![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I see this was wisely removed from the article:
That Mr. Harper would have better things to do than attend celebrity events should be applauded in my opinion, but in the end, I don't think any of this is very wikipedia-worthy. Richard Gere is not a Canadian political figure and he can complain all he wants - AIDS is a 'celebrity' cause and non-attendance doesn't or shouldn't reflect on how the PM approaches his duties. I don't see what could have been accomplished by Harper's attendance. It is unfortunate that those who would seek to criticize both the previous Liberal govt and the current Conservative one for not sending medicine to Africa seem to forget that AIDS is largely a self-inflicted malady - the key to defeating the disease will be to education and getting people to keep it in their pants. Wasting money on sending bandaid solutions to Africa might possibly be addressed given the right sources, but partisanship in this arena is so intense it may be hard to find someone impartial. Kudos to editors here, at any rate, for keeping the whole ugly mess out of the page. I also don't understand why Harper's refusal to sponsor a fringe festival should be seen an encylopedic. But again, that is likely beyond the scope of this article and impossible to source well. Michael Dorosh 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The AIDS conference is much more than a 'celebrity event' and AIDS is not a 'self-inflicted disease.' This is silly. The question for Wikipeida is whether Prime Minister Harper's decision not to attend the conference is a significant event or a short-term incident without longer relevance. This is a tricky issue for Wikipedia in that part of its value is its currency and another part of its value is the use of an interested community to ensure accuracy and objectivity. I would think that given the global importance of AIDS and what his decision not to attend says about Prime Minster Harper and his priorities there should be at least mention of the decision not to attend. If the relevance of this fades over time then in due course it will be edited out. I would like to see more discussion of this on this page. [[ steven 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)]]
Talk instead about Harper's trip in the Artic and the issue of the soveringty of the North - you can put that Harper planned that visit before the AIDS conference or during that. The county northern soveringty is more article worthy, but do a brief mention about the AIDS absence only mainly due that AIDS has become a concerning issue in Canada with the rapid growth of the population infected by the disease--
JForget 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This page is being micromanagaged by Harper PR people to keep it markedly proHarper. Amazing that any criticism of Harper's evangelical approach to AIDS, homosexuality, faith-based charity, and Israel doesn't get any mention. The northern sovereignty crap is a red herring. - Danny Hochman Fe
I've deleted the irrelevant stuff on the May 2006 Toronto subway advertisements (Harper eats babies) again, unless there is some convincing reason we need to have it under "background" in this article? Michael Dorosh 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just added about the Afghan mission extension - feel free to add some extra stuff about it -- JForget 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it very interesting that he keeps saying "We will not cut and run from our international commitments", but apparently this doesn't apply to legally binding treaties like Kyoto... Wikipedia isn't really the place for political discussion, though. Rustalot42684 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet here you are trying to elicit a response. Just so you know, that's called baiting and it's not welcome here-- 207.81.147.69 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are the flag issue and the media-at-funerals issue really encyclopaedic or are they merely news items. In my opinion things like these two items are utterly unencyclopaedic in nature and do not belong in a biographical article in a general encyclopaedia. Not every controversy or issue is notable in and of itself and besides, are we going to include everything the opposition parties complain about? I suggest deleting both items.-- Kalsermar 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the content about the priorities of the Harper government read like and ad and I believe they do not constitute encyclpaedic content - especially the part about the Accountability Act. I agree with the above comments that some things should be moved to another page (or perhaps deleted entirely). Dunstanramsey 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
ok if his party is in the minority then how did he win? -- Gbleem 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a great pic of the PM (next to the Canadian flag).
Please use this one from now on as the main pic.
Thank you.
I don't like the 'blank' background. At least with the formal picture, you can see Harper
in his office next to the flag. It just looks more akin to what other world leaders pix looks like.
Paul Martin and Jean Chretien both are in pix next to the Canadian flag (crappy looking pix though).
I changed the line "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that said that Paul Martin supported child pornography." to "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that suggested that Paul Martin supported child pornography." because the press release was entitled "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" I believe there is a difference between said and suggested.
--Sasha
I've added a link to the external links section that includes edit reference to Wiki policy as to why I think this blog spot should be included. The link has continually been removed , despite Wiki policy to exceptions for blog links and citations of a blog on the United Kingdom Politics page. The blogspot is only one of several humour site I hope to build on as humour reflects grassroot reaction to governments of the day and adds valuable historic encyclopedic insight.
I am following Wiki's guidelines for dispute very diligently.
Since my last re-posting I was told , that's TOLD to not link the site again by a contributor. I ask him, politely, what authority he had but then someone tampered with my account and changed the password so I've had to create this new account. My polite, enquiring questions on some of the contributors sites who removed my links have dissapeard.
I'm wondering if political bias is interfering?
Please check out http://harper-valley.blogspot.com , http://www.mr.satire.com and http://www.thehammer.com...while it may not be your 'style' of humour , Wiki's definition of satire, parody and cynasim would be applicable to this site. Historical content (site links to news sites) also mandates relevance to Stephen Harper, as cited by Wiki guidelines.
Thank you I appreciate your support. Inspirit 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)inspirit sept. 4 '06 7:19
I'm afraid your rationalizations aren't going to be of much use here: this isn't a serious content dispute, it's linkspam. I'm sorry about your password, but that's not especially relevant to this discussion. CJCurrie 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see 'political jokes' under Wiki Jokes and Humour, Styles of Humour Parody, Satire, Sarcasm which refutes opinion of Harper Valley being 'sophmoric humour'. the satire page also refers to the importance of this writing genre in politics. It is noted in many interpretations that humour is an oft used tool for the oppressed. As the author of Harper Valley is First Nations and there are many items in reference to Stephen Harper's government handling of indigenous issues the link becomes relevant to expression of the oppressed to the Canadian Government and Stephen Harper.
Also note The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations and it's use of humour and humorous references. Also check out Political Humor.
While you may not consider this a 'serious content dispute' the person at Wiki I contacted seems to and wants to be kept updated. As I continue my attempt to resolve this dispute by Wiki guidelines I would suggest you do the same and try to reach compromise with me. Dancingwaters 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to put out the question, are the election tables at the bottom of this article really relevant? I think the tables should only be in the riding profile articles, this article is long enough without them. -- Cloveious 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should get rid of them. Harper isn't just any old MP now, he's the Prime Minister of Canada. Those can just as easily go on the riding pages.-- SFont 08:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
On July 17, a group of protesters, primarily expatriate Lebanese, protested Israeli aggression in front of the Israeli consulate in Montreal; further protests took place July 22 in localities across Canada.
I'm not sure this sentence belongs here. It does not relate to Stephen Harper, only to Canadians and the conflict itself. It's like saying that some people protest gay marriage... bladebot 07:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone has to stop the vandalism on the is page. We must prevent people from abusing the privileges of wikipedia like for example, 74.106.195.189, who had just recently made disgusting edits to this article which are now removed by more decent users of wikipedia.
TheAxeGrinder 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Indeed, those who feel the need to Harper bash should do it somewhere else or not at all. Go bash Martin or Chretien instead.
I didn't see the vandalism but TheAxeGrinder comment above demonstrates a strong bias. A click on their link takes one to a page that does not exist. There's always room to allow that AxeGrinder made an error. Dancingwaters 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What are the odds Harper doesn't last til the end of next year?
TheAxeGrinder 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Strong bias, my foot! What was that last line above for? If anything, Harper hasn't stolen millions of taxpayers money to fund failed sponsorship programs in Quebec.
Free Your Mind! 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Yes but at least the Liberals kept us out of Iraq and upheld equality rights by legalizing gay mariage, they also paid down some of our debt. Only thngs they did right really.
Gbambino, the Monarchist League of Canada Vice President, is a man on a mission to clog as much of Wikipedia as possible with unnecessary language that greatly inflates the relevance of the monarchy in Canada's political system. For example:
Every other reference to Harper "appointing" person XYZ has been deleted in favor of references to the Governor General appointing the person. While obviously one can make the case that formally this is how it happened, it's pointless to fill the articles with such references. No newspaper or encyclopedia in Canada would ever phrase the nature of Prime Ministerial appointments in such a manner. It completely miscategorizes the nature of the term "appoint" as well. When people talk about the PM "appointing" a person, it means he chose them, which is the only relevant information to note. What figurehead signed the ratification is irrelevant, especially if there is zero chance any of the so-called "recommendations" forwarded to her will ever be rejected. Adding this kind of language is deliberately deceptive to those who may not be familiar with the Canadian political system, and serves no coherent purpose other than to inflate the appearance of relevance of the monarchy at the expense of factuality and clarity. Which is of course Gbambino's open agenda. J.J. 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with thirt-seven. I just had a look at the cabinet section and it sounds a bit silly now. I think "selected" would work a lot better. 69.156.57.195 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Jordan
Here is a templated review to let you know that everything passed for the GA status :
Additional comments :
Lincher 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
We can keep it for now, but if others complain about it, it should be removed. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this article is becoming excessively long because it is blurring the lines between Stephen Harper the person, and Stephen Harper as some kind of personal embodiment of the current government of Canada. I realise he is the prime minister, but every announcement he makes is not his own personal opinion, nor is every move by the Cabinet a reflection of his personal desires, and he alone certainly doesn't have relations with other nations; in other words, sometimes (often?) he is merely a mouth-piece for the government. Perhaps all the sections that refer to the actions of "the Harper government" and "the Conservative government", as well as relations with the United States, and those about certain Bills in parliament should me moved to other, more pertinent articles. -- gbambino 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but that article it already very long due to the list of MP's. I though maybe about those : Foreign Policy of Harper's government (Relation with US including the softwood dispute and the War in Afghanistan,) Domestic or Interior Policy of Harper's Government (social, environment, etc), Early Life of Stephen Harper, etc. Kinda like they've did with George W. Bush.-- JForget 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In the same time, considering that the Government is under fire for several issues lately, can we also consider a page about the criticism or opponents of the Stephen Harper government, but trying to be neutral though - there is lots of them that been added lately. It is evident that the environmental, social and foreign (but especially the first two) policies have been widely criticized. -- JForget 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of created a separate article Domestic Policy of Stephen Harper's government for its domestic policy afterwards, we could trim and rephrase portions of the existing info on the Stephen Harper article.-- JForget 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Just launched the article, but will need significant expension especially the sub-sections and to add other issues-- JForget 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I can used the first one then -- JForget 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also jsut created the Foreign Policy of the Harper government separated article which will concentrate on its foreign policy. So far, more extensions of the article will be needed and we may now start trimming the foreign section on this article too-- JForget 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed much of what was repeated between here and the two main articles Domestic policy of the Harper government and Foreign policy of the Harper government. What wasn't repeated, I moved from here to either of those two. Ditto for the election information, which has gone to Canadian federal election, 2004 or Canadian federal election, 2006. Only what relates directly to Stephen Harper should be left here.
I hope this was an acceptable move. I'm not sure what to do about the long list of footnotes, though. -- gbambino 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the comment about Harper being the first person appointed Prime Minister not to represent a riding in Quebec. Both John Turner and Kim Campbell represented ridings in British Columbia.
I have split a few things off from the article and shrunk it a bit and did some major archiving and shrunk the discussion page significantly. Kc4 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There was, prior to my last edit, an attempt to infuse into the PM's public statements anti-Israel sentiment. This is clearly factually false and makes the PM appear ridiculous. Such a violation of WP:NPOV had to be removed.-- Lance talk 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The whole section on that was very poorly written...--
User:Rabrams20
The two clips are on YouTube and show Prime Minister Steven Harper promising not to tax income trusts. On October 31 Harper's broke that promise and this lead to Trust Investor capital losses of approximately $25-30 Billion Canadian Dollars.
I think the YouTube material is relevant and newsworthy but I want other points of view before I insert it into the main article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9mibZYpVPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtiykp-WDG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SD9rfeZxLE
There is also some information on the Income Trust Issue loacated at CAIF which is relevant to this issue. Particulary a analysis by Yves Fortin called " Taxation of Income Trusts: Was it Worth the Cost and the Turmoil?
Regards DSatYVR 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Can the IP's stop removing the first photo of the article, it's been persistant lately. maybe we should put with the Canadian flag in the back so maybe to imitate some of the U.S President articles which have their flag in the background-- JForget 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On a related note - can a better picture be used? The white background looks odd and it looks like the contrast has been turned down way too low. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
When the first photo is very inappropriate (like a few weeks ago), then I simply remove it, and leave it to someone else to put a good photo back in. Sorry, but that's the most efficient way to keep the article respectable without having to search out and pick an appropriate picture, which apparently is a complicated process, judging from what other users are saying. I certainly never simply remove the photo ad hoc. 72.1.218.94 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there some type of official government photo that can be used for here? Even if not, we need some type of photo at that top. What good is an article about a head of government without a photo. Kaiser matias 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
According to image, it says "© House of Commons". Therefore this identifies that the govt of Canada holds the copyright and therefore they are able to release the copyright for use in Wikipedia as the letter of permission shows.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 ( talk • contribs)
I'm not entirely clear why this has come up again. I will note that email license statements should go to permissionsATwikimedia.org, not be pasted on the image description page. Jkelly 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a well defined process for requesting permission to use copyright material. The exchange embedded in the image description is both insufficient and not in the right place. The request is misleading as it doesn't describe the full extent of the required licence or even mention it by name. The image should not be used until this has been resolved. It is important for Wikipedia to avoid copyright violations. KenWalker | Talk 03:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just took these out of the main article, they were in a second references section, but unlinked to any statement in the article. Are these further reading candidates or did someone intend for them to verify something? Alan.ca 09:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They are biographies, and I assume were included as general references. CJCurrie 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I see this was wisely removed from the article:
That Mr. Harper would have better things to do than attend celebrity events should be applauded in my opinion, but in the end, I don't think any of this is very wikipedia-worthy. Richard Gere is not a Canadian political figure and he can complain all he wants - AIDS is a 'celebrity' cause and non-attendance doesn't or shouldn't reflect on how the PM approaches his duties. I don't see what could have been accomplished by Harper's attendance. It is unfortunate that those who would seek to criticize both the previous Liberal govt and the current Conservative one for not sending medicine to Africa seem to forget that AIDS is largely a self-inflicted malady - the key to defeating the disease will be to education and getting people to keep it in their pants. Wasting money on sending bandaid solutions to Africa might possibly be addressed given the right sources, but partisanship in this arena is so intense it may be hard to find someone impartial. Kudos to editors here, at any rate, for keeping the whole ugly mess out of the page. I also don't understand why Harper's refusal to sponsor a fringe festival should be seen an encylopedic. But again, that is likely beyond the scope of this article and impossible to source well. Michael Dorosh 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The AIDS conference is much more than a 'celebrity event' and AIDS is not a 'self-inflicted disease.' This is silly. The question for Wikipeida is whether Prime Minister Harper's decision not to attend the conference is a significant event or a short-term incident without longer relevance. This is a tricky issue for Wikipedia in that part of its value is its currency and another part of its value is the use of an interested community to ensure accuracy and objectivity. I would think that given the global importance of AIDS and what his decision not to attend says about Prime Minster Harper and his priorities there should be at least mention of the decision not to attend. If the relevance of this fades over time then in due course it will be edited out. I would like to see more discussion of this on this page. [[ steven 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)]]
Talk instead about Harper's trip in the Artic and the issue of the soveringty of the North - you can put that Harper planned that visit before the AIDS conference or during that. The county northern soveringty is more article worthy, but do a brief mention about the AIDS absence only mainly due that AIDS has become a concerning issue in Canada with the rapid growth of the population infected by the disease--
JForget 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This page is being micromanagaged by Harper PR people to keep it markedly proHarper. Amazing that any criticism of Harper's evangelical approach to AIDS, homosexuality, faith-based charity, and Israel doesn't get any mention. The northern sovereignty crap is a red herring. - Danny Hochman Fe
I've deleted the irrelevant stuff on the May 2006 Toronto subway advertisements (Harper eats babies) again, unless there is some convincing reason we need to have it under "background" in this article? Michael Dorosh 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just added about the Afghan mission extension - feel free to add some extra stuff about it -- JForget 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it very interesting that he keeps saying "We will not cut and run from our international commitments", but apparently this doesn't apply to legally binding treaties like Kyoto... Wikipedia isn't really the place for political discussion, though. Rustalot42684 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet here you are trying to elicit a response. Just so you know, that's called baiting and it's not welcome here-- 207.81.147.69 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are the flag issue and the media-at-funerals issue really encyclopaedic or are they merely news items. In my opinion things like these two items are utterly unencyclopaedic in nature and do not belong in a biographical article in a general encyclopaedia. Not every controversy or issue is notable in and of itself and besides, are we going to include everything the opposition parties complain about? I suggest deleting both items.-- Kalsermar 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the content about the priorities of the Harper government read like and ad and I believe they do not constitute encyclpaedic content - especially the part about the Accountability Act. I agree with the above comments that some things should be moved to another page (or perhaps deleted entirely). Dunstanramsey 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
ok if his party is in the minority then how did he win? -- Gbleem 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a great pic of the PM (next to the Canadian flag).
Please use this one from now on as the main pic.
Thank you.
I don't like the 'blank' background. At least with the formal picture, you can see Harper
in his office next to the flag. It just looks more akin to what other world leaders pix looks like.
Paul Martin and Jean Chretien both are in pix next to the Canadian flag (crappy looking pix though).
I changed the line "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that said that Paul Martin supported child pornography." to "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that suggested that Paul Martin supported child pornography." because the press release was entitled "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" I believe there is a difference between said and suggested.
--Sasha
I've added a link to the external links section that includes edit reference to Wiki policy as to why I think this blog spot should be included. The link has continually been removed , despite Wiki policy to exceptions for blog links and citations of a blog on the United Kingdom Politics page. The blogspot is only one of several humour site I hope to build on as humour reflects grassroot reaction to governments of the day and adds valuable historic encyclopedic insight.
I am following Wiki's guidelines for dispute very diligently.
Since my last re-posting I was told , that's TOLD to not link the site again by a contributor. I ask him, politely, what authority he had but then someone tampered with my account and changed the password so I've had to create this new account. My polite, enquiring questions on some of the contributors sites who removed my links have dissapeard.
I'm wondering if political bias is interfering?
Please check out http://harper-valley.blogspot.com , http://www.mr.satire.com and http://www.thehammer.com...while it may not be your 'style' of humour , Wiki's definition of satire, parody and cynasim would be applicable to this site. Historical content (site links to news sites) also mandates relevance to Stephen Harper, as cited by Wiki guidelines.
Thank you I appreciate your support. Inspirit 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)inspirit sept. 4 '06 7:19
I'm afraid your rationalizations aren't going to be of much use here: this isn't a serious content dispute, it's linkspam. I'm sorry about your password, but that's not especially relevant to this discussion. CJCurrie 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see 'political jokes' under Wiki Jokes and Humour, Styles of Humour Parody, Satire, Sarcasm which refutes opinion of Harper Valley being 'sophmoric humour'. the satire page also refers to the importance of this writing genre in politics. It is noted in many interpretations that humour is an oft used tool for the oppressed. As the author of Harper Valley is First Nations and there are many items in reference to Stephen Harper's government handling of indigenous issues the link becomes relevant to expression of the oppressed to the Canadian Government and Stephen Harper.
Also note The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations and it's use of humour and humorous references. Also check out Political Humor.
While you may not consider this a 'serious content dispute' the person at Wiki I contacted seems to and wants to be kept updated. As I continue my attempt to resolve this dispute by Wiki guidelines I would suggest you do the same and try to reach compromise with me. Dancingwaters 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to put out the question, are the election tables at the bottom of this article really relevant? I think the tables should only be in the riding profile articles, this article is long enough without them. -- Cloveious 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should get rid of them. Harper isn't just any old MP now, he's the Prime Minister of Canada. Those can just as easily go on the riding pages.-- SFont 08:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
On July 17, a group of protesters, primarily expatriate Lebanese, protested Israeli aggression in front of the Israeli consulate in Montreal; further protests took place July 22 in localities across Canada.
I'm not sure this sentence belongs here. It does not relate to Stephen Harper, only to Canadians and the conflict itself. It's like saying that some people protest gay marriage... bladebot 07:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone has to stop the vandalism on the is page. We must prevent people from abusing the privileges of wikipedia like for example, 74.106.195.189, who had just recently made disgusting edits to this article which are now removed by more decent users of wikipedia.
TheAxeGrinder 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Indeed, those who feel the need to Harper bash should do it somewhere else or not at all. Go bash Martin or Chretien instead.
I didn't see the vandalism but TheAxeGrinder comment above demonstrates a strong bias. A click on their link takes one to a page that does not exist. There's always room to allow that AxeGrinder made an error. Dancingwaters 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What are the odds Harper doesn't last til the end of next year?
TheAxeGrinder 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Strong bias, my foot! What was that last line above for? If anything, Harper hasn't stolen millions of taxpayers money to fund failed sponsorship programs in Quebec.
Free Your Mind! 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Yes but at least the Liberals kept us out of Iraq and upheld equality rights by legalizing gay mariage, they also paid down some of our debt. Only thngs they did right really.
Gbambino, the Monarchist League of Canada Vice President, is a man on a mission to clog as much of Wikipedia as possible with unnecessary language that greatly inflates the relevance of the monarchy in Canada's political system. For example:
Every other reference to Harper "appointing" person XYZ has been deleted in favor of references to the Governor General appointing the person. While obviously one can make the case that formally this is how it happened, it's pointless to fill the articles with such references. No newspaper or encyclopedia in Canada would ever phrase the nature of Prime Ministerial appointments in such a manner. It completely miscategorizes the nature of the term "appoint" as well. When people talk about the PM "appointing" a person, it means he chose them, which is the only relevant information to note. What figurehead signed the ratification is irrelevant, especially if there is zero chance any of the so-called "recommendations" forwarded to her will ever be rejected. Adding this kind of language is deliberately deceptive to those who may not be familiar with the Canadian political system, and serves no coherent purpose other than to inflate the appearance of relevance of the monarchy at the expense of factuality and clarity. Which is of course Gbambino's open agenda. J.J. 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with thirt-seven. I just had a look at the cabinet section and it sounds a bit silly now. I think "selected" would work a lot better. 69.156.57.195 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Jordan
Here is a templated review to let you know that everything passed for the GA status :
Additional comments :
Lincher 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
We can keep it for now, but if others complain about it, it should be removed. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this article is becoming excessively long because it is blurring the lines between Stephen Harper the person, and Stephen Harper as some kind of personal embodiment of the current government of Canada. I realise he is the prime minister, but every announcement he makes is not his own personal opinion, nor is every move by the Cabinet a reflection of his personal desires, and he alone certainly doesn't have relations with other nations; in other words, sometimes (often?) he is merely a mouth-piece for the government. Perhaps all the sections that refer to the actions of "the Harper government" and "the Conservative government", as well as relations with the United States, and those about certain Bills in parliament should me moved to other, more pertinent articles. -- gbambino 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but that article it already very long due to the list of MP's. I though maybe about those : Foreign Policy of Harper's government (Relation with US including the softwood dispute and the War in Afghanistan,) Domestic or Interior Policy of Harper's Government (social, environment, etc), Early Life of Stephen Harper, etc. Kinda like they've did with George W. Bush.-- JForget 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In the same time, considering that the Government is under fire for several issues lately, can we also consider a page about the criticism or opponents of the Stephen Harper government, but trying to be neutral though - there is lots of them that been added lately. It is evident that the environmental, social and foreign (but especially the first two) policies have been widely criticized. -- JForget 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently in the process of created a separate article Domestic Policy of Stephen Harper's government for its domestic policy afterwards, we could trim and rephrase portions of the existing info on the Stephen Harper article.-- JForget 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Just launched the article, but will need significant expension especially the sub-sections and to add other issues-- JForget 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I can used the first one then -- JForget 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also jsut created the Foreign Policy of the Harper government separated article which will concentrate on its foreign policy. So far, more extensions of the article will be needed and we may now start trimming the foreign section on this article too-- JForget 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed much of what was repeated between here and the two main articles Domestic policy of the Harper government and Foreign policy of the Harper government. What wasn't repeated, I moved from here to either of those two. Ditto for the election information, which has gone to Canadian federal election, 2004 or Canadian federal election, 2006. Only what relates directly to Stephen Harper should be left here.
I hope this was an acceptable move. I'm not sure what to do about the long list of footnotes, though. -- gbambino 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the comment about Harper being the first person appointed Prime Minister not to represent a riding in Quebec. Both John Turner and Kim Campbell represented ridings in British Columbia.
I have split a few things off from the article and shrunk it a bit and did some major archiving and shrunk the discussion page significantly. Kc4 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There was, prior to my last edit, an attempt to infuse into the PM's public statements anti-Israel sentiment. This is clearly factually false and makes the PM appear ridiculous. Such a violation of WP:NPOV had to be removed.-- Lance talk 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The whole section on that was very poorly written...--
User:Rabrams20
The two clips are on YouTube and show Prime Minister Steven Harper promising not to tax income trusts. On October 31 Harper's broke that promise and this lead to Trust Investor capital losses of approximately $25-30 Billion Canadian Dollars.
I think the YouTube material is relevant and newsworthy but I want other points of view before I insert it into the main article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9mibZYpVPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtiykp-WDG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SD9rfeZxLE
There is also some information on the Income Trust Issue loacated at CAIF which is relevant to this issue. Particulary a analysis by Yves Fortin called " Taxation of Income Trusts: Was it Worth the Cost and the Turmoil?
Regards DSatYVR 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Can the IP's stop removing the first photo of the article, it's been persistant lately. maybe we should put with the Canadian flag in the back so maybe to imitate some of the U.S President articles which have their flag in the background-- JForget 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On a related note - can a better picture be used? The white background looks odd and it looks like the contrast has been turned down way too low. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
When the first photo is very inappropriate (like a few weeks ago), then I simply remove it, and leave it to someone else to put a good photo back in. Sorry, but that's the most efficient way to keep the article respectable without having to search out and pick an appropriate picture, which apparently is a complicated process, judging from what other users are saying. I certainly never simply remove the photo ad hoc. 72.1.218.94 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there some type of official government photo that can be used for here? Even if not, we need some type of photo at that top. What good is an article about a head of government without a photo. Kaiser matias 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
According to image, it says "© House of Commons". Therefore this identifies that the govt of Canada holds the copyright and therefore they are able to release the copyright for use in Wikipedia as the letter of permission shows.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 ( talk • contribs)
I'm not entirely clear why this has come up again. I will note that email license statements should go to permissionsATwikimedia.org, not be pasted on the image description page. Jkelly 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a well defined process for requesting permission to use copyright material. The exchange embedded in the image description is both insufficient and not in the right place. The request is misleading as it doesn't describe the full extent of the required licence or even mention it by name. The image should not be used until this has been resolved. It is important for Wikipedia to avoid copyright violations. KenWalker | Talk 03:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just took these out of the main article, they were in a second references section, but unlinked to any statement in the article. Are these further reading candidates or did someone intend for them to verify something? Alan.ca 09:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They are biographies, and I assume were included as general references. CJCurrie 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)