![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
{{editsemiprotected}}
Protection's doing a great job: "When he ate a baby, yum yum yum yum cum yum yum" (in the info box) -- 128.104.112.95 ( talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Done Thanks.
Celestra (
talk)
18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That really happened. Stephen Harper only eats deep-fried baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.112.157 ( talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change the personal life section from its current state so that it mentions Harper's concert appearance with Yo-Yo Ma in Ottawa on Oct 3rd, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/03/harper-piano.html
It is necessary to make mention that the Conservative party, under Harper, are notorious about launching attack ads against the opposition on an ongoing basis. http://victoriastar.canadaeast.com/article/672171 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchenersteve ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to list Harper's childhood addresses, as these have not yet been turned into national museums, and are nondescript compared with e.g. Marlborough House or Monticello. The fact that Harper is the first Protestant elected since Pearson is trivial. That Harper's church is mentioned should suffice. Also, the reference to Diefenbaker as an evangelist is dubious. He was a Baptist and came across as an evangelist, but I do not know if he considered himself an evangelist.
May I suggest that this information be deleted? -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this. I think you should go ahead and do so. DiscardedDream ( talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Its claimed Harper's criticisms of manning's expense account was divisive in the party, and there is a citation needed tag.
Since I can't be trusted to edit the article, apparently, here's a source demonstrating some of the party squabbles:
" In 1994, it emerged that Reform leader Preston Manning enjoyed a $31,000 expense account from the party, for which he did not have to provide receipts. This was designed to cover such expenses as suits and their dry cleaning, as well as plane tickets for his family. It also included a $6,000 car allowance, despite the fact that Manning had pointedly relinquished the keys to his government automobile upon arriving on Parliament Hill.
Among the fiercest critics of the arrangement was Harper, who said Reform MPs were in no position to criticize the pay and benefits other politicians enjoyed at taxpayers' expense - which would become something of a habit - without demanding accountability from their own leader.........\
In the ensuing fracas, Manning immediately offered to itemize his spending. But Harper was excoriated in writing by the Reform Party council for his loose tongue.
"We're quite free to say these things in our party, but as a judgment call, I would argue that the messages we get out to the public should be something affecting the public in a major way, said Reform MP Diane Ablonczy.
"It's not up to me to anticipate press disasters perpetrated by the party," Harper responded, as gleeful Liberal wags heckled Manning in the House of Commons with calls of "nice suit." " http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070418_190105_6228
Also, needs more tendercrisp bacon cheddar ranch.-- 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)-- 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)-- 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This has been raised on the Canadian Wikipedians' discussion board and there are alreayd merge templates on that article for Economic policy of the Harper government and its sister articles; see {{ Harper Government}} for others; "article over-bloat" for this individual seems to be a product of his p.r. machine - is there any other Canadian PM that has so many articles about himself? Are they all really needed?? Just asking rhetorically; please answer on the noticeboard discussion, so it's all in one place.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Found a discussion about a movement to standardize articles about Canadian Prime Ministers. My opinion is that no Canadian PM needs a laundry list of Wikipedia articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Governments_of_Canada#Proposal_to_standardize_coverage_of_PMs -- Clausewitz01 ( talk) 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this sentence is trivial, especially for the lead, and should be removed:
There's nothing remotely significant about this time period. So, being the first PM born in it isn't significant either. -- Rob ( talk) 19:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As per the issues implicit in the previous sections, it appears that promotional blurbs about "the Harper government" are scattered all over wikipages and I'm starting to wonder how many, and how extensive this problem is in comparison to content re other Prime Ministers....On Canadian identity there was a blurb about Harper's appointment of Jason Kenny as the "first" minister of Canadian identity right in the intro, as if it was big news; it's NOT big news, it's a name-change from what used to be Canadian Culture, which was Sheila Copps' portfolio (amongst others); what's news, perhaps, is that it marks the downgrading of Canadian culture/identity below/within Multiculturalism, which used to be a separate portfolio....So I moved the item down to the Multiculturalism section, where even there it only dimly belongs; unless some "balance" is included mentioning other cabinet ministers who've had the same responsibilities (if under different portfolio titles...)...even including those from other parties (GASP!!). This isn't the first instance of "wiki-fluffing" I've found concerning Harper, of course, and it's scarceluy going to be the last. I tried to look at "what links here" re the Harper article but there's no way to get a precise count of articles (as opposed to talkpages) linked to it which would give me an indication of how many other not-really-to-do-with-Harper articles have a p.r./press-kit blurb about some great thing he's done about that topic. What would be interesting to know is how many Wikipedia articles mention Harper, vs those that mention Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau....Harper's only been in power for a few years, and only in a minority government; but the range and cope of his wiki-coverage makes it seem like he's the most important Prime Minister in Canadian history; and I used to think Mulroney had the most bloated ego and overblown presskit, but...sheesh Harper really does take the cake, considering his short time in power especially. This has got to stop (Harper enthusiasts such as those trying to "wash" hte parliamentary dispute article please note you can pretend to be NPOV, nobody else is fooled...even if you're otherwise regular Wikipedians...). Largely-irrelevant cabinet deck-shuffling and other "web-op news items" does not constitute wikipedia/encyclopedic content and should be excised from articles where it's found. The effect of all this sowing of Harper's seed in Wikipedia is to affect history, as well as to distort it. Sure, someone may put in an item on their political hero "in good faith" but that doesn't mean it matches NPOV or MOS and "what Wikipedia is not".....if there's an admin who can provide me a headcount of articles which mention/link to Harper/this article I'd be very curious to see the list. No doubt on national park articles, ethnic history articles and town/city articles (e.g. "In 2007 Flatwater, Manitoba was visited by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who unveiled a plaque after donating money to the town's struggling pulp mill" - that kind of crap, though that's a made-up quote by way of example of the kind of thing I mean). Wikipedia is not meant to be a promotional venue for politicians, and advancing such copy is intrinsically "political spam". And believe me, if I found evidence that somebody was diong the same for Chretien, Ignatieff or Trudeau, I'd be taking the same position. it's time to purge the party operatives and their leavings.... Skookum1 ( talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Notice that Barack Obama's infobox lists "Private" residence as Chicago,IL and "Official" residence as White House, Washington, DC. Does Harper still maintain a Private residence in Calgary? - M.Nelson ( talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I find that Steven Harper really "The Right Honourable" he is making canadian women not to be able to stand up and fight fro them selfs. Not letting women get payed =ly that is just outragouse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.18.193 ( talk) 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Harper is a recovering alcoholic and in the 1990's attended AA meetings in Calgary. This quality shows his strong determination to deal with problems in a rational and forthright manner. No adverse conclusion should be drawn from this fact by the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.3.9 ( talk) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If this is true, shouldn't it go into "Personal life"? Or is that just reserved for his regular church attendance and love of the outdoors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.195.178 ( talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion regarding the use of a photoshopped image of the PM in this and several other articles at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Harper photoshop. -- Rob ( talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Stephen Harper (Official Photo).jpg has been deleted for insufficient permission. Commons:File:Stephen Harper official portrait.jpg is based on it, so I expect it will also be deleted. So, we'll need to discuss whether to replace it with an image from Commons:Category:Stephen Harper or see if another image can be found. -- Rob ( talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed the info box picture to one that looks more appropriate, it is from the Commons:Category:Stephen Harper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhcmedia ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- When then Prime Minister Jean Cretien announced in March 2003 that Canada would not partake in the US led Iraq invasion, Stephen Harper (then opposition leader) called this decision “an embarrassment.” http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/04/08/iraq_can_parl030408.html - Under section 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP. Dona Cadman (wife of then MP Chuck Cadman) says that her husband told her that prior to the May 2005 confidence vote, two Conservative Party officials, offered her husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote against the Liberal budget. Afterwards, Harper filed a $2.5-million lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Canada, the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada and the unnamed author, or authors, for publishing this information on the party's website. However Harper later admitted in an August 2008 court deposition that he personally authorized an offer made to Cadman in 2005. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080401/harper_cadman_080401?s_name=&no_ads= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Cadman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchenersteve ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [1] [2] ==GA Reassessment==
This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
The main concern is the use of
File:Steveharper-outlook.jpg. There is no evidence to support that the image is released into public domain. If anyone has this information, please send it to
OTRS
OhanaUnited
Talk page
17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have a picture of Mr. Harper with his wife and children. NorthernThunder ( talk) 19:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be appropriate to say that Harper was the first Prime Minister of Canada to ask the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a vote of non-confidence. He doesn't have the authority to prorogue Parliament himself, and did not do so. It may also be appropriate to add that this caused a constitutional controversy, and that it is still not known how it will turn out.
Comment on the comment: This is not a nuance concerning prorogation - the statement that he prorogued Parliament is simply WRONG. It should be removed or revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 ( talk) 12:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the first comment is valid, given that Harper set a new precedent for avoiding a vote of non-confidence. That is caused a constitutional controversy is also valid. Thus that aspect of the comment should be added. TheStarter ( talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with first poster. It is certainly true that he had to ask the GG and this is the correct constitutional process; saying he did it himself is incorrect. Also agreed with first poster that he was the first to do so to avoid a vote of non-confidence. This is true, verifiable, relevant, and very interesting from a political perspective. The fact that second such controversy is playing out now may heighten the value of this as a historical lesson or precedent. 99.231.96.141 ( talk) 19:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Isn't anyone watching this article for vandalism? 24.66.190.107 ( talk) 15:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Harper has managed to stay in power since February 2006 in a minority position. I can't think of any other minority-leading PM lasting this long without either being defeated or gaining a majority. Perhaps someone can confirm this; it's a superlative worth noting especially given the current renewed interest in the minority or "hung" government concept following the UK election. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It was not true when the IP editor asked, but it is now. Here's a source, but I don't feel up to finding the best place to put it. - Rrius ( talk) 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a section on ethics. Harper's government has been accused of ethical breaches. On the other hand, Harper has stated his commitment to improving the ethic standards of his government. The section should be balanced. VR talk 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
There have been a couple of editors that have replaced coalition with weasel words. Co-operation and agreement are just informal words for a coalition government. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean that Gilles Duceppe was lying? What doe you think a coalition government is? Kingjeff ( talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't the one altering the tone. I was the one who created the section. Calling it a coalition doesn't make make it POV. What Stephen Harper was trying to do meets the definition of a coalition government. And you might want to stop your personal attacks. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Agreement" and "Cooperation" are weasel words or coalition government. These words can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Which isn't correct. I t doesn't matter how anybody described it. The definition of coalition government.
Kingjeff (
talk)
17:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I started the section by saying, "On March 26, 2011, Gilles Duceppe stated that Stephen Harper was ready to form a coalition government with the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party." [2] So, it is really about what Duceppe said. In a later edit, I wrote "Harper denied trying to form a coalition government and called it a "co-operative effort."" Which I believe clearly shows that it is a neutral point of view. [3] Kingjeff ( talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is supposed to e about Harper, not about his government's intentions. So what is this doing in the opening paragraphs?
My primary reservations here are the discussion of the upcoming budget and what he'd asked Jim Flaherty to do; this is all de rigeur in the case of any newly (re-)elected government, a non sequitur that sounds too much like a press release. i.e. pro-government hype/p.r. I don't think it's at all relevant in a lead/opening bio of Harper — it's politics, and something that hasn't happened yet. This should not be a platform for Harper's agenda.....also as any political pundit (who's not a spin doctor or party hack) will tell you there's not very much difference between a "minority government" and a "strengthened minority government". As one wag puts it, it's like "pregnant" vs "almost pregnant". either you are or you aren't. A minority is a minority, and implicitly is not "strengthenable", and can only really be strengthened by a formal coalition with another party. The reality is that Harper set out to get a majority and failed - that should be clearly stated here, rather than underscoring the government's p.r. that this is a "strengthened mandate". It's not; and the mandate actually dropped in raw numerical terms; a "strengthened mandate" could be talked about if there had been an increase in the popular vote figures, and an increase in the percentage of the vote; a 1.4% increase may have yielded an (undeserved) block of new seats, but it'se a reflection of voter disinterest - and the failings of the first-past-the-post plurality system, much more than it is anything toe do with the government "strengthening" its support. No doubt there's other soft-soapings throughout this article; I only happened to notice these because they're out-of-place in the intro (and misleading). Skookum1 ( talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A most remarkable video has appeared on YouTube juxtaposing Stephen Harper's March 20 speech to the Canadian parliament with John Howard's ditto to the Australian legislature. I suspect this to be a scandal brewing, but we probably need independent commentary on this incident to merit inclusion in the article. __ meco ( talk) 09:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Since nobody seems to be concerned that the story detailed somewhat above be incorporated into this article, can that be interpreted as Canadians in general finding this incident to be of little import? I find it more than a little curious that nobody has felt it pertinent to add this material, with the article prominently featured on the front page now for several days and everything. My reason for not adding it is that I'm very unfamiliar with the subject, and I hadn't heard of Harper until I watched the YouTube video. Would any of you care to give a comment on the non-inclusion yet of this material? __ meco ( talk) 09:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found the other 1834 yet; hard to dig through all the blog mentions and Canadian media coverage....
That's all for now, I've got other things to do - but I haven't even scratched the Aussie papers or the UK ones, or other languages yet.... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article should mention at least that Harper argued for Canadian involvement in parliament for both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, before the government had decided. But I do not think Canadians care about the plagerism charge, and even though it gained international press coverage, it will not long be remembered. It rates along with things like George W Bush choking on a pretzel or Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit. The Four Deuces ( talk) 09:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
And one big reason the world doesn't care about our politics is we ahve an overall policy of not talking about it, and keeping it as publicly dull as possible , so all the dirt goes on away from public, and world, eyes. "If only they knew" they might find damned good reason to care; but both we and they are trained not to know anything actually important about the way the country is actually run and what our politicians are actually up to. The real politics is suppressed; the big public stuff - Quebec, e.coli, equalization payment arguments, health care policy - that's made headlines in order to keep the other stuff out of the headlines.....but the point is headlines are headlines, and in this case it was newspapers around the world that 'cared", if only for five minutes, but that they cared is in and of itself notable. Skookum1 ( talk) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue about plagiarism is not minor. For one thing, it has reemerged again in comparing the most recent Conservative ad to another ad by the Republican Tim Pawlenty. MJeanHellyer ( talk) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Jean
[4] This speech is known to have been plagiarized. Should it be included also? Outback the koala ( talk) 19:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL. ROTFL. PCKB (pot calling kettle black).......substitute the word "Conservative" for "Liberal"....ROTFL, good humour at bedtime.....this whole article stinks of p.r. machinery and spin doctors and COIism....but that's just too funny.... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Is his occupation actually an economist? According to his biography, it seems as though he never has worked in a role as an economist for any significant period of time. Homagetocatalonia ( talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Economic and fiscal policy is another part that is missing. (Harper is an economist after all). Plus economic policy is usually a very important part of the biography of a Prime minister from a developing country. VR talk 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
canada is hardly a developing country, asswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.36.125 ( talk) 04:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
large sections of this article are a joke. very obvious iggy's hacks are here in force. Why are is the Prime Minister of Canada section just a list of the liberal talking points against harper? proroguing, george bush, senate appointments. None of these are notable enough to constitute their own headings. the info should be interlaced in to the article but I'm sure those edit would be quickly reverted my the liberal trolls that are all over wiki since an election has been called. 207.216.253.134 ( talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the part of the first paragraph that states that he "is the first Canadian prime minister to request a Governor-General to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a vote of confidence in the House of Commons", and added the info and refs to the section Parliamentary dispute and prorogation. I would argue that this is not notable enough for the intro: it's not one of his more famous traits/actions, but is just one of the many actions he's done as PM. If we were to include this, maybe we should include every "first", such as that he is the first PM to visit the front lines of a combat operation (mentionned later in article). - M.Nelson ( talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The Canadian federal government has a Prime Minister, Canadian provinces have Premiers. Calling his term in office his premiership means he is a provincial leader which he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.35.89 ( talk) 04:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
As this man and the party he is leading are quickly becoming one of the more controversial figures in Canadian political history, I don't think it is unreasonable to request a section in the article to discuss them. He has numerous such controversies attached to his name by this point, which is almost guaranteed to get larger before the end of the year. The robocalls, the F-35 debacle, etc. 184.175.49.105 ( talk) 10:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are rumors of marriage problems. Apparently Laureen is being paid off by Conservative Party staffers. Is this claim legitimate? -- Wiseoleman17 ( talk) 05:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a section on how he is perceived in public. Obama has such a section. -- Wiseoleman17 ( talk) 03:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Should the recent painting depicting Harper be included in the article somewhere?
It seems noteworthy. -- 67.189.30.170 ( talk) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know if he has any pets, and if so, what are they? ~ ravagekitteh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.29.93 ( talk) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Harper " ... is a member of the Alliance Church, more specifically the Christian and Missionary Alliance.... The church believes the free market is divinely inspired and views science and environmentalism with what might be called scorn ... Mr. Harper openly sympathizes with, if not endorses, evangelicals’ climate skepticism, their distrust of mainstream science and their view of libertarian economics as God’s will.... "
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-defence-chief-takes-helm-as-forces-look-to-cut-spending/article4716968/ What’s left is the training and equipment tuneups that keep units ready to ship out, he said: “It means that the operational readiness is going to be reduced.” The Harper government, however, has made it clear that it does not want the cuts to show in public.
From reading this article it would appear that Stephen Harper has done nothing for the entirety of 2012. I could not find any significant references to the year anywhere in the body of the article. It needs to be updated with any major items from last year at some point in the near future. Readers might mistake the fact that he is still in office by the lack of anything recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.15.98.36 ( talk) 17:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
There is far too much uncited material for this article to be considered of Good status. Hopefully someone watching it can address the {{ cn}} tags (I removed one) and give this a general copy edit or it could be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
He is the fourth cousin, twice removed of former PM Richard Bennett: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=rcarroll&id=I18421 http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=neogeo&id=I252567
108.34.100.30 ( talk) 02:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Ron Bauerle 5/4/13
Why is the source for financial contributions given under some tables that don’t actually show those figures? Either the contributions should be added to the tables or the reference removed as confusing clutter. Wouldn’t a single credit (perhaps with an “except as noted”), at the foot of the whole section, suffice?— Odysseus1479 ( talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit curious that the fact that M. Harper speaks French is deemed to be "not encyclopedic", while the names of his "two cats, Stanley and Gypsy" are accepted ? Codex26 ( talk) 21:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The lede contains an unsourced opinion labelling Stephen Harper as an "Evangelical" Christian. I have never seen any evidence anywhere of this, other than the observation that SH attends an Alliance church. Since there is a world of difference between a listener at an Alliance church and being an evangelical who publicly carries the message, I'm asking for any evidence from a Reliable Source that SH is actually evangelical in these matters. If this descriptor cannot be supported by a RS, then it should be removed. Santamoly ( talk) 19:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the CBC a RS on this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/from-bible-bill-to-stephen-harper-the-evolution-of-faith-based-politics-1.1369490 Hcobb ( talk) 03:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Observing the lede's for other national leaders, like Barack Obama, George Bush Jr and David Cameron, it seems very unusual to mention the politician's religion in the lede, especially if it has apparently played no role in their politics. Agree it should be left out of the lede and included in the "personal life" section, where it belongs. TastyCakes ( talk) 18:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above was getting a bit long winded, so I thought I'd start on a new tack. As discussed above, I think having a "World view" section is inappropriate, since it implies we can know how Stephen Harper sees the world, which is of course not the case. I think instead we should aim to structure it more like the Obama article:
Premiership
By doing so, we would help reframe the article from "people think this, this and this about him" to "he's done this, this and this, and said this, this and this". What do you guys think? TastyCakes ( talk) 16:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The "World View" section is clearly a biased and subjective assessment. The phrase "dismantle the country's most significant environmental laws" cannot be based in fact. There should either be a source cited that proves the repeal and non-replacement of environmental laws or the phrase must be changed. Amendments to laws do not constitute the 'dismantling' of those laws. 'Dismantling' is a political term that is based upon the opinion of the writer; it is not objective. "Known as an ally of Canada's fossil fuels"??? How can someone be an ally of fossil fuels? An ally of fossil fuel producers, perhaps. If biased statements intended to present a negative view of Stephen Harper must be put on this page, they should at least make logical sense.
Also, the reference to the federal debt is totally out of context. Harper is presented as responsible for the entire debt accumulated over many decades. Overall, the "World View" section does not appear to serve much purpose aside from being a place for people who oppose Harper to put their musings about his alleged hypocrisy and his supposedly-malevolent motivations. I hope that this article will be a more objective description of Harper's policies, actions and political associations in the future.
- Sean H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.223.70 ( talk) 17:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That is not what I said. I said we should not be guessing at their views. If Harper (or anyone) says "my views are this", then we can make such claims. But we should not take actions and extrapolate them into views - that's just us applying our POV. We should state those actions as being actions. Reso lute 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
References
undefined
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Empty citation (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
AS I mentioned on another article, About.com is not a proper source to use to claim that Harper is an economist, there needs to be a more reliable source which shows where he worked in that function. A degree in something does not make one a practitioner of that occupation. If there is a better source feel free to re-add it. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Long time fan, first time poster. Could someone update the section on Supreme Court appointments to include Marc Nadon nominated October 3, 2013: [1] Thanks! Rounderjd ( talk) 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
References
George W Bush Paintings: Did Bush Paint Harper’s Wikipedia Photo?. -- Green C 05:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just floating the idea, but shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article that Stephen Harper is one of the most controversial prime ministers, considering his "partisanship, lack of respect for Parliament, and an authoritarian approach to government" [15] and how he has alienated so many voters with his overall gutting of the environmental laws in Canada (already mentioned in this article), and how he keeps trying to degrade the privacy/security rights of Canadian's online activities with bills like C-30 [16] ? And there are a lot more controversial things he has done, like his interactions with the Supreme Court of Canada.
I'm trying not to be biased here, but after 2 full terms, and some of a 3rd, it seems pretty clear that (he is / he s going to be remembered as) a very controversial prime minister in Canada.
Finally, looking at the Pierre Trudeau wiki page [ [17]] the introduction has some statements about critics views on his prime ministership, but the Stephen Harper introduction does not. Perhaps the Trudeau article needs polishing, or perhaps the Harper article isn't yet conveying the full picture of the man by leaving some important stuff out?
Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra6c ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an improvement to the "Stephen Harper" Wikipedia article. As of now the article doesn't accurately reflect the diversity of opinion on Harper's Israel stance from within the Jewish community, which has a vastly diverse political spectrum.
Specifically in question is the "Israeli and Jewish affairs" section.
I would like to suggest the following edit based on this article: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2014/01/26/harpers_christian_zionism.html
Toronto has Canada's largest Jewish community, alongside Montreal.
Something to the effect of "Steven Harper's political stance towards Israel might be influenced by his personal Eschatological Evangelical Christian beliefs which allow for Christian Zionism as a legitimate expression of Christian theology. Christian Zionism contends that the creation of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy which will precede a mass Jewish conversion to Christianity in conjunction with the second coming of Jesus Christ. Others contend that although some Jews will convert to Christianity when Jesus returns, most will not and will face eternal damnation. Christian Zionists call these Jews, "the righteous remnant" or the "Israel within Israel", based on Romans 11 in the New Testament.
Furthermore, the Harper government's unwillingness to recognize a Palestinian state, specifically any borders, may be influenced in part again by his Christian Zionist beliefs that all the land of "Biblical Israel" or "Greater Israel" and its borders, belong eternally to the Jewish people.
(see also wikipedia articles: - Christian Zionism -conversion of the Jews -Second coming - Revisionist Zionism)
Other sources regarding the state of Israel and biblical prophecy: Line of Fire radio program with Dr. Michael Brown (A Jewish convert to Christianity, who self-identifies as a "Jewish believer in Jesus") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeinginamopbucket ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(Not an edit, but a question: how does one "prove" that a person's beliefs influences their policies? If a reliable article doesn't exist, can I write one? Does it become reliable if it's published (except in the case of a letter to the editor))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeinginamopbucket ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
On the page about Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his profession is erroneously listed as "Activist". Mr. Harper, is in fact, an Economist, not an activist. You can see Harper's biography on the Conservative Party of Canada website, www.conservative.ca, for proof that he is an economist. Please change his profession from Activist to Economist. Thank you.
99.225.113.31 ( talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Spigot
Map
18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
what reliable evidence do you have to say that he is an activist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.8.12 ( talk) 04:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The Canadian Encylopedia calls Harper an economist http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009624 . There is one reliable source that calls him an economist. Stronghold1245 ( talk • contribs)
I was a bit stunned to see totally missing from the section on the 2011 election what it is most notable for. Charges of electoral fraud. Even more stunned to have Crtl-F this page and find NOTHING AT ALL for "robocall", "electoral fraud" or "in-and-out scandal". Doesn't surprise me that this article is regularly "washed" either by fans or p.r. operatives, and familiar with their defenses about such; I grit my teeth thinking about going through it to see what else is missing, no doubt lots......."sanitized of controversial content" is not wikipedian, though wikipedian logics are used to justify it with some regularity; "Concerns and controversies about the Harper government" could be a whole article in and of itself; but would be no doubt judged a POV fork, and any hint of criticsm that's not couched in polite but false language in the HOST of articles about him will be condemned as POV........sigh. No, not gonna bother making this an issue, just voicing a complaint about what's gone on with bios like this. Wikipedia political bios are a minefield, either that or sanitized to the point of being a castrated mule.....I'll have a drink or two to be able to stomach the experience, and will re-read this; but have to throw the challenge out there about AUTO/COI edits and censorship, which are obviously at play. And don't give me that 'not proven in a court of law' cr#p to justify it "not being notable" or whatever......NB it's because of arguing about the over-coverage of this person, and the soapbox-parade of articles, even a whole template, based on him constituting political advertising that I was blocked during this election, leading to my until-now boycott. I see nothing's changed and am probably gonna get a stern note on wikiquette from someone determined to use a hammer instead of a scalpel. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
And the cite is out there for how Elections Canada warned various Tory campaigns three days ahead of the election to cease and desist, which they did not. So how is this "like a forum post"? Because it contains facts that some would like to see kept out of what is now "the encyclopedia of record". This is in so-called "reliable sources" of all kinds; and complaints in 234 ridings is not un-notable nor something to be sloughed off as a "forum post". Skookum1 ( talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)The number of complaints about fraudulent or misleading telephone calls in last year's federal election has almost doubled, according to court documents filed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.By mid August, Elections Canada had received 1,394 complaints "alleging specific occurrences" in 234 of Canada's 308 federal ridings, the lawyer for the elections watchdog says.
I've gone ahead and archived all the closed edit requests and sections that haven't gotten an edit since 2008. Is there any objection to setting up User:MiszaBot/config here? Doesn't have to be anything aggressive, even anything older than a couple years would help. — Strongjam ( talk) 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"Dropped the writ" in the 2015 election section. "dropped" is slang and should be avoided in an encyclopaedic setting. "Issued the writ of election" is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.28.2 ( talk) 11:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit [19] removed some material I had added with the edit summary "Remove criticism section, not NPOV and anything else should be put into the main election page". It was well sourced and I think it belongs in this article.
Other opinions? If not where does it belong? Pashley ( talk) 12:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Critique: The Guardian - Nick Davies - Stephen Harper: master manipulator, 15 October 2015. ← ZScarpia 09:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stephen Harper has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edwardzchen ( talk) 02:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stephen Harper has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is no longer Stephen harper
208.101.84.173 ( talk) 20:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: You haven't actually made a request.
Reso
lute
20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That is how it is spelled in Australia but not Canada. Masalai ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have restored my correction of the capitalization of "chief of staff", and made a couple more, which should be lower case in these instances per MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting." The exceptions identified in that guide do not apply here. Ground Zero | t 02:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Erm, isn't Justin Trudeau the Prime Minister now? The election just happened so yeah...
(I would like to request that the page be edited to say he WAS, not IS the Prime Minister of Canada) Great Hero J ( talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So Harper has said he will resign. He has not resigned yet, agreed? There is a difference between a future state and the present state that does not disappear because you add "for all intents and purposes". In fact, for all intents and purposes, Harper is the prime minister: legally, constitutionally and really, truly, Stephen Harper is prime minister. If anything needs the PM's signature, it will be Harper who signs it. It is true this state will change in the coming weeks, and then Wikipedia should be updated. But it has not changed yet. That's why we distinguish between "Prime Minister Harper" and "Prime Minister-designate Trudeau". Ground Zero | t 10:22, 21 October 2015 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
{{editsemiprotected}}
Protection's doing a great job: "When he ate a baby, yum yum yum yum cum yum yum" (in the info box) -- 128.104.112.95 ( talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Done Thanks.
Celestra (
talk)
18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That really happened. Stephen Harper only eats deep-fried baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.112.157 ( talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change the personal life section from its current state so that it mentions Harper's concert appearance with Yo-Yo Ma in Ottawa on Oct 3rd, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/03/harper-piano.html
It is necessary to make mention that the Conservative party, under Harper, are notorious about launching attack ads against the opposition on an ongoing basis. http://victoriastar.canadaeast.com/article/672171 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchenersteve ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to list Harper's childhood addresses, as these have not yet been turned into national museums, and are nondescript compared with e.g. Marlborough House or Monticello. The fact that Harper is the first Protestant elected since Pearson is trivial. That Harper's church is mentioned should suffice. Also, the reference to Diefenbaker as an evangelist is dubious. He was a Baptist and came across as an evangelist, but I do not know if he considered himself an evangelist.
May I suggest that this information be deleted? -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this. I think you should go ahead and do so. DiscardedDream ( talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Its claimed Harper's criticisms of manning's expense account was divisive in the party, and there is a citation needed tag.
Since I can't be trusted to edit the article, apparently, here's a source demonstrating some of the party squabbles:
" In 1994, it emerged that Reform leader Preston Manning enjoyed a $31,000 expense account from the party, for which he did not have to provide receipts. This was designed to cover such expenses as suits and their dry cleaning, as well as plane tickets for his family. It also included a $6,000 car allowance, despite the fact that Manning had pointedly relinquished the keys to his government automobile upon arriving on Parliament Hill.
Among the fiercest critics of the arrangement was Harper, who said Reform MPs were in no position to criticize the pay and benefits other politicians enjoyed at taxpayers' expense - which would become something of a habit - without demanding accountability from their own leader.........\
In the ensuing fracas, Manning immediately offered to itemize his spending. But Harper was excoriated in writing by the Reform Party council for his loose tongue.
"We're quite free to say these things in our party, but as a judgment call, I would argue that the messages we get out to the public should be something affecting the public in a major way, said Reform MP Diane Ablonczy.
"It's not up to me to anticipate press disasters perpetrated by the party," Harper responded, as gleeful Liberal wags heckled Manning in the House of Commons with calls of "nice suit." " http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070418_190105_6228
Also, needs more tendercrisp bacon cheddar ranch.-- 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)-- 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)-- 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This has been raised on the Canadian Wikipedians' discussion board and there are alreayd merge templates on that article for Economic policy of the Harper government and its sister articles; see {{ Harper Government}} for others; "article over-bloat" for this individual seems to be a product of his p.r. machine - is there any other Canadian PM that has so many articles about himself? Are they all really needed?? Just asking rhetorically; please answer on the noticeboard discussion, so it's all in one place.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Found a discussion about a movement to standardize articles about Canadian Prime Ministers. My opinion is that no Canadian PM needs a laundry list of Wikipedia articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Governments_of_Canada#Proposal_to_standardize_coverage_of_PMs -- Clausewitz01 ( talk) 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this sentence is trivial, especially for the lead, and should be removed:
There's nothing remotely significant about this time period. So, being the first PM born in it isn't significant either. -- Rob ( talk) 19:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As per the issues implicit in the previous sections, it appears that promotional blurbs about "the Harper government" are scattered all over wikipages and I'm starting to wonder how many, and how extensive this problem is in comparison to content re other Prime Ministers....On Canadian identity there was a blurb about Harper's appointment of Jason Kenny as the "first" minister of Canadian identity right in the intro, as if it was big news; it's NOT big news, it's a name-change from what used to be Canadian Culture, which was Sheila Copps' portfolio (amongst others); what's news, perhaps, is that it marks the downgrading of Canadian culture/identity below/within Multiculturalism, which used to be a separate portfolio....So I moved the item down to the Multiculturalism section, where even there it only dimly belongs; unless some "balance" is included mentioning other cabinet ministers who've had the same responsibilities (if under different portfolio titles...)...even including those from other parties (GASP!!). This isn't the first instance of "wiki-fluffing" I've found concerning Harper, of course, and it's scarceluy going to be the last. I tried to look at "what links here" re the Harper article but there's no way to get a precise count of articles (as opposed to talkpages) linked to it which would give me an indication of how many other not-really-to-do-with-Harper articles have a p.r./press-kit blurb about some great thing he's done about that topic. What would be interesting to know is how many Wikipedia articles mention Harper, vs those that mention Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau....Harper's only been in power for a few years, and only in a minority government; but the range and cope of his wiki-coverage makes it seem like he's the most important Prime Minister in Canadian history; and I used to think Mulroney had the most bloated ego and overblown presskit, but...sheesh Harper really does take the cake, considering his short time in power especially. This has got to stop (Harper enthusiasts such as those trying to "wash" hte parliamentary dispute article please note you can pretend to be NPOV, nobody else is fooled...even if you're otherwise regular Wikipedians...). Largely-irrelevant cabinet deck-shuffling and other "web-op news items" does not constitute wikipedia/encyclopedic content and should be excised from articles where it's found. The effect of all this sowing of Harper's seed in Wikipedia is to affect history, as well as to distort it. Sure, someone may put in an item on their political hero "in good faith" but that doesn't mean it matches NPOV or MOS and "what Wikipedia is not".....if there's an admin who can provide me a headcount of articles which mention/link to Harper/this article I'd be very curious to see the list. No doubt on national park articles, ethnic history articles and town/city articles (e.g. "In 2007 Flatwater, Manitoba was visited by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who unveiled a plaque after donating money to the town's struggling pulp mill" - that kind of crap, though that's a made-up quote by way of example of the kind of thing I mean). Wikipedia is not meant to be a promotional venue for politicians, and advancing such copy is intrinsically "political spam". And believe me, if I found evidence that somebody was diong the same for Chretien, Ignatieff or Trudeau, I'd be taking the same position. it's time to purge the party operatives and their leavings.... Skookum1 ( talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Notice that Barack Obama's infobox lists "Private" residence as Chicago,IL and "Official" residence as White House, Washington, DC. Does Harper still maintain a Private residence in Calgary? - M.Nelson ( talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I find that Steven Harper really "The Right Honourable" he is making canadian women not to be able to stand up and fight fro them selfs. Not letting women get payed =ly that is just outragouse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.18.193 ( talk) 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Harper is a recovering alcoholic and in the 1990's attended AA meetings in Calgary. This quality shows his strong determination to deal with problems in a rational and forthright manner. No adverse conclusion should be drawn from this fact by the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.3.9 ( talk) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If this is true, shouldn't it go into "Personal life"? Or is that just reserved for his regular church attendance and love of the outdoors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.195.178 ( talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion regarding the use of a photoshopped image of the PM in this and several other articles at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Harper photoshop. -- Rob ( talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Stephen Harper (Official Photo).jpg has been deleted for insufficient permission. Commons:File:Stephen Harper official portrait.jpg is based on it, so I expect it will also be deleted. So, we'll need to discuss whether to replace it with an image from Commons:Category:Stephen Harper or see if another image can be found. -- Rob ( talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed the info box picture to one that looks more appropriate, it is from the Commons:Category:Stephen Harper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhcmedia ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- When then Prime Minister Jean Cretien announced in March 2003 that Canada would not partake in the US led Iraq invasion, Stephen Harper (then opposition leader) called this decision “an embarrassment.” http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/04/08/iraq_can_parl030408.html - Under section 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP. Dona Cadman (wife of then MP Chuck Cadman) says that her husband told her that prior to the May 2005 confidence vote, two Conservative Party officials, offered her husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote against the Liberal budget. Afterwards, Harper filed a $2.5-million lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Canada, the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada and the unnamed author, or authors, for publishing this information on the party's website. However Harper later admitted in an August 2008 court deposition that he personally authorized an offer made to Cadman in 2005. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080401/harper_cadman_080401?s_name=&no_ads= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Cadman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchenersteve ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [1] [2] ==GA Reassessment==
This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
The main concern is the use of
File:Steveharper-outlook.jpg. There is no evidence to support that the image is released into public domain. If anyone has this information, please send it to
OTRS
OhanaUnited
Talk page
17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have a picture of Mr. Harper with his wife and children. NorthernThunder ( talk) 19:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be appropriate to say that Harper was the first Prime Minister of Canada to ask the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a vote of non-confidence. He doesn't have the authority to prorogue Parliament himself, and did not do so. It may also be appropriate to add that this caused a constitutional controversy, and that it is still not known how it will turn out.
Comment on the comment: This is not a nuance concerning prorogation - the statement that he prorogued Parliament is simply WRONG. It should be removed or revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 ( talk) 12:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the first comment is valid, given that Harper set a new precedent for avoiding a vote of non-confidence. That is caused a constitutional controversy is also valid. Thus that aspect of the comment should be added. TheStarter ( talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with first poster. It is certainly true that he had to ask the GG and this is the correct constitutional process; saying he did it himself is incorrect. Also agreed with first poster that he was the first to do so to avoid a vote of non-confidence. This is true, verifiable, relevant, and very interesting from a political perspective. The fact that second such controversy is playing out now may heighten the value of this as a historical lesson or precedent. 99.231.96.141 ( talk) 19:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Isn't anyone watching this article for vandalism? 24.66.190.107 ( talk) 15:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Harper has managed to stay in power since February 2006 in a minority position. I can't think of any other minority-leading PM lasting this long without either being defeated or gaining a majority. Perhaps someone can confirm this; it's a superlative worth noting especially given the current renewed interest in the minority or "hung" government concept following the UK election. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It was not true when the IP editor asked, but it is now. Here's a source, but I don't feel up to finding the best place to put it. - Rrius ( talk) 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a section on ethics. Harper's government has been accused of ethical breaches. On the other hand, Harper has stated his commitment to improving the ethic standards of his government. The section should be balanced. VR talk 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
There have been a couple of editors that have replaced coalition with weasel words. Co-operation and agreement are just informal words for a coalition government. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean that Gilles Duceppe was lying? What doe you think a coalition government is? Kingjeff ( talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't the one altering the tone. I was the one who created the section. Calling it a coalition doesn't make make it POV. What Stephen Harper was trying to do meets the definition of a coalition government. And you might want to stop your personal attacks. Kingjeff ( talk) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Agreement" and "Cooperation" are weasel words or coalition government. These words can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Which isn't correct. I t doesn't matter how anybody described it. The definition of coalition government.
Kingjeff (
talk)
17:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I started the section by saying, "On March 26, 2011, Gilles Duceppe stated that Stephen Harper was ready to form a coalition government with the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party." [2] So, it is really about what Duceppe said. In a later edit, I wrote "Harper denied trying to form a coalition government and called it a "co-operative effort."" Which I believe clearly shows that it is a neutral point of view. [3] Kingjeff ( talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is supposed to e about Harper, not about his government's intentions. So what is this doing in the opening paragraphs?
My primary reservations here are the discussion of the upcoming budget and what he'd asked Jim Flaherty to do; this is all de rigeur in the case of any newly (re-)elected government, a non sequitur that sounds too much like a press release. i.e. pro-government hype/p.r. I don't think it's at all relevant in a lead/opening bio of Harper — it's politics, and something that hasn't happened yet. This should not be a platform for Harper's agenda.....also as any political pundit (who's not a spin doctor or party hack) will tell you there's not very much difference between a "minority government" and a "strengthened minority government". As one wag puts it, it's like "pregnant" vs "almost pregnant". either you are or you aren't. A minority is a minority, and implicitly is not "strengthenable", and can only really be strengthened by a formal coalition with another party. The reality is that Harper set out to get a majority and failed - that should be clearly stated here, rather than underscoring the government's p.r. that this is a "strengthened mandate". It's not; and the mandate actually dropped in raw numerical terms; a "strengthened mandate" could be talked about if there had been an increase in the popular vote figures, and an increase in the percentage of the vote; a 1.4% increase may have yielded an (undeserved) block of new seats, but it'se a reflection of voter disinterest - and the failings of the first-past-the-post plurality system, much more than it is anything toe do with the government "strengthening" its support. No doubt there's other soft-soapings throughout this article; I only happened to notice these because they're out-of-place in the intro (and misleading). Skookum1 ( talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A most remarkable video has appeared on YouTube juxtaposing Stephen Harper's March 20 speech to the Canadian parliament with John Howard's ditto to the Australian legislature. I suspect this to be a scandal brewing, but we probably need independent commentary on this incident to merit inclusion in the article. __ meco ( talk) 09:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Since nobody seems to be concerned that the story detailed somewhat above be incorporated into this article, can that be interpreted as Canadians in general finding this incident to be of little import? I find it more than a little curious that nobody has felt it pertinent to add this material, with the article prominently featured on the front page now for several days and everything. My reason for not adding it is that I'm very unfamiliar with the subject, and I hadn't heard of Harper until I watched the YouTube video. Would any of you care to give a comment on the non-inclusion yet of this material? __ meco ( talk) 09:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found the other 1834 yet; hard to dig through all the blog mentions and Canadian media coverage....
That's all for now, I've got other things to do - but I haven't even scratched the Aussie papers or the UK ones, or other languages yet.... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article should mention at least that Harper argued for Canadian involvement in parliament for both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, before the government had decided. But I do not think Canadians care about the plagerism charge, and even though it gained international press coverage, it will not long be remembered. It rates along with things like George W Bush choking on a pretzel or Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit. The Four Deuces ( talk) 09:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
And one big reason the world doesn't care about our politics is we ahve an overall policy of not talking about it, and keeping it as publicly dull as possible , so all the dirt goes on away from public, and world, eyes. "If only they knew" they might find damned good reason to care; but both we and they are trained not to know anything actually important about the way the country is actually run and what our politicians are actually up to. The real politics is suppressed; the big public stuff - Quebec, e.coli, equalization payment arguments, health care policy - that's made headlines in order to keep the other stuff out of the headlines.....but the point is headlines are headlines, and in this case it was newspapers around the world that 'cared", if only for five minutes, but that they cared is in and of itself notable. Skookum1 ( talk) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue about plagiarism is not minor. For one thing, it has reemerged again in comparing the most recent Conservative ad to another ad by the Republican Tim Pawlenty. MJeanHellyer ( talk) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Jean
[4] This speech is known to have been plagiarized. Should it be included also? Outback the koala ( talk) 19:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL. ROTFL. PCKB (pot calling kettle black).......substitute the word "Conservative" for "Liberal"....ROTFL, good humour at bedtime.....this whole article stinks of p.r. machinery and spin doctors and COIism....but that's just too funny.... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Is his occupation actually an economist? According to his biography, it seems as though he never has worked in a role as an economist for any significant period of time. Homagetocatalonia ( talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Economic and fiscal policy is another part that is missing. (Harper is an economist after all). Plus economic policy is usually a very important part of the biography of a Prime minister from a developing country. VR talk 22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
canada is hardly a developing country, asswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.36.125 ( talk) 04:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
large sections of this article are a joke. very obvious iggy's hacks are here in force. Why are is the Prime Minister of Canada section just a list of the liberal talking points against harper? proroguing, george bush, senate appointments. None of these are notable enough to constitute their own headings. the info should be interlaced in to the article but I'm sure those edit would be quickly reverted my the liberal trolls that are all over wiki since an election has been called. 207.216.253.134 ( talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the part of the first paragraph that states that he "is the first Canadian prime minister to request a Governor-General to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a vote of confidence in the House of Commons", and added the info and refs to the section Parliamentary dispute and prorogation. I would argue that this is not notable enough for the intro: it's not one of his more famous traits/actions, but is just one of the many actions he's done as PM. If we were to include this, maybe we should include every "first", such as that he is the first PM to visit the front lines of a combat operation (mentionned later in article). - M.Nelson ( talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The Canadian federal government has a Prime Minister, Canadian provinces have Premiers. Calling his term in office his premiership means he is a provincial leader which he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.35.89 ( talk) 04:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
As this man and the party he is leading are quickly becoming one of the more controversial figures in Canadian political history, I don't think it is unreasonable to request a section in the article to discuss them. He has numerous such controversies attached to his name by this point, which is almost guaranteed to get larger before the end of the year. The robocalls, the F-35 debacle, etc. 184.175.49.105 ( talk) 10:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are rumors of marriage problems. Apparently Laureen is being paid off by Conservative Party staffers. Is this claim legitimate? -- Wiseoleman17 ( talk) 05:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a section on how he is perceived in public. Obama has such a section. -- Wiseoleman17 ( talk) 03:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Should the recent painting depicting Harper be included in the article somewhere?
It seems noteworthy. -- 67.189.30.170 ( talk) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know if he has any pets, and if so, what are they? ~ ravagekitteh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.29.93 ( talk) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Harper " ... is a member of the Alliance Church, more specifically the Christian and Missionary Alliance.... The church believes the free market is divinely inspired and views science and environmentalism with what might be called scorn ... Mr. Harper openly sympathizes with, if not endorses, evangelicals’ climate skepticism, their distrust of mainstream science and their view of libertarian economics as God’s will.... "
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-defence-chief-takes-helm-as-forces-look-to-cut-spending/article4716968/ What’s left is the training and equipment tuneups that keep units ready to ship out, he said: “It means that the operational readiness is going to be reduced.” The Harper government, however, has made it clear that it does not want the cuts to show in public.
From reading this article it would appear that Stephen Harper has done nothing for the entirety of 2012. I could not find any significant references to the year anywhere in the body of the article. It needs to be updated with any major items from last year at some point in the near future. Readers might mistake the fact that he is still in office by the lack of anything recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.15.98.36 ( talk) 17:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
There is far too much uncited material for this article to be considered of Good status. Hopefully someone watching it can address the {{ cn}} tags (I removed one) and give this a general copy edit or it could be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
He is the fourth cousin, twice removed of former PM Richard Bennett: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=rcarroll&id=I18421 http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=neogeo&id=I252567
108.34.100.30 ( talk) 02:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Ron Bauerle 5/4/13
Why is the source for financial contributions given under some tables that don’t actually show those figures? Either the contributions should be added to the tables or the reference removed as confusing clutter. Wouldn’t a single credit (perhaps with an “except as noted”), at the foot of the whole section, suffice?— Odysseus1479 ( talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit curious that the fact that M. Harper speaks French is deemed to be "not encyclopedic", while the names of his "two cats, Stanley and Gypsy" are accepted ? Codex26 ( talk) 21:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The lede contains an unsourced opinion labelling Stephen Harper as an "Evangelical" Christian. I have never seen any evidence anywhere of this, other than the observation that SH attends an Alliance church. Since there is a world of difference between a listener at an Alliance church and being an evangelical who publicly carries the message, I'm asking for any evidence from a Reliable Source that SH is actually evangelical in these matters. If this descriptor cannot be supported by a RS, then it should be removed. Santamoly ( talk) 19:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the CBC a RS on this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/from-bible-bill-to-stephen-harper-the-evolution-of-faith-based-politics-1.1369490 Hcobb ( talk) 03:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Observing the lede's for other national leaders, like Barack Obama, George Bush Jr and David Cameron, it seems very unusual to mention the politician's religion in the lede, especially if it has apparently played no role in their politics. Agree it should be left out of the lede and included in the "personal life" section, where it belongs. TastyCakes ( talk) 18:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above was getting a bit long winded, so I thought I'd start on a new tack. As discussed above, I think having a "World view" section is inappropriate, since it implies we can know how Stephen Harper sees the world, which is of course not the case. I think instead we should aim to structure it more like the Obama article:
Premiership
By doing so, we would help reframe the article from "people think this, this and this about him" to "he's done this, this and this, and said this, this and this". What do you guys think? TastyCakes ( talk) 16:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The "World View" section is clearly a biased and subjective assessment. The phrase "dismantle the country's most significant environmental laws" cannot be based in fact. There should either be a source cited that proves the repeal and non-replacement of environmental laws or the phrase must be changed. Amendments to laws do not constitute the 'dismantling' of those laws. 'Dismantling' is a political term that is based upon the opinion of the writer; it is not objective. "Known as an ally of Canada's fossil fuels"??? How can someone be an ally of fossil fuels? An ally of fossil fuel producers, perhaps. If biased statements intended to present a negative view of Stephen Harper must be put on this page, they should at least make logical sense.
Also, the reference to the federal debt is totally out of context. Harper is presented as responsible for the entire debt accumulated over many decades. Overall, the "World View" section does not appear to serve much purpose aside from being a place for people who oppose Harper to put their musings about his alleged hypocrisy and his supposedly-malevolent motivations. I hope that this article will be a more objective description of Harper's policies, actions and political associations in the future.
- Sean H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.223.70 ( talk) 17:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That is not what I said. I said we should not be guessing at their views. If Harper (or anyone) says "my views are this", then we can make such claims. But we should not take actions and extrapolate them into views - that's just us applying our POV. We should state those actions as being actions. Reso lute 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
References
undefined
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Empty citation (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
AS I mentioned on another article, About.com is not a proper source to use to claim that Harper is an economist, there needs to be a more reliable source which shows where he worked in that function. A degree in something does not make one a practitioner of that occupation. If there is a better source feel free to re-add it. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Long time fan, first time poster. Could someone update the section on Supreme Court appointments to include Marc Nadon nominated October 3, 2013: [1] Thanks! Rounderjd ( talk) 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
References
George W Bush Paintings: Did Bush Paint Harper’s Wikipedia Photo?. -- Green C 05:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just floating the idea, but shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article that Stephen Harper is one of the most controversial prime ministers, considering his "partisanship, lack of respect for Parliament, and an authoritarian approach to government" [15] and how he has alienated so many voters with his overall gutting of the environmental laws in Canada (already mentioned in this article), and how he keeps trying to degrade the privacy/security rights of Canadian's online activities with bills like C-30 [16] ? And there are a lot more controversial things he has done, like his interactions with the Supreme Court of Canada.
I'm trying not to be biased here, but after 2 full terms, and some of a 3rd, it seems pretty clear that (he is / he s going to be remembered as) a very controversial prime minister in Canada.
Finally, looking at the Pierre Trudeau wiki page [ [17]] the introduction has some statements about critics views on his prime ministership, but the Stephen Harper introduction does not. Perhaps the Trudeau article needs polishing, or perhaps the Harper article isn't yet conveying the full picture of the man by leaving some important stuff out?
Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra6c ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an improvement to the "Stephen Harper" Wikipedia article. As of now the article doesn't accurately reflect the diversity of opinion on Harper's Israel stance from within the Jewish community, which has a vastly diverse political spectrum.
Specifically in question is the "Israeli and Jewish affairs" section.
I would like to suggest the following edit based on this article: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2014/01/26/harpers_christian_zionism.html
Toronto has Canada's largest Jewish community, alongside Montreal.
Something to the effect of "Steven Harper's political stance towards Israel might be influenced by his personal Eschatological Evangelical Christian beliefs which allow for Christian Zionism as a legitimate expression of Christian theology. Christian Zionism contends that the creation of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy which will precede a mass Jewish conversion to Christianity in conjunction with the second coming of Jesus Christ. Others contend that although some Jews will convert to Christianity when Jesus returns, most will not and will face eternal damnation. Christian Zionists call these Jews, "the righteous remnant" or the "Israel within Israel", based on Romans 11 in the New Testament.
Furthermore, the Harper government's unwillingness to recognize a Palestinian state, specifically any borders, may be influenced in part again by his Christian Zionist beliefs that all the land of "Biblical Israel" or "Greater Israel" and its borders, belong eternally to the Jewish people.
(see also wikipedia articles: - Christian Zionism -conversion of the Jews -Second coming - Revisionist Zionism)
Other sources regarding the state of Israel and biblical prophecy: Line of Fire radio program with Dr. Michael Brown (A Jewish convert to Christianity, who self-identifies as a "Jewish believer in Jesus") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeinginamopbucket ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(Not an edit, but a question: how does one "prove" that a person's beliefs influences their policies? If a reliable article doesn't exist, can I write one? Does it become reliable if it's published (except in the case of a letter to the editor))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeinginamopbucket ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
On the page about Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his profession is erroneously listed as "Activist". Mr. Harper, is in fact, an Economist, not an activist. You can see Harper's biography on the Conservative Party of Canada website, www.conservative.ca, for proof that he is an economist. Please change his profession from Activist to Economist. Thank you.
99.225.113.31 ( talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Spigot
Map
18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
what reliable evidence do you have to say that he is an activist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.8.12 ( talk) 04:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The Canadian Encylopedia calls Harper an economist http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009624 . There is one reliable source that calls him an economist. Stronghold1245 ( talk • contribs)
I was a bit stunned to see totally missing from the section on the 2011 election what it is most notable for. Charges of electoral fraud. Even more stunned to have Crtl-F this page and find NOTHING AT ALL for "robocall", "electoral fraud" or "in-and-out scandal". Doesn't surprise me that this article is regularly "washed" either by fans or p.r. operatives, and familiar with their defenses about such; I grit my teeth thinking about going through it to see what else is missing, no doubt lots......."sanitized of controversial content" is not wikipedian, though wikipedian logics are used to justify it with some regularity; "Concerns and controversies about the Harper government" could be a whole article in and of itself; but would be no doubt judged a POV fork, and any hint of criticsm that's not couched in polite but false language in the HOST of articles about him will be condemned as POV........sigh. No, not gonna bother making this an issue, just voicing a complaint about what's gone on with bios like this. Wikipedia political bios are a minefield, either that or sanitized to the point of being a castrated mule.....I'll have a drink or two to be able to stomach the experience, and will re-read this; but have to throw the challenge out there about AUTO/COI edits and censorship, which are obviously at play. And don't give me that 'not proven in a court of law' cr#p to justify it "not being notable" or whatever......NB it's because of arguing about the over-coverage of this person, and the soapbox-parade of articles, even a whole template, based on him constituting political advertising that I was blocked during this election, leading to my until-now boycott. I see nothing's changed and am probably gonna get a stern note on wikiquette from someone determined to use a hammer instead of a scalpel. Skookum1 ( talk) 08:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
And the cite is out there for how Elections Canada warned various Tory campaigns three days ahead of the election to cease and desist, which they did not. So how is this "like a forum post"? Because it contains facts that some would like to see kept out of what is now "the encyclopedia of record". This is in so-called "reliable sources" of all kinds; and complaints in 234 ridings is not un-notable nor something to be sloughed off as a "forum post". Skookum1 ( talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)The number of complaints about fraudulent or misleading telephone calls in last year's federal election has almost doubled, according to court documents filed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.By mid August, Elections Canada had received 1,394 complaints "alleging specific occurrences" in 234 of Canada's 308 federal ridings, the lawyer for the elections watchdog says.
I've gone ahead and archived all the closed edit requests and sections that haven't gotten an edit since 2008. Is there any objection to setting up User:MiszaBot/config here? Doesn't have to be anything aggressive, even anything older than a couple years would help. — Strongjam ( talk) 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"Dropped the writ" in the 2015 election section. "dropped" is slang and should be avoided in an encyclopaedic setting. "Issued the writ of election" is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.28.2 ( talk) 11:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit [19] removed some material I had added with the edit summary "Remove criticism section, not NPOV and anything else should be put into the main election page". It was well sourced and I think it belongs in this article.
Other opinions? If not where does it belong? Pashley ( talk) 12:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Critique: The Guardian - Nick Davies - Stephen Harper: master manipulator, 15 October 2015. ← ZScarpia 09:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stephen Harper has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edwardzchen ( talk) 02:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stephen Harper has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is no longer Stephen harper
208.101.84.173 ( talk) 20:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: You haven't actually made a request.
Reso
lute
20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
That is how it is spelled in Australia but not Canada. Masalai ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have restored my correction of the capitalization of "chief of staff", and made a couple more, which should be lower case in these instances per MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting." The exceptions identified in that guide do not apply here. Ground Zero | t 02:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Erm, isn't Justin Trudeau the Prime Minister now? The election just happened so yeah...
(I would like to request that the page be edited to say he WAS, not IS the Prime Minister of Canada) Great Hero J ( talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So Harper has said he will resign. He has not resigned yet, agreed? There is a difference between a future state and the present state that does not disappear because you add "for all intents and purposes". In fact, for all intents and purposes, Harper is the prime minister: legally, constitutionally and really, truly, Stephen Harper is prime minister. If anything needs the PM's signature, it will be Harper who signs it. It is true this state will change in the coming weeks, and then Wikipedia should be updated. But it has not changed yet. That's why we distinguish between "Prime Minister Harper" and "Prime Minister-designate Trudeau". Ground Zero | t 10:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)