Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 3

message: Government of Canada Copyright Policy:
Hello all.  The Government of Canada copyright policy is listed at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/notices.asp.  The pertinent sections are reproduced below.  It seems to me that Wikipedia would fall within the definition of "non-commercial reproduction" and thus the only "requirement" would be that photos and use theirof be simply credited to the Office of the Prime Minister.  That being said, one could use the "official photograph" or choose a suitable photo(s) from the web page titled "Prime Minister's Photo Album" (photos from various government functions taken by Government of Canada photographers).  The PM's Photo Album can be found at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media_gallery.asp?media_category_typ_id=3  
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Don Mackay
QUOTE FROM WEB LINK ABOVE. Copyright/Permission to Reproduce
Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Office of the Prime Minister for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada.
The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission.
Non-commercial Reproduction
Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Prime Minister. We ask only that:
* Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
* The Office of the Prime Minister be identified as the source department; and,
* The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Office of the Prime Minister. END QUOTE.[Unsigned comment]
:Unfortunately, if a free use image is available, the rules as currently intrepeted say that a fair use image must be replaced by that free use image. I'm not clear on what conditions would need to be met before free use is met, but these don't appear to match those criteria.Michael Dorosh 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with that statement, whoever you are. He have pictures of backbench MP's, but not a good headshot of the leader of the Government of Canada? It's a joke! SFrank85 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do have a good picture, his official portrait. One that his office sends out to anyone who emails and asks for one. --SFont 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So scan it and let's use that.Michael Dorosh 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a scanner, and it's signed. --SFont 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a publicity medium, it is an free encyclopedia.  The current picture, or any of the other pictures at Commons perform their encyclopedic purpose by showing who Steven Harper is.  Aesthetics are of a secondary concern.  -- Jeff3000 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jeff - I'm sure you would want to know that the use of Google's corporate trademark on your user page is against Wikipedia fair use policy; I've done you the courtesy of removing it from your User page so you can be in complete compliance with the rules. I'm still researching your use of the Mozilla logo on your user page as well. Looks like the Mozilla image is kosher, but as you can see, the infobox for google uses :Image:Google logo transparent.png which is copyright, meaning you were breaking WP policy by displaying the image on your user page.Michael Dorosh 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Michael, if you'd taken a little longer to check the Google template on my talk page, you would have noticed that there is actually no image, but just coloured text. Regardless, your post is completely off-topic and is an Ad hominem argument, which does not prove anything. -- Jeff3000 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the talk page for that template - it violates Google's trademark because it is a derivative work. I'm going to have the userbox altered so it doesn't infringe on google's rights. Please use civility and presume good faith - you didn't think you were the only one who wants to keep Jimbo free from lawsuits, did you?  Also, please check the page on Ad hominem as I think you may be using the term incorrectly; no offence meant, I realize Latin is not everyone's first language. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 14:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just say that your words should follow your actions.  You should assume good faith as well, instead of assuming different things, including my understanding of Ad Hominum.  -- Jeff3000 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ec We're not working for politicians here. I encourage you to write a letter to Harper's agents and request from them a release of a professional-quality photograph under a license that allows both commercial and derivative use and to send that licensing agreement to permissions AT wikimedia.org. It would be more productive than complaining here about the work of people creating free content. Jkelly 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack Layton's official photo is currently used in his article. If I dig into my stash and find a photo of him looking absolutely horrible at an event, and release it for free use, should it replace it? Ridiculous. I wouldn't do that and anyone who would is NOT acting in good faith. I understand that there is a rule in place, but with room to maneuver on the "acceptable quality" issue, this sort of ultra-bureaucratic enforcement is counterproductive and unhelpful. The Prime Minister of Canada should be shown as he would be shown in any decent encyclopedia. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll pay you ten dollars Canadian via Paypal or cash (your choice) for a copy of that free use image. Cold hard cash, and no, I'm not joking. Let me know via email or at my talk page. Because hey, if some Ph.D in Germany who has never as much as set foot in Canada can be dedicated to the cause of making Canadian politicians look like utter boobs, so can I. Oh, and of course my good faith dedication to helping Jimbo put together a free encyclopedia and all that stuff.Michael Dorosh 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, please watch the ad-hominem attacks. The solution here is pretty straightforward - get the CP to release whatever photo you'd prefer into the public domain. With Wiki so high on the google search results, it's really just a matter of getting through the bureaucracy. I've already e-mailed them to ask about this; someone who cares more (and I think you might) should write a letter. 72.139.184.107 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like too much control; leave the picture alone. BarbWatts 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't realize it is a copyright issue; please excuse this newbie. BarbWatts 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is idiocy 

message: I really hate doing this, however I genuinely believe that Wikipedia should address this issue.
So in the interim, I'll just keep deleting the offensive pic until someone 'gets it' that it
ain't right to use a horrible pic of a man who now is PM of Canada.
This isn't political either,  I'm a Liberal for crissakes!  I just however can't believe that
nobody will solve this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) .
:The issue is solved. The free image must be used unless there is consensus among the editors of this page (i.e. not just you) that it's better to have no picture at all than this one. User:Angr 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll simply keep deleting the pic: forever 

message: Image:Stephen Harper head.jpg       |Stephen Harper head.jpg
Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg        |Stephen Harper voa.jpg 
Image:Stephen Harper head 2.jpg     |Stephen Harper head 2.jpg
Image:Stephen Harper voa 2.jpg      |Stephen Harper voa 2.jpg 
Image:Stephen Harper voa debate.jpg |Stephen Harper voa debate.jpg
I suggest a vote on whether to go with no image, or keep the extremlely poor quality image now.  A vote for Delete means we go with no image, a vote for Keep means we retain the image currently on the page. Don't forget to sign your vote with four tildes. (~~~~)
:NOTE:  If you wish an image, please state the name of the image you want.
*:Image:Stephen Harper voa 2.jpg.Michael Dorosh 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus, yes, but not polls. Please read m:Polls are evil for why. User:Angr 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, please don't belittle me.  With a little research you would have seen that I've been on Wikipedia for more than a year and a half (with active participation for more than nine months), and I do know how Wikipedia works; Polls are not considered the way to go, as Angr has pointed above.  -- Jeff3000 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, votes do not build consensus, they identify if one has been achieved.  If a vote is the means by which a decision is made, then you have not receive consensus, unless everyone agrees.  Consensus building is much harder than a poll, and requires much more effort and maturity on its participants.  Usually the best you can do is a "general consensus" which is more like an overwhelming agreement with the odd stubborn hold-out. At any rate, this whole thing seems rather crazy to me.  The picture doesn't seem at all to represent Mr. Harper to his detriment - only to the detriment of obsessive photography geeks. :) (just teasing) --Christian Edward Gruber 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Doesn't you r userpage say "This user maintains a strict policy condemning all personal attacks. +?? or is that "just teasing' at the end supposed to be your out.?Calgarytanks 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to second that. A revert war (I'm looking at Michael and the accompanying anonymous editors) isn't going to sovle anything. The picture stays until the CP release a photo into the public domain. 72.139.184.107 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, an anonymous user is looking at me. I'm :mortified:.  Incidentally, User:Thivierr was cramming a bunch of discussion into the voting section - my edit was to organize the voting section so it could be quickly and easily read and tallied, but since he decided to have a hissy fit about it, I guess it doesn't matter.Michael Dorosh 05:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in Wikipedia, "votes" without reasoning/discussion are normally ignored, and should be.  In at least one of your edits, you actually removed my vote, because it didn't conform to the binary options of "keep/delete" you put forth.  But the question is really, which of multiple free images, is best.   --Rob 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on keeping the current image, having no image, or picking another one of these

message: *Jeff - consensus is very often used in Wikipedia to settle matters; you must be rather new to WP. Once you've been here awhile, I am sure you will productively contribute to many vote-situations in order to build consensus.Michael Dorosh 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus, yes, but not polls. Please read m:Polls are evil for why. User:Angr 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, please don't belittle me.  With a little research you would have seen that I've been on Wikipedia for more than a year and a half (with active participation for more than nine months), and I do know how Wikipedia works; Polls are not considered the way to go, as Angr has pointed above.  -- Jeff3000 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, votes do not build consensus, they identify if one has been achieved.  If a vote is the means by which a decision is made, then you have not receive consensus, unless everyone agrees.  Consensus building is much harder than a poll, and requires much more effort and maturity on its participants.  Usually the best you can do is a "general consensus" which is more like an overwhelming agreement with the odd stubborn hold-out. At any rate, this whole thing seems rather crazy to me.  The picture doesn't seem at all to represent Mr. Harper to his detriment - only to the detriment of obsessive photography geeks. :) (just teasing) --Christian Edward Gruber 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Doesn't you r userpage say "This user maintains a strict policy condemning all personal attacks. +?? or is that "just teasing' at the end supposed to be your out.?Calgarytanks 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to second that. A revert war (I'm looking at Michael and the accompanying anonymous editors) isn't going to sovle anything. The picture stays until the CP release a photo into the public domain. 72.139.184.107 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, an anonymous user is looking at me. I'm :mortified:.  Incidentally, User:Thivierr was cramming a bunch of discussion into the voting section - my edit was to organize the voting section so it could be quickly and easily read and tallied, but since he decided to have a hissy fit about it, I guess it doesn't matter.Michael Dorosh 05:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in Wikipedia, "votes" without reasoning/discussion are normally ignored, and should be.  In at least one of your edits, you actually removed my vote, because it didn't conform to the binary options of "keep/delete" you put forth.  But the question is really, which of multiple free images, is best.   --Rob 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Vote

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayne_Gretzky#Fair_Use_vs._Free_Use
So why does the Wayne Gretzky article get to retain a Fair Use image, and this article does not. I've replaced the copyrighted image at that page with a Free Use image, and the talk there indicates an "FA Review". In fact, most of the photos on that page are copyrighted.  This hardly seems fair.  Does the FA Review have a bearing on this page? If the picture there is "iconic" I think we can presume that a studio portrait of Mr. Harper is also "iconic". I'd appreciate an answer to this - if the Gretzky article gets to keep copyrighted pictures, then I see no reason that the Stephen Harper article can't.Michael Dorosh 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the Wayne Gretzky picture is fine.  My interpretation is that it should be replaced with a free image.  You'd have to go through the talk pages and see the discussion relating to the picture. -- Jeff3000 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put back the free image at Gretzky.  There was no justification for a fair use image there.  --Rob 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayne Gretzky 

message: Decent pic!  Still would of preferred one with Harper sitting in front of the Canadian flag,
but this is a MAJOR improvement over the previous one.
Well, looks like my daily/hourly/by the minute deleting of the old-crappy pic
paid off.  
Thanks fellas for addressing this issue, and now...if you can find a BETTER pic, POST it.
- Stan.
It's a terrible picture. Looks barely anything like him. If that picture of him standing in front of the microphone after the debate could be resized it'd be perfect though.--SFont 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rescaled it to roughly 400px sq.  Much above that and the artifacting gets pretty noisy.  Jkelly 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEY! 

message: What happened to the first archive of this talk page?  It seems it was replaced by the latest change, rather than a new page being created.  Is there a way to get the first one back?
-- The Invisible Hand 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still read it. It's at the top, the link /archive 1. Homagetocatalonia 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there was another one from before that, with all edits prior to March 2006.  Anyone know how to get it back? --The Invisible Hand 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: /Archive1 precedes /Archive 1/Archive2 (which I renamed, just now). --Rob 05:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous archive 

message: If I received permission to use one of the studio Harper pics would it be allowed to be put up, or would this stupid fair use thing still apply? --SFont 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it depends what permission you get.  If you just got permission to exhibit the picture at WP, it still wouldn't be free and thus not ideal.  That's my understanding anyway.  --JGGardiner 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the policy is not to limit fair use per se but rather "to protect our mission of producing and distributing free content which is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification, and application for all users and in all mediums".  We can display fair use but not give it away.  Getting permission to exhibit is meaningless because we already were able to exhibit under fair use.  The problem is that we want content that we can exhibit and give away.  Like I said before, not my favourite policy but I don't make policy around here.  --JGGardiner 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission 

message: While making a minor edit, I got this error:
:This page is 75 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.
-b 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This thing should be cut in half.  Content shouldn't be deleted, but moved to subarticles.  It's like that for a lot of US presidents, and some time ago I created a :Category:Pierre Trudeau.  Why not a category of Stephen Harper articles? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some candidates for the category as of now would be: Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper Leadership Team, Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), Laureen Harper. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Detinitely a good idea.  Perhaps a Stephen Harper as Prime Minister article, or something similiar? -b 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of stuff here about his pre-Conservative career.  Maybe fork that out.  If it were, the article here now would be 48K instead of 75- much more manageable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: I'm removing the Lebanon section.  First, I think that it is relatively trivial and won't be remembered shortly (and removed for that reason anyway).  The section is also misleading and omits the criticism which Harper took for the alleged photo op:  he took along his photographer and three communications staff along with the "skeleton crew" (thus not the "maximum" number of evacuees our article describes).  The latest I'd seen also suggest that not all of the evacuees will accompany Harper back to Canada and Harper may simply drop them off in a safe third country, possibly France.  --JGGardiner 04:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some of the stuff that does not pertain to Harper. The fact that people were waiting in line and got dizzy may, and I stress that word, may belong in an article pertaining to the crisis, it most certainly does not belong in a biographical, encyclopaedic article in a general work of reference that WP ought to be.--Kalsermar 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there going to be a section for his opinion on every major world event between now and his eventual fall from power? -b 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is forever.  I assume that with the passage of time and the waning of attention given this or that issue there will be a certain truncating of information. Fishhead64 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I love the simplicity and logic behind replies on Wikipedia.  Point well taken. -b 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanon

message: Anyone know what denomination of Christianity Mr. Harper belongs to? --Sima Yi 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are rumours that he's a creationist, too - any truth to this?72.139.185.19 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The church that Harper and his wife go to is a evangelical church. SFrank85 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that his wife doesn't go to church. Just Harper and the kids. --gg4rest 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there good sources we can use to add some information about his church attendance to the article?  Jkelly 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Christian and Missionary Alliance according to List of Canadian Prime Ministers by religious affiliation.  Fishhead64 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  Do we have a reliable source for that?  Jkelly 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That article said he evolved as a politician, not as in his religious beliefs. SFrank85 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - the context made it appear otherwise. How about the bit about his top staffers being creationist? It's awfully juicy, but I don't know if we can include it. 198.20.40.50 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to see this article but I can't seem to find it on Google. FellowWikipedian 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/u/register/?ref=politics-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons. Found article but it is only available to subscribers :( FellowWikipedian 02:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: There has been repeated abuse in this article from . The user has also made vandal edits on other articles. Anyone know how to give a proper warning/ban?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.147.69 (talk • contribs) 
:You can read about what to do, and when to get administrator attention, at Wikipedia:Vandalism.  Jkelly 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP hasn't edited since July 18, so there's no need to do anything.  Jkelly 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with Vandals 

message: Many other political leaders have criticism sections; I'm just curious if we want to include one for Steve. It could be used for stuff like this, for instance:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060808.DEFENCE08/TPStory/Front
Any thoughts? 198.20.40.50 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section? 

message: My mistake - the footnotes from the deleted trivia section were carried over (my mistake - see edit summaries) - but the stuff on his NHL book was mentioned TWICE in the background section, hence my confusion. I hope I managed to get everything back in order. I moved the mention of his dad's book to the footnotes.  I also deleted the reference to the "late" Joseph Harper - I've had use of that word in that usage edited out so am believing it is not WP standard to use the term.Michael Dorosh 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually liked the trivia section. I realize it might not be encyclopedic, but it was entertaining and informative. Why was it deleted, anyway? -- 72.139.185.19 13:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you answered your own question.Michael Dorosh 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section integration