This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I deleted "However, in the end, many of the allegations against Grewal turned out to be unsubstantiated" as tendentious. This is in any case irrelevant to an article about Harper: what Grewal has been cleared of is criminality in his visa-bonding scheme and airport fiasco. But neither of those matters have much to do with Harper.
Let's try to keep this article neurral and verifiable as much as possible. I have removed the comment about "independent observers" because no information on who these people are was provided. I also modified the statement about Harper's position being "manufactured" as that sounded unnecessarily critical. Let's just state the facts and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Ditto for Belinda Stronach "defection... in exchange for a cabinet position". "Crossing the floor" is neutral, "defection" is POV. Did she cross the floor just because she wanted to be in cabinet, or because she disagreed with CPC policy? Only she knows -- we can't know her true motivation. Ground Zero 17:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
A little while ago operating out of the University of Guelph a broadcaster announced something about Stephen Harper having connections with the CIA? I don't know much about what was broadcasted because I only heard it from a friend who is a ammature radio operator. Can anyone give me more information on a possible Harper/CIA link?
I got something for you dude, there is no link. Detractors of the guy do anything to play him up, including starting rumors of CIA involvement to make him seem like a scary American plant. Don't even worry about this. -- SFont 07:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I got something for you, http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial.asp?Key=2074&editorType=news&editorPrimeKeyword=hollett&editorLink=RobertBond might be what you heard.
An anonymous editor has tried to remove the link to More Stephen Harper Quotes, a Liberal Party website, on the basis that "Wikipedia should be unbiased". The article also links to the Conservative Party's website, which is also biased. There is nothing wrong with posting links to both pro- and anti- websites. In fact, Wikipedia would be biased if it only had links to sites that are friendly to the subject of the article. We have had this question before, and the consensus was that attack sties are relevant and should be included, as long as the article link identifies that the site is an attack site or who has posted it, as is the case here. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that Stephen Harper is opposed to lesbians and gays having the right under the Charter of Rights and Freedom to equal treatment under the law, and specifically under the Marriage Act of Canada. Eight cof the high courts of the land ruled that the rght to equal treatment means that the previous Marriage Act violated the Charter. I think that is pretty clear, and is not POV. I'll wait for a response before reverting, however. And I am not a left-wing extremist. Please avoid name-calling. Ground Zero 09:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, IMHO, I don't think he should be labeled as a person "opposing" rights. He allowed the basic rights (Financial benefits, et al) of marriage, but not by name. I'm for SSM, personally, but I don't think supporting civil unions instead is enough to say he's opposed to "Rights". If he had opposed ANY union, he'd probably be in the category. Habsfannova 02:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The courts did not rule that there is a "right to marriage", but that the Marriage Act violated the right to equal treatment under the law. While I would not put every MP who voted against C38 into this category, Stephen Harper has been very vocal on this issue, and has used it to rally the social conservatives to his party -- he spoke vehemently at an anti-SSM rally on Parliament Hill, and he is promising, if he becomes PM, to bring in a bill to restore the discriminatory provisions of the Marriage Act, which would, in the opinion of eight (or is it nine?) high courts of the land, violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equal treatment under the law. So, I think that it is fair to asy that S. Harper opposes LGBT rights. Maybe not all of them, but equality under the law is a pretty big one. Ground Zero | t 13:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Simon, it isn't that good of a Category.... Habsfannova 21:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
He seems to be "moderately" opposed to LGBT rights. He doesn't belong in that category (reserved for hardline opponents), but many of his party members do. CrazyC83 05:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Stephen Harper is not against their rights. The courts did not rule on the issue, they said it was up for the government to decide on Same-Sex marriage. SFrank85 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of the nine provincial and terrorial courts that ruled on this issue, nine of them ruled that the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do apply to gay and lesbian Canadians. Steven Harper has rejected those rulings, and voted against the legislation that implemented amendments to bring the Marriage Act in line with the nine court rulings. (The Supreme Court said that since the government had already indicated that it would introduce legislation, there was no need for it to rule.) He has reiterated that he is against allowing smae-sex couples to marry in the same way that opposite-sex couples do. I'm not crazy about the category, but as long as we have it, and as long as S. Harper speaks at Parliament Hill rallies against SSM and is willing to use it as an election issue, it seems to fit. Ground Zero | t 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I put the section on his politician impressions back in, since it can be verified. His liking of AC/DC and playing it at party events is also confirmed, but I don't know if that's notable enough for the article. -- The Invisible Hand 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Am I alone in thinking that this is not NPOV and an is not encyclopedic? Come on. "Great aplomb"? "Charming sense of humour"? "Well-liked candour"? I watched the Press Gallery dinner this year, and his speech fell pretty flat. There weer a few good lines, but no impressions., and his sense of humour was not any more charming than anyone elses, and frankly, I think it was less so. Thats is, of course, just my opinion. But then, this whole paragraph is just somebody else's opinion. I don't think it belongs, but I am looking for others' views before I delete it. If I'm off-base on this, then please tell me why. Ground Zero | t 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-Look around wikipedia, pretty much every entry about any public figure contains a trivia section. This isn't encarta remmeber.
I still think it was put in their by a Harper supporter whose aim is present the "friendlier face" that the Conservative Party wants people to see. I don't think that it is the role of Wikipedia to assist a political party in promoting the side of a party's leader that the party is trying to promote. I doubt the Martin or Layton articles have and don't think they should have references to the press gallery dinners. Ground Zero | t 13:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Does the fact that his campaign office looks like it got hit by a bomb count for anything? WestJet
If there's any bias, it does seem to be against him. I fail to understand the significance of people leaving his communications staff; in politics, this is a regular occurence. Take for example, Paul Martin. Earlier in the year he let much of his communications staff go, and it went unreported, yet five people left Harper's staff and somehow it's news? These things are not notable. With that in mind, will people please quit reverting the wiki to older, incorrect versions?
Harper has since apologized for this comment, while maintaining that he meant Atlantic Canadians feel left out and that their opinions don't matter in Ottawa. Do not revert the Wiki to statements saying he has not apologized because that is false. John Hawke
John Hawke 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we should stop this article on Stephen Harper from being edited because of the constant vandalism SFrank85 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not a "random Stephen Harper quote of the day" site. We have a sister site called http://www.wikiquote.com/ for listing quotes, and I have now added a link to the Stephen Harper entry on Wikiquote (look under "External link" to find the wikiquote box and click on it).
In general, quotes should only be added to the main article if they are directly relevant to and part of the person's biography (eg, Martin Luther King Jr. and "I have a dream..."). The Wikiquote site was created for other quotes. -- Curps 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Is Harper's birthday really April 20? Seems a little too convenient. And google indicates that the entry used to have April 30. No solid info on the net, though. Cincinnatus c 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Official biography at Parliament of Canada website says April 30: [4] -- Curps 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
A question for any passers-by. Does Harper speak French? I viewed some of the French ads on the Tory website and noticed that he wasn't in them, which was different in my mind to the Liberal ads. - Thanks, Hos hie | 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why Stephen's religion is no longer on his info bar? Good on you for calling him the Rt. Hon.! HD 123321, 7:16pm (PST)
What happened to the Religion on the info bar someone keeps on taking it off. 207.6.241.252 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What happened I think the religion of people is important. Why does some keep taking it off? Please responde otherwise you have no reason to do so. HD 123321 07:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Harperbruce 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This might be moot after tomorrow, of course; but the last section needs to be examined and rewritten for clarity. It seems muddy and confused to me, and I'm not even eligible to vote in the election (grin). Someone with more knowledge than me should give it a quick go-over -- though, as I say, the entire section will probably need to be rewritten on Tuesday (one way or another; remember the previous election!).
(BTW, my handle indicates no relation to the man under discussion here!! It's simply the nom de net I've used since the 1980s.)
I bet the whole section is going to be re-edited tomorrow night anyways. Someone even made the new information bar for him as the new Prime Minister. If only the pollsters are off by that huge of a margin, he will be having at least a minority government in the 39th parliament for sure.
Is this even remotely true? Can anyone provide a citation? Exploding Boy 03:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be locked to prevent vandalism. Harper was never a gay rights activist - this is libel.
I second the locking suggestion. It's gonna be quite insane the next couple of days, in both the Harper and Martin pages. People are gonna go nuts, writing crap. Best to lock it until the insanity dies down, I think. -- Buchanan-Hermit 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Semi-protection would be a good compromise. It blocks unregistered and new users, while allowing thers to edit. Ground Zero | t 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So do we have a consensus that semi-protection on him and Martin is needed? It's not generally intended to be used as a precaution for pages that might be vandalized. -- Pak aran 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As Harper hasn't yet been appointed Prime Minister he isn't styled the Right Honourable. I'm going to revert it. Only when he takes office should it be put back up. ( Alphaboi867 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC))
Could someone fix the page layout? Dooga 06:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Didn't he start out as a Liberal is his earliest political activity? Can somebody add this info to the article?-- Sonjaaa 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he was once a member of the Liberal Youth but left in anger after Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program. - anon - Feb. 1, 2006
Please put [[sh:Stephen Harper]]. -- M. Pokrajac 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
All Canadian media refer to his wife Laureen by her maiden name, not as Laureen Harper. Given the media style guides, which default to women's preferences, there is no evidence she prefers otherwise.
This National Post article says that she has kept her maiden name but that she wants to be known as Laureen Harper in the political arena. Most media call her Teskey, so I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps they just put "Stephen and Laureen Harper" on ads sent to conservative people: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:DLomGda3WzAJ:www.robanders.com/News/20040522Smyth.htm+laureen+teskey+maiden+name&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3
she now wants to be known as Laureen Harper. Writerchick 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mainly detailing his victory, his speech and his new vision as Prime Minister? -b 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is Martin will be staying as leader of the Liberals until the convention. He should be listed, therfore, as the leader of the Opposition in the infobox. 23skidoo 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've changed Harper's biography box: from Feb/6/2006- present, to Due to take office Feb/6/2006. Why? because he's only scheduled to take office on that day, he hasn't taken office yet. So, why not wait until February 6th, 2006 GoodDay 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is rather trivial to say that he enjoys ice hockey. I'd prefer to see the space used for something more substantive. As a side note, I would note that a lot of politicians try to humanize themselves by connecting to popular sport like that. Have you ever seen the footage of Diefenbaker pretending to enjoy the Summit Series? It is very difficult to watch. Or perhaps how Hillary Clinton says that she secretly enjoyed the Yankees while growing up in Illinois? I'm not doubting Harper, I just think that it isn't very meaningful because everyone likes it or fakes it. -- JGGardiner 22:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But who is she? Just though I'd point out to the more enterprising researchers out there that his father mentioned by name but his mother isn't. 69.157.184.7 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Abe
[[ta:சிரீபன் கார்ப்பர்]]
I thought I had read somewhere that he is still a Leafs fan (he grew up in Toronto, after all) along with his wife and kids. Is that not true? (I suppose it might be partially true and could've been spun a bit to make him friendlier to Ontarians.) -- Saforrest 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Right Honourable" should appear in bold before "Stephen Harper" in the first paragraph Petro_56
In the paragraph immediately above "Honours", a colon after Clark should be a semi-colon. GCapp1959
For goodness sakes, stop putting gross links up at this article. If you want to insult the prime minister do it somewhere other than this public website.
The image currently on Wikipedia's front page is unsourced. -- user:zanimum
Could we please stop playing around with the photograph. If you don't like the one that appears on the top of this page, please start a discussion here about why another one should be substituted. I, for one, will revert any changes to the photograph that are not prefaced with a discussion here. HistoryBA 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
To User:MonsterTruck: if you continue vandalizing this page, I will block you for 24 hours. This is your only warning. CJCurrie 03:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please change the picture. It's kinda embarassing not only to our new Prime Minister but to our country as well!
I reverted the picture to the present one because that is the one that was used throughoiut the entire election campaign with no objection. It's a good, neutral picture of him. -- SFont 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why Stephen Harper's electoral results are needed, it's not on any other prime minister or member of parliament, so I removed them... any input?
I think it adds uneeded space, these results are already available if you click the riding which the MP represents. Your call I guess. If you feel it needs to be in there I won't remove it. Tkyle 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I would actually like to see something like this on all the pages for elected officials. However, I think it is too cumbersome as it stands. What about an abbreviated table for individual candidates, pointing to the more detailed available elsewhere? I've mocked up this table:
Election | Constituency | Affiliation | Votes | % | Place |
1988 fed. | Calgary West | Reform | 9,074 | 16.58% | 2/6 |
1993 fed. | Calgary West | Reform | 30,209 | 52.25% | 1/6 |
2002 by | Calgary Southwest | Alliance | 13,200 | 71.66% | 1/5 |
2004 fed. | Calgary Southwest | Conservative | 35,297 | 68.36% | 1/6 |
2006 fed. | Calgary Southwest | Conservative | 41,549 | 72.36% | 1/5 |
Feel free to use / edit / ignore, etc. -- Hamiltonian 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That looks much better...even better in a (Compact) table. Habsfannova 06:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been using a variation on this table for politicians on list pages, but I still think the "extended detail" approach works better for those important enough to have their own biographies. I recognize that some readers find this cumbersome, but there are certain advantages (ie. the margin of each victory does not need to be worked into the text, third or fourth place candidates who are notable for other reasons receive fair mention, general trends can be determined, etc). The section can always be ignored by those with no interest in the matter, in any event. CJCurrie 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of the wikipedia community, but when I see the words dumbest in bold (dumbest of 4 brothers) and stuff about Canada's prime minister beeing a drunk I would normally consider that slander and vandalism and I'm a liberal! I am reverting this to its pre-vandalized state. -- Diploid 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone (possibly Willy on Wheels) has replaced the images of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper with borderline-pornographic images. This appears to be advanced vandalism, in that simply deleted the "image" in the template has no effect. Please do not return the template until this matter is resolved. CJCurrie 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really don't see that quote section as being either necessary or an improvement to the article. There is already a link to wikiquote, which has all the quotes here plus many more. The article is already quite long, adding all those quotes makes it look cumbersome.
I've removed the quotes previously only to be reverted, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. 207.6.31.119 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The quotes are bias against Stephen Harper and are obiously taken out of context
They should stay removed
Under 'Trivia', it says that his father was a collector of badges till his death. Is there any reason that this is euphemised to 'passing'? Stearnsbrian 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
the statistics are nice, they are very detalied, but isn't there a map that has the provinces highlighted? It would be less of an headache. The pointer outer 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What happened??? 24.82.136.103 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This man is an imposter, for I am the prime minister of Canada!!!! Fear my wrath for I control the Candians!! The most feared fighting force in the known world!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.9 ( talk • contribs)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen Harper/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article requires a properly licensed photograph. I just discovered someone had included the official photograph of the PM that is actually listed on the parl web site as copywritten. Alan.ca 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I deleted "However, in the end, many of the allegations against Grewal turned out to be unsubstantiated" as tendentious. This is in any case irrelevant to an article about Harper: what Grewal has been cleared of is criminality in his visa-bonding scheme and airport fiasco. But neither of those matters have much to do with Harper.
Let's try to keep this article neurral and verifiable as much as possible. I have removed the comment about "independent observers" because no information on who these people are was provided. I also modified the statement about Harper's position being "manufactured" as that sounded unnecessarily critical. Let's just state the facts and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Ditto for Belinda Stronach "defection... in exchange for a cabinet position". "Crossing the floor" is neutral, "defection" is POV. Did she cross the floor just because she wanted to be in cabinet, or because she disagreed with CPC policy? Only she knows -- we can't know her true motivation. Ground Zero 17:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
A little while ago operating out of the University of Guelph a broadcaster announced something about Stephen Harper having connections with the CIA? I don't know much about what was broadcasted because I only heard it from a friend who is a ammature radio operator. Can anyone give me more information on a possible Harper/CIA link?
I got something for you dude, there is no link. Detractors of the guy do anything to play him up, including starting rumors of CIA involvement to make him seem like a scary American plant. Don't even worry about this. -- SFont 07:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I got something for you, http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial.asp?Key=2074&editorType=news&editorPrimeKeyword=hollett&editorLink=RobertBond might be what you heard.
An anonymous editor has tried to remove the link to More Stephen Harper Quotes, a Liberal Party website, on the basis that "Wikipedia should be unbiased". The article also links to the Conservative Party's website, which is also biased. There is nothing wrong with posting links to both pro- and anti- websites. In fact, Wikipedia would be biased if it only had links to sites that are friendly to the subject of the article. We have had this question before, and the consensus was that attack sties are relevant and should be included, as long as the article link identifies that the site is an attack site or who has posted it, as is the case here. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that Stephen Harper is opposed to lesbians and gays having the right under the Charter of Rights and Freedom to equal treatment under the law, and specifically under the Marriage Act of Canada. Eight cof the high courts of the land ruled that the rght to equal treatment means that the previous Marriage Act violated the Charter. I think that is pretty clear, and is not POV. I'll wait for a response before reverting, however. And I am not a left-wing extremist. Please avoid name-calling. Ground Zero 09:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, IMHO, I don't think he should be labeled as a person "opposing" rights. He allowed the basic rights (Financial benefits, et al) of marriage, but not by name. I'm for SSM, personally, but I don't think supporting civil unions instead is enough to say he's opposed to "Rights". If he had opposed ANY union, he'd probably be in the category. Habsfannova 02:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The courts did not rule that there is a "right to marriage", but that the Marriage Act violated the right to equal treatment under the law. While I would not put every MP who voted against C38 into this category, Stephen Harper has been very vocal on this issue, and has used it to rally the social conservatives to his party -- he spoke vehemently at an anti-SSM rally on Parliament Hill, and he is promising, if he becomes PM, to bring in a bill to restore the discriminatory provisions of the Marriage Act, which would, in the opinion of eight (or is it nine?) high courts of the land, violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equal treatment under the law. So, I think that it is fair to asy that S. Harper opposes LGBT rights. Maybe not all of them, but equality under the law is a pretty big one. Ground Zero | t 13:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Simon, it isn't that good of a Category.... Habsfannova 21:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
He seems to be "moderately" opposed to LGBT rights. He doesn't belong in that category (reserved for hardline opponents), but many of his party members do. CrazyC83 05:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Stephen Harper is not against their rights. The courts did not rule on the issue, they said it was up for the government to decide on Same-Sex marriage. SFrank85 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of the nine provincial and terrorial courts that ruled on this issue, nine of them ruled that the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do apply to gay and lesbian Canadians. Steven Harper has rejected those rulings, and voted against the legislation that implemented amendments to bring the Marriage Act in line with the nine court rulings. (The Supreme Court said that since the government had already indicated that it would introduce legislation, there was no need for it to rule.) He has reiterated that he is against allowing smae-sex couples to marry in the same way that opposite-sex couples do. I'm not crazy about the category, but as long as we have it, and as long as S. Harper speaks at Parliament Hill rallies against SSM and is willing to use it as an election issue, it seems to fit. Ground Zero | t 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I put the section on his politician impressions back in, since it can be verified. His liking of AC/DC and playing it at party events is also confirmed, but I don't know if that's notable enough for the article. -- The Invisible Hand 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Am I alone in thinking that this is not NPOV and an is not encyclopedic? Come on. "Great aplomb"? "Charming sense of humour"? "Well-liked candour"? I watched the Press Gallery dinner this year, and his speech fell pretty flat. There weer a few good lines, but no impressions., and his sense of humour was not any more charming than anyone elses, and frankly, I think it was less so. Thats is, of course, just my opinion. But then, this whole paragraph is just somebody else's opinion. I don't think it belongs, but I am looking for others' views before I delete it. If I'm off-base on this, then please tell me why. Ground Zero | t 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-Look around wikipedia, pretty much every entry about any public figure contains a trivia section. This isn't encarta remmeber.
I still think it was put in their by a Harper supporter whose aim is present the "friendlier face" that the Conservative Party wants people to see. I don't think that it is the role of Wikipedia to assist a political party in promoting the side of a party's leader that the party is trying to promote. I doubt the Martin or Layton articles have and don't think they should have references to the press gallery dinners. Ground Zero | t 13:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Does the fact that his campaign office looks like it got hit by a bomb count for anything? WestJet
If there's any bias, it does seem to be against him. I fail to understand the significance of people leaving his communications staff; in politics, this is a regular occurence. Take for example, Paul Martin. Earlier in the year he let much of his communications staff go, and it went unreported, yet five people left Harper's staff and somehow it's news? These things are not notable. With that in mind, will people please quit reverting the wiki to older, incorrect versions?
Harper has since apologized for this comment, while maintaining that he meant Atlantic Canadians feel left out and that their opinions don't matter in Ottawa. Do not revert the Wiki to statements saying he has not apologized because that is false. John Hawke
John Hawke 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we should stop this article on Stephen Harper from being edited because of the constant vandalism SFrank85 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not a "random Stephen Harper quote of the day" site. We have a sister site called http://www.wikiquote.com/ for listing quotes, and I have now added a link to the Stephen Harper entry on Wikiquote (look under "External link" to find the wikiquote box and click on it).
In general, quotes should only be added to the main article if they are directly relevant to and part of the person's biography (eg, Martin Luther King Jr. and "I have a dream..."). The Wikiquote site was created for other quotes. -- Curps 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Is Harper's birthday really April 20? Seems a little too convenient. And google indicates that the entry used to have April 30. No solid info on the net, though. Cincinnatus c 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Official biography at Parliament of Canada website says April 30: [4] -- Curps 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
A question for any passers-by. Does Harper speak French? I viewed some of the French ads on the Tory website and noticed that he wasn't in them, which was different in my mind to the Liberal ads. - Thanks, Hos hie | 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why Stephen's religion is no longer on his info bar? Good on you for calling him the Rt. Hon.! HD 123321, 7:16pm (PST)
What happened to the Religion on the info bar someone keeps on taking it off. 207.6.241.252 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What happened I think the religion of people is important. Why does some keep taking it off? Please responde otherwise you have no reason to do so. HD 123321 07:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Harperbruce 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This might be moot after tomorrow, of course; but the last section needs to be examined and rewritten for clarity. It seems muddy and confused to me, and I'm not even eligible to vote in the election (grin). Someone with more knowledge than me should give it a quick go-over -- though, as I say, the entire section will probably need to be rewritten on Tuesday (one way or another; remember the previous election!).
(BTW, my handle indicates no relation to the man under discussion here!! It's simply the nom de net I've used since the 1980s.)
I bet the whole section is going to be re-edited tomorrow night anyways. Someone even made the new information bar for him as the new Prime Minister. If only the pollsters are off by that huge of a margin, he will be having at least a minority government in the 39th parliament for sure.
Is this even remotely true? Can anyone provide a citation? Exploding Boy 03:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be locked to prevent vandalism. Harper was never a gay rights activist - this is libel.
I second the locking suggestion. It's gonna be quite insane the next couple of days, in both the Harper and Martin pages. People are gonna go nuts, writing crap. Best to lock it until the insanity dies down, I think. -- Buchanan-Hermit 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Semi-protection would be a good compromise. It blocks unregistered and new users, while allowing thers to edit. Ground Zero | t 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So do we have a consensus that semi-protection on him and Martin is needed? It's not generally intended to be used as a precaution for pages that might be vandalized. -- Pak aran 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As Harper hasn't yet been appointed Prime Minister he isn't styled the Right Honourable. I'm going to revert it. Only when he takes office should it be put back up. ( Alphaboi867 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC))
Could someone fix the page layout? Dooga 06:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Didn't he start out as a Liberal is his earliest political activity? Can somebody add this info to the article?-- Sonjaaa 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he was once a member of the Liberal Youth but left in anger after Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program. - anon - Feb. 1, 2006
Please put [[sh:Stephen Harper]]. -- M. Pokrajac 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
All Canadian media refer to his wife Laureen by her maiden name, not as Laureen Harper. Given the media style guides, which default to women's preferences, there is no evidence she prefers otherwise.
This National Post article says that she has kept her maiden name but that she wants to be known as Laureen Harper in the political arena. Most media call her Teskey, so I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps they just put "Stephen and Laureen Harper" on ads sent to conservative people: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:DLomGda3WzAJ:www.robanders.com/News/20040522Smyth.htm+laureen+teskey+maiden+name&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3
she now wants to be known as Laureen Harper. Writerchick 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mainly detailing his victory, his speech and his new vision as Prime Minister? -b 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is Martin will be staying as leader of the Liberals until the convention. He should be listed, therfore, as the leader of the Opposition in the infobox. 23skidoo 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've changed Harper's biography box: from Feb/6/2006- present, to Due to take office Feb/6/2006. Why? because he's only scheduled to take office on that day, he hasn't taken office yet. So, why not wait until February 6th, 2006 GoodDay 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is rather trivial to say that he enjoys ice hockey. I'd prefer to see the space used for something more substantive. As a side note, I would note that a lot of politicians try to humanize themselves by connecting to popular sport like that. Have you ever seen the footage of Diefenbaker pretending to enjoy the Summit Series? It is very difficult to watch. Or perhaps how Hillary Clinton says that she secretly enjoyed the Yankees while growing up in Illinois? I'm not doubting Harper, I just think that it isn't very meaningful because everyone likes it or fakes it. -- JGGardiner 22:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But who is she? Just though I'd point out to the more enterprising researchers out there that his father mentioned by name but his mother isn't. 69.157.184.7 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Abe
[[ta:சிரீபன் கார்ப்பர்]]
I thought I had read somewhere that he is still a Leafs fan (he grew up in Toronto, after all) along with his wife and kids. Is that not true? (I suppose it might be partially true and could've been spun a bit to make him friendlier to Ontarians.) -- Saforrest 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Right Honourable" should appear in bold before "Stephen Harper" in the first paragraph Petro_56
In the paragraph immediately above "Honours", a colon after Clark should be a semi-colon. GCapp1959
For goodness sakes, stop putting gross links up at this article. If you want to insult the prime minister do it somewhere other than this public website.
The image currently on Wikipedia's front page is unsourced. -- user:zanimum
Could we please stop playing around with the photograph. If you don't like the one that appears on the top of this page, please start a discussion here about why another one should be substituted. I, for one, will revert any changes to the photograph that are not prefaced with a discussion here. HistoryBA 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
To User:MonsterTruck: if you continue vandalizing this page, I will block you for 24 hours. This is your only warning. CJCurrie 03:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please change the picture. It's kinda embarassing not only to our new Prime Minister but to our country as well!
I reverted the picture to the present one because that is the one that was used throughoiut the entire election campaign with no objection. It's a good, neutral picture of him. -- SFont 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why Stephen Harper's electoral results are needed, it's not on any other prime minister or member of parliament, so I removed them... any input?
I think it adds uneeded space, these results are already available if you click the riding which the MP represents. Your call I guess. If you feel it needs to be in there I won't remove it. Tkyle 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I would actually like to see something like this on all the pages for elected officials. However, I think it is too cumbersome as it stands. What about an abbreviated table for individual candidates, pointing to the more detailed available elsewhere? I've mocked up this table:
Election | Constituency | Affiliation | Votes | % | Place |
1988 fed. | Calgary West | Reform | 9,074 | 16.58% | 2/6 |
1993 fed. | Calgary West | Reform | 30,209 | 52.25% | 1/6 |
2002 by | Calgary Southwest | Alliance | 13,200 | 71.66% | 1/5 |
2004 fed. | Calgary Southwest | Conservative | 35,297 | 68.36% | 1/6 |
2006 fed. | Calgary Southwest | Conservative | 41,549 | 72.36% | 1/5 |
Feel free to use / edit / ignore, etc. -- Hamiltonian 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That looks much better...even better in a (Compact) table. Habsfannova 06:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been using a variation on this table for politicians on list pages, but I still think the "extended detail" approach works better for those important enough to have their own biographies. I recognize that some readers find this cumbersome, but there are certain advantages (ie. the margin of each victory does not need to be worked into the text, third or fourth place candidates who are notable for other reasons receive fair mention, general trends can be determined, etc). The section can always be ignored by those with no interest in the matter, in any event. CJCurrie 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of the wikipedia community, but when I see the words dumbest in bold (dumbest of 4 brothers) and stuff about Canada's prime minister beeing a drunk I would normally consider that slander and vandalism and I'm a liberal! I am reverting this to its pre-vandalized state. -- Diploid 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone (possibly Willy on Wheels) has replaced the images of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper with borderline-pornographic images. This appears to be advanced vandalism, in that simply deleted the "image" in the template has no effect. Please do not return the template until this matter is resolved. CJCurrie 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really don't see that quote section as being either necessary or an improvement to the article. There is already a link to wikiquote, which has all the quotes here plus many more. The article is already quite long, adding all those quotes makes it look cumbersome.
I've removed the quotes previously only to be reverted, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. 207.6.31.119 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The quotes are bias against Stephen Harper and are obiously taken out of context
They should stay removed
Under 'Trivia', it says that his father was a collector of badges till his death. Is there any reason that this is euphemised to 'passing'? Stearnsbrian 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
the statistics are nice, they are very detalied, but isn't there a map that has the provinces highlighted? It would be less of an headache. The pointer outer 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What happened??? 24.82.136.103 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This man is an imposter, for I am the prime minister of Canada!!!! Fear my wrath for I control the Candians!! The most feared fighting force in the known world!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.9 ( talk • contribs)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen Harper/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article requires a properly licensed photograph. I just discovered someone had included the official photograph of the PM that is actually listed on the parl web site as copywritten. Alan.ca 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)