![]() | 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. |
March 5th this entry is consistently having its editing re-edited removing SALIENT entries on Mr. Harper's political record. I would submit that this entry should be frozen and all further editing reviewed by an impartial non-canadian editor
Habsfan, someone is systematically removing edits such as that one below
Regarding appropriateness of material: I'm not sure this is the right place/method to make this comment, but I'm surprised that the article mentions the name of the school that the PM's young children attend. Why is this important? Surely safety concerns should trump any need-to-know value of this info? I know we're pretty casual about security in this country, but this seems a bit much. Any thoughts?
Whoever yanked the thing about him resigning because of resenting Manning's desire to talk to constituents you're hiding reality. It's a well documented fact
To quote Preston Manning off a freely available cbc 2006 contenders page
""'Why do you take these [policies] – which some have spent our entire lives studying and working – you take them to these meetings in school gyms and skating rinks and expose them and listen to people who haven't thought about it for 15 minutes – why do you do that?' And I used to say, 'Because it's their money. That's why.'...
"Of course, Stephen and others would point out there's a dark side to populism. Majorities can not only be wrong but viciously wrong ... but I was always more on the optimistic side."
"
put back the edit
k WELL I put in an edit, a FAIR edit of the part about he had a problem with constituents about the gun registry vs. the constituents on tax reforms and someone yanked it. PUT it in, whoever yanked it can just put it back in correct? Like I'm sorry I hate Harper but I don't HAVE to bullshit him to show his negative side. I did NOT put in a knock on him I put in a very fair, very politely worded edit and this is bs
I see that the name in the lead has gone back and forth between Stephen Harper and Stephen Joseph Harper. I suggest that the full name goes in the lead as per normal encyclopaedic practice. That is the place most people will expect to find it.-- Kalsermar 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I really, really want to delete the following: *This Steven Harper Page Is Under Considerable Threat Of Vandalisim. Please Do Not Delete This Note. But because Indy64 said "please", let's discuss it. I really don't see what this note is supposed to accomplish. It seems to violate Wikipedia policy, as it does not deal with the article's subject, but with a technical issue. If vandalism really is a huge problem for this article (and I'm not conviced it is), there must be better ways of dealing with it, such enlisting help from vandal fighters or semi-protecting the page. Indefatigable 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a way to do this. Not that I think it is at risk. But I know the mods can "Freeze" a page.... Mbgb14 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that the succession section is misleading. The list that it refers to [ [1]] is not an order of succession to Harper per se. Rather, it is a list of succession should any minister be unable to perform their duties: so if Chuck Strahl can't perform his duties, then Gary Lunn takes them on, then Rona Ambrose, then it goes down the list. The reason that this important is because the list is thus structured with the chairs of the two main committees (Priorities & Planning and Operations) on top. That makes sense because they should be the ones to take over the various ministries if somebody has to. Those two committees in particular are a very important part of the Canadian cabinet system. Thus the reason that Cannon and Prentice are on top is because of their jobs as committee chairs; their position on that list just flows from that (Harper is the technical chair, Cannon the deputy and effective chair of Priorities and Planning). So while the list applies to the PM, it is not really about that office. It is really a list about what to when cabinet ministers step down or are fired. Incidentally, the reason that MacKay couldn't get one of those important committee chairs is because he got a more important cabinet post (Foreign Affairs) which comes with the chairmanship of a less important committee (Foreign Affairs). -- JGGardiner 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Though it may be in vain, I'm just trying to trim some of the bloated/out of date/partisan portions of the article. Any advice is appreciated. Habsfannova 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, CJ, with all respect, and with admiration at your research, don't you think we're getting a tad too indepth? I mean, just because a few staffers said that he'd make a good leader doesn't really make it that noteable. Maybe a fork would be in order if you don't think we should remove some of it? Habsfannova 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What specifically are you referring to (re: "few staffers")? CJCurrie 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just using an example...the article seems to be balooning in size with insights that could be trimmed. Habsfannova 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You may have a point, though I've long thought that the "out of parliament" period needed some expansion. In any event, my usual method for writing "in depth" articles is to do some pruning/re-arranging once the basic material is all in place. CJCurrie 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see no reason for deleting this relevant and cited section of the article about Shapiro's report:
I ask User:GoldDragon to explain his/her deletion or restore the passage. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted a massive and unnecessary Wikification of this article. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style and WP:MOSNUM. There is no need to Wikify years and months. Complete dates ([[Month date]] [[Year]]) are Wikified in order to enable user preferences that allow the reader to see dates as "Date Month Year" or "Month Date, Year" according to their preference. The Style Manual recommends against Wikifying dates otherwise. In this article, which is already heavily Wikified, Wikifying the months and years adds to the clutter and over-linking of the article. Ground Zero | t 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ground Zero. John Hawke | John Hawke 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
From the vandalised version, I put the "Official" portrait up.
Habsfan
|
t
02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to find out how much money the Prime minister makes a year
I have asked question and not got the results to them. Why is Stephen Harper's (or many other people's) religion not on the info bar I found it a big help knowing someone's religion. I need the result to my questions 207.81.122.3 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone added him in the category as a member of the United Church of Canada. Was he ever a member in his life time? I just think this needs to be clear. SFrank85 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that he was raised as a Presbyterian, and is now a member of the Alliance church. I don't believe he was ever a UCC member. CJCurrie 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Most Presbyterian churches in Canada joined the UCC in 1925, but many (particularly in Harper's ancestral homeland of the Maritimes) didn't. I suppose I can understand the source of confusion ... maybe. CJCurrie 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, folks, guess what? Not only was he raised in the United Church, but he's not currently a member of C&MA.
This comes from 1995, so he may be a member now; I don't know. We should check this out. But in the meantime, I'm putting the cat back in. Carolynparrishfan 15:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about, I just provided a citation? Carolynparrishfan 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
He is neither a current nor deceased member of the UCC. I'd say that he should be taken out. We don't categorize atheists or Buddhist converts as Christians because they grew up in it. Nor do we classify Harper as a Liberal because he left the Liberal Party in his teens. 67.68.10.100 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need it? No other Prime Ministers have a Shorthand titles section. SFrank85 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a lot of the Cabinet and pre-PM sections could be trimmed considerably...we don't need to have every editorial he ever wrote there.
Habsfan
|
t
04:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What specifically do you want to cut? I think the pre-PM sections are fine as they are. CJCurrie 06:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
As I have already pointed out to Habsfannova, Harper is the first Protestant Prime Minister since Pearson. The only Prime Minister between the two who was not a Roman Catholic was Kim Campbell. She was not a Protestant because:
a) She practiced no religion at all. b) She was raised in the Anglican Church of Canada, which is not considered a Protestant Church but a Via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
This argument has already been settled. If you feel you have something fruitful to add to it, please discuss it here rather than making knee-jerk reflexes. See also my post at User_talk:Habsfannova. Carolynparrishfan 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
My responses:
a) I don't think it's our responsibility to distinguish between practising and non-practising members of any particular faith. Wilfrid Laurier is considered a Catholic, although he "practiced no religion" in the strict sense.
b) I'm well aware of the fact that Anglicanism is often regarded as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. I'm also aware that the Ontario CoE was divided between "Protestant" and "Catholic" camps in the 19th century (hell, the 20th as well ...) and that in many of the Orange communities of eastern Ontario, Anglicanism is not regarded as anything but "Protestant". My understanding is that, in the modern Canadian experience, Anglicans are generally regarded and categorized as Protestants (I should be able to find an almanac to back me up on this ...).
Also, please note that I reverted your edits before reading your comments -- sorry for jumping the gun, but I stand by my actions. CJCurrie 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see this page, which contains a detailed overview of religion in the 2001 census. Anglicans are, for official purposes, counted as Protestants. Please note that I'm not trying to be flippant or dismissive -- I understand (and to some extent sympathize with) the nature of your objection, but I don't believe it's applicable to the present situation. CJCurrie 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Besides, I don't understand for the life of my why, in the 21st century, a PMs religion is relevant.
Habsfan
|
t
02:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up some unverifible information and some things that were quoted as denied or factual and referenced a website that was clearly meant as a parody and therefore not valid information. -- Kirkoconnell 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone should probably include something about how Stephen Harper allegedly eats babies. I'm far too lazy to do it myself.
There's two sets of footnotes! Srnec 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I created the first set a while ago; another user later began to change the format but didn't finish. I've been dreading the prospect of completing the job myself, but it looks as though I may have to. CJCurrie 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael, for sparing me the trouble. ;) 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
<ref> tags and those with [URL] tags. Ouch. Michael Dorosh 15:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only reader who finds this section inherently POV? CJCurrie 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe you've misunderstood the intent of my previous comment. A while ago, someone added a dubious-looking "War on Terror" template to the article. I suggested that it was POV; others agreed, and it was soon removed.
Thanks for assuming the worst, though. CJCurrie 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem, and sorry for the churlishness. CJCurrie 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The section on the Supreme Court says that the Constitution of Canada precludes any kind of committee veto, which isn't the case at all. All the Constitution says is that the Crown appoints Justices, and traditionally this power is exercised by the Prime Minister through the Governor General. There's nothing in the Constitution to stop Harper from putting his nominee before the committee and pledging not to appoint him if the committee doesn't approve. In fact, most of the guidelines for the Supreme Court aren't in the Constitution, but in the Supreme Court Act, an ordinary piece of legislation. Thus, there is no prohibition of a veto, it's just that Harper didn't want the committee to have one. CaptainCanada 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted a link to an indymedia story which, unlike pretty much the entirety of this wiki article (including all of its external links), has some negative things to say about the Harper agenda. The link was removed within an hour of it being posted. It looks like this page is being micromanaged by Harper's PR staff. That's not right. I posted the link again and it was removed within minutes. Give me a break.
Here's the link: http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?2976S
Ground Zero may be a regular editor. But who contacted Ground Zero so quickly? It's amazing how quickly my link was removed while all of the content of this page is partisan proHarper. There is no reason why opposing views shouldn't be included. If a cartoon gallery (which is Op Ed) is ok, then an article about Harper's proAmerican imperialist agenda should be ok too. Michael Dorosh is a Calgary military propagandist. Of course he doesn't want people to see alternate perspectives about Calgary and the Conservatives. It's that kind of micromanagement that is truly political BS at its worst. As fpr "hunter1084", you clearly are a Harper fan or member of his PR team. [Unsigned Comment]
Ground Zero's response: I actually did not review the link before deleting it. I guess that was a bit lazy on my part. I did so because articles about the leaders of the main political parties attract links from bloggers and partisans like a garbage can attracts WASPs. I figured that since it was posted by an unregistered editor, it was a safe bet that it should be deleted. The comments above support the deletion. For the record, I have no connection to Stephen Harper and his merry band of bigots, and would not consciously do anything to support their evil cause. My reversion of the addition of this link was motivated simply by a desire to improve Wikipedia by keeping out unnecessary or inappropriate links. Ground Zero | t 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We really shouldn't even dignify this deluded anon with any sort of response, it's obvious that they are engaging in a polemic and juvenile attempt to rile us. I would encourage them to put forth the effort to create an account, gain an understanding of the wikipedia process, and if they feel so inclined they can attempt to build a coherent and well supported criticism section in the article. Otherwise, in my opinion, simply and continuously posting a link is lazy and obstinate. I have no problem with criticism of Harper, and indeed have my fair share criticism for him, but our anonymous editor needs to realize that there is a process to wikipedia and he is more than welcome to engage in it, but in a mature and logical manner. mhunter 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If there are particular passages that the anon editors believes are inaccruate, biased, or present a distorted perspective on Harper, I hope that s/he will identify them here so that they can be discussed and edits to improve the neutrality of the article can be made. Ground Zero | t 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The puppet cartoon is getting tiresome, but what I would genuinely like to know is what would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the POTUS is pulling the strings here in Canada - our policy in Afghanistan was laid out by the Liberal Party, Harper has simply stuck to the program. *weird* I'm not sure I understand what the vandals hope to accomplish by spamming wikipedia with unfunny cartoons. I guess they are bereft of any intellectual capital with which to prosecute their views. Michael Dorosh 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we add a section about the beheading of Harper and who would likely replace him if an accident like that occured to him? -- Sonjaaa 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice the infobox is tagged "some sources say (April) 20th, but Parliament website biography says 30th". Which sources say the 20th? It's interesting in that a certain fascist dictator was also born on April 20th, so I wonder... Michael Dorosh 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't we use to have that his middle name was "Joseph"? I see it's not there anymore. Was it incorrect? Mad Jack 06:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged Image:Harpers.jpg as {{ PUI}}, and think it should be removed from teh article. We have a free image in Image:Harper,-Stephen-Jan-23-06.jpg, so there's no reason to use the unfree one. I don't see any special discussion of the official image, so there's no particular reason to keep it. -- Rob 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The latest pic of Harper looks like crap. Please put back the official pic.
Or do we have to go to all the NDP/Liberal pix and post crappy looking ones too?
An alternative is the official image from the Conservative Party website which would easily meet the qualifications of {{ promo}} - Jord 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody think Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg would make a better lead image? -- Rob 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this one? [8] It looks decent and is from Parliament, not the government. What is the status for those images? -- JGGardiner 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Image:Harpers.jpg | This is the issue - User:Thivierr is arguing that the picture at left is equally suitable for the "effect" of illustrating PM Harper; I disagree, and feel a studio shot is much more encyclopedic than a cropped, fuzzy candid photo. Under the terms of the rules that Thivierr himself posted then, there is no reason not to revert from the photo on the left, to the one at right, and unless he can explain how the photos have the same effect, I propose to do so, until such time as a free use photo of equal quality is proposed. Michael Dorosh 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
No, Thivierr, that is not of suitable quality either - his eyes are half opened, it is too small, it is fuzzy, and his mouth is open, and above all, it is a candid photo, not a portrait. If you do not respond to my very specific comments either here or on your talk page, I am going to make a formal request that your conduct in this matter be reviewed by other administrators. Now please state why you think an unfocused candid shot has the same effect as a studio portrait. If you can't, there is no reason not to use the portrait indicated above, in accordance with the guidelines you yourself posted. Michael Dorosh 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
Any Wikipedia administrators - especially jkelly who has discussed this specific image with me before - I believe in good faith that the use of a fair use image is specifically allowed in this case, and that Thivierr (Rob) has not presented a rationale for using a poorly composed candid free shot in lieu of a studio photo - please see discussion above. I've therefore reverted the photo to the earlier contentious one until an appropriate free image can be obtained, in accordance with the guidelines Thivierr (Rob) posted here. Michael Dorosh 04:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Rob etc. Why does this even matter so much to you guys? Just lay off, this is such a petty thing for you people to try and change, there was nothing wrong with the status quo. I mean at the very least stick with the status quo till a consensus can be reached. -- SFont 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
He'll be exercising the same bloody rules you guys seem to live by. Don't be hypocrites.-- SFont 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Christ, as a Canadian I am embarassed right now. The page of UK Prime Ministers and US Presidents has high resolution top quality pictures of their leaders, and we have blurry crapshots. What a joke. -- SFont 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, if the Prime Minister's Office threatened a lawsuit I would see the point in bringing it down, but since it hasn't I don't see the issue here. It's just some Wiki hardasses trying to be jerks for what I can only assume are partisan reasons, since the Jean Chretien etc pages are still fine. -- SFont 09:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As an outside observer, I've been asked to comment on this topic. Let me first say that I am not generally political (in fact, I would support a Non-partisan_democracy system), so please don't take my comments to be because I either support or am against one party or another. After reading the above discussion, and having been involved with the Canada page in trying it to pass Featured Article Status, which should be the goal of every article, I believe that the free image should be used. In my opinion both free images ( Image:Stephen Harper head.jpg, and Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg, I like the first one better) are pretty good, and given the thumbnail size of the image used on biography pages do not show any blurriness or pixelation. The images serve their purpose of showing who Steven Harper is, and that is the fundamental purpose of the image. I don't believe the Fair Use criteria can permit the use of the Fair Use image given the availbility of these images, and the article would definitely not pass a Featured Article check with the non-free image. So let's go with the free image, until a better free image comes into our possession. Also in regards to a comment regarding that the free image is only being used so that Wikipedia makes money, remember that Wikimedia is a non-profit association, and any money it earns only allows it to fulfill its goal (to spread free information to everyone in the world) better, and given that our purpose in being Wikipedians is to also serve that goal, we should help Wikipedia achieve that purpose and strive to use free images whenever possible. -- Jeff3000 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to quote the sentence being used to defend the unfree image: "As a quick test, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above" (emphasis added). First of all, it's a quick test, a simplified summary of the policy above. Second of all, it only explicitly states that a positive outcome is relevant, not mentioning what happens if the answer is no. And finally, it explicitly uses the word probably.
Referring to the full policy, we see "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" as the very first sentence. Does the free image give the same information as the unfree image? Certainly it does, it just doesn't look as pretty.
And I would like to note that if anyone's only goal in addingthe only reason to add the image to the article was aesthetic, as the removal of even the free image would seem to suggest, that's immediately against fair-use policy. The point of allowing the image altogether is to allow identification of Harper, not to make the page look pretty, and if the latter is the goal that's actually being served, you're running into FUC #8. —
Simetrical (
talk •
contribs)
00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Until a better picture of Harper can be put in place, flamers/trollers will keep posting that crappy pic of Harper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.106.169 ( talk • contribs) .
{{subst:or-fu-re|Image:XYZ.jpg}}
(replacing XYZ with the name of the new free image). Thanks!
User:Angr
19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If I scanned the official portrait of Harper that I have and put it up would that be legit? I didn't care enough before but because of your (Angr's) highmindedness and general nerdity I'm pretty much in the mood to go out and do so just to spite you. -- SFont 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm calling a spade a spade here dude. For someone to come onto some page and enforce rules that have no real bearing upon anything just so they can is pretty damn nerdy. -- SFont 03:42, 12 July 2006 (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. |
March 5th this entry is consistently having its editing re-edited removing SALIENT entries on Mr. Harper's political record. I would submit that this entry should be frozen and all further editing reviewed by an impartial non-canadian editor
Habsfan, someone is systematically removing edits such as that one below
Regarding appropriateness of material: I'm not sure this is the right place/method to make this comment, but I'm surprised that the article mentions the name of the school that the PM's young children attend. Why is this important? Surely safety concerns should trump any need-to-know value of this info? I know we're pretty casual about security in this country, but this seems a bit much. Any thoughts?
Whoever yanked the thing about him resigning because of resenting Manning's desire to talk to constituents you're hiding reality. It's a well documented fact
To quote Preston Manning off a freely available cbc 2006 contenders page
""'Why do you take these [policies] – which some have spent our entire lives studying and working – you take them to these meetings in school gyms and skating rinks and expose them and listen to people who haven't thought about it for 15 minutes – why do you do that?' And I used to say, 'Because it's their money. That's why.'...
"Of course, Stephen and others would point out there's a dark side to populism. Majorities can not only be wrong but viciously wrong ... but I was always more on the optimistic side."
"
put back the edit
k WELL I put in an edit, a FAIR edit of the part about he had a problem with constituents about the gun registry vs. the constituents on tax reforms and someone yanked it. PUT it in, whoever yanked it can just put it back in correct? Like I'm sorry I hate Harper but I don't HAVE to bullshit him to show his negative side. I did NOT put in a knock on him I put in a very fair, very politely worded edit and this is bs
I see that the name in the lead has gone back and forth between Stephen Harper and Stephen Joseph Harper. I suggest that the full name goes in the lead as per normal encyclopaedic practice. That is the place most people will expect to find it.-- Kalsermar 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I really, really want to delete the following: *This Steven Harper Page Is Under Considerable Threat Of Vandalisim. Please Do Not Delete This Note. But because Indy64 said "please", let's discuss it. I really don't see what this note is supposed to accomplish. It seems to violate Wikipedia policy, as it does not deal with the article's subject, but with a technical issue. If vandalism really is a huge problem for this article (and I'm not conviced it is), there must be better ways of dealing with it, such enlisting help from vandal fighters or semi-protecting the page. Indefatigable 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a way to do this. Not that I think it is at risk. But I know the mods can "Freeze" a page.... Mbgb14 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that the succession section is misleading. The list that it refers to [ [1]] is not an order of succession to Harper per se. Rather, it is a list of succession should any minister be unable to perform their duties: so if Chuck Strahl can't perform his duties, then Gary Lunn takes them on, then Rona Ambrose, then it goes down the list. The reason that this important is because the list is thus structured with the chairs of the two main committees (Priorities & Planning and Operations) on top. That makes sense because they should be the ones to take over the various ministries if somebody has to. Those two committees in particular are a very important part of the Canadian cabinet system. Thus the reason that Cannon and Prentice are on top is because of their jobs as committee chairs; their position on that list just flows from that (Harper is the technical chair, Cannon the deputy and effective chair of Priorities and Planning). So while the list applies to the PM, it is not really about that office. It is really a list about what to when cabinet ministers step down or are fired. Incidentally, the reason that MacKay couldn't get one of those important committee chairs is because he got a more important cabinet post (Foreign Affairs) which comes with the chairmanship of a less important committee (Foreign Affairs). -- JGGardiner 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Though it may be in vain, I'm just trying to trim some of the bloated/out of date/partisan portions of the article. Any advice is appreciated. Habsfannova 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, CJ, with all respect, and with admiration at your research, don't you think we're getting a tad too indepth? I mean, just because a few staffers said that he'd make a good leader doesn't really make it that noteable. Maybe a fork would be in order if you don't think we should remove some of it? Habsfannova 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What specifically are you referring to (re: "few staffers")? CJCurrie 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just using an example...the article seems to be balooning in size with insights that could be trimmed. Habsfannova 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You may have a point, though I've long thought that the "out of parliament" period needed some expansion. In any event, my usual method for writing "in depth" articles is to do some pruning/re-arranging once the basic material is all in place. CJCurrie 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see no reason for deleting this relevant and cited section of the article about Shapiro's report:
I ask User:GoldDragon to explain his/her deletion or restore the passage. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted a massive and unnecessary Wikification of this article. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style and WP:MOSNUM. There is no need to Wikify years and months. Complete dates ([[Month date]] [[Year]]) are Wikified in order to enable user preferences that allow the reader to see dates as "Date Month Year" or "Month Date, Year" according to their preference. The Style Manual recommends against Wikifying dates otherwise. In this article, which is already heavily Wikified, Wikifying the months and years adds to the clutter and over-linking of the article. Ground Zero | t 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ground Zero. John Hawke | John Hawke 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
From the vandalised version, I put the "Official" portrait up.
Habsfan
|
t
02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to find out how much money the Prime minister makes a year
I have asked question and not got the results to them. Why is Stephen Harper's (or many other people's) religion not on the info bar I found it a big help knowing someone's religion. I need the result to my questions 207.81.122.3 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone added him in the category as a member of the United Church of Canada. Was he ever a member in his life time? I just think this needs to be clear. SFrank85 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that he was raised as a Presbyterian, and is now a member of the Alliance church. I don't believe he was ever a UCC member. CJCurrie 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Most Presbyterian churches in Canada joined the UCC in 1925, but many (particularly in Harper's ancestral homeland of the Maritimes) didn't. I suppose I can understand the source of confusion ... maybe. CJCurrie 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, folks, guess what? Not only was he raised in the United Church, but he's not currently a member of C&MA.
This comes from 1995, so he may be a member now; I don't know. We should check this out. But in the meantime, I'm putting the cat back in. Carolynparrishfan 15:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about, I just provided a citation? Carolynparrishfan 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
He is neither a current nor deceased member of the UCC. I'd say that he should be taken out. We don't categorize atheists or Buddhist converts as Christians because they grew up in it. Nor do we classify Harper as a Liberal because he left the Liberal Party in his teens. 67.68.10.100 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need it? No other Prime Ministers have a Shorthand titles section. SFrank85 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a lot of the Cabinet and pre-PM sections could be trimmed considerably...we don't need to have every editorial he ever wrote there.
Habsfan
|
t
04:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What specifically do you want to cut? I think the pre-PM sections are fine as they are. CJCurrie 06:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
As I have already pointed out to Habsfannova, Harper is the first Protestant Prime Minister since Pearson. The only Prime Minister between the two who was not a Roman Catholic was Kim Campbell. She was not a Protestant because:
a) She practiced no religion at all. b) She was raised in the Anglican Church of Canada, which is not considered a Protestant Church but a Via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
This argument has already been settled. If you feel you have something fruitful to add to it, please discuss it here rather than making knee-jerk reflexes. See also my post at User_talk:Habsfannova. Carolynparrishfan 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
My responses:
a) I don't think it's our responsibility to distinguish between practising and non-practising members of any particular faith. Wilfrid Laurier is considered a Catholic, although he "practiced no religion" in the strict sense.
b) I'm well aware of the fact that Anglicanism is often regarded as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. I'm also aware that the Ontario CoE was divided between "Protestant" and "Catholic" camps in the 19th century (hell, the 20th as well ...) and that in many of the Orange communities of eastern Ontario, Anglicanism is not regarded as anything but "Protestant". My understanding is that, in the modern Canadian experience, Anglicans are generally regarded and categorized as Protestants (I should be able to find an almanac to back me up on this ...).
Also, please note that I reverted your edits before reading your comments -- sorry for jumping the gun, but I stand by my actions. CJCurrie 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see this page, which contains a detailed overview of religion in the 2001 census. Anglicans are, for official purposes, counted as Protestants. Please note that I'm not trying to be flippant or dismissive -- I understand (and to some extent sympathize with) the nature of your objection, but I don't believe it's applicable to the present situation. CJCurrie 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Besides, I don't understand for the life of my why, in the 21st century, a PMs religion is relevant.
Habsfan
|
t
02:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up some unverifible information and some things that were quoted as denied or factual and referenced a website that was clearly meant as a parody and therefore not valid information. -- Kirkoconnell 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone should probably include something about how Stephen Harper allegedly eats babies. I'm far too lazy to do it myself.
There's two sets of footnotes! Srnec 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I created the first set a while ago; another user later began to change the format but didn't finish. I've been dreading the prospect of completing the job myself, but it looks as though I may have to. CJCurrie 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael, for sparing me the trouble. ;) 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
<ref> tags and those with [URL] tags. Ouch. Michael Dorosh 15:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only reader who finds this section inherently POV? CJCurrie 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe you've misunderstood the intent of my previous comment. A while ago, someone added a dubious-looking "War on Terror" template to the article. I suggested that it was POV; others agreed, and it was soon removed.
Thanks for assuming the worst, though. CJCurrie 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem, and sorry for the churlishness. CJCurrie 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The section on the Supreme Court says that the Constitution of Canada precludes any kind of committee veto, which isn't the case at all. All the Constitution says is that the Crown appoints Justices, and traditionally this power is exercised by the Prime Minister through the Governor General. There's nothing in the Constitution to stop Harper from putting his nominee before the committee and pledging not to appoint him if the committee doesn't approve. In fact, most of the guidelines for the Supreme Court aren't in the Constitution, but in the Supreme Court Act, an ordinary piece of legislation. Thus, there is no prohibition of a veto, it's just that Harper didn't want the committee to have one. CaptainCanada 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted a link to an indymedia story which, unlike pretty much the entirety of this wiki article (including all of its external links), has some negative things to say about the Harper agenda. The link was removed within an hour of it being posted. It looks like this page is being micromanaged by Harper's PR staff. That's not right. I posted the link again and it was removed within minutes. Give me a break.
Here's the link: http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?2976S
Ground Zero may be a regular editor. But who contacted Ground Zero so quickly? It's amazing how quickly my link was removed while all of the content of this page is partisan proHarper. There is no reason why opposing views shouldn't be included. If a cartoon gallery (which is Op Ed) is ok, then an article about Harper's proAmerican imperialist agenda should be ok too. Michael Dorosh is a Calgary military propagandist. Of course he doesn't want people to see alternate perspectives about Calgary and the Conservatives. It's that kind of micromanagement that is truly political BS at its worst. As fpr "hunter1084", you clearly are a Harper fan or member of his PR team. [Unsigned Comment]
Ground Zero's response: I actually did not review the link before deleting it. I guess that was a bit lazy on my part. I did so because articles about the leaders of the main political parties attract links from bloggers and partisans like a garbage can attracts WASPs. I figured that since it was posted by an unregistered editor, it was a safe bet that it should be deleted. The comments above support the deletion. For the record, I have no connection to Stephen Harper and his merry band of bigots, and would not consciously do anything to support their evil cause. My reversion of the addition of this link was motivated simply by a desire to improve Wikipedia by keeping out unnecessary or inappropriate links. Ground Zero | t 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We really shouldn't even dignify this deluded anon with any sort of response, it's obvious that they are engaging in a polemic and juvenile attempt to rile us. I would encourage them to put forth the effort to create an account, gain an understanding of the wikipedia process, and if they feel so inclined they can attempt to build a coherent and well supported criticism section in the article. Otherwise, in my opinion, simply and continuously posting a link is lazy and obstinate. I have no problem with criticism of Harper, and indeed have my fair share criticism for him, but our anonymous editor needs to realize that there is a process to wikipedia and he is more than welcome to engage in it, but in a mature and logical manner. mhunter 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If there are particular passages that the anon editors believes are inaccruate, biased, or present a distorted perspective on Harper, I hope that s/he will identify them here so that they can be discussed and edits to improve the neutrality of the article can be made. Ground Zero | t 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The puppet cartoon is getting tiresome, but what I would genuinely like to know is what would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the POTUS is pulling the strings here in Canada - our policy in Afghanistan was laid out by the Liberal Party, Harper has simply stuck to the program. *weird* I'm not sure I understand what the vandals hope to accomplish by spamming wikipedia with unfunny cartoons. I guess they are bereft of any intellectual capital with which to prosecute their views. Michael Dorosh 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we add a section about the beheading of Harper and who would likely replace him if an accident like that occured to him? -- Sonjaaa 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice the infobox is tagged "some sources say (April) 20th, but Parliament website biography says 30th". Which sources say the 20th? It's interesting in that a certain fascist dictator was also born on April 20th, so I wonder... Michael Dorosh 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't we use to have that his middle name was "Joseph"? I see it's not there anymore. Was it incorrect? Mad Jack 06:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged Image:Harpers.jpg as {{ PUI}}, and think it should be removed from teh article. We have a free image in Image:Harper,-Stephen-Jan-23-06.jpg, so there's no reason to use the unfree one. I don't see any special discussion of the official image, so there's no particular reason to keep it. -- Rob 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The latest pic of Harper looks like crap. Please put back the official pic.
Or do we have to go to all the NDP/Liberal pix and post crappy looking ones too?
An alternative is the official image from the Conservative Party website which would easily meet the qualifications of {{ promo}} - Jord 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody think Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg would make a better lead image? -- Rob 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this one? [8] It looks decent and is from Parliament, not the government. What is the status for those images? -- JGGardiner 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Image:Harpers.jpg | This is the issue - User:Thivierr is arguing that the picture at left is equally suitable for the "effect" of illustrating PM Harper; I disagree, and feel a studio shot is much more encyclopedic than a cropped, fuzzy candid photo. Under the terms of the rules that Thivierr himself posted then, there is no reason not to revert from the photo on the left, to the one at right, and unless he can explain how the photos have the same effect, I propose to do so, until such time as a free use photo of equal quality is proposed. Michael Dorosh 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
No, Thivierr, that is not of suitable quality either - his eyes are half opened, it is too small, it is fuzzy, and his mouth is open, and above all, it is a candid photo, not a portrait. If you do not respond to my very specific comments either here or on your talk page, I am going to make a formal request that your conduct in this matter be reviewed by other administrators. Now please state why you think an unfocused candid shot has the same effect as a studio portrait. If you can't, there is no reason not to use the portrait indicated above, in accordance with the guidelines you yourself posted. Michael Dorosh 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
Any Wikipedia administrators - especially jkelly who has discussed this specific image with me before - I believe in good faith that the use of a fair use image is specifically allowed in this case, and that Thivierr (Rob) has not presented a rationale for using a poorly composed candid free shot in lieu of a studio photo - please see discussion above. I've therefore reverted the photo to the earlier contentious one until an appropriate free image can be obtained, in accordance with the guidelines Thivierr (Rob) posted here. Michael Dorosh 04:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Rob etc. Why does this even matter so much to you guys? Just lay off, this is such a petty thing for you people to try and change, there was nothing wrong with the status quo. I mean at the very least stick with the status quo till a consensus can be reached. -- SFont 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
He'll be exercising the same bloody rules you guys seem to live by. Don't be hypocrites.-- SFont 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Christ, as a Canadian I am embarassed right now. The page of UK Prime Ministers and US Presidents has high resolution top quality pictures of their leaders, and we have blurry crapshots. What a joke. -- SFont 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, if the Prime Minister's Office threatened a lawsuit I would see the point in bringing it down, but since it hasn't I don't see the issue here. It's just some Wiki hardasses trying to be jerks for what I can only assume are partisan reasons, since the Jean Chretien etc pages are still fine. -- SFont 09:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As an outside observer, I've been asked to comment on this topic. Let me first say that I am not generally political (in fact, I would support a Non-partisan_democracy system), so please don't take my comments to be because I either support or am against one party or another. After reading the above discussion, and having been involved with the Canada page in trying it to pass Featured Article Status, which should be the goal of every article, I believe that the free image should be used. In my opinion both free images ( Image:Stephen Harper head.jpg, and Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg, I like the first one better) are pretty good, and given the thumbnail size of the image used on biography pages do not show any blurriness or pixelation. The images serve their purpose of showing who Steven Harper is, and that is the fundamental purpose of the image. I don't believe the Fair Use criteria can permit the use of the Fair Use image given the availbility of these images, and the article would definitely not pass a Featured Article check with the non-free image. So let's go with the free image, until a better free image comes into our possession. Also in regards to a comment regarding that the free image is only being used so that Wikipedia makes money, remember that Wikimedia is a non-profit association, and any money it earns only allows it to fulfill its goal (to spread free information to everyone in the world) better, and given that our purpose in being Wikipedians is to also serve that goal, we should help Wikipedia achieve that purpose and strive to use free images whenever possible. -- Jeff3000 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to quote the sentence being used to defend the unfree image: "As a quick test, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above" (emphasis added). First of all, it's a quick test, a simplified summary of the policy above. Second of all, it only explicitly states that a positive outcome is relevant, not mentioning what happens if the answer is no. And finally, it explicitly uses the word probably.
Referring to the full policy, we see "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" as the very first sentence. Does the free image give the same information as the unfree image? Certainly it does, it just doesn't look as pretty.
And I would like to note that if anyone's only goal in addingthe only reason to add the image to the article was aesthetic, as the removal of even the free image would seem to suggest, that's immediately against fair-use policy. The point of allowing the image altogether is to allow identification of Harper, not to make the page look pretty, and if the latter is the goal that's actually being served, you're running into FUC #8. —
Simetrical (
talk •
contribs)
00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Until a better picture of Harper can be put in place, flamers/trollers will keep posting that crappy pic of Harper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.106.169 ( talk • contribs) .
{{subst:or-fu-re|Image:XYZ.jpg}}
(replacing XYZ with the name of the new free image). Thanks!
User:Angr
19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If I scanned the official portrait of Harper that I have and put it up would that be legit? I didn't care enough before but because of your (Angr's) highmindedness and general nerdity I'm pretty much in the mood to go out and do so just to spite you. -- SFont 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm calling a spade a spade here dude. For someone to come onto some page and enforce rules that have no real bearing upon anything just so they can is pretty damn nerdy. -- SFont 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)