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. |
Sorry for the edits. I sent an e-mail off to Luc Gauthier at the PMO, and here is his response:
From "Gauthier, Luc" <lgauthier at pco-bcp dot gc dot ca> Date 8/9/2006 6:47:13 am To (e-mail address removed) Subject RE: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre Attachments
Hello (name removed),
You could use the attached photo - it is the official one. If needed, give credit to the Prime Minister's Office for the copyright and authorization to publish on your site. Thank you.
Luc Gauthier Privy Council Office - Communications 613-957-5172 Here is the photo. Seeing as how all copyright issues are now settled, I have taken the liberty of replacing the picture on the main page with this one. I hope this ridiculous debate can now be put to rest. Official Photo with permission and Applicable Fair Use|200 px-- John Hawke 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Government of Canada Copyright Policy:
Hello all. The Government of Canada copyright policy is listed at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/notices.asp. The pertinent sections are reproduced below. It seems to me that Wikipedia would fall within the definition of "non-commercial reproduction" and thus the only "requirement" would be that photos and use theirof be simply credited to the Office of the Prime Minister. That being said, one could use the "official photograph" or choose a suitable photo(s) from the web page titled "Prime Minister's Photo Album" (photos from various government functions taken by Government of Canada photographers). The PM's Photo Album can be found at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media_gallery.asp?media_category_typ_id=3
Hope this helps, Cheers, Don Mackay
QUOTE FROM WEB LINK ABOVE. Copyright/Permission to Reproduce
Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Office of the Prime Minister for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada.
The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission.
Non-commercial Reproduction
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Prime Minister. We ask only that:
Mr. Dorosh, OK. I was just trying to be helpful by quoting the notice from the Government of Canada web site which seems to allow the use of an official photograph. A quick check of George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Regan and Jimmy Carter pages, shows that they all have (seemingly) official photos as illustration. Cheers to all. User: Donald Mackay.
Lemme get this straight.
Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, and not one single Wiki-expert can find a decent pic of the guy. Instead we are constantly resorting to the 'washed out' pic.
This is idiocy.
I say, don't put any pic until a better pic can be chosen.
S'right? S'right.
In the meantime, it's better t simply NOT have a pic of Stephen Harper. It's not like this is some serious breach of Wikipedia formatting standards.
I just say we don't use the latest pic, and if someone puts it back on, they should be I.P. banned for they are blatantly trying to 'flame' the guy or whatevertthecrap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.97.126.227 ( talk • contribs) .
This is, in fact, complete idiocy. As someone who has worked for a number of Canaidan politicians including a premier and opposition leader, I can say with some authority that no one in their right mind would ever consider that picture to be of acceptable quality for any public use, for any political figure. It would be unthinkable to use it for the Prime Minister of Canada. Harper's official portrait should be used, as this picture is unquestionably not of appropriate quality by any objective measure. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I really hate doing this, however I genuinely believe that Wikipedia should address this issue.
So in the interim, I'll just keep deleting the offensive pic until someone 'gets it' that it ain't right to use a horrible pic of a man who now is PM of Canada.
This isn't political either, I'm a Liberal for crissakes! I just however can't believe that nobody will solve this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.61.36.172 ( talk • contribs) .
I suggest a vote on whether to go with no image, or keep the extremlely poor quality image now. A vote for Delete means we go with no image, a vote for Keep means we retain the image currently on the page. Don't forget to sign your vote with four tildes. (~~~~)
I don't like polls much but since it has been construed by some here as divining consensus, my opinion is Keep. I think that the debate picture is the best among those shown above. Although my preference would be if somebody got a better picture. Maybe e-mail all of the many people who have their picture taken with Harper posted on their websites (mostly MPs and Conservative activists). There are lots of those on the internet. You'd think some Tory would care about this as much as some editors do and would be willing to release one. -- JGGardiner 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayne_Gretzky#Fair_Use_vs._Free_Use
So why does the Wayne Gretzky article get to retain a Fair Use image, and this article does not. I've replaced the copyrighted image at that page with a Free Use image, and the talk there indicates an "FA Review". In fact, most of the photos on that page are copyrighted. This hardly seems fair. Does the FA Review have a bearing on this page? If the picture there is "iconic" I think we can presume that a studio portrait of Mr. Harper is also "iconic". I'd appreciate an answer to this - if the Gretzky article gets to keep copyrighted pictures, then I see no reason that the Stephen Harper article can't. Michael Dorosh 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so if this rationale is being accepted for the Wayne Gretzky photo:
Fair Use rationale for Wayne Gretzky I, RasputinAXP talk contribs claim that the image linked here is to be used under fair use as
Then why can the same fair use rationale not be applied to Mr. Harper's studio photo? It is also historically significant, it is at screen resolution, is being used for informational purposes, and is iconic in that it was intended for distribution as a symbol of the Prime Minister.
Can we not revert to the studio portrait of Harper by claiming this fair use rationale? If not, why does the Gretzky photo get to stay? Michael Dorosh 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Same deal at the Queen Elizabeth page. Replaced Fair Use with Free image and I got dinged for the 3 Revert Rule, though it appears to have been cleared up at this point. -- SFont 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Decent pic! Still would of preferred one with Harper sitting in front of the Canadian flag, but this is a MAJOR improvement over the previous one.
Well, looks like my daily/hourly/by the minute deleting of the old-crappy pic paid off.
Thanks fellas for addressing this issue, and now...if you can find a BETTER pic, POST it.
- Stan.
It's a terrible picture. Looks barely anything like him. If that picture of him standing in front of the microphone after the debate could be resized it'd be perfect though.-- SFont 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the first archive of this talk page? It seems it was replaced by the latest change, rather than a new page being created. Is there a way to get the first one back? -- The Invisible Hand 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If I received permission to use one of the studio Harper pics would it be allowed to be put up, or would this stupid fair use thing still apply? -- SFont 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello? -- SFont 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You want me to get permission to release it to the public domain? I doubt many photographers would be comfortable with that, and by that standard a good chunk of stuff should be off of Wikipedia. I really think getting permission to display it on Wiki should be enough. -- SFont 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That just reeks of trying to one day sell Wikipedia. That said, how can the policy be changed? Every time I visit this article and see that picture of the Prime Minister it bugs me, and I want this changed. -- SFont 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
While making a minor edit, I got this error:
-b 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have a different idea. Give me a minute. CJCurrie 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should remove the honours section. I know the guidelines say that we can discuss honours but I don't think that it adds anything meaningful, can be found at the PM article and wastes a lot of space. There is also a whole section about that terrorist allegation which is pretty incidental to Harper, is mostly a trivia component (1st assassination attempt since '95) and, as the article points out, just an allegation (widely reported to have been dropped from consideration by the group anyway). -- JGGardiner 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There have been several assassination plots and attempts over the past decade. 99.9% of them are just pipe dreams and complete crazies. Judging by the timelines, Harper wasn't the focus of these guys anyway. They shifted their alleged plan away from an Ottawa attack when Paul Martin was still PM. 64.26.147.136 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the Lebanon section. First, I think that it is relatively trivial and won't be remembered shortly (and removed for that reason anyway). The section is also misleading and omits the criticism which Harper took for the alleged photo op: he took along his photographer and three communications staff along with the "skeleton crew" (thus not the "maximum" number of evacuees our article describes). The latest I'd seen also suggest that not all of the evacuees will accompany Harper back to Canada and Harper may simply drop them off in a safe third country, possibly France. -- JGGardiner 04:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
WEll at least mention his position on the crisis and his role on the evacuation process including his personal plane helping out in the process. Of course, not to forget the critics here, because it has been one of the hot issues he got the most criticism. And keep in mind that it's involving 50 000 Canadians a significant number and there is heavy danger in that area. And it's a lot more important then the China issue.
So I would suggest to keep the Middle East issue. If not, it's like to simply forget the critics and only mention the good stuff (And I mentionned some good stuff too with the plane offer).-- JForget 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know what denomination of Christianity Mr. Harper belongs to? -- Sima Yi 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I found the following article that claims that while Stpehen Harper was once a creationist, he's since "evolved". Many of his top advisors are still creationists, apparently:
http://www.tommydouglas.ca/news/2006/01/24/no-bush-please-were-canadian
That being said, it's a relatively partisan op-ed. Thoughts? 198.20.40.50 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a lengthly article in the October 2006 issue of The Walrus magazine describing Stephen Harper's religous beleifs. SFrank85 was correct. He does attend an evangelical church, but his wife doesn't. The article also describes his religious history. Might be something worth commenting about. Thoughts? 70.53.129.123
There has been repeated abuse in this article from 72.139.207.240 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user has also made vandal edits on other articles. Anyone know how to give a proper warning/ban?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.147.69 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry to open this can of worms again but could we perhaps use one of these images? The image we have now is of extremely low quality and makes the Prime Minister of Canada look more than a little silly.
http://clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2006-5-12-stephen-harper.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_stephen/gfx/harper_cp_5990651.jpg
http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/img/pm_official.jpg
? -- SFont 08:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I get an answer here from one of our resident copyright experts? -- SFont 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright bugger this, I am just going to crop my friend out of a picture he took with the Prime Minister and put that up tomorrow.-- SFont 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There we go. If someone wants to edit my friends arm out from behind his shoulders that would make it perfect. -- SFont 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we are making good progress with the images. We have a new one from SFont (although it would be very helpful to know the date when that was taken), and John Hawke is asking for a freely-licensed official image. We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves yet; Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg is a "With permission" image and we don't republish those when there are freely-licensed ones available. I've put back the VoA one for the moment, but have no objection to using SFont's instead if that's where consensus is. I'm sure that we're all looking forward to getting a high-resolution professional image under a free license, but we need to wait until we actually get there, both because of our policies, and because we cannot very well say "We can't use this image if you don't license it freely" if we are already republishing it. Thanks. Jkelly 16:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've actually taken the time to go do something about this (as opposed to prattling on about asinine rules and regulations as has been done here), I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with Wikipedia when written permission from the government of Canada to use an image on Wikipedia is not enough to satisfy copyright concerns. I don't care about the reasons why, it's simply ludicrous. Does anyone think that the Government of Canada is going to sue them for doing what it gave them explicit permission to do? Even in the face of the fact that I specifically asked for an image in the Public Domain, some people doubted that the image sent in response to that very specific request met this criteria. I understand we all want things to be done according to the rules, and I respect that - but still, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Nonetheless, here is the proof requested. I ask you all to kindly pardon my frustration, as I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.
Finally, we have a picture! Now, for Pete's sake, let's put this issue to rest! :P -- John Hawke 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Many other political leaders have criticism sections; I'm just curious if we want to include one for Steve. It could be used for stuff like this, for instance:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060808.DEFENCE08/TPStory/Front
Any thoughts? 198.20.40.50 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake - the footnotes from the deleted trivia section were carried over (my mistake - see edit summaries) - but the stuff on his NHL book was mentioned TWICE in the background section, hence my confusion. I hope I managed to get everything back in order. I moved the mention of his dad's book to the footnotes. I also deleted the reference to the "late" Joseph Harper - I've had use of that word in that usage edited out so am believing it is not WP standard to use the term. Michael Dorosh 03:17, 9 August 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. |
Sorry for the edits. I sent an e-mail off to Luc Gauthier at the PMO, and here is his response:
From "Gauthier, Luc" <lgauthier at pco-bcp dot gc dot ca> Date 8/9/2006 6:47:13 am To (e-mail address removed) Subject RE: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre Attachments
Hello (name removed),
You could use the attached photo - it is the official one. If needed, give credit to the Prime Minister's Office for the copyright and authorization to publish on your site. Thank you.
Luc Gauthier Privy Council Office - Communications 613-957-5172 Here is the photo. Seeing as how all copyright issues are now settled, I have taken the liberty of replacing the picture on the main page with this one. I hope this ridiculous debate can now be put to rest. Official Photo with permission and Applicable Fair Use|200 px-- John Hawke 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Government of Canada Copyright Policy:
Hello all. The Government of Canada copyright policy is listed at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/notices.asp. The pertinent sections are reproduced below. It seems to me that Wikipedia would fall within the definition of "non-commercial reproduction" and thus the only "requirement" would be that photos and use theirof be simply credited to the Office of the Prime Minister. That being said, one could use the "official photograph" or choose a suitable photo(s) from the web page titled "Prime Minister's Photo Album" (photos from various government functions taken by Government of Canada photographers). The PM's Photo Album can be found at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media_gallery.asp?media_category_typ_id=3
Hope this helps, Cheers, Don Mackay
QUOTE FROM WEB LINK ABOVE. Copyright/Permission to Reproduce
Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Office of the Prime Minister for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada.
The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission.
Non-commercial Reproduction
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Prime Minister. We ask only that:
Mr. Dorosh, OK. I was just trying to be helpful by quoting the notice from the Government of Canada web site which seems to allow the use of an official photograph. A quick check of George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Regan and Jimmy Carter pages, shows that they all have (seemingly) official photos as illustration. Cheers to all. User: Donald Mackay.
Lemme get this straight.
Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, and not one single Wiki-expert can find a decent pic of the guy. Instead we are constantly resorting to the 'washed out' pic.
This is idiocy.
I say, don't put any pic until a better pic can be chosen.
S'right? S'right.
In the meantime, it's better t simply NOT have a pic of Stephen Harper. It's not like this is some serious breach of Wikipedia formatting standards.
I just say we don't use the latest pic, and if someone puts it back on, they should be I.P. banned for they are blatantly trying to 'flame' the guy or whatevertthecrap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.97.126.227 ( talk • contribs) .
This is, in fact, complete idiocy. As someone who has worked for a number of Canaidan politicians including a premier and opposition leader, I can say with some authority that no one in their right mind would ever consider that picture to be of acceptable quality for any public use, for any political figure. It would be unthinkable to use it for the Prime Minister of Canada. Harper's official portrait should be used, as this picture is unquestionably not of appropriate quality by any objective measure. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I really hate doing this, however I genuinely believe that Wikipedia should address this issue.
So in the interim, I'll just keep deleting the offensive pic until someone 'gets it' that it ain't right to use a horrible pic of a man who now is PM of Canada.
This isn't political either, I'm a Liberal for crissakes! I just however can't believe that nobody will solve this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.61.36.172 ( talk • contribs) .
I suggest a vote on whether to go with no image, or keep the extremlely poor quality image now. A vote for Delete means we go with no image, a vote for Keep means we retain the image currently on the page. Don't forget to sign your vote with four tildes. (~~~~)
I don't like polls much but since it has been construed by some here as divining consensus, my opinion is Keep. I think that the debate picture is the best among those shown above. Although my preference would be if somebody got a better picture. Maybe e-mail all of the many people who have their picture taken with Harper posted on their websites (mostly MPs and Conservative activists). There are lots of those on the internet. You'd think some Tory would care about this as much as some editors do and would be willing to release one. -- JGGardiner 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayne_Gretzky#Fair_Use_vs._Free_Use
So why does the Wayne Gretzky article get to retain a Fair Use image, and this article does not. I've replaced the copyrighted image at that page with a Free Use image, and the talk there indicates an "FA Review". In fact, most of the photos on that page are copyrighted. This hardly seems fair. Does the FA Review have a bearing on this page? If the picture there is "iconic" I think we can presume that a studio portrait of Mr. Harper is also "iconic". I'd appreciate an answer to this - if the Gretzky article gets to keep copyrighted pictures, then I see no reason that the Stephen Harper article can't. Michael Dorosh 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so if this rationale is being accepted for the Wayne Gretzky photo:
Fair Use rationale for Wayne Gretzky I, RasputinAXP talk contribs claim that the image linked here is to be used under fair use as
Then why can the same fair use rationale not be applied to Mr. Harper's studio photo? It is also historically significant, it is at screen resolution, is being used for informational purposes, and is iconic in that it was intended for distribution as a symbol of the Prime Minister.
Can we not revert to the studio portrait of Harper by claiming this fair use rationale? If not, why does the Gretzky photo get to stay? Michael Dorosh 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Same deal at the Queen Elizabeth page. Replaced Fair Use with Free image and I got dinged for the 3 Revert Rule, though it appears to have been cleared up at this point. -- SFont 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Decent pic! Still would of preferred one with Harper sitting in front of the Canadian flag, but this is a MAJOR improvement over the previous one.
Well, looks like my daily/hourly/by the minute deleting of the old-crappy pic paid off.
Thanks fellas for addressing this issue, and now...if you can find a BETTER pic, POST it.
- Stan.
It's a terrible picture. Looks barely anything like him. If that picture of him standing in front of the microphone after the debate could be resized it'd be perfect though.-- SFont 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the first archive of this talk page? It seems it was replaced by the latest change, rather than a new page being created. Is there a way to get the first one back? -- The Invisible Hand 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If I received permission to use one of the studio Harper pics would it be allowed to be put up, or would this stupid fair use thing still apply? -- SFont 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello? -- SFont 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You want me to get permission to release it to the public domain? I doubt many photographers would be comfortable with that, and by that standard a good chunk of stuff should be off of Wikipedia. I really think getting permission to display it on Wiki should be enough. -- SFont 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That just reeks of trying to one day sell Wikipedia. That said, how can the policy be changed? Every time I visit this article and see that picture of the Prime Minister it bugs me, and I want this changed. -- SFont 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
While making a minor edit, I got this error:
-b 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have a different idea. Give me a minute. CJCurrie 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should remove the honours section. I know the guidelines say that we can discuss honours but I don't think that it adds anything meaningful, can be found at the PM article and wastes a lot of space. There is also a whole section about that terrorist allegation which is pretty incidental to Harper, is mostly a trivia component (1st assassination attempt since '95) and, as the article points out, just an allegation (widely reported to have been dropped from consideration by the group anyway). -- JGGardiner 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There have been several assassination plots and attempts over the past decade. 99.9% of them are just pipe dreams and complete crazies. Judging by the timelines, Harper wasn't the focus of these guys anyway. They shifted their alleged plan away from an Ottawa attack when Paul Martin was still PM. 64.26.147.136 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the Lebanon section. First, I think that it is relatively trivial and won't be remembered shortly (and removed for that reason anyway). The section is also misleading and omits the criticism which Harper took for the alleged photo op: he took along his photographer and three communications staff along with the "skeleton crew" (thus not the "maximum" number of evacuees our article describes). The latest I'd seen also suggest that not all of the evacuees will accompany Harper back to Canada and Harper may simply drop them off in a safe third country, possibly France. -- JGGardiner 04:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
WEll at least mention his position on the crisis and his role on the evacuation process including his personal plane helping out in the process. Of course, not to forget the critics here, because it has been one of the hot issues he got the most criticism. And keep in mind that it's involving 50 000 Canadians a significant number and there is heavy danger in that area. And it's a lot more important then the China issue.
So I would suggest to keep the Middle East issue. If not, it's like to simply forget the critics and only mention the good stuff (And I mentionned some good stuff too with the plane offer).-- JForget 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know what denomination of Christianity Mr. Harper belongs to? -- Sima Yi 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I found the following article that claims that while Stpehen Harper was once a creationist, he's since "evolved". Many of his top advisors are still creationists, apparently:
http://www.tommydouglas.ca/news/2006/01/24/no-bush-please-were-canadian
That being said, it's a relatively partisan op-ed. Thoughts? 198.20.40.50 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a lengthly article in the October 2006 issue of The Walrus magazine describing Stephen Harper's religous beleifs. SFrank85 was correct. He does attend an evangelical church, but his wife doesn't. The article also describes his religious history. Might be something worth commenting about. Thoughts? 70.53.129.123
There has been repeated abuse in this article from 72.139.207.240 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user has also made vandal edits on other articles. Anyone know how to give a proper warning/ban?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.147.69 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry to open this can of worms again but could we perhaps use one of these images? The image we have now is of extremely low quality and makes the Prime Minister of Canada look more than a little silly.
http://clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2006-5-12-stephen-harper.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_stephen/gfx/harper_cp_5990651.jpg
http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/img/pm_official.jpg
? -- SFont 08:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I get an answer here from one of our resident copyright experts? -- SFont 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright bugger this, I am just going to crop my friend out of a picture he took with the Prime Minister and put that up tomorrow.-- SFont 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There we go. If someone wants to edit my friends arm out from behind his shoulders that would make it perfect. -- SFont 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we are making good progress with the images. We have a new one from SFont (although it would be very helpful to know the date when that was taken), and John Hawke is asking for a freely-licensed official image. We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves yet; Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg is a "With permission" image and we don't republish those when there are freely-licensed ones available. I've put back the VoA one for the moment, but have no objection to using SFont's instead if that's where consensus is. I'm sure that we're all looking forward to getting a high-resolution professional image under a free license, but we need to wait until we actually get there, both because of our policies, and because we cannot very well say "We can't use this image if you don't license it freely" if we are already republishing it. Thanks. Jkelly 16:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've actually taken the time to go do something about this (as opposed to prattling on about asinine rules and regulations as has been done here), I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with Wikipedia when written permission from the government of Canada to use an image on Wikipedia is not enough to satisfy copyright concerns. I don't care about the reasons why, it's simply ludicrous. Does anyone think that the Government of Canada is going to sue them for doing what it gave them explicit permission to do? Even in the face of the fact that I specifically asked for an image in the Public Domain, some people doubted that the image sent in response to that very specific request met this criteria. I understand we all want things to be done according to the rules, and I respect that - but still, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Nonetheless, here is the proof requested. I ask you all to kindly pardon my frustration, as I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.
Finally, we have a picture! Now, for Pete's sake, let's put this issue to rest! :P -- John Hawke 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Many other political leaders have criticism sections; I'm just curious if we want to include one for Steve. It could be used for stuff like this, for instance:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060808.DEFENCE08/TPStory/Front
Any thoughts? 198.20.40.50 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake - the footnotes from the deleted trivia section were carried over (my mistake - see edit summaries) - but the stuff on his NHL book was mentioned TWICE in the background section, hence my confusion. I hope I managed to get everything back in order. I moved the mention of his dad's book to the footnotes. I also deleted the reference to the "late" Joseph Harper - I've had use of that word in that usage edited out so am believing it is not WP standard to use the term. Michael Dorosh 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)