ceased to revert. GoodDay 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Until consensus changes, he'll have to stop reverting; Lonewolf should perhaps have a read of WP:CON and WP:OWN. He can escalate the dispute to the next stage if he wishes, but now he's the minority who has to convince the majority (whether they be benign or active) on why his position is better than ours. --G2bambino 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see an ownership issue here. What I do see is two users edit-warring. --JGGardiner 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
One user thwarting the will of three others by reverting that which he personally does not agree with, without due explanation, no less, isn't a sign of an ownership issue? --G2bambino 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it is. I do understand that OWN accusations get thrown a lot these days. A lot of editors seem to think "he must think he owns this article to violate policy" but that isn't really what WP:OWN is there for. LW objects to a particular edit for a particular reason. Ownership is not a simple inability to respect consensus. If that were the case it would simply be a line in that policy.
In any event, LW doesn't think that he is violating policy there because he doesn't see a consensus for inclusion. Frankly you are the only one who does. GoodDay also said that there is no consensus yet and I agree. --JGGardiner 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If 3 to 1 isn't a consensus, then what is? Especially when that one person's "particular reason" is: "it isn't important," end of story. Especially when nobody else seems interested in putting forward any opinion, one way or the other; you're the only other party to involve yourself in two weeks. Hence, I asked above: how long do we leave this discussion open for? A week of tumbleweeds blowing through here seemed to say enough about the matter. --G2bambino 20:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Would 4 to 1 be a consensus? I think it would be. GoodDay 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Beats me. If 3 to 1 isn't, why would 4 to 1 be? 4 to 1 is a stronger consensus, but that doesn't negate the fact that 3 to 1 shows a general consensus amongst the majority. I prefer a stonger consensus, of course, but how do we get more opinions? Notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada and Template talk:Infobox Officeholder have garnered zero response over 10 days. --G2bambino 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Then, we're sunk. GoodDay 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? --G2bambino 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
With just a 3-to-1 majority, we've no consensus. Further attempts to add Elizabeth II will lead to further reverts, then page being locked. GoodDay 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If there's no further input we have to accept the 3 to 1 majority. Constant reverts will get a certain individual blocked. --G2bambino 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's something I don't wish to see - the Pages (including those other Canadian PMs) getting locked and editors getting blocked. GoodDay 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's up to a certain individual if he wants to be a bully or not. But, really, to affirm our stance, let's think of somewhere where we can notify people about this issue and get some more commentary. RfC's never seem to garner any attention, so should we take it to MedCab?
BTW: Wikipedia:Third opinion shows that only one person is needed to break a stalemate; therefore 2 to 1 is enough to form a consensus if that's all the parties involved. --G2bambino 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, try the MedCab, if it doesn't work - then, invoke the Third opinon policy. GoodDay 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, third opinion is only if the dispute involves two editors; hence, the third opinion breaks the stalemate. --G2bambino 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh! GoodDay 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have an opinion on this matter. I originally kept it to myself because I had hoped that editors would act responsibly. That was more important than the particular outcome to me. But, since more opinion is desired, with my opinion requested and since the current ratio of yeas to nays used as an excuse to edit war, I'll say what I think.

I am against inclusion of the head of state in the infobox. My feeling is that the infobox should be for important or useful at-a-glance information. The particular head of state is not important. The Queen is not mentioned in the article at all and Jean is barely mentioned. As for utility, I can't imagine anyone coming to the article needing to know that information beforehand. So I see no need for it to be included in the infobox. --JGGardiner 07:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder who is the target of your implications of irresponsibility. Regardless, thank you for your added opinion; this is indeed what we need. However, it doesn't really aid the situation as we've just inched closer to a tie. --G2bambino 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on current practice elsewhere, I note that Helen Clark (New Zealand) has both monarch and GG on her info box, but John Howard (Australia) doesn't. Picking a previous PM not quite at random Gough Whitlam doesn't have either monarch or GG in his infobox, nor does Malcolm Fraser. Of the Canadian equivalents, William Lyon Mackenzie King does have a single entry for Byng but there's nothing for Arthur Meighen. Timrollpickering 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just gone through a whole series of PM articles requesting input here. In doing so I noticed that they're not all the same across the board, but predominantly do seem to list the HoS, whether monarch or president. This makes me wonder how we could establish consistency, one way or the other.
PS - I wouldn't look at Canadian ones, they're pretty much all involved in this dispute. --G2bambino 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We're now at 3-to-2 in favour of inclusion. It's becoming more apparent that a consensus is elusive. GoodDay 16:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Having been asked to comment on this, in my opinion I don't really see a need for either. I think Infoboxes often get too cluttered (is it necessary to state that the Canadian PM's nationality is Canadian as Harper's does?, for instance). I suppose I can understand the idea of putting the head of state in a PM's infobox, as the formally appoint the PM, but I think putting GG really would be going too far. --UpDown 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the infobox is gonna remain anyways - you wouldn't object to Elizabeth II being included? GoodDay 15:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the infobox, just the many fields (As I said stating the Canadian PM is Canadian by nationality!). Elizabeth II is alright, but still a bit OTT.--UpDown 18:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that's a yes to inclusion by UpDown, that gives us a 4-to-2 majority. Thus IMHO, we've a consensus to include Elizabeth II. GoodDay 22:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Template talk:Infobox Officeholder: I think the person who appoints the officeholder is of importance and should be included in the infobox. This happens with all UK and US cabinet officials (example David Milliband, Condoleezza Rice) and all UK Prime Ministers (example Winston Churchill). I see no reason why it should be any different for Canadian PMs. --Hera1187 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That appears to make it 5-to-2. ---- G2bambino (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a consensus, gedder done. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added Elizabeth II as we have a consensus to do so. If anybody wants to object, let him/them take it to an Administrator. If they revert the consensus edit, let him/them be reported. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Did we do right?

If Head of State is added to PM bio infoboxes? Does PMs have to be added to Head of State bio infoboxes? Which would mean countless past/present Commonwealth realm PMs being listed at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. See French President bio infoboxes for examples. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection (see talk: Kevin Rudd), we should removed Elizabeth II from the Canadian PM bio infoboxes (from all PM infoboxes). Afterall, we don't have the Popes listed on the 'cardinals' & 'bishops' articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I am apparently late to this discussion, I happen to disagree with putting the monarch in this infobox, and that of other commonwealth PMs. First of all, infoboxes should be a spot for quick reference about the subject, and should therefore contain as little extra clutter as possible. Secondly, Elizabeth II may be the head of state, but beyond a title, there is no real interaction between the monarch and the PM. Concerning the governor general, I would also be against including that in its place, even though she arguably has more day-to-day business with the PM. And regarding the argument that the Queen appointed the PM, well that may be true in theory, there has been little to no actual involvement by the crown or the office of the governor general since Byng was GG. Random89 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. How can one be so contradictory as to acknowledge the Queen is head of state but there's no involvement of the Crown in the Office of Governor General? The Office of Governor General represents the Crown all day, every day, forevermore until the constitution is altered. The infobox doesn't have to list those with whom the PM has more interaction - where would the cut-off point be? - but, instead, who, in essence, the PM's boss is. That's the Queen.
If the sovereign and/or viceroy are to be removed from Canadian PM infoboxes, I hope the same people supporting this move will turn to the New Zealand, British, French, Russian, and whatever other series of PM articles list the head of state in the relevant person's infobox. We can't be hypocritical. --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, this discussion relates to the discussions taking place at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Biography and talk: Kevin Rudd, take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should indeed decide on a policy and apply it evenly across all commonwealth nations. However, it is my opinion that the monarch and GG should be excluded from the infobox. You seem to have misinterpreted by words, which i admit may have been a bit confusing. I was not trying to suggest that the GG does not interact or represent the queen, but that neither does much actual business with the office of the PM. While i do not dispute that in essence the Queen is the PM's boss, i would dispute that she has any bearing on the PM's daily business or even his position as head of government, beyond tradition and formality. As an aside, I do not think russia or france are strictly similar situations as they are presidential systems, not constitutional monarchies. Also, I have read the discussion on Kevin Rudd's page and i will comment soon, thanks GoodDay:)Random89 (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. However, I'd still counter that as the Queen is legally the government of Canada, she, at least abstractly, has everything to do with the PM; the Crown's constitutional powers and royal prerogative are exercised every day - government could not function if it were not so - and this is done on the advice of the PM or another minister of the Crown. The GG or a deputy is constantly giving Royal Assent to bills, signing orders in council, validating appointment papers, accrediting diplomats, signing treaties, etc., etc., all on the advice of the PM. Thus, it seems rather strange to say there's no frequent interaction between the PM and the Crown. --G2bambino (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use the Governor General in place of the Monarch. That way we'd be reflecting the pratical functions of the Canadian government. Howabout it people? GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK then, we'll leave it alone. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it both jarring and misleading to make such prominent referench to the "Monarch" on Canadian Prime Ministers' pages. Australian Prime Ministers such as John Howard have no such reference, and I would contend the British monarch in much more relevant (or perhaps slightly less irrelevant) down under than s/he is in Canada. In any event, it would be equally out of place there. If anything the reference should be to the Governor-General, who is the de facto Head of State in Canada -- much as a German chancellor would have a reference to the President, Germany's equivalent (largely ceremonial) Head of State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.178.176 (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Probe ordered for Mulroney/Schreiber

Shouldn't this be in the article? [1] Misterip 13:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would suggest we wait until the results of the probe to mention anything beyond him calling for a probe into the incident. Consider that contrary to what the opposition parties might wish, the probe has nothing to do with Harper other than the fact that he okayed the investigation. Trying to tie Harper to the Mulroney/Schreiber probe seems to me a bit like left wing bias. Canuckman55 (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Canuckman55

Infobox (again)

Ok, nobody panic. I'm not trying to restart a debate that apparently has no single right answer, I'm just leaving a rational for the edit I'm about to do. Although I am personally against including the monarch in the infobox, it is common among the canadian prime ministers. However, Harper is the only Elizabeth II-era PM with the GG listed. While I would prefer it the other way around, as no consensus was formed on that, I am just going to remove the GG from the infobox. Random89 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But all the other realms show both. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the UK PM articles don't, for obvious reasons, but, beyond that, neither do Australian PM articles, which show neither; the group consensus there was just different to what it was here.
That said, it was agreed to have the head of state only, so Random's right to remove the GG. --G2bambino (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
But there are thirteen other realms. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried lining up the Commonwealth realm Prime Ministers infoboxes months ago, it didn't work. I ran into a snag at the Australian PM infoboxes and have since given up on my ambition. Indeed, the Australian PM infoboxes themselves aren't in sync. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Harper the opposition leader in 2001/2002? What was his position on Afghanistan at the time?

Who was the opposition leader during the time frame when Chrétien deployed troops to Afghanistan?

What was the position of the Reform/Conservative party at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.241.101 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At that time, Reform no longer existed and the conservative party was not yet established yet, but to answer your question, the leader of the opposition were Canadian Alliance leaders Stockwell Day and John Reynolds nat.utoronto 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-open discussion: Infobox -- include GG and monarch?

I know it got a bit of coverage here already but I'm going to repeat a previous post on another talk page and suggest re-opening the debate over including both the monarch and the governor-general on Canadian PM bio pages. IMO, if there's any reference to be meade at all to the executive, it should be the GG. Reference to the monarchy should instead be made at Prime Minister of Canada because that page is dedicated to the role of the prime minister in our government. Therefore, going into further detail over the head of government meets relevency standards. The bio pages however, are about the life, career and accomplishments of the person who held that office. It's just not necessary to expand on the intracacies of government hierarchy. Apparently, the editors of the pages for both Prime Minister of Australia and Kevin Rudd's bio pages agree and that's where the comparison should be made, not Britain or Italy). For a Canadian comparison, take a look at Cabinet of Canada and the individual pages for the ministries. Rightfully, they all include references to the formal executive as part of the government because they are pages about the government process. However, go to the bio pages for the ministers and there's no reference at all. Go to Minister of National Defence then go to Peter MacKay to see what I mean. Quite simply, it's flotsam, excess verbiage that's taking up space. MC Rufus (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to 'keep' the Monarch in those Canadian PM bio infoboxes, as the 'monarch' is Canada's Head of State. In the PM infoboxes of republican PMs, their 'Head of State' is included (the President). GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As for Australian PM infoboxes? There was no consensus for anything, other then each individual article deciding for itself. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found many prime ministers' bios that excluded mention of the head of state. I already mentioned Kevin Rudd of Australia. There's also José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain (another monarchy) as well as republican prime ministers Bertie Ahern of Irelend, Mirek Topolánek of the Czech Republic, Mikhail Fradkov of Russia, and so on. If anything, citing other bios that include the head of state really only proves one thing: there's little consistency.
But my main point is; in the Canadian context, "the monarch" has absolutely nothing to do with the life and accomplishments of the prime ministers - which is what a bio page is supposed to be for. This isn't just my opinion, it's the standard set by other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is certainly no match for The Canadian Encyclopedia for credibility but I'd like to think their editing standards would be welcome here as a good model to emulate. Go to The Canadian Encyclopedia's Prime Minister of Canada entry and yes, you'll see a mention of the formal executive, the Queen. The reason is because it's relevent. But go to go to the bio page Harper, Stephen Joseph and lo and behold, there's no mention. Why? Because it's a -->bio<-- page that's supposed to inform you about the person, not the position. Is this formula incompatible with Wikipedia? Not according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles where it says "be concise" and stay away from "irrelevant (or only loosely relevant) information."
In case I haven't yet stated my case convincingly, try this: Imagine writing your own bio for a book or article you wrote. In describing yourself and your achievements, are you also going to include the personal names of your employers or managers? - MC Rufus (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, there never was a consensus to add the monarch. By ignoring CJCurrie's opposition, and treating UpDown's view that including the monarch would, though undesirable, be grudgingly acceptable, as if it were actual support for that inclusion, G2 and GoodDay declared a 5–2 consensus and made the edit. G2 then applied that bogus consensus to a bunch of other Canadian PMs. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this time around, we'll get it right. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
At the momment it's 2 to 1 in favour of exclusion. I'm not sure how long this debate will be open (I hope a week), but as I've often said in the past - If changes are made? I'm not gonna revert (I've no interest in edit wars). GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
PS - I reverted MC Rufus's changes yesterday, 'mainley' because it occured before this current discussion began. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I bowed to consensus before, and have enforced it since then, but as i stated previously, I am against the inclusion of either, especially the monarch. Random89 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Make that 3 to 1 for 'exclusion'. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MC Rufus's comments and would rather not include monarch info. --Padraic 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Liz's name isn't necessary in the infobox. It adds nothing worth noting.--Gazzster (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Exclude. It's a bio page. I agree the information does nothing to enhance the subjects' achievements and accomplishments. That goes for both monarch and governor general. I think that's 6 to 1 to leave it out. Jaye Peghtyff (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, how often are we going to go around this ride? Though I'm not surprised at Lonewolf's predictable spin, here's an actuall tally of pros, cons and in betweens on inclusion of the monarch:
For:
Against
Ambivalent:
This list, of course, doesn't take into account anyone's opinions on the inclusion of the viceroy.
Comparing the Canadian series of PMs with those of other countries doesn't really assist in the decision of what to do here: most PMs infoboxes, whether from a republican or monarchical system, show the head of state; others, however do not. The main argument for inclusion is that the person who appointed the subject of the article to the office of Prime Minster, and the person whom the subject of the article advises while Prime Minister, is of importance. The argument for exclusion is that it is irrelevant (though, I suspect there are political motives at work here as well).
As this does affect more than one article, I think there needs to be wider input in the matter. I looked for outside opinion at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder, but my call didn't attract much attention. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada is the place to go. --G2bambino (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the debate was reopened, I haven't seen any comments one way or the other fromUser:Philip Stevens, User:Hera1187, User:JGGardiner or User:CJCurrie and I don't think 'Ambivalent' really rates. So by my count, it's 5 to exclude, 2 to keep. Two of the exclude votes prefer neither the governor general nor monarch. I suggest that if we want to clean up the text box properly, maybe the other exclude voters could clarify if they also want the gg out as well. If that's the case, then subsequent votes will be on whether to exclude both the governor general AND the queen.
As far as outside opinion goes, I'm by no means against more voices on the topic but I find it suspicious that you deem it necessary now that your losing the vote but not a few months ago when you won by an alleged "bogus" 5–2 consensus. Heads I win, tails you lose, right G2? - MC Rufus (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What a surprise that you'd make this personal, Rufus. Regardless, just because you decided to re-open a previously closed issue doesn't disqualify the opinions of others who weighed in on the matter during the last round. More, if you actually bothered to do some background checks before slinging snide commentary, you might have noticed that I went to seek outside opinion during the earlier discussion on the matter, well before any decision that "wasn't in my favour" was reached. Votes do not equal consensus, so, though a vote may settle a matter, it is ultimately not enforcable. Again, as this isn't a matter of just one article, but every Prime Minister's page, we should settle the matter once and for all by establishing a guideline with the participation of a lager community, not just four or five editors voting it out. Everybody, including myself, would have to respect such a decision reached, and it could be pointed to whenever the issue comes up again in future. --G2bambino (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, now boys. Btw, I'm left out of the list, and I suggested leaving out the monarch's name.--Gazzster (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. --G2bambino (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, I state for the record that I am from the United States. So I take part in this debate as an outsider. The Queen of England is a figurehead in Great Britain. In Canada, she a technicality at best. This also applies to the Governor General. I don't see how these human technicalities are relevant to a PM's bio. So I vote to exclude. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides the point that the Queen of England has been dead for over three centuries, does this criteria apply as well to the "figurehead" presidents of Israel, Germany, Finland, Russia, France, Italy, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, India, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Burma, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, East Timor, Egypt, Ecuatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Macedonia, Macedonia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Korea, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, and Yemen?
I suppose it should also apply to the "figurehead" monarchs/dukes/princes/emirs of Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Cambodia, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom, and the Vatican.
I think the above precedent alone shows that it is common - no, basically standard practice throughout Wikipedia to list a prime minister's head of state in his infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite being dead for three centuries, Queen Anne still had about as much to do with Stephen Harper becoming PM as Elizabeth II and Michaëlle Jean did. That's why I still don't support inclusion. The monarch and GG have no real power in the PM's appointment or affairs so there is no need for them in the infobox.
I think that the reason that it is standard for other countries is because a standard template is copied and because it includes a lot of fields, the easiest thing is to simply fill them out. I don't think that amounts to a precedent, if there is such a thing around here. I don't think that anyone has suggested that Vladimir Putin or Sheikh Hamad are figureheads. I certainly support their inclusion in articles for their PMs. Although I do appreciate the effort that must have gone into compiling that list. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So why shouldn't we try again?--Gazzster (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that although we are still debating this case, most of us have given up any hope of standardizing the PM infoboxes across wikipedia. I think that list did not really add much to the debate G2. In relation to this specific case, I think we can almost all agree that Elizabeth II has almost no interaction with Stephen Harper. It is on those grounds that I would question whether to include her name in a biography of him. As I said last time around, the GG is a different matter, but as we are discussing monarchs, I support removing the monarch from this particular infobox, and possibly other canadian PM's later. But thats a story for another day. Also, I feel very discriminated against that my name wasn't added to the list of positions :) Random89 (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course the list is relevant to this specific case: if the infoboxes for Canadian PMs do not include the head of state, Canada will be one of maybe three Westminster system countries that don't do this. The question would therefore be: why is Canada to be an anomoly? Why does the consistency break here? The extent to which the head of state actually excersises power seems to have little relevance; a good number of the countries I listed above have a head of state who does not generally involve themselves in the political arena. Interaction between head of state and head of government? I don't know how much that plays into the decision, but 14 of 15 countries with viceroys include the monarch in PMs' infoboxes. Regardless, the template includes the head of state fields for a reason, and they have been filled out in 98% of prime ministers' articles across Wikipedia for a reason, so we need a reason to ignore those reasons and make Canada different. That said, though the head of state is standard across the board, the viceroy can also be included, and I think there might be reason to have the GG here instead of the sovereign. But we can't simply leave it blank, as though Harper was alone at the pinnacle of government and somehow appointed himself to the position. --G2bambino (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
G2, I'll assume you didn't see my message yesterday about this. I don't have the time you seem to have to go through every country so I just picked a handful that exclude the head of state on the PM personal bio pages. Because of the variety of preferences, I established that it only proves that there's no standard at all - yet. I also gave The Canadian Encyclopedia as an example of a highly regarded online and print encyclopedia that excludes the head of state from PM personal bios. Tonight, a few minutes of searching also indicates the same policy at MS Encarta, The Columbia Encyclopedia, the Concise Encyclopædia Britannica, the Oxford University Press World Encyclopedia as well as my print New Lexicon Encyclopedia. I could go on but I don't think there are many more. As far as I'm concerned, if you're talking precedents, I'll take those over the Wikipedia pages any day.
In arguing for exclusion, it's important to remember something else: In some cases, PMs occupied that position for only one term, sometimes even less - a mere blink of an eye in comparison to the rest of the 60 or 70 years of their lives in which they most likely accomplished many notable achievements completely unrelated to government. These aren't pages about the office of Prime Minister. They are bio pages that encompass all of their lives as well as the 3 or 4 they spent as PM. Placing "Monarch' on their bio simply minimizes the rest of their life's work as trivial and inconsequential. - MC Rufus (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but this is Wikipedia; the precedents are set within this sphere, not necessarily by what other encyclopaedias do, and the evidence shows that not even a "handfull" exclude the head of state, only three, maybe four do. Your opinion about the presence of the head of state trivialising a subject's accomplishments is noted, but is groundless. It's interesting, though, that you chose to single out the word "monarch"; one has to wonder if you'd find the word "president" trivialising and fight for its removal. --G2bambino (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
However, I'm sure you realize that we do not blindly follow precedent, even if it were completely clear (and about that I have my doubts). In choosing the best option for this particular bio page, we must base our choice on the relevant facts. Namely, that the reigning monarch has had practically no impact on the life, policy, or actions of Stephen Harper. As I have said before, I am more receptive to including the GG, as he/she does deal with the PM on many issues (though in a fairly meaningless way). Also if we are to make comparisons, the closest comparison for Canada is Australia, which has opted to make case by case choices. Random89 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your opinions on the monarch vs. the GG were understood. I think, though, that there are two simultaneous issues going on here: one, should anybody else be listed in the infobox, and two, who should it be? I would guess we need to settle the first first. --G2bambino (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is about consensus, not precedent. MC Rufus's remark about the infobox being about the person, not the office, is certainly worth noting. I wouldn't even include the GG, because just as the name of the monarch adds nothing of note, neither does the name of the GG. And if the name of the monarch minimalises the bio, so too does the name of the GG. I wouldn't add the name of a President in the box of the HoG of a republic either.--Gazzster (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny, if it's about the person and not the office, then why did you insist that the deputy PM be included in Kevin Rudd's infobox? Also, why then have the Prime Minister's predecessor in the office? Why have a field for the head of state? Sorry, it doesn't fly. --G2bambino (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right. By that logic, Julia Gillard shouldn't be there, or anyone else. It's about Kevin Rudd, not prime minister Rudd as if it was the only thing he ever did). My opinion changes. Which is why I like Wikipedia: ways of looking at thnings change!--Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the infobox being solely about the person and not the offices they've held (besides listing those, perhaps), and, conversely, I don't have a problem with the infoboxes including some extra info about the positions they've held (such as the boss whom they advised). But, presently, there's no common rhyme or reason behind the inclusion or exclusion of anything; 98% of Wikipedia articles on PMs have the HoS listed, but three or four do not. Why the inconsistency? This is where I, again, think guidelines need to be established across the board so that we all know what to put in and what not to; so there's enough similarity so as to not cause confusion or misinterpretation. --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. No monarch, no GG and (take note G2, I referred above to "head of state" several times), no presidents, either. MC Rufus (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On precedent, I should also note that quite a few of those infoboxes were edited by a single user, Therequiembellishere, who seems to have gone on an editing drive in early December, 2007 and again in early January. I only checked the bottom line in G2B's list but I think the one user added the head of state to all but Gordon Brown (11 of 12). Kudos to Therequiembellishere, for his efforts to improve the project but I think that makes the idea of precedent a little less persuasive to me. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the same last line, it appears that's true. But, as it stands now, all those ones do have the HoS in the boxes, and the Canada ones do not. Do we remove the HoS from the others, then? If so, why? If not, why is Canada to be different? --G2bambino (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer all 'head of government' infoboxes (ie PM, Chancellor etc) with their 'head of state' included (ie President, Monarch etc), but my ambitions of consistancy stalled at the Australian related articles. The consensus here (so far) is overwhelming for 'Monarch' being excluded - this must be respected. PS- thanks everyone for not edit warring, on this issue. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Like G2bambino, I prefer above everything infobox consistancy across the board. A good reason for 'consistancy'? see the Aussie PM infoboxes content. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding all of the stuff above

Just to clarify something, a majority support or opposition is not, I repeat, is not consensus. Consensus is the general agreement of all editors, not just one or a few or even a majority as Wikipedia is not a democracy (even if most of us live in one or another form of it). From what I can see from this situation, there is no consensus to remove the monarch from the infoboxes, yet, at the same time there is no consensus to keep them there. I believe the best thing to do at this point is to maintain whatever was deemed the status quo until consensus is reached. I would also suggest either informal mediation or formal mediation to help reach a consensus. IMO, for Wikipedia to work (or to get anything done for that matter) we should do what we Canadians (assuming that all of us are Canucks, if not, I apologize) know best: compromise. That is the only way this is ever going to be solved. Both informal mediation and/or formal mediation will certainly help us find a compromise and reach consensus. nat.utoronto 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying then is that the revert made by G2 a few months ago by a small consensus (that's already been proven to have been bogus) should be changed back until a consensus is reached? I agree 100% - MC Rufus (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I said. I said maintain the status quo until consensus is reach, and in this case the status quo is whatever is there now, whether it's G2's edit, your edit, Lonewolf's edit, GoodDay's edit, etc. So in other words, keep as is now, don't change anything until this conflict is solved. nat.utoronto 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I'd be happy to compromise - Let's use Governor General instead of Monarch. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd accept that. I'm gonna put it in to see how if it sticks, because the "status quo" of the monarch seems to have come from a previous flawed consensus. If you disagree, free free to revert, no hard feelings. Random89 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings at all, this discussion was never personal for me. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer neither monarch nor GG, but I'll bow out now. I'm not Canadian and I don't appreciate the political context.--Gazzster (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the "political context" matters. As long as 98% of articles on heads of government include the head of state in the infobox, then the remaining 2% should follow suit. Otherwise, it appears that Canadian and Australian PMs are appointed by nobody, minister nobody, and are subordinate to nobody. Conversely, the 98% of articles could be altered to match the 2%... --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Back again! (that was quick, eh?) But what's the point of the infobox? It isn't to say who appointed him. Who cares?--Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If it isn't, then why is there a field for just that purpose? Maybe you don't think who the subject of the article ministered while PM is important, but obviously someone does. --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Buggered if I know.--Gazzster (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not touching the Australian PM infoboxes issue anymore. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it, stay in the pill box! I'm sure you have useful things to say mate!--Gazzster (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
G2, I don't have the slightest idea why you keep harping on this: "As long as 98% of articles on heads of government include the head of state in the infobox, then the remaining 2% should follow suit." By your own admition, all of those edits were done by one person. So it's a non-issue. I also agree with Gazzster. Neither GG nor monarchy belong there. - MC Rufus (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:Timeshift9's attitude (at my personal page) sorta soured me on posting any more suggestions there for awhile. Anyways, keeping hope that the 'compromise' here, will eventually be accepted by all. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of ideas, people. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is this: So far, a huge majority of the editors here are opting for changing it with the only argument for keeping it being that "98% of other monarchs are listed there," an argument which has already been admitted to have been done by a single editor with an agenda. Consensus-building is all about finding a solution that's acceptable for all, but not necessarily perfect. No matter how you cut it, including a head of state in whatever form is going to create controversy. The argument that these are bio pages to inform the reader of the accomplishments of the subjects' entire lives, not just the small part of it he or she spent as a PM, (and that listing a head of state at the time they were in office trivializes the rest of their life's accomplishements) is still the strongest and the most practical compromise. We have the support, let's do it. - MC Rufus (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to engage in a debate, you really should pay attention to what the other party is saying. It is not 98% of other monarchs, it is 98% of other heads of state. Also, this is about consistency of content. If it is decided that the infoboxes should only list the subject's achievements, then remove the preceeding and following prime ministers, MPs, party leaders, as well as any deputy PMs or other figures that have nothing to do with the person the article focuses on. If, however, those peripheral figures are to remain, then there's little sound argument to exclude the head of state. Which is it to be? --G2bambino (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought there was a consensus 'here' to remove the Monarch (and not add GG), but Nat says there isn't a consensus (to do anything). If consensus means everybody here agreeing (which seems unatainable)? Then perhaps we should go to Mediation (with Nat being Mediator). I'm at the point now, where I'm no longer concerned whether Monarch/GG is included or excluded. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I recommend we go to Mediation, as it seems we can't get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome mediation, but it would have to be an unbiased third party - preferably someone who isn't Canadian and is neither a monarchist or republican. No offence, but Nat does not qualify. His user page says he's a Conservative Party supporter (the only party to include support for the monarchy in their party constitution) and a Red Tory at that (read: Monarchist). He also has just three months experience as a Wikipedia editor and in my opinion, that's not enough to qualify as a mediator. - MC Rufus (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but to clarify something: I've been an active editor for almost a year now, I've been a sysop for the last 5 months, I believe I am qualified to mediate. Although I am a supporter of both the Ontario PC Party and the Conservative Party of Canada, you have to remember that both Conservative Parties are home to both Republican and Monarchist Conservatives, and I really don't have a preference. When I contribute, my biases do not play an active part in my edits and have rarely used them, that's the way I have been trained in both high school and university, studing history and politics, to look beyond my core beliefs and my biases. nat.utoronto 04:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"you have to remember that both Conservative Parties are home to both Republican and Monarchist Conservatives" .... OK. Name one. - MC Rufus (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Although I do not know specific names, many from the neo-conservative wings of the party, especially from Alberta and from the old Reform Party, have been known to be quasi-republicans as they follow the American-brand of Conservatism and not the British-ish-flavoured Conservatism. Although Daniel Johnson, Sr. was not part of any federal conservative party, his Union Nationale was the "Conservative Party" in Quebec and his gov't had once suggested that Canada should be independent from the British Crown. Margaret Wente is a columnist who writes from a from a moderately conservative standpoint and is a vocal supporter of Republicanism. nat.utoronto 05:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And as I've said I have absolutely no preference when it comes to the Republican-Monarchy debate. The only thing that concerns me in domestic politics is the wellbeing of the Canadian people, and different policies that deal with health care, education, the environment, crime prevention and law enforcement (public safety), socio-economic wellbeing of the state and of the individual. nat.utoronto 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Not bad :) but if you think conservative republicans are simply neo-cons, American Republicans Party supporters or Quebec nationalists (apparently, none of which you are), then you've fallen victim to monarchist disinformation. I admit, you could be neutral, but you're definitely not a republican, otherwise you would have known that Conservative (and Red Tory) David Crombie was the first Canadian Immigration Minister to advocate removing the Queen from the Citizenship oath. - MC Rufus (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to find somebody else for Mediator. It's got to be someone who'll be supported by everyone here. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we might need mediation on the choice of a mediator? --G2bambino (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. IMHO, Nat should be the Mediator, but if MC going to have problems with his qualifications? We'll need to select somebody else. Err yeah, mediation on the choice of a mediator. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Besides, isn't this an issue that has a wider scope beyond just the Canada articles? I'm wondering if this should be settled somewhere else. --G2bambino (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Got any ideas? I'm for anything that gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes: let Nat mediate. He's volunteered to do so. However, I'd like it if we could call in more people to get involved, and from beyond the Canadian reach as well, as these articles are read by more people than just Canadians. --G2bambino (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement: I've no problems with 'Nat'. Also, the more editors involved in this discussion, the better. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a call at WikiProject Infoboxes, WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, Template Infobox Officeholder, John Major, Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown, but obviously to little avail. --G2bambino (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but shouldn't we take a vote first before going to mediation?--Gazzster (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A vote on what? On the infobox format or the mediator? I'm starting to loose track... --G2bambino (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill until we're sure it's a mountain.--Gazzster (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To Gazz: Sooo, you don't think we should go to Mediation? GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not if we can sort it out ourselves. As far as I can tell most, if not all agree in principal at least that the sovereign's name could and should be ommitted. That's our starting point, I would suggest. As to putting in the GG's name, I can't see the logic of that. The GG is the Queen's representative. So inserting the GG's name is equivalent to inserting the Queen's name. You may as well then argue for restoring Liz. So no, I don't think we've discussed things to a standstill. Our name should not be compromise to keep the peace, but a sound solution.--Gazzster (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have a proliferation of opinions here ranging from no monarch or GG, just the GG, nobody but the subject (including previous and following office holders, deputies, etc.), the monarch alone, and the monarch and the GG. This is why I think we need to make this discussion much more broad in scope, and would like to see a guideline set up for all prime minister infoboxes, and, potentially, all minister boxes. --G2bambino (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion should be broadened.--Gazzster (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Before we go to Mediation

G2, I admire your dedication to the consistency of the various PM pages and to improving the project. However, it seems to me that you are the only one left arguing to include the monarch. (GoodDay, I'm sorry if any arguments over this issue have caused you to "give up", please do keep trying to improve wp as you think is best). I replaced monarch with GG a couple days ago as a sort of compromise, but I see that no one really expected that and neither "camp" (though i hesitate to arbitrarily divide editors like that) really wants that. As such, I will remove the GG, and leave neither in its place. If no one changes it it the next few days, can we consider that matter closed, at least on this particular page? Random89 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I made clear earlier that the GG is acceptable. If not, I think the GG is acceptable. --G2bambino (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
GG inclusion is acceptable; full exclusion is also acceptable. Seeing as we now all agree to 'exclude' Monarch? we're heading towards a solution. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the problem with going by the formula being used for Kevin Rudd? If we decide on something else that's different from the Aussie PM page, then there's no across-the-board consistency - because their editors are firmly supportive of no monarch/noGG with no sign of them changing their minds. If we could sway them to include the GG, than I'd say there's at least some argument for including it here and on other Canadian PMs. But it doesn't make sense to make ours different from theirs. With both Aus and Can PM bios using the same formula, the rest will follow - and there we have it ... consistency Nirvana! - MC Rufus (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If it doesn't make sense to make ours different to theirs, then it makes even less sense to make ours different to the way the vast majority of other articles presently are. You stated earlier that the infoboxes should only list the subject's accomplishments; do you then agree that the persons who preceeded and followed the subject in the offices he/she held should be removed? Should this same format not apply to all other PM infoboxes for other countries? Will you assist in removing these names, along with the predsidents and monarchs, from the 98% of Wikipedia PM articles that presently have them? --G2bambino (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
For now, I'm content with having the Canadian PM infoboxes straighten out first. Then latter, we can concentrate on across the board consistancy. PS- I've no problem with copying the Aussie style (minus the Elections, though). GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Another two cents...The Governor General is considered the supreme political authority in Canada and not the Queen, nor the Prime Minister. One of the Governor General's most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a Prime Minister. SriMesh | talk 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that it really relates to this, but you're incorrect. The Queen holds all executive authority, the GG only exercises it on her behalf. One really shouldn't look to amateur websites (put together by a republican, no less) for information (I speak about the former link, and not the latter). --G2bambino (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The Queen DOES NOT hold executive authority in Canada. Yes, the constitution may say she does but since all powers of the monarch were transferred to the GG in the Letters Patent, executive authourity now lies with the GG. The "Queen" is therefore superceded by statute and convention. Even Royal Prerogative is exercised by the GG, not the Queen herself. And by the way, since the GG must always act on the advice of parliament, all of the executive authourity in the hands of the GG cannot be exercised without parliamentary consent. So, in reality, the PM, Cabinet and Parliament reign supreme in Canada, in that order. The rest is window-dressing. Another reason to leave out both the monarch and the GG from the infoboxes - MC Rufus (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Silly boy. The Letters Patent of 1947 do not "transfer" the monarch's powers to the GG, they allow the GG to exercise most of the powers that belong to the monarch. Read the Letters; they clearly state, repeatedly, that the powers belong to the sovereign. Further, the GG typically acts on the advice of her ministers - the Cabinet - not parliament. Though, she could consult the leaders of the opposition in making a decision. --G2bambino (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As hard as it is for me to argue for Her Majesty's rights, isn't G2 right? If your Constitution says she holds executive power isn't it fair to say she does? She does not 'transfer' her power, but rather exercises it vicariously through a GG. But let's not get sidelined. Why should the name of the Sovereign or her viceroy be in the infobox?--Gazzster (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've given my reasons for why I think either should be there, but another question needs answered: Why should the preceeding and following PMs, MPs, etc., etc., be in the infobox? Especially when this information is repeated again in a dedicated infobox at the bottom of the page. --G2bambino (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
True enough.--Gazzster (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just my personal opinion about successors, but I feel they belong in either the infobox OR the footer template, not both. The infobox is probably a better place, but I'd be open to compromise. But really, one issue at a time. Random89 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder, though, if it's the first issue to settle. If successors and predecessors are to be in the foot-template and not in the infobox, then it makes little sense to include the monarch/GG in the infobox either. If the successors and predecessors stay where they are, then the monarch/GG being there remains an unsettled issue. --G2bambino (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The difference as I see it is that there is no argument for having QEII in a footer template. The predecessor most likely belongs somewhere, we need just decide where. One must also remember that the infobox was not formatted in the same way as it is now when the successor template was introduced to most of these pages. Random89 (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow. I don't believe anyone is arguing that the monarch/GG be put in a foot-template. I think the question is only: is the infobox to solely contain information that directly pertains to the subject of the article, or is it to contain names of people who are peripheral to the subject? If the former, the GG/monarch issue is settled. If the latter, then why, or why not, the peripheral monarch/GG as well? --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation, Please

Let's get this settled folks. I'm growing fatigued by this non-stop locking of horns. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. We need an outside party to separate the rational and the irrational here. --G2bambino (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes that does seem to be true. We should seek an outside opinion and go by their decision. Random89 (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we forgetting something? (A theological aside)

I would like to remind everyone that the Canadian Constitution clearly begins "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Therefore, we really should include a line that reads "Deity: God" in the infobox in case our readers wish to know which deity reigns supreme over a particular government. 64.229.200.10 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Way to send us up! Love it. 'Head of State: Almighty God.'--Gazzster (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)--Gazzster (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Simply ridiculous! We all know the prime minister is god. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As an atheist, I must protest such an inclusion. PS- Though meant in a humourous way, I'm happy the anon has brought up that arrogant side of the Canadian Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite shocked that people are taking my plea as satire. I'm absolutely serious!!! The governor-general appoints the PM, therefore the GG should be included in the infobox. The Queen appoints the GG, therefore the Queen should be in the infobox. Well, who do you think appoints the Queen? According to the Royal Style and Titles Act the Queen is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not - according to the law the Queen is, literally, legally and constitutionally, appointed by God. Therefore God should be in the infobox. Moreover, where the GG has dismissed only one PM in 141 years and the Queen has dismissed no GGs (or PMs) in that period God has been relatively active being responsible for at least four royal transitions in the past 141 years (five if you believe that Wallis Simpson was an act of God) as well as two gubernatorial-general transitions and two Prime Ministerial successions. Compared to the Queen, God is a constitutional interventionist and exercises His (or Her) powers on a regular basis. The only difference, really, is that He visits less often than the Queen which is probably a good thing - I mean what do you put on the menu for a State Dinner for God? 64.229.200.10 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Burritos. Definitely burritos. --G2bambino (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, for assuming you were joking. You're correct, it is in the Canadian Constitution, that God appointed Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada & your argument is valid. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I still think you're joking.--Gazzster (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As humorous and as ludicrous as the sounds, the anon makes a convincing argument which is surprisingly free of major logical flaws. I take this as an argument against including the monarch or GG. Random89 (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I do hope we're not actually going to discuss this seriously. 'By the Grace of God' is an anachronistic phrase which is still used to justify how someone can become king because his father was a king. I'm afraid the Divine Majesty has no standing in law.--

Gazzster (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I Disagree. It is prescribed in law. The Coronation oath is supposed to be binding. At the risk of losing the congenial tone here; I can't help saying that Anon has, in a 'tongue-in-cheek' way, pointed out something so ridiculous about our government, something so incredibly sad, it's actually laughable. I too am an athiest, and it's always turned my stomach that in 2008, we have a head of state who not only is the leader of one particular sect of Christianity (the Church of England), but she also swore an oath to defend it at the exclusion of all others (Coronation_of_the_British_monarch#Recognition_and_oath). This, in reality, makes us little more than a theocracy not much different from Iran's or Saudi Arabia's. It's no wonder the Saudis' racist and discriminatory Wahhabite royal family are among Prince Charles' best friends.
Canada is progressive in so many other ways. It's simply beyond logic why we still attach ourselves to to this obscenity. - MC Rufus (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Still though, the invisible man living in the clouds, is mentioned in the Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Anon, for so cleverly satirizing those who fall back on legal technicalities to try to convince us of the "importance" of the monarchy to Canadians.--Padraic 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, though, Padraic's comment is pathetic on more than one level. --G2bambino (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Gee. It's almost like a hundred and fourty years of historal convention, commonlaw and a constitutional amendment that included a Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarenteeing secular core democratic freedoms just didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.251.232 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Further arguement

Can we please restore Monarch to this articles infobox (until things get settled)? It's odd looking to have 1 out of 22 different. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can go through and change them all. Seriously though, I won't do that for now to avoid starting a whole new debate, but this whole discussion was based on the idea of we'll work this one out and go from there. Random89 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, seeing as the discussion petered out - which I take to mean a lack of real interest in the matter - I put EIIR back in the infobox at this article. I still maintain that a) this is consistent with nearly all other Wikipedia articles on prime ministers, and b) as long as other peripheral characters associated with the subject through the offices they held are listed in the infobox, there's no reason not to include the head of state. --G2bambino (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not a reasonable assumption, nor a reasonable action. Leave it alone unless you get consensus. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So says you. But, then, who are you? Despite whatever arrogant assumptions you have, certainly you're not someone who commands others and decrees what is reasonable and what is not. I will agree with you on leaving it alone; but, I wonder why you don't follow your own advice. --G2bambino (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
For the time being, I'd prefer the 22 articles being in sync with each other. Surely, that's possible? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
For about 3 weeks, nothing new was added to this discussion & no 'new' editors chipped in. Since it's apparent, that the Canadian PMs infoboxes content is being contested by 'we few'? We should go to Mediation. We certainly can't have 21 articles one way & 1 article the other, indefinetly. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Contested by a very few. And it's more than just one Canadian article being different to the other Canadian ones; it goes to a wider scope of one infobox being different to almost every other PM infobox on Wikipedia. Perhaps mediation is the answer, as, essentially, no valid or logical argument has been presented against inclusion of the head of state; it's all been simply limp hand waiving and pooh-poohing "oh, it's just not important." If anything, that type of non-argument is unacceptable. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It would take me 15 minutes to bring the "consistency" to the canadian PM's that G2 wants. The argument that the discussion ended, so I can change it back is not a valid one. When the previous discussion came to its end, the monarch field was left blank. Am I naive in believing that that was the reason that some users did not debate further? Although I do not protest the locking of the page, for stability's sake, I believe that when unlocked QEII should be removed, and that should be carried over onto all post-war PM's. Random89 (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we're missing the point. The infobox is not about God. Its not about His 'vicar', Elizabeth II. It's about a mere mortal called S. Harper. It's about him. Neither the Almighty nor the august Lady of Windsor has been invited to share his honour.--Gazzster (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth II is a mere mortal aswell. For the momment (while things aren't settled), all I request is that the 22 articles are in sync. For example: If we have 'Donald Duck' in Harper's infobox content? we should have Donald Duck in all 22 articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
When the field was blanked earlier I did not revert it for the sake of not continuing the disruption some editors seemed to feel was necessary. With the dispute seemingly fizzled out, I put it back to the way it was. Obviously the anti-inclusionists were happy with the blank field, but it being blank did not mean, in any way, that that was the new status quo.
I don't think this is ever going to be settled here, without mediation. The same old "argument" is already coming up, the one I mentioned earlier: "Oh, that Queen. She's just so... pointless." Sorry, but that isn't even an argument at all, let alone a valid one; it is an expression of pure personal opinion. We need valid reason why Canada should be different, and, unlike all other WP articles, pretend in its PM infoboxes that there's no head of state. We need valid reason why, if consistency is to be discarded and the HoS isn't to be included, other peripheral characters like the subject's predecessor and successor in every office they ever held are to be listed (especially when the same info is duplicated at the foot of the page). I'm not going to hold my breath, though. --G2bambino (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that Canada should be different, but it should not have to be in line with say, France, as that is a different situation. It should be consistent with Australia for example. (OK, Australia's infoboxes are a taboo here, so say New Zealand). When the consistency itself is contested, it cannot be used as an argument one way or another, only an argument for a larger forum. I would gladly take this to a larger forum, to gain some commonwealth-wide consensus, but there is no place that can really decide on an issue this widespread. I've already stated that I prefer removing the successor/predecessor footer boxes (see WP:TCREEP). The previous PM actually has a lot to do with the day-to-day business of the PM, and therefore relates to him personally, so should be listed somewhere on the page, and it seems better placed in the infobox. If in the end it is decided by consensus to remove the monarch, I will support that, but right no I do feel that it is more relevant to this page on Stephen Harper to not include QEII in the infobox. Random89 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't believe Canada should be different, then you'd support including the HoS. Trying to find differences in the distribution of powers in various Westminster modelled systems is not going to help us; it's subjective and not really relevant. Claims about the PM's predecessor being more relevant is just a variation on the "that silly queen means nothing" argument, which is a contestable, unverified, personal point of view. The problem is that any argument based on the head of state's, predecessor's, or successor's importance will be one based on personal perceptions, whether in favour or against.
What I think we have to focus on is consistency. Almost every single PM's infobox lists that person's boss, regardless of whether the boss is almost completely ceremonial (Japan) or executively powerful (Russia). What message, then, is sent to readers via an intentional inconsistency? Read through 180-some-odd prime minister articles that have the HoS in the infobox, and then three or four that don't, and what conclusions could the uninitiated come to? That Canada, and a few other countries, somehow don't have heads of state? Frankly, I'm not concerned about whether the info goes in a box at the head of the page or at the foot, or whether the HoS is included or not. What concerns me is that Wikipedia is not a collection of isolated vacuums where what's done in one realm will have no effect on anything beyond its borders, and so a decision made here on what information to include does indeed have to take into account how the majority of articles on the same type of subject have the situation handled. Others have the HoS in the infobox, put the HoS here. No HoS in this infobox, take the HoS out of all the others. That's about the whole of it. --G2bambino (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In full agreement with G2. Consistancy is the best way. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If there's a point to being consistent, yes. I'm amazed, but not surprised, that the argument, 'the infobox is not about E2 or anyone else', has been so lightly flicked off as unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the counter-argument that some poor soul could conclude that a nation has no H0S because they can't see the Holy Name in the infobox. Please! Infoboxes give brief summaries of the subject's life, and they are attention grabbers. They are not intended to be political essays.--Gazzster (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
On what grounds do you assert your argument has been "flicked off"? Put the HoS in, take them out; though I have a preference for the former, it ultimately doesn't matter. Just be bloody consistent about it; not some haphazard patchwork of sometimes here, sometimes there.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree that the infobox should be about the subject of the article, and nothing else. If that was to be established as the common pattern for all PM infoboxes, then fine; remove the HoS, the predecessors, and successors in all offices the subject held, for all articles. --G2bambino (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of consistency, ending this debate, and since I agree with some of the arguments G2 has brought up, I withdraw my objection to including the Monarch in Canadian infoboxes. While i still do not thing it is useful info to include, I suppose it does no harm to include it either. Thank-you to G2 and GoodDay and MC Rufus for all working to better this article. Random89 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that will help to end the debate; more users here oppose inclusion than support it. Besides your own comments, Rufus, Lonewolf, Padraic, Gazzster, Jaye, SMP0328 and I have all opposed inclusion while I believe only G2B and GoodDay support it. Apologies if I counted anyone wrong. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that the tallys for and against seem to shift over time, Wikipedia is not a democracy. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. The NOT text, and other notes around the policies and guidelines say that we operate by consensus rather than simple vote-counting. But that is not permission to ignore the opinions of editors. One should remember that consensus policy does still account for edtiors' feelings: "a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority)." I'm not saying there is consensus here; frankly I was a little upset when a 5-2 tally was counted as a solid consensus last time, along with a note that reversions would have editors "reported". So I only meant to say that, while I think that Random's actions were admirably selfless, I don't think it helps much in our quest to find consenus. Clearly inclusion is not the course of action which satisfies the most editors today. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's at least keep the record straight. What took place in November was even worse than that. There was not even a 5-2 majority favouring inclusion. CJCurrie, was also opposed, making three. Updown said he would grudgingly accept including the monarch, but did not actually favour it, leaving four. By ignoring CJ (despite that I pointed our his opposition, given by edit and edit-summary) and treating Updown's view as though it were actual support, G2 and GoodDay declared a 5–2 consensus and made the edit. G2 then applied that bogus "consensus" to a bunch of other Canadian PMs. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, what's the in-between that would satisfy most editors? Either Canada follows the other articles, or it doesn't. The idea of putting the Governor General in was floated earlier, which might be viewed as a compromise, and, personally, one I could live with. But, I wonder if others will be as accomodating. --G2bambino (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate that you're offering a solution that isn't your first choice, to be honest I think including the GG is worse than including the Queen. I can only see two real reasons for inclusion: formality and consistency. I think the GG is worse on both. She is not the actual head of state and her inclusion would still be inconsistent with the other articles. Like you said, it follows or it doesn't. And with the GG, it doesn't. And on formailty, the GG simply isn't the head of state. She is arguably not even the de facto head of state. I can't speak for other editors of course but I think the GG is worse than the monarch.
I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not sure that there is a reasonable answer. Sometimes you just can't split the difference. I can't think of a good solution anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you on all counts r.e. the Governor General. It was merely a suggestion someone put forward before, and one that might have been a compromise. But, indeed, can we compromise consistency? --G2bambino (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that the suggestion was made. Other than that I can't think of a decent compromise. It is really a complete dichotomy. Maybe it is one of those "lame" subjects that we shouldn't be making a fuss about but other than some editors simply giving up on their opinion, I don't know what to do.
Maybe we can rotate it in and out. I'll bet we could even set up a bot to do it for us. Two weeks on, two weeks off. Just like a child custody sort of thing.
Or we could flip a coin. Maybe get an uninvolved admin. to flip one for us. Heads would be the status quo, of course. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you might be right. As I've said above, I'm actually open to either at this point, and I'm only still here because I want to see this discussion through to its conclusion. Keeping that in mind, we need someone from outside (ie. impartial admin) to intervene at this point, with either a coin to flip or a solution to propose. Because right now, going nowhere, with no new ideas, and deadlocked in (what I hesitate to say but seems to be an apt analogy) trench warfare. Random89 16:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we go about bringing in that unbiased party? I've tried drawing attention to this matter at various other PM articles and Wikiprojects, but nobody bites; it seems the issue just isn't that pessing save for a small group of editors. Is mediation the answer? --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I too am disappointed in the lack of response from the WikiProjects. They could've at least acknowledge we exist. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I forgot to mention that you too had sought input from elsewhere. Still affirms my point, though: the vast majority of Wikipedians just don't care about this one way or another. If this is down to a dispute amongst five or so editors, perhaps mediation is the answer...? --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been begging for Mediation for these last few days. Have any one in mind, for Mediator? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I just assumed we'd post a request for mediation, and they'd send a neutral party, that way we avoid anyone complaining about vested interest (like what happened when you asked nat to mediate) Random89 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As soon as we get consistancy establish here? Australian PMs might be next (and that? could be a nasty fight). GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Res to Lonewolf (and others). The 5-3 thingy, last November (I now agree) was a wrongful move (on my part); it smacked of Ownership & I apologies to Lonewolf & others. I regret my actions. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. It wasn't a big deal. Lots of people count heads and you weren't the only one doing it back then anyway. And I certainly know that you were well-intentioned. I don't think that you have anything to regret. Heck, you're the one who reopened the discussion anyway. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I know one thing for certain. If some guideline is created to have all PM infoboxes listing their HoS (that's HoS, not HoS represenatives)? There'll be one heck of a fight to 'include' Elizabeth II on the Australian PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We should aim for consistency across the board. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree; but any attempts to get that? will no dought be messy. Even if a guideline was adopted for such a 'across the board' thing - there'd be a struggle to enforce it. Therefore, I'm willing to accept 'Governor General'. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Whither the compromise solution?

After scrolling though the discussion above, there seemed to have been consensus that we would include the GG and not the monarch. On what grounds does someone have a problem with this compromise? My two cents are that the compromise was the best solution in the first place. In a parliamentary system, whether a constitutional monarchy or a republic, the person who appoints the prime minister is a critical part of the government’s execution of sovereignty and is a critical check against abuse of power by the cabinet. The GG in Canada serves that role and should be included in the infobox. The queen does not play a role in this process (she is one step removed from it) and should not be in the infobox of prime ministers. This applies for each of the 22 articles, which need to be standardised. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with 'Governor General'. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Though I contend that the other PM articles on Wikipedia show the head of state, and I take issue with the Governor General of Canada being described as the Canadian head of state, I will acquiesce for the sake of forward movement and accept the GG in the infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above, that is different but not really a compromise from my point of view. I'm opposed to the inclusion of the GG alone, for the reasons that I noted above. The de iure head of state is the monarch. The de facto head of state is the Prime Minister himself. The GG is only the proximate embodiment of the monarch's grandeur. While the GG might, in theory, use her own discretion in forming or dismissing a government, so might the Queen so that is no reason to prefer her over the monarch. The GGs discretion does not exist in theory and in only the thinnest sliver of reality. Including the GG alone would not correct any deficiency that exclusion creates. With the GG the article would still be inconsistent with other heards of government and would not list the de iure head of state. As far as I'm concerned that would be the worst possible outcome.
I'm really starting to think the best thing would just be to grab the newest created admin. (or someone artibitrary and trustworthy) and ask them to flip a coin: heads = monarch, tails = blank. That would be my 2nd choice if it were in the poll. We could even use a coin with the GG on it if such a thing exists. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the monarch is not constitutionally able to form a government; I believe only the GG has been delegated that task, though in the Queen's name. Of course, that last little bit affirms, to my mind, that the monarch is indeed head of state, and hence my 1st choice is to have the sovereign's name in there. But, something has to break the stalemate here, whether a compromise or an intervening arbitrator. I won't stand in your way, JGG, if you want to contest the compromise proposal, and would fully accept an outside party's "ruling" if such a thing is deemed necessary. --G2bambino (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Poll

If almost all editors are in agreement on the GG compromise, and the remaining editors are either making ideological straw-man arguments, then we can safely close this debate. To that end, I would like to conduct a poll to see how much acceptance there is for each position. Please sign any and all solutions that you would find acceptable (you can also optionally specify which option is your first choice). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Include monarch and governor general

  1. Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs)
  2. --G2bambino (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Random89 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Include monarch only

  1. 1st choice -- GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. 1st choice --G2bambino (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Include governor general only

  1. 1st choice --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs)
  2. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. --G2bambino (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. --Padraic 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Random89 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Include neither

  1. --Gazzster (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. --Padraic 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Random89 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Although I have previously stated a preference for neither, please do not count that as a vote. I will support whatever the consensus/majority is, even while acknowledging how troublesome straw polls are can be. Random89 05:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally we need people like you too vote to help us find out what the consensus is. I think that straw polls are only a problem when people starting thinking of them as binding winner-take-all elections. If you view them as a tool to get an overview of where everyone stands, they can really speed up the time it takes to reach a real consensus. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My voting would in effect cancel itself out, for the most part, but if you think it will help i will sign my name in several places... If anyone thinks this is unproductive feel free to remove my votes. Random89 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I fear the poll isn't going to give us any more insight than we already have; I note most of the anti-inclusionists aren't giving second preferences, which says to me they're unwilling to budge from their stance and at least agree to a compromise. --G2bambino (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We might be able to persuade them to accept the Governor General; the Monarch? nope. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Including the GG is an alternative, not a compromise. At least from my point of view. While I appreciate that you offered something other than what you wanted, the GG would be worse in my opinion. Although I suppose it might be acceptable to an editor who objected to the monarch for republican or nationalist reasons. I think that I made a a fair proposal: a toin coss -- 50% chance. That's a 50% chance to include an idea that had only 27% (3 of 11) support. I think that is more than anyone has offered aside from Random89 who has offered to walk away. I already did that the first time. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an alternative that sits between including the monarch and including nobody at all; and it wasn't, I don't think, initially my suggestion, though, honestly, I forget. But, regardless, a coin toss really isn't going to settle this; one can't in future stop an editor from putting in, or taking out, the monarch from the infobox by telling him that this was already earlier settled by a random flip of a coin. There are reasonings here - though, frankly, not enough valid ones, at least, from the anti-inclusionist camp - that need to be taken into account. If a compromise can't be found here then I suppose the only thing that can be done is have a mediator come look at the various arguments and make a decision for us. --G2bambino (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope the rejection of Monarch isn't for republican or nationalist reasons, as I'm a Canadian republican. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I also hope that people aren't voting along ideological lines. My vote is certainly made based on my understanding of the structure of parliamentary governments based on my schooling rather than who I think should be doing what. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with G2 that we won't acheive a consensus either way. I don't want to compromise at least. So leave things as they are. If anyone wants to edit, go ahead, and let loose the dogs of war!--Gazzster (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I do appreciate that it was offered. And it seems to have appealed to Padraic, for whatever reason. As for the coin toss, I don't think it would settle things per se. But nothing is ever permanently settled anyway. But I would be willing to count the result exactly as if it were the consensus. Indeed, if enough of us agreed, the result would be what we agree is consensus. Consesnus is not what we think, it is what we agree to accept. Since we can't find an organic consensus otherwise, I think a randomly-generated consensus is much better than none at all. It is arbitrary but so is accepting the status quo.
It don't look good for 'Liz'. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think that we have to come to a consensus because all 22 PM articles should follow the same system, and we don't need an edit war spanning than many high-importance articles in WP:CANADA. On that note, I should go to go tell all of the related wikiprojects about this. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the PM boxes don't all agree anyway. So if we opt for the status quo, and argue that all the PM boxes should follow the status quo here, then an edit war is sparked anyway. But in fact every article stands on its own, so if one group of editors wants one option for their article, another can use another option for another article. And, of course, as as has already been wisely said, sic transit gloria mundi. All glory is fleeting, and usage will change, reverse, change back, etc, until the final trumpet sounds.--Gazzster (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Not if we had a policy established. But, alas, calls to various WikiProjects have received no response. --G2bambino (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thankful that policy cannot be established across thev board. It prevents a small group of editors hijacking the editorial process. “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.”--Gazzster (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? You wouldn't last long at Wikipedia if you fought back against all those policies the editorial hijackers have put in place here! --G2bambino (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I always do what I think is right, not what others tell me is best. So if that means I have to fight against the tide, I fight against the tide.--Gazzster (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Riiight. --G2bambino (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But I had no intention of laying my philosophy to the world. It is you who seems to have the need to make comment on an entirely innocuous remark.--Gazzster (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You sure chose an awfully public place to not lay your philosophy to the world! --G2bambino (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think he meant he was not going to lay his philosophy upon the world. Not that wikipedia has sparked any global revolutions yet... Random89 06:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the governor general and nothing at all has the most support? What shall we do? GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I am starting to wonder whether I was right in saying that all PMs need to have the same information listed. For example, it is very important that Meighen was appointed by Byng, but less so that Chrétien was appointed by Hnatyshyn. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to claim to represent anyone elses arguments, but I believe that is the claim that many editors have been making. The queen and the GG do not really have any bearing on Harper's role, so they believe it is not worth mentioning. While I too believe that, it is also true that bandwidth is cheap, and including more info is not usually negative, resulting in my neutral opinion. Random89 07:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Although on the other side of my own argument, even if the GG doesn't really do anything, she is a pivotal de jure role in the process of his appointment and plays a strong theoretical role in the checks and balances of parliamentary power. I have to wonder if some the people opposed to including her are doing so from an anti-monarchist POV. If Canada had an elected President who appointed Prime Ministers, and who was just as ceremonial and powerless as our GG is today, would they still be opposing his inclusion?
Howabout having a 2nd straw poll, with 2 choices. Include Governor General or leave it blank. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
How about we let the issue die as it seems to have done naturally? These articles are presently in line with all other PM articles on Wikipedia; no reason to change that. --G2bambino (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But the Canadian PMs infoboxes aren't all the same. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we started to discuss that at my talk page. Presently, the different articles are deliniated by 1931 - the year Canada became an independent kingdom where the sovereign was advised directly by the Canadian PM. Before that, the PM could only go to the Crown through the British Cabinet. However, upon further thought, the British North America Act still established the sovereign as the chief executive authority, in whose name the Governor General carried out his duties. So, I believe the pre-1931 PM articles should be brought in line with the rest. --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting the 'Monarch' on all 22 articles infoboxes? isn't going to be possible. Therefore, I'd suggest we 'simply' remove all. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh... removing them all will be just as impossible, then. --G2bambino (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
G2's prop too complicated. Who is going to understand the reason? But otherwise I agree with him: let the issue die a natural death. The issue has been overdiscussed and consensus in impossible. More sensible to olet it cool and start afresh in a month or two's time.--Gazzster (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to summarise: the monarch has been head of state since 1867. --G2bambino (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As a consistancy buff? this isn't the outcome I had hoped for. OK, I'll shut the life supports off. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be strongly opposed to using 1931 as a cutoff, and I think that suggestion shows that some people are making this into a monarchist-republican debate. We aren't talking about how much power the British Parliament or the Queen has over Canada, we are talking about who has the formal role of appointing the Prime Minister. It's just like in non-monarchies with parliamentary governments, where the President appoints the PM but has little real power. Both those kind of presidents and Canada's GG play key symbolic roles as executive oversights. The power of Brittan or the Queen is irrelevant in this debate. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So, there hasn't been any action in weeks...right now the infobox shows the "monarch only", which only two people voted for above. I'm sure this discussion is far from dead, but maybe it could be changed to "GG and monarch" as a short-term compromise? --Padraic 13:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible? Things are coming alive here, again? GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Even that one was less popular than GG only or none. If we can agree that consensus is against the monarch being there, let's start a discussion from scratch on whether or not we should include the GG. Hopefully when we are down to two options we'll be able to choose one. It might be best to start such a thread on the wikiproject or the Canadian notice board rather than here. If need be, once that debate is over we'll ask a third party to see who has consensus. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've no issue with this being talked about elsewhere, but I don't believe there's any consensus for anything, besides the present arrangement, but only trhough non-interest. If there's to be any new discussions, though, I think the first thing that has to be settled on is the general purpose of the head of state in the infobox, in all cases. I believe that's necessary in this case because we need to be clear on who is really the head of state in this instance: the Govenror General or the monarch. --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, how is there a consensus on the present arrangement? According to the poll, only two people support it. --Padraic 17:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please address what I said, not selections of it. --G2bambino (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
G2bambino, given that this is the infobox of a person and not the country, I think we are talking about who appointed him, not about who is his head of state (though in the case of some arguments, those are the same people anyway). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I could see that being the case. I just want the reason for the head of state being included in the Canadian PM articles to be the same as the reason for the head of state being included in all other PM articles. --G2bambino (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And as I have said before, we should have the same practise for constitutional monarchy PMs as we do for PMs of countries where the PM is appointed by a ceremonial president (though the monarchy ones would still have to choose between monarch and GG if we chose to include appointers). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. --G2bambino (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Cadman bribery allegations

MP Garth Turner has reported the names of the two Conservative officials who allegedly attempted to bribe Chuck Cadman as Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley (National Director of Political Operastions, Conservative Party of Canada).

Should this be included as part of the article?

Shame DSatYVR (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the shame comment for? GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Its a link to the article named "Shame" Same facts now reported in the Globe and Mail today: Liberals request RCMP probe into alleged bribeDSatYVR (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would a matter between three people who are not Stephen Harper be mentioned in an article about Stephen Harper? --G2bambino (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Transcript of the conversation between the book author and Harper. Harper was aware of the offer before it was made, and he was aware that it was made and accepted.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/307996 Wageslave (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought ya were shameing the PM. 'Cause there's the possibilty Mrs Cadman wanted to improve the sale of the book. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Mrs. Cadman didnt write the book. The author of the book interviewed Harper, and Harper disclosed his own knowledge of the situation. Further, both the widow Cadman and her daughter have given testimoney to that Mr. Cadman told them about the offer.

This transcript[2], of a RECORDED conversation between the book author and Harper show that he knew about the bribe.

Wageslave (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm apolitical. Therefore perhaps we should end this topic (before it gets blown out of proportions). As it's a kin to blogging. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Being principle to a $1M Bribe for votes in Parliment is certainly worthwhile for Wikipedia.

Wageslave (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, put it in the article; but, do so in a NPOV way. Show that it's not proven & also add the fact that Mrs Cadman claims Harper knew nothing about the alleged bribe. Also add the fact that the Liberals are being charged with libel (over their official website). GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it better be NPOV. Something tells me Wageslave is iching to get mention of this here for a political reason. But, hey, WP:AGF and all that. --G2bambino (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as it neutral, balanced and with reliable sources, I have no problem having being included here or in the sub-article Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada That article should have the duplications with the domestic, foreign policies shortned --JForget 01:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why this controversy is not included. Can somebody articulate me then, as to why it is included in Chuck Cadman's article with citations and looking pretty decent while mentioning name of Stevo? It certainly should be in this article of god,saviour and icon of conservatives(yes I do have liberal bias just like cons keeping it from the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azprint (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the 2008 election?

It seems that Harper's going to dissolve parliament this or next week (0kay, have the gov. gen do it), so where should we put it?

Here is article link from toronto news. http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_26582.aspx

and

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080907/election_call_080907/20080907?s_name=election2008

please do not edit my contrib's..thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbunny (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Harper is no long PM. Election on Oct 14, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbunny (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine guys, look I'm sorry!!! I just wont edit here anymore...I saw the info on 3 different news sources but Im always wrong according to others on here.

CBC, CTV, and citynews must all be wrong---= I guess you will just keep taking away my contributions so you guys win...I wont edit anyhting anymore..pathetic that some of you have nothing to do but edit other peoples info and then make them feel like they did something hugely wrong..

sorry guys for following the rules and still being wrong...ease up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbunny (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy has fourty-seven seats hes gonna be prime minister again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.192.165 (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of Precedence succession box

G2bambino has listed "Members of the Royal Family" in the "Canadian order of precedence" succession box on this page. This contradicts the Department of Canadian Heritage's "Table of Precedence for Canada" which makes no mention of the royal family and states quite clearly that the Governor General is followed in precedence by the PM. Rather than engage in an edit war I'd like other people to weigh in on this. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

G2Bambino is clearly wrong here. While the order of precedence list referenced does not explicitly include members of the Royal Family, Note 1 clearly states "under all circumstances the Governor General will be given precedence immediately after the sovereign". So the order of precedence is clearly 1-Queen (on the rare occasions she is present) 2-GG 3-PM. It's never Queen followed by PM. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
While we are on the subject I think the 'succession' infobox would be better to use titles rather than names. 'Governor General' followed by 'Prime Minister' followed by 'Chief Justice', is much clearer than "Michaelle Jean' followed by 'Stephen Harper' followed by ...err whoever that is again. Plus we wouldn't have to change it every time one of the office holders changed. In fact I'll go further - I don't think the succession box should be here at all - it should be in prime Minsiter of Canada. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Reginald has cleverly managed to simultaneously truncate and split the debate over this matter. Instead of spreading it over three talk pages, it should be sorted out at Talk:Canadian order of precedence. --G2bambino (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"Cleverly?" Now who's the conspiracist? The debate belongs here as well because the infobox containing the data in question appears is on this page. He's also got a very good point. Your interpretation of the "Canadian order of precedence" is not based in fact. It also makes sense to have titles instead of names in order to prevent having to update them when they change. - MC Rufus (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, even if G2bambino's version of precedence is correct the current box is inaccurate as "members of the Royal Family" includes the Queen when the military's precedence order lists the Queen separately before the GG. Since the military version has a more narrow application than the DCH version I think it makes more sense to have the Governor General precede Harper in the succession box with a footnote that mentions the military's precedence. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right that the Royal Family includes the Queen. However, there is no evidence what-so-ever that there are two orders of precedence in the federal jurisdiction. --G2bambino (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
So let's go with the DCH Table which has the GG preceding the PM as it is the definitive source (chapter 1, paragraph 4). Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We are going with the DCH table, but not it alone. The DND order is just as valid, and builds on the DCH table, filling in what the DCH leaves out. --G2bambino (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, though, we don't know that. We also don't know which source is definitive. We cannot make claims on articles that are not backed by sources. That's why both must be mentioned, as we do not know if there are two at once, one is right and the other is wrong, or which takes precedence.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 07:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First i don't understand why do the navigation links be hidden by default? Second just like there is a nav bar for time person of the year i think there should be one for Canadian Newsmaker of the Year. What do you think?
Also could someone fix the error on the bottom of the page...Thanks.. Ntb613 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The error message has been fixed. shirulashem (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done I also took out the navigation box that hid the links at the bottom. It hardly seems necessary to hide the boxes, especially since they don't take up much room compared to everything else. shirulashem (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ CBC News (January 30, 2007). "Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'". CBC.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Harper/Archive_5&oldid=1144740027"