Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 2

message: March 5th 
this entry is consistently having its editing re-edited removing SALIENT entries on Mr. Harper's political record. I would submit that this entry should be frozen and all further editing reviewed by an impartial non-canadian editor
:While I think some of the article is rather POV, I wouldn't call it a propaganda machine...Habsfannova 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually thinking about that too.  One guy came in and added it for all the PMs...I'd actually reccomend taking it out.Habsfannova 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Listen 216.58.10.1, never deleate someone else response or ideas from this talk page again. SFrank85 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harper Progaganda Machine 

message: I really, really want to delete the following: *This Steven Harper Page Is Under Considerable Threat Of Vandalisim. Please Do Not Delete This Note.  But because Indy64 said "please", let's discuss it.  I really don't see what this note is supposed to accomplish.  It seems to violate Wikipedia policy, as it does not deal with the article's subject, but with a technical issue. If vandalism really is a huge problem for this article (and I'm not conviced it is), there must be better ways of dealing with it, such enlisting help from vandal fighters or semi-protecting the page. Indefatigable 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism notice 

message: I think that the succession section is misleading.  The list that it refers to [] is not an order of succession to Harper per se.  Rather, it is a list of succession should any minister be unable to perform their duties: so if Chuck Strahl can't perform his duties, then Gary Lunn takes them on, then Rona Ambrose, then it goes down the list.  The reason that this important is because the list is thus structured with the chairs of the two main committees (Priorities & Planning and Operations) on top.  That makes sense because they should be the ones to take over the various ministries if somebody has to.  Those two committees in particular are a very important part of the Canadian cabinet system.  Thus the reason that Cannon and Prentice are on top is because of their jobs as committee chairs; their position on that list just flows from that  (Harper is the technical chair, Cannon the deputy and effective chair of Priorities and Planning).  So while the list applies to the PM, it is not really about that office.  It is really a list about what to when cabinet ministers step down or are fired.  Incidentally, the reason that MacKay couldn't get one of those important committee chairs is because he got a more important cabinet post (Foreign Affairs) which comes with the chairmanship of a less important committee (Foreign Affairs).  --JGGardiner 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession

message: Though it may be in vain, I'm just trying to trim some of the bloated/out of date/partisan portions of the article.  Any advice is appreciated.Habsfannova 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been doing a good job so far.  HistoryBA 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, right on.Habsfannova 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kicking against the ocean... 

message: I can see no reason for deleting this relevant and cited section of the article about Shapiro's report:
:according to the rules, but indicated that the 'spirit' of the conflict-of interest ethics code was violated in the MP's floor crossing, and encouraged Parliament to review and modify legislation and procedures on Members crossing the floor.  
I ask User:GoldDragon to explain his/her deletion or restore the passage. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cabinet controversy is getting too bloated while the 2006 election is too watered down. I'm balancing it out.GoldDragon 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shapiro

message: From the vandalised version, I put the "Official" portrait up.Habsfan|t 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harper photo 

message: I am trying to find out how much money the Prime minister makes a year
:The PM makes $295,400 per year.  Parliamentary salaries were just increased slightly.  Are you suggesting that information should be included in the article?  --JGGardiner 18:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Harper  

message: I have asked question and not got the results to them. Why is Stephen Harper's (or many other people's) religion not on the info bar I found it a big help knowing someone's religion. I need the result to my questions207.81.122.3 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's not a religious figure, why does it matter? --Habap 18:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ya, why is this information important? I don't see this kind of inof on other politcal leaders... AMac2002 22:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infor bar

message: Someone added him in the category as a member of the United Church of Canada. Was he ever a member in his life time? I just think this needs to be clear. SFrank85 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember hearing that aswell, but I don't believe he was a member of the UCC. SFrank85 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed it for the time being until someone can confirm it. SFrank85 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually don't think Harper would be a member of the United church...he's been critical of those who run it.Habsfan|t 01:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I put it in because that's what it says at List of Canadian Prime Ministers by religious affiliation. If you're going to change it here, you have to change it there, too. Are we certain that it's incorrect? Carolynparrishfan 17:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus it's a weak argument to say it can't be true b/c he's critizised the denomination. Its not like he had a say as kid (and it only says raised in the UCC). I've been critical of the Roman Catholic Church. I still grew up in it. Carolynparrishfan 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "I was raised in the United Church, but my parents are fairly conservative in a religious sense and have left the United Church. I am an adherent in the Alliance Church, but I am not a member at the moment." 
This comes from 1995, so he may be a member now; I don't know. We should check this out. But in the meantime, I'm putting the cat back in. Carolynparrishfan 15:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Now since we know he was never a member of the United Church of Canada, cat is now removed. SFrank85 00:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member of the United Church of Canada? 

message: As I have already pointed out to Habsfannova, Harper is the first Protestant Prime Minister since Pearson. The only Prime Minister between the two who was not a Roman Catholic was Kim Campbell. She was not a Protestant because:
a) She practiced no religion at all.
b) She was raised in the Anglican Church of Canada, which is not considered a Protestant Church but a Via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
This argument has already been settled. If you feel you have something fruitful to add to it, please discuss it here rather than making knee-jerk reflexes. See also my post at User_talk:Habsfannova. Carolynparrishfan 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An argument wasn't "Settled" by any means...just becasue someone doesn't "practice" doesn't mean they lose their religious status.  And Anglicans are generally considered Protestants.
Besides, I don't understand for the life of my why, in the 21st century, a PMs religion is relevant.Habsfan|t 02:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it depends. Not relevant to his leadership, perhaps (although in Harper's case I think he has made it an issue). But I think too that it is legitimate biographical information and as such belongs here. Carolynparrishfan 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And I would like to point out that in This Anglican Church of Ours, Patricia Bays writes "Many Anglicans are uncomfortable beind described as Protestants--though society outside the church often places that label on us". Where I go to school, marble cheese is "generally considered" to be a mix of cheddar and mozzarella. That doesn't mean its not a misconception, just a popular one. The fact is that scholars of religion no longer generally consider Anglicanism a branch of Protestantism. The Anglican Church has the historic episcopate, the seven sacraments, weekly celebrations of the Eucharist, the communion of saints, priests, etc. I am aware that many people believe the Anglican Church to be Protestant but to be blunt "many people" are just wrong. Carolynparrishfan 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This appears on the internet site of the Anglican Church of Canada: "Waterloo Ontario, 8 July 2001 - An exuberant service of joint worship between Anglicans and Lutherans here today marked the capstone of celebrations concluding nearly two decades of discussions culminating in this week's historic entente between Canada's two largest episcopally-based protestant religious denominations. ..." If the Canadian Anglicans call themselves "Protestant," who are we to say they're not? HistoryBA 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Anglicans mostly do consider themselves Protestant. A minority consider themselves Catholic. As for the list presented by Carolynparrishfan, Anglicans do not have recognition of the pope, transsubstantiation, the immaculate conception, assumption of the virgin Mary and a whole host of other things that go to making up Catholicism. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I recognize the point Carolynparrishfan is making, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic.  That said, Anglicans are officially counted as Protestant in the Canadian census results -- I believe we should take this as our guide.  (Anyway, I seem to recall that Kim Campbell told some idiotic joke about converting to "ward off the demons of the papacy" or somesuch -- we can probably assume she didn't see herself as "Catholic".)  CJCurrie 21:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestantism

message: I cleaned up some unverifible information and some things that were quoted as denied or factual and referenced a website that was clearly meant as a parody and therefore not valid information.
--Kirkoconnell 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Harper has done his impressions in public.  I've seen them.  He did them at the national press gallery dinner, where all the politicians try and make jokes (you may remember the GG got in trouble for her jokes there this year).  I don't think that I'd say that he has a talent for them but he does do them.  --JGGardiner 16:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some clean up 

message: Someone should probably include something about how Stephen Harper allegedly eats babies. I'm far too lazy to do it myself.
*But is it really that important? I mean, who really can say that they've never eaten a baby? Really, you're in hospital maternity ward, you find yourself quite hungry, and the cafeteria is way down the corridior... what are you going to do? Of course you'll pick up a baby or two for a snack. Who wouldn't? I think Harpie is getting a rough ride over this. It really isn't a big deal. Ground Zero | t 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  headline news 

message: There's two sets of footnotes! Srnec 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think I messed up some of the footnotes - I may need to revert and start from scratch. Actually, there are THREE sets of footnotes - those with  tags, those with 
<ref> tags and those with [URL] tags.  Ouch. Michael Dorosh 15:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think it is done. Hope I didn't lose anything. Some of the URLs could use a cleanup, and frankly, I think some of them are dead anyway ie the yahoo.ca news ones.Michael Dorosh 15:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: Am I the only reader who finds this section inherently POV?  CJCurrie 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited comments - see page history and comments below.Michael Dorosh 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. My cup is half empty. I obviously thought you were referring to the article as a whole. Michael Dorosh 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War on Terror

message: The section on the Supreme Court says that the Constitution of Canada precludes any kind of committee veto, which isn't the case at all.  All the Constitution says is that the Crown appoints Justices, and traditionally this power is exercised by the Prime Minister through the Governor General.  There's nothing in the Constitution to stop Harper from putting his nominee before the committee and pledging not to appoint him if the committee doesn't approve.  In fact, most of the guidelines for the Supreme Court aren't in the Constitution, but in the Supreme Court Act, an ordinary piece of legislation.  Thus, there is no prohibition of a veto, it's just that Harper didn't want the committee to have one.
CaptainCanada 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's correct.  Otherwise appointing an elected senator would be unconstitutional in the same way.  --JGGardiner 21:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court 

message: I posted a link to an indymedia story which, unlike pretty much the entirety of this wiki article (including all of its external links), has some negative things to say about the Harper agenda. The link was removed within an hour of it being posted. It looks like this page is being micromanaged by Harper's PR staff. That's not right. 
I posted the link again and it was removed within minutes. Give me a break.
Here's the link:
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?2976S
:Ground Zero is a regular, long-standing Wikipedia editor and hardly a Harper propagandist.  Please remember to assume good faith in the future.  --JGGardiner 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a Harper fan in the least, but the material at that link is much too POV in content and tone, it has no place in this article. Wikipedia is not an op-ed piece. mhunter 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link is idiotic and unencyclopaedic. If the author was serious about what he was saying he wouldn't be making petty attacks and carrying on with childish name calling. Political BS at its embarrassing worst.Michael Dorosh 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The link in question is a politcal diatribe. I know little about Canadian politics, but having spent some time editing the Cindy Sheehan article, I have seen diatribes from both ends of the political spectrum. The article has far too many glowing words about it's heroes and far too many disparaging words about Harper and his "cronies". It's simple POV without using verifiable facts. If there is another article by that author which is more detailed, I would recommend linking it, but this one is simply "everything before Harper was sweetness & light and now we're doomed." --Habap 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Registered Wikipedia users have watchlists that, by default, include all articles that one edits.  So when someone changes the Harper page, it will jump to the top of my watchlist.  Thus changes get noticed quickly and are usually changed very quickly, or not at all.  Look how quickly obvious vandalism is changed in the history of this or a comparable article.  My last three vandalism changes all happened within 15 minutes of those postings.  I don't know Michael or Hunter but I do know that it is Wikipedia policy to refrain from attacking other users.  I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and you will probably find that most editors are simply trying to uphold the standards that they believe this encyclopedia should have, regardless of the topics of the articles they edit.
Ground Zero's response: I actually did not review the link before deleting it. I guess that was a bit lazy on my part. I did so because articles about the leaders of the main political parties attract links from bloggers and partisans like a garbage can attracts WASPs. I figured that since it was posted by an unregistered editor, it was a safe bet that it should be deleted. The comments above support the deletion. For the record, I have no connection to Stephen Harper and his merry band of bigots, and would not consciously do anything to support their evil cause. My reversion of the addition of this link was motivated simply by a desire to improve Wikipedia by keeping out unnecessary or inappropriate links.  Ground Zero | t 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree - that he presumes to know what any of our personal politics are, and then insinuate we lack the objectivity to filter that out when editing, is frankly, insulting.Michael Dorosh 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, my biggest surprise that he implied that Wikipedia has a conservative bias. Like I said, I end up spending a lot of time on Sheehan and always read that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Maybe I should direct the people who complain from these articles to look at the other.... --Habap 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reaching the frightening point in both the US and Canada that any political discussion must be fraught with partisanship. It has gotten so bad that the ones most likely to discuss politics are the radicals; moderates get fed up with the crap, like we've seen here, and give up altogether. God forbid one side should give the other side a break on anything.Michael Dorosh 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, this is the internet...most people you talk to on the streets don't give a damn about the "blogosphere" and all that crap...most typically, the blind partisans are laughed at in discussions, but are "praised" on the internet.Habsfan|t 13:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I almost never discuss politics despite being in Washington, DC as I type this for exactly that reason. I moved here back in 1990 and found (even then) that the people who wanted to discuss it the most were often full of themselves and unwilling to allow that any rational person could disagree with them. As such, I only know one or two people in politics despite being a mile of the White House and the Capital building for most working days in the past 6 years. --Habap 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Talk about a bias, that article is extreme in it's wording. The article makes Harper to be Hitler, and his Calgary agenda as the Third Reich. If you have problems with the "right wing" bias of this article, find a newspaper, or well big media source which have fair criticisms. SFrank85 05:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harper propagandists removed my link 

message: Can we add a section about the beheading of Harper and who would likely replace him if an accident like that occured to him?
--Sonjaaa 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is highly unlikely Harper will be beheaded any time soon I suggest we do not.--Kalsermar 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Order of precedence is already a wikipedia article. We could link to it in the "See Also" section. But I think it is already covered under the article on Canadian government. No need to introduce it here, you would need to put it in every Prime Minister's article then.Michael Dorosh 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see some anonymous editor added this. I've edited it down severely. What was the threat in 1995? People threaten the PM all the time, the distinction here is a public threat. If this is to stay (the reference to past threats), it needs a verifiable source.Michael Dorosh 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the requested citation for the attempted attack on Chretien in '95. Schrodingers Mongoose 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: go to  and go to "Did You Know?" section on the right, 3rd of 4th slide. SFrank85 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beheading

message: I notice the infobox is tagged "some sources say (April) 20th, but Parliament website biography says 30th". Which sources say the 20th? It's interesting in that a certain fascist dictator was also born on April 20th, so I wonder...Michael Dorosh 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lloyd Mackey's, The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper book states he was born on April 20. SFrank85 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, an actual sources. So much for that conspiracy theory then. Thought "some sources" was a weasel word for vandals. Thanks for the reply.Michael Dorosh 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Date 

message: Didn't we use to have that his middle name was "Joseph"? I see it's not there anymore. Was it incorrect? Mad Jack 06:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle name

message: Until a better picture of Harper can be put in place, flamers/trollers will keep posting that crappy pic of Harper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.106.169 (talk • contribs) .
:The current picture is just fine, as noted in the talk pages most people who are advocating that this free picture is just fine are not pro- or anti-conservative. -- Jeff3000 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just extremely poor judges of photo quality. I guess that transcends politics.Michael Dorosh 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe we should have a vote. I find it hard to believe many people would find that to be a suitable picture. --SFont 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a democracy, and no "vote" will trump the policy that (for what feels like the 4000th time on this page) fair use images may not be used when a free alternative is available. A free alternative is available, therefore no fair use image may ever be used. If you want to gather consensus, the only appropriate question is "Is the free image better than no image at all?" because those are your choices: The free image, or no image at all. User:Angr 08:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How can a image of the U.S. federal government (i.e. Image:George-W-Bush.jpeg) is in the public domain, but whne it comes to a work of the Canadian federal government, it is not? SFrank85 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States federal government by law releases all its work into the public domain. The Canadian government doesn't. User:Angr 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the millionth time, I'll remind the Ph.D that  fair use images are permissible if a free use image of suitable quality is not available. Selective interpretation....Michael Dorosh 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "selective interpretation" is yours: you keep adding the bit about "of suitable quality" hoping that people will believe that's part of the policy. It isn't. Per WP:FU, so long as a free image is available that "adequately give[s] the same information" as the fair-use image, the free image must be used. That's why you aren't getting blocked for replacing fair-use images of Canadian Prime Ministers with free images of them: I suspect you believe that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (in the sense that you're hoping to annoy enough other people by doing so that they will come around to your position), when in fact what you are doing is improving Wikipedia to make a point. So, keep up the good work of finding free images of Canadian prime ministers and replacing the fair-use images with them. The only thing I ask is that you remember to replace the fair-use image with the free image on every page where the fair-use image occurs, not just the PM's personal article. And when the fair-use image is no longer used in any articles, please tag it with  (replacing XYZ with the name of the new free image). Thanks! User:Angr 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think I'll be doing your housekeeping for you, but thanks for the offer. TTFN! Oh - and please presume Good Faith and use Civility when conversing on Talk Pages. Thanks! Michael Dorosh 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming good faith doesn't mean being an idiot. When you are diligently replacing fair-use images with free images while at the same time arguing against doing so, and carefully providing a link in your edit summaries to the page where you argue against doing so, only an idiot would believe you weren't trying to prove a point. And I don't know any idiots at Wikipedia. User:Angr 08:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thank God I'm not an idiot then!  I see Wayne Gretzky is today's feature article, and damned if there wasn't a copyrighted portrait of him in the first line.  I did provide a link to this talk page - not to disrupt, but because all of you have argued so gosh-darn eloquently about what the policy is and how it is best implemented, that I thought it would save me a few keystrokes. I'm sure you don't mind, being as committed to a free use encyclopedia as me.Michael Dorosh 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Scanning an image does not create a new copyright opportunity.  Also, do not use Wikipedia talk pages to make personal attacks.  There are now many images at :commons:Category:Stephen Harper.  Surely they cannot all be so unappealing you would rather have no image for the lead.  Jkelly 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't get to use Wikimedia resources as a forum to call other editors names.  The "rules" that you're objecting to, whether they be the Wikipedia:Image use policy or Wikipedia:No personal attacks, exist because this is a project to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia.  We're not very interested in material we cannot give away and we are entirely uninterested in internet forum-style name-calling.  Seriously, can you not find a single image in that category that is acceptable?  Jkelly 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this page be locked?