Talk:Premiership of Stephen Harper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV Tag[edit]

This artical is totaly biased agianst Harper. The opening section: Cabinet, does not actualy detail his cabinet, but rather discusses (from a liberal point of view) the crtisims of the cabinet.

Artical needs serious clean up. I will start the process but some help would be appreaciated. Macutty 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the qhole artical I have a couple suggestions: If the artical is to be a description of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister then we need to strip out all "reactions" "views" "responses" of other political parties and cut this down to just the facts. The whole artical is written as a critique of his term and is littered with Liberal party criticisms. As well, the topics chosen for discussion are all the controversial subjects that the Liberals have used as political action items since Harper took office. We need to re-write this whole artical NPOV rather than from a Liberal party members view.

how much are you being paid?

I'll start later today adding more of the actual business the Harper gov has conducted since taking office and will start to remove the offending info. Any help would be appreaciated. Macutty 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, without having read the article in question, your proposal makes no sense. We're supposed to say what he did, but not how it was received? Politics is always a long sequence of action → reaction → counterreaction → reaction to counter-reaction, etc.
Many of Harper's actions as Prime Minister have clearly been in response to criticism from the Opposition, so gutting the article of any mention of the opposition would be making things less comphensible.
Now, the article should not obviously look like a giant polemic against Harper, but that's mostly a question of the way in which it's written. Gutting all mention of anyone outside Harper's cabinet is not the way to go. --Saforrest 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Article needs to be completly re-written, it really says nothing about Harper's time in office , save mentioning anything that is conterversial and that the Liberals/NDP have used agaisnt him. For example it references the recent cut to womens programes anounced in the throne speach, but does not mention that funding for women's programes have increased 42% overall under his administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.91 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, there seems to be two photos of Harper with Bush. Perhaps we consider finding some photos of the Prime Minister that do not have Bush in them. Given the recent unpopularity of Bush in Canada, this may appear to bias the article. Fraud talk to me 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I caught some apparant vandalism at the top of the page, and changed it, but immediately realized that I should've reverted rather than changing it. Unfortunately, if I try to, I get the error "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits.". Could someone who knows what they're doing please revert it?

Thanks. Laser Dude 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial criticism -- title of this article[edit]

In Canada, the leader of the federal Parliament is the PRIME MINISTER, not the "Premier. Correctly, then, the leaders of each of the Provincial assemblies are PREMIERS and not "Prime Ministers". Although games are played with this, in particular by elites in Quebec, trying to create two de facto central Parliaments for Canada, which violates s. 17 of the Constitution Act, 1867, establishing "ONE" Parliament (and thus "one" Prime Minister) "for Canada").

I therefore strongly suggest that the title of this article be changed to "The Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper".

Merge into 28th Canadian Ministry[edit]

This article should be merged into that article. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing article[edit]

This page was recently the subject of a deletion debate the result of which was no consensus. The admin who closed the discussion summarized the findings as follows:

Several of the deletion arguments were very weak and I've discounted them: the use of the word "Premiership" (renaming articles to use a more appropriate synonym is obviously the right fix there), potential legal issues (not our problem: Wikipedia is not subject to Canadian broadcasting laws), various takes on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or not as the case may be) and the nominator's increasingly irate insistence that we're all being manipulated the Canadian Conservative Party.
There are some cogent arguments regarding the supposed walled garden nature of the articles, along with several editors examining the content and finding it to be somewhat systematically skewed. Nevertheless, multiple editors have pointed out that these are long-established articles with years of editing history and that deletion of such pages due to tone / POV problems alone is rare. One recent example was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews, but I think most parties can agree that was an extraordinary case. All in all it's not possible to discern an overwhelming consensus either way, although I think there is consensus that some major editing (and possibly some merging and moving of content) is required to address the alleged POV problems.

I am going to work on cleaning the article up and propose that we merge it once clean into 28th Canadian Ministry with Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper, Premiership of Stephen Harper and Harper government all redirecting there. Though WP:NAME would suggest that 28th Canadian Ministry may not be the best name for this article, I suggest we keep it there at least until the current election is over at which time we can revisit what the proper article name should be when tempers aren't as high.

Do folks agree with this approach? - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to join me in the clean up and to discuss it, please check out the page and the discussion. - Pictureprovince (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think a move of this page is ill advised at this time, considering the Afd discussion; leave it as it is and after the election when things have calmed down, we should tackle whether to move it. In the meantime, I will help with cleaning up the article. Outback the koala (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We're not here to be sensitive to elections and cater to them. In fact, we routinely semi-protect political articles when elections come around so that IP addresses and non-confirmed users can't edit them. We're here to write an encyclopedia. This is the proper name for the article and if it is proper at one time, then it is proper indefinitely until Wikipedia consensus changes for all of the articles in this vein and not in relation to any election. Now, an you specify exactly what content issues there are with this article, specifically? There's been much complaining on people's parts, but no specifying what exactly is wrong with the article. SilverserenC 23:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there seemed to be a fairly wide consensus on the AfD that the name should be changed. In terms of fixing it, there are some claims of bias, though it seems to be largely balanced, but also some flow/structural problems. I think fixing the article needs to be the first goal and the name can be settled later, whether or not that surrounds the timing of the election. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What in the Afd gave you the idea that there is a "fairly wide consensus" that the name should be changed. Many early comments stated that it was a bad name - but then during the Afd process, the page was moved and I don't see anyone up in arms about the current page title. I agree with you that the name is secondary to changes that need to be made in the article. We can discuss the name later. The time to edit the article, and change it, is now, anyone at any time could be editing and I see no edits since the Afd closed, myself included. Outback the koala (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per my note above, I am working on reworking the article here before making changes to the actual article. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot change the name of the article without consensus to do so and there is no such consensus to do so here. Furthermore, can you please specify exactly what changes you are making to the article in your draft? It is too difficult to compare the two versions. SilverserenC 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest if you have changes, just make them. If there anything to be disagreed upon, we can talk about it here; thereby keeping the process going. Outback the koala (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Be bold and just make the changes. The current article is of low enough quality that I can't see significant good-faith opposition to attempts to improve it even if that means a rewrite. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quite bold. It still needs a bit of work, but I hope that this is seen as an improvement. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen is not a premier, he is a prime minister.[edit]

Within Canada 'Premier' refers to a provicial leader while prime minister refers to a federal one, Stepher Harper is the "prime minister of canada" mot the 'premier' of a province. Premiership is incorrect within canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.35.89 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You are obviously not bilingual. Garth of the Forest (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not so black and white. In Quebec, the premier is referred to as the Prime Minister of Quebec and their legislature is referred to as the National Assembly. The term Premiership is NOT incorrect at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.23.138 (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Premier is a really close to a synonym for PM, and in any case linguistically you dont have a prime ministership Ottawakismet (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in any case, Canadian English doesn't have a "premiership" either unless in reference to a provincial premier; it's also Ontario where "prime minister" is the formal usage though premier is used in parlance and media, usually. "Premiership" on PM articles is a wiki-neologism to me, and has never looked right. I have heard "prime ministership" however, not sure if in the media but it's definitely a term I've heard in speech.Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a neologism. Prime ministership is the neologism. Premiership (the state of being the Premier(s)) may refer to:

The post of Prime Minister or Premier, who is the head of government in many parliamentary systems

It sounds odd to your ears because it is old fashioned (premier is the more traditional and universal term), not because it is a neologism. The word Premiership dates back to 1400-1500 CE, from middle english. Ottawakismet (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking a contributor is not the answer. In all my years of following and studying Canadian politics I have never come across a Prime Minister's term referred to as a Premiership. This is the English wikipedia, and how the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec refers to its leader does not justify mislabeling (downgrading) the Prime Minister's title. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such construction, even in Canadian English, as "primeministership". What you need to understand is that the difference between "prime minister" and "premier" is a Canadian usage convention, not a basic feature of the words' definitions — in standard English, "premier" and "prime minister" are completely interchangeable terms for the head of a parliamentary government. And while it's rare, you can find historical sources (yes, even ones written by Canadians) in which a provincial leader was referred to as "prime minister" and a federal one was referred to as "premier". So "premiership" may land oddly on your ears, but Ottawakismet is entirely correct that "primeministership" isn't a thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a term "Prime Ministership," [1], and it should be used here for the reasons outlined above. Instant Comma (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economist[edit]

The article says that Stephen Harper is an economist and uses About.com as a source which is not reliable. Would someone show where he has worked as an economist as listing this as his profession is dubious and quite probably wrong. --Kuzwa (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed this feel free to re-add it if you have a better source. --Kuzwa (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't do to tell the truth of course....lesse, mailboy at Exxon (truth), anti-tax activist (truth), or "tax lobbyist" if you prefer, and "political activist" ...to be an economist you have to have a degree in the field, also. Or in something. Gordon Campbell's page used to say he was a schoolteacher....for all of a few months is the truth (not long even if it was a year or two)...."real estate lobbyist" was true, but people objected to it as POV (that was pretty much his capacity as Mayor of Vancouver, when he was known as "Marathon's boy at city hall"). I'll refrain from further observations of the truth lest someone complain I'm using Wikipedia as a blog...but the truth hurts, don't it?Skookum1 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in office[edit]

The beginning of his term is given as the date he was sworn into office, February 6, 2006. It would be appropriate, therefore, to give the end of his term as the date Trudeau will be sworn in. That has not happened yet; until that happens, Harper will technically remain in office.24.222.2.222 (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes |current1=Premiership of Stephen Harper|new1=Harper Government|current2=Premiership of Justin Trudeau|new2=Trudeau Government|}}

– I see this has been discussed before but I want to formally nominate this move. I think Harper Government makes sense for a number of reasons (although if editors prefer, Government of Stephen Harper would work too, however I think this one is more commonly used). First, Harper Government is actually used by the public. I've never seen "Premiership" used in Canada. A search of the name on Google News (without quotes) turns up around 4,000 results. Harper government, on the other hand, turns up almost 4 million. Even a search of "Trudeau government" already turns up 20,500 results on Google News, far more than "Premiership." Next, the term is much more natural and more likely to be searched for, since premiership is rarely used in Canada. As for precision, I think both of these titles are equally precise. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose clearly doesn't respect Canadian history, or completely lacking in historical context. Did you not read all the coverage of Justin Trudeau saying he is the son of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau? ; I also strongly oppose using only surnames -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suggested using Government of Stephen Harper/Justin Trudeau as well and would support that move. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but I agree with part of what's being proposed. While using "premiership" is consistent with what's being used for Britain, India and Australia, "government" is in common use. I would support Government of Justin Trudeau and Government of Stephen Harper instead of what's being proposed here. PKT(alk) 12:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support using Government of Stephen Harper as well. If consensus supports that instead, then we can move it there. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – "Government of Justin Trudeau" could also refer to the 29th Canadian Ministry, and is hence ambiguous. These articles are about the policy direction driven by the prime minister, not the composition of the government/ministry. RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree, they have different meanings and the pages are quite different. Ministry refers only to the cabinet and ministers. The government is a much broader term encompassing the federal administration of Canada. See Government of Canada for the definition. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose It is the Government of Canada, not of an individual person. The fact the PR departments use this term is irrelevant the proper term is Premiership. I do not live in the nation of Harper or Trudeau, I live in Canada. I would support redirects to point to this title but not the other way or another option is to rename them to the the Harper Administration or Trudeau Administration. The government of... or .... Government, should only be attached to a country, not a politician.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) "Proper term" is not a valid criteria for naming articles, see WP:COMMONNAME. Precision does matter but neither is more precise. 2) Premiership isn't used on any government of Canada website or official media, isn't used in the Constitution or any acts of Parliament, and has never been a widely used Canadian term. Administration is an American term and is not used as much as "Government of". FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at paragraph 3 where it speaks to inaccurate names. Harper Government or Government of Harper is inaccurate and a product of the conservative PR department from when Harper was elected. There is no such thing as the Government of Harper because there is no nation called Harper. The same thing applies for Harper Government. I agree premiership is an odd title but nothing which is accurate or correct has been provided.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're confusing the controversy over the explicit PR branding of the government as the Harper Government with the terminology used by the public to refer to the government in power. The term itself predates Harper - it dates back at least a century in Canada: [2], [3], [4] or [5]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion, the proposed names are inaccurate and should not be the primary title for any of the articles.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Premiership of Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Premiership of Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Premiership of Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

The format was changed here and the link is dead. The earliest version of this article used MDY and it was consistently so until that edit. If someone can access that link and explain why it was changed on that date, feel free to ping me as I don't watch this page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Premiership of Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Premiership_of_Stephen_Harper&oldid=1201663291"