Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 4

message: I see this was wisely removed from the article: 
:Mr. Harper was widely critized for snubbing a major international conference on AIDS and instead sent members of his party. This was seen by many as a distasteful choice, as he instead chose to tour the arctic aboard a naval ship. He received many boos from the audience at the mention of his name, including a remark by Richard Gere (a speaker at the event). His absence was also seen as mark against the TBLG community, as the disease is a large issue in this community (this after his refusual to attend the Outgames in Montreal a month earlier).
That Mr. Harper would have better things to do than attend celebrity events should be applauded in my opinion, but in the end, I don't think any of this is very wikipedia-worthy. Richard Gere is not a Canadian political figure and he can complain all he wants - AIDS is a 'celebrity' cause and non-attendance doesn't or shouldn't reflect on how the PM approaches his duties. I don't see what could have been accomplished by Harper's attendance. It is unfortunate that those who would seek to criticize both the previous Liberal govt and the current Conservative one for not sending medicine to Africa seem to forget that AIDS is largely a self-inflicted malady - the key to defeating the disease  will be to education and getting people to keep it in their pants. Wasting money on sending bandaid solutions to Africa might possibly be addressed given the right sources, but partisanship in this arena is so intense it may be hard to find someone impartial.  Kudos to editors here, at any rate, for keeping the whole ugly mess out of the page.  I also don't understand why Harper's refusal to sponsor a fringe festival should be seen an encylopedic. But again, that is likely beyond the scope of this article and impossible to source well.Michael Dorosh 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not agree with you more. This AIDS conference is run by special interest groups anyways. SFrank85 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: [[steven, if it is not a celebrity event, then why did they cut off the time of a person who has AIDS in order for Clinton to speek? The poor person only got to finish speaking because the croud wanted that person to finish. SFrank85 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDs criticism 

message: I've deleted the irrelevant stuff on the May 2006 Toronto subway advertisements (Harper eats babies) again, unless there is some convincing reason we need to have it under "background" in this article?Michael Dorosh 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for deleting that. People seem to forget sometimes that WP is an encyclopaedia. This article is the biographical entry on Stephen Harper and such tidbits are fundamentally unencyclopaedic in nature and not worthy of inclusion.--Kalsermar 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the article will simply be too long if we include every little minor detail. Good work. --John Hawke 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Harper Eats Babies" Incident 

message: I've just added about the Afghan mission extension - feel free to add some extra stuff about it --JForget 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghanistan

message: Are the flag issue and the media-at-funerals issue really encyclopaedic or are they merely news items. In my opinion things like these two items are utterly unencyclopaedic in nature and do not belong in a biographical article in a general encyclopaedia. Not every controversy or issue is notable in and of itself and besides, are we going to include everything the opposition parties complain about? I suggest deleting both items.--Kalsermar 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just chopped the whole section considerably - it was full of editorial comments and non-NPOV. The flag stuff can go too, but I've edited the essential meaning - that Harper simply reinstated a practice that has long been traditional before the Liberals changed it. I've left out mention of the Liberals to avoid the appearance of bias. Hopefully it reads better.  I thought it unnecessary to have paras starting with "Also" (poor writing) and the play by play was also unnecessary (you don't need to say "the House of Commons had a vote" and then give the results of the vote. Listing the results pretty much implies that the vote occurred).Michael DoroshTalk 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it looks a lot better now.--Kalsermar 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopaedic content 

message: ok if his party is in the minority then how did he win? --Gbleem 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple, the other parties got even less.--Kalsermar 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain that a little better, there are a total of 308 seats up for grabs, and Harpers party managed to win 125 seats, while the other 183 seats are split between three other parties and one independant.  Since no coalition was formed between the other parties, that makes the Conservatives the ruling party (as a minority, meaning they can be brought to another election after suffering a vote of no confidence or similar circumstance)  To understand this further I suggest simply reading up articles on the Electoral processes of Parliamentary systems.--Etemenanki 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minority government win 

message: That's a great pic of the PM (next to the Canadian flag).
Please use this one from now on as the main pic.
Thank you.
:Whats wrong with :Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg? P.S. I do like the one with the PM next to the Canadian flag. FellowWikipedian 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the blank background. FellowWikipedian 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like the "Formal" picture a heckuva lot better 

message: I changed the line "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that said that Paul Martin supported child pornography." to "Further damaging the Conservative campaign was a press release from Conservative headquarters that suggested that Paul Martin supported child pornography." because the press release was entitled "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?"  I believe there is a difference between said and suggested.
--Sasha
===Support for Link to Canadian Political Humour Site===
I've added a link to the external links section that includes edit reference to Wiki policy as to why I think this blog spot should be included.  The link has continually been removed , despite Wiki policy to exceptions for blog links and citations of a blog on the United Kingdom Politics page.  The blogspot is only one of several humour site I hope to build on as humour reflects grassroot reaction to governments of the day and adds valuable historic encyclopedic insight.  
I am following Wiki's guidelines for dispute very diligently.  
Since my last re-posting I was told , that's TOLD to not link the site again by a contributor.  I ask him, politely, what authority he had but then someone tampered with my account and changed the password so I've had to create this new account.  My polite, enquiring questions on some of the contributors sites who removed my links have dissapeard.
I'm wondering if political bias is interfering? 
Please check out http://harper-valley.blogspot.com  , http://www.mr.satire.com and http://www.thehammer.com...while it may not be your 'style' of humour , Wiki's definition of satire, parody and cynasim would be applicable to this site.   Historical content (site links to news sites) also mandates relevance to Stephen Harper, as cited by Wiki guidelines.  
Thank you I appreciate your support.
Inspirit 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just don't get it.  This is an encylopedia and is for encyclopedic content.  Whether the owner of the website is First Nations or not has no bearing  on the fact that the website is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on Harper.  Do you have any idea how many websites, satirical and serious, cover Canadian issues?  There are tens of thousands of them and this particular humour site is no more relevant to Stephen Harper than any of the other ones.  This is an encylopedia, not a link farm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marklp (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed wording 

message: I've added a link to the external links section that includes edit reference to Wiki policy as to why I think this blog spot should be included.  The link has continually been removed , despite Wiki policy to exceptions for blog links and citations of a blog on the United Kingdom Politics page.  The blogspot is only one of several humour site I hope to build on as humour reflects grassroot reaction to governments of the day and adds valuable historic encyclopedic insight.  
I am following Wiki's guidelines for dispute very diligently.  
Since my last re-posting I was told , that's TOLD to not link the site again by a contributor.  I ask him, politely, what authority he had but then someone tampered with my account and changed the password so I've had to create this new account.  My polite, enquiring questions on some of the contributors sites who removed my links have dissapeard.
I'm wondering if political bias is interfering? 
Please check out http://harper-valley.blogspot.com  , http://www.mr.satire.com and http://www.thehammer.com...while it may not be your 'style' of humour , Wiki's definition of satire, parody and cynasim would be applicable to this site.   Historical content (site links to news sites) also mandates relevance to Stephen Harper, as cited by Wiki guidelines.  
Thank you I appreciate your support.
Inspirit 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just don't get it.  This is an encylopedia and is for encyclopedic content.  Whether the owner of the website is First Nations or not has no bearing  on the fact that the website is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on Harper.  Do you have any idea how many websites, satirical and serious, cover Canadian issues?  There are tens of thousands of them and this particular humour site is no more relevant to Stephen Harper than any of the other ones.  This is an encylopedia, not a link farm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marklp (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Link to Canadian Political Humour Site

message: I would like to put out the question, are the election tables at the bottom of this article really relevant? I think the tables should only be in the riding profile articles, this article is long enough without them. --Cloveious 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election table removal

message: On July 17, a group of protesters, primarily expatriate Lebanese, protested Israeli aggression in front of the Israeli consulate in Montreal; further protests took place July 22 in localities across Canada.
I'm not sure this sentence belongs here.  It does not relate to Stephen Harper, only to Canadians and the conflict itself.  It's like saying that some people protest gay marriage... bladebot 07:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary information? 

message: Someone has to stop the vandalism on the is page.  We must prevent people from abusing the privileges of wikipedia like for example, 74.106.195.189, who had just recently made disgusting edits to this article which are now removed by more decent users of wikipedia.
:An admin has semi-protected the article. FellowWikipedian 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin should be bashed. Not Harper. FellowWikipedian 00:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is lots of vandalism on the Stephen Harper page. Mabie you should start checking this more often. FellowWikipedian 02:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the Vandalism 

message: Here is a templated review to let you know that everything passed for the GA status :
:1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass (minor non-notable trivia to remove)
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
Additional comments :
* Harper speaks both English and French. is unnecessary in the lead section as Canada's official languages are both, it would be necessary to mention it if he didn't talk both.
* The Background section should be more fluent and have less one-liner paragraphs.
* Harper agreed to play a small role in the television show Corner Gas. It was filmed on August 29, 2006, and will be aired in spring 2007., Harper suffers from asthma. Harper reportedly owns a large vinyl record collection and is an avid fan of The Beatles and AC/DC. and is non-notable trivia and shouldn't really be included.
* it was neck and neck right, isn't it neck to neck?
* I doubt the section Electoral record is necessary to the article especiall if it isn't located near any section that talk about his election.
Lincher 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: We can keep it for now, but if others complain about it, it should be removed. Judgesurreal777 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. FellowWikipedian 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election chart

message: I'm wondering if this article is becoming excessively long because it is blurring the lines between Stephen Harper the person, and Stephen Harper as some kind of personal embodiment of the current government of Canada.  I realise he is the prime minister, but every announcement he makes is not his own personal opinion, nor is every move by the Cabinet a reflection of his personal desires, and he alone certainly doesn't have relations with other nations; in other words, sometimes (often?) he is merely a mouth-piece for the government.  Perhaps all the sections that refer to the actions of "the Harper government" and "the Conservative government", as well as relations with the United States, and those about certain Bills in parliament should me moved to other, more pertinent articles. --gbambino 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great - much of what's here about the government policies is quite comprehensive and probably simply needs to be transferred from here to there.  The only negative thing I'd point out is that technically the government isn't Stephen Harper's - it's the Crown's government.  Perhaps the article should be called "Domestic Policy of the Harper government"?  It could even maybe be defined as the Harper Ministry. --gbambino 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good catch.  The sentence had earlier said that he was the first "elected" PM since Clark but an editor had removed it citing a concern that PM's are not elected per se.  It seems to have been an inadvertent error in that change.  But the incorrect version stood since Oct. 5th.  I'm surprised it got by us all for that long.  That's a bit of a wakeup call, huh?  --JGGardiner 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Harper vs. government policy & initiative 

message: Yeah but that article it already very long due to the list of MP's. I though maybe about those : Foreign Policy of Harper's government (Relation with US including the softwood dispute and the War in Afghanistan,) Domestic or Interior Policy of Harper's Government (social, environment, etc), Early Life of Stephen Harper, etc. Kinda like they've did with George W. Bush.--JForget 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great - much of what's here about the government policies is quite comprehensive and probably simply needs to be transferred from here to there.  The only negative thing I'd point out is that technically the government isn't Stephen Harper's - it's the Crown's government.  Perhaps the article should be called "Domestic Policy of the Harper government"?  It could even maybe be defined as the Harper Ministry. --gbambino 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal of individual articles

message: I've removed much of what was repeated between here and the two main articles Domestic policy of the Harper government and Foreign policy of the Harper government.  What wasn't repeated, I moved from here to either of those two.  Ditto for the election information, which has gone to Canadian federal election, 2004 or Canadian federal election, 2006.  Only what relates directly to Stephen Harper should be left here.
I hope this was an acceptable move. I'm not sure what to do about the long list of footnotes, though. --gbambino 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  The sentence had earlier said that he was the first "elected" PM since Clark but an editor had removed it citing a concern that PM's are not elected per se.  It seems to have been an inadvertent error in that change.  But the incorrect version stood since Oct. 5th.  I'm surprised it got by us all for that long.  That's a bit of a wakeup call, huh?  --JGGardiner 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: : Just a reminder, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SFrank85 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, however the article is massive, and seems to virtually ignore that Harper belongs to a very conservative evangelical group, and has ties to many very scary evangalicals, whose beliefs are completely outside of the mainstream.  I don't think the article should focus on this, or even have a lot of information on this.  But by ignoring it completely, are we not also having bias?  The media often seems to try and ignore this issue; however on the rare occasion, that a mainstream media publication actually tackles the issue, we shouldn't completely ignore it.  Evangalical Christianity appears to be important to Harper - but he has gone to great lengths on saying anything on the issue.  However I think for balance, there must be some commentary here.  Your are correct though, Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball.  I have restored some of the deleted text, in a manner that I think addresses that issue. Nfitz 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Paul Martin and Jean Chretien both belong to the Roman Catholic church, but I don't see you trying to add sections about the Catholic church's anti-condom programs in Africa or the dozen other things they can be criticized for.  The other Canadian leaders have their religion listed and left at that, they don't go in depth explaining every belief or program those churches have been responsible for, so I don't see why Harper's entry should be any different. Marklp 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should be a little info about Harper's religion for the people that are interested. Even though I agree with Wikipedia is not a Crystall ball. FellowWikipedian 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is blatant POV.  At least three different editors [] [] [] [] [] [] have deleted the POV but they have all been restored by Nfitz.  --Angrybeaver.bc 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the NPOV that I added yesterday.  The Walrus quote has been moved to a separate section as it does not really belong in the "Prime Minister" section.  Does anyone have opinions as to whether the Walrus quote should be kept or removed? (I also striked thru the blatant above, in retrespect it seems too strong) --Angrybeaver.bc 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be removed. Its just a guess on how deep Harper's convictions run. GoldDragon 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was all removed from the article a couple before you posted this ...  22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Walrus article - NPOV 

message: I have split a few things off from the article and shrunk it a bit and did some major archiving and shrunk the discussion page significantly. Kc4 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size issues

message: There was, prior to my last edit, an attempt to infuse into the PM's public statements anti-Israel sentiment. This is clearly factually false and makes the PM appear ridiculous. Such a violation of WP:NPOV had to be removed.--Lance talk 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hezbollah war against the Israel 

message: : I'm not sure its appropriate for this material to be posted on Wikipedia so I won't insert it into the article until I get a ruling.
The two clips are on YouTube and show Prime Minister Steven Harper promising not to tax income trusts. On October 31 Harper's broke that promise and this lead to Trust Investor capital losses of approximately $25-30 Billion Canadian Dollars. 
I think the YouTube material is relevant and newsworthy but I want other points of view before I insert it into the main article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9mibZYpVPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtiykp-WDG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SD9rfeZxLE
:: Just because something is "newsworthy" doesn't mean it belongs here.  This is an encyclopedia, not an ongoing news article.  You people keep trying to add every single policy, decision and news item into the article, the vast majority of which, quite frankly do not belong in an encylopedia. Marklp 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put it in the domestic policy article that I've created instead of here. I have briefly made mention of the income trust issue on the budget section. --JForget 23:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of YouTube Material on Canadian Income Trust Issue 

message: Can the IP's stop removing the first photo of the article, it's been persistant lately. maybe we should put with the Canadian flag in the back so maybe to imitate some of the U.S President articles which have their flag in the background--JForget 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need to find a better picture. There has been some discussion about this in the past. See . FellowWikipedian 03:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the good images are not fair use. Darn images :) FellowWikipedian 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone should add :Image:Harper2.JPG temporarily? The article should have a photo of the PM. FellowWikipedian 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Government and the House of Commons are two different things.  --JGGardiner 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are numerous Creative Commons licenced images available at Flickr. Would any of these meet your needs? Flickr images tagged 'Stephen Harper' with Creative Commons Licences DSatYVR 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, ha nice try. Go fight for your social justice, a word created by the Fascists by the way! SFrank85 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're being serious or not.  If you are, please assume good faith and all that.  Some of the pictures are indeed anti-Harper but many are not.  They include him reviewing soldiers, attending Conservatives rallies (many of one for Peter Kent) boarding his plane and looking rather Prime Ministerial, etc.  --JGGardiner 22:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. The Flickr images arn't even suitable for his article. But nice try anyways :-) FellowWikipedian 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: SFrank85, I don't think your baiting comments are appropriate to this webspace. FellowWikipedian, I'm not trying to fool anyone, but offer a solution to the copyright problem, no 'Nice Try' was attempted. I'm not interested in either of your politics. End of story. As JGGardiner pointed out there are many pictures that would get around the problem of copyright permission and be in good taste, although I admit you really have to look. Mr. Harper does seem to have numerous and vocal critics. Creative Commons Licenced pictures are more flexible and in this spirit I offer an solution to the problem. DSatYVR 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The first photo - stop removing it

message: I just took these out of the main article, they were in a second references section, but unlinked to any statement in the article.  Are these further reading candidates or did someone intend for them to verify something? Alan.ca 09:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have you seen these sources?