Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 6

Vandalism
Protection's doing a great job: "When he ate a baby, yum yum yum yum cum yum yum" (in the info box) -- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Celestra (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That really happened. Stephen Harper only eats deep-fried baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.112.157 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, only American babies.

Edit request
editsemiprotected Please change the personal life section from its current state so that it mentions Harper's concert appearance with Yo-Yo Ma in Ottawa on Oct 3rd, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/03/harper-piano.html
 * Tim Song (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Doktor Mandrake  07:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did it. :) Tim Song (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, didn't realise I'd got an edit conflict. I've added a little more to it though.  Doktor  Mandrake  07:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Background
It is necessary to make mention that the Conservative party, under Harper, are notorious about launching attack ads against the opposition on an ongoing basis. http://victoriastar.canadaeast.com/article/672171 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchenersteve (talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to list Harper's childhood addresses, as these have not yet been turned into national museums, and are nondescript compared with e.g. Marlborough House or Monticello. The fact that Harper is the first Protestant elected since Pearson is trivial. That Harper's church is mentioned should suffice. Also, the reference to Diefenbaker as an evangelist is dubious. He was a Baptist and came across as an evangelist, but I do not know if he considered himself an evangelist.

May I suggest that this information be deleted? --The Four Deuces (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think you should go ahead and do so. DiscardedDream (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for party divisiveness as a result of Harper's criticisms of Manning
Its claimed Harper's criticisms of manning's expense account was divisive in the party, and there is a citation needed tag.

Since I can't be trusted to edit the article, apparently, here's a source demonstrating some of the party squabbles:

" In 1994, it emerged that Reform leader Preston Manning enjoyed a $31,000 expense account from the party, for which he did not have to provide receipts. This was designed to cover such expenses as suits and their dry cleaning, as well as plane tickets for his family. It also included a $6,000 car allowance, despite the fact that Manning had pointedly relinquished the keys to his government automobile upon arriving on Parliament Hill.

Among the fiercest critics of the arrangement was Harper, who said Reform MPs were in no position to criticize the pay and benefits other politicians enjoyed at taxpayers' expense - which would become something of a habit - without demanding accountability from their own leader.........\

In the ensuing fracas, Manning immediately offered to itemize his spending. But Harper was excoriated in writing by the Reform Party council for his loose tongue.

"We're quite free to say these things in our party, but as a judgment call, I would argue that the messages we get out to the public should be something affecting the public in a major way,'' said Reform MP Diane Ablonczy.

"It's not up to me to anticipate press disasters perpetrated by the party," Harper responded, as gleeful Liberal wags heckled Manning in the House of Commons with calls of "nice suit." " http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070418_190105_6228

Also, needs more tendercrisp bacon cheddar ranch.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)--24.29.234.88 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)--24.29.234.88 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Premiership of Stephen Harper article?
This has been raised on the Canadian Wikipedians' discussion board and there are alreayd merge templates on that article for Economic policy of the Harper government and its sister articles; see Harper Government for others; "article over-bloat" for this individual seems to be a product of his p.r. machine - is there any other Canadian PM that has so many articles about himself? Are they all really needed?? Just asking rhetorically; please answer on the noticeboard discussion, so it's all in one place....Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to note also that an article such as Media criticism of Stephen Harper's ego would have a lot of material...Skookum1 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these articles are unnecessary, should we post an AfD? --Clausewitz01 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, just the sheer volume and coordination fo thre article suggest to me that WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues are definitely at play; I haven't investigated the creation-history and can't investigate and maybe shouldn't finger point (or am not supposed to anyway) but to me this is "overburden" and using Wikipedia for a p.r. campaign, like advertising. Politicla spam.  I don't even think we have Economic policy of Canada or Canadian economic policy but we do have Economic policy of the Harper government. And by way of example Economic poiicy of the Trudeau government as someone noted would take a lot of research; ultimately original research, as perhaps these can also all shown to be, or certainly synthesis and "a discriminate collection of information" rather than an indiscriminate one..; especially if the information is selective or has been "washed" ,despite some contrary opinions/citations in some of them.  Why does any one man need so manhy articles?  I a'm leaning towards this being a WP:BLP issue too, as self-promotion is a no-no but of course that's also the point of WP:COI and WP:AUTO.  Stephen Harper Leadership Team reads like a list of credits...."brought to you by..."Skookum1 (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Short version: is there such a thing as limitations to content? ie. in volume and scope, re one person. I mean, not a really notable person like FDR or Obama  orNapoleon or Churchill or at least a dozen other PMs, just another PM, just another politician of thousands...Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at Jean Chretien's page, and it looks like he just has the one page. If that is the case we should go with that example. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's next; a bulk AFD for most of the contents of Category:Stephen Harper? Is there a Category:Jean Chrétien or Category:Pierre Elliott Trudeau or Category:Brian Mulroney.  Is there a template for any of these individuals anything like Harper Government?  Im' only asking rhetorically, but the other point is if the YYY Policy of Stephen Harper series gest deleted (turned into redirects maybe) and its contents distributed into e.g. Economic history of Canada, there's no need for that template; or category.  Seems like blanket AFD of kind may be called for....and could be quite a catfight given what's going on elsewhere, we'll see....Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right, a bulk AfD is called for, and it will be a bit over the top in rhetoric. How about we put these templates at the top of the pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merging_articles#Proposing_a_merger ? --Clausewitz01 (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a merge area at WP:Canada's noticeboard, not srue if there's a generral Wikipedia merger board...its' by far the safer way to go; I think we need to do a "census" of related articles-in-need-of-merging before we propose it though....Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has already started merge debates on a few, but I'll start a list on this page so we can start to somewhat keep track. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Found a discussion about a movement to standardize articles about Canadian Prime Ministers. My opinion is that no Canadian PM needs a laundry list of Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Governments_of_Canada#Proposal_to_standardize_coverage_of_PMs --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

List of closely related articles

 * Domestic policy of the Harper government
 * Federal Accountability Act
 * Premiership of Stephen Harper
 * 28th Canadian Ministry
 * Canada's New Government
 * Foreign policy of the Harper government
 * Social policy of the Harper government
 * National unity policy of the Harper government
 * Québécois nation motion
 * Economic policy of the Harper government
 * Environmental policy of the Harper government
 * Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan
 * Veterans' Bill of Rights

lead trivia
I think this sentence is trivial, especially for the lead, and should be removed:
 * Harper is the first Canadian prime minister born in the second half of the twentieth century

There's nothing remotely significant about this time period. So, being the first PM born in it isn't significant either. --Rob (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

More Harper wiki-fluffing
As per the issues implicit in the previous sections, it appears that promotional blurbs about "the Harper government" are scattered all over wikipages and I'm starting to wonder how many, and how extensive this problem is in comparison to content re other Prime Ministers....On Canadian identity there was a blurb about Harper's appointment of Jason Kenny as the "first" minister of Canadian identity right in the intro, as if it was big news; it's NOT big news, it's a name-change from what used to be Canadian Culture, which was Sheila Copps' portfolio (amongst others); what's news, perhaps, is that it marks the downgrading of Canadian culture/identity below/within Multiculturalism, which used to be a separate portfolio....So I moved the item down to the Multiculturalism section, where even there it only dimly belongs; unless some "balance" is included mentioning other cabinet ministers who've had the same responsibilities (if under different portfolio titles...)...even including those from other parties (GASP!!). This isn't the first instance of "wiki-fluffing" I've found concerning Harper, of course, and it's scarceluy going to be the last. I tried to look at "what links here" re the Harper article but there's no way to get a precise count of articles (as opposed to talkpages) linked to it which would give me an indication of how many other not-really-to-do-with-Harper articles have a p.r./press-kit blurb about some great thing he's done about that topic. What would be interesting to know is how many Wikipedia articles mention Harper, vs those that mention Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau....Harper's only been in power for a few years, and only in a minority government; but the range and cope of his wiki-coverage makes it seem like he's the most important Prime Minister in Canadian history; and I used to think Mulroney had the most bloated ego and overblown presskit, but...sheesh Harper really does take the cake, considering his short time in power especially. This has got to stop (Harper enthusiasts such as those trying to "wash" hte parliamentary dispute article please note you can pretend to be NPOV, nobody else is fooled...even if you're otherwise regular Wikipedians...). Largely-irrelevant cabinet deck-shuffling and other "web-op news items" does not constitute wikipedia/encyclopedic content and should be excised from articles where it's found. The effect of all this sowing of Harper's seed in Wikipedia is to affect history, as well as to distort it. Sure, someone may put in an item on their political hero "in good faith" but that doesn't mean it matches NPOV or MOS and "what Wikipedia is not".....if there's an admin who can provide me a headcount of articles which mention/link to Harper/this article I'd be very curious to see the list. No doubt on national park articles, ethnic history articles and town/city articles (e.g. "In 2007 Flatwater, Manitoba was visited by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who unveiled a plaque after donating money to the town's struggling pulp mill" - that kind of crap, though that's a made-up quote by way of example of the kind of thing I mean). Wikipedia is not meant to be a promotional venue for politicians, and advancing such copy is intrinsically "political spam". And believe me, if I found evidence that somebody was diong the same for Chretien, Ignatieff or Trudeau, I'd be taking the same position. it's time to purge the party operatives and their leavings....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the page is unnecessarily too long and could be drastically cut in size as to whats encyclopedic and whats not. I mean John A Macdonald's (Other important canadian prime ministers as well) page is half the size and his achiements are more notable. Just a thought to this issue Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he still live in Calgary?
Notice that Barack Obama's infobox lists "Private" residence as Chicago,IL and "Official" residence as White House, Washington, DC. Does Harper still maintain a Private residence in Calgary? -M.Nelson (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

other comments
I find that Steven Harper really "The Right Honourable" he is making canadian women not to be able to stand up and fight fro them selfs. Not letting women get payed =ly that is just outragouse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.18.193 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Harper is a recovering alcoholic and in the 1990's attended AA meetings in Calgary. This quality shows his strong determination to deal with problems in a rational and forthright manner. No adverse conclusion should be drawn from this fact by the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.3.9 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but the public interest is also not served by not mentioning it, or deleting it....."some of my best friends are/were alcoholics/junkies"....addiction is an illness, not a weakness. But it's also news/bio-worthy....Skookum1 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources would be needed for us to include this kind of information in the article. Has he ever spoken about this publicly to the media? Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. As an aspiring PM I'm sure he would have tried to keep that quiet. --Thaddius (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, shouldn't it go into "Personal life"? Or is that just reserved for his regular church attendance and love of the outdoors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.195.178 (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at present all we have is hearsay evidence from the person who started this section about his attendance at AA meetings. Given the confidential nature of AA meetings there's no way the AA themselves could or should provide info on that; if Mr Harper hasn't said anythign publicly it's also bad manners for someone else at any meetings he may have attended to say anything.  Gordon Campbell was pretty much forced to go to AA meetings after his debacle in Maui, but that was a court-ordered attendnace, not a voluntary one as, if it's true, was the case here....Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Photoshopped image
Please participate in the discussion regarding the use of a photoshopped image of the PM in this and several other articles at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. --Rob (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some doubt that this image meets Wikipedia/Commons licensing requirements. If anyone has some information they could add (see link to discussion above), that would be great.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

image issue, revisited
for insufficient permission. is based on it, so I expect it will also be deleted. So, we'll need to discuss whether to replace it with an image from Commons:Category:Stephen Harper or see if another image can be found. --Rob (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This photo would be the best IMO, but I'm not sure who made it or what its license is.--MTLskyline (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the info box picture to one that looks more appropriate, it is from the Commons:Category:Stephen Harper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhcmedia (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
- When then Prime Minister Jean Cretien announced in March 2003 that Canada would not partake in the US led Iraq invasion, Stephen Harper (then opposition leader) called this decision “an embarrassment.” http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/04/08/iraq_can_parl030408.html - Under section 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP. Dona Cadman (wife of then MP Chuck Cadman) says that her husband told her that prior to the May 2005 confidence vote, two Conservative Party officials, offered her husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote against the Liberal budget. Afterwards, Harper filed a $2.5-million lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Canada, the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada and the unnamed author, or authors, for publishing this information on the party's website. However Harper later admitted in an August 2008 court deposition that he personally authorized an offer made to Cadman in 2005. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080401/harper_cadman_080401?s_name=&no_ads= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Cadman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchenersteve (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Harper family picture
I think it would be a good idea to have a picture of Mr. Harper with his wife and children. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Are their any fair use ones available? --MTLskyline (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuances around who did what with regards to prorogation
It would be appropriate to say that Harper was the first Prime Minister of Canada to ask the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a vote of non-confidence. He doesn't have the authority to prorogue Parliament himself, and did not do so. It may also be appropriate to add that this caused a constitutional controversy, and that it is still not known how it will turn out.

Comment on the comment: This is not a nuance concerning prorogation - the statement that he prorogued Parliament is simply WRONG. It should be removed or revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the first comment is valid, given that Harper set a new precedent for avoiding a vote of non-confidence. That is caused a constitutional controversy is also valid. Thus that aspect of the comment should be added. TheStarter (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with first poster. It is certainly true that he had to ask the GG and this is the correct constitutional process; saying he did it himself is incorrect. Also agreed with first poster that he was the first to do so to avoid a vote of non-confidence. This is true, verifiable, relevant, and very interesting from a political perspective. The fact that second such controversy is playing out now may heighten the value of this as a historical lesson or precedent. 99.231.96.141 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * concur with anon users. Outback the koala (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1988: Harper defeats Satan S. Evil
Interesting. Isn't anyone watching this article for vandalism? 24.66.190.107 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Few people want to read about Mr. Harper. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Longest-surviving minority?
Harper has managed to stay in power since February 2006 in a minority position. I can't think of any other minority-leading PM lasting this long without either being defeated or gaining a majority. Perhaps someone can confirm this; it's a superlative worth noting especially given the current renewed interest in the minority or "hung" government concept following the UK election. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was an election in 2008, so those are two separate minority governments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a source, it can be mentioned. However, choosing only political commentary that you want to display and protesting against negative political commentary is POV pushing and not supposed to happen in Wikipedia. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not true when the IP editor asked, but it is now. Here's a source, but I don't feel up to finding the best place to put it. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethics
There needs to be a section on ethics. Harper's government has been accused of ethical breaches. On the other hand, Harper has stated his commitment to improving the ethic standards of his government. The section should be balanced.VR talk  22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the Federal Accountability Act. It could use some work itself but I'm sure it deserves mention here as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Coalition vs. Weasel words
There have been a couple of editors that have replaced coalition with weasel words. Co-operation and agreement are just informal words for a coalition government. Kingjeff (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. However, actual reliable sources say that the three leaders involved stated at the time that they were not talking about a coalition. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that Gilles Duceppe was lying? What doe you think a coalition government is? Kingjeff (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kingjeff, you don't completely alter the tone of a section and then start a discussion after the fact, if you know it is going to be controversial. What a hypocrite you are!
 * Kingjeff, I apologize for calling you a hypocrite. What I meant to say is that you should not revert three other editors who disagreed with your use of the word "coalition," and then start a discussion 6 minutes later. Your reversion was before any discussion took place, when you knew that three people already disagreed with you. That seemed a bit contradictory, when you claim that no reversion should take place without discussion. That is all. :-) Besides, I did not even see that a discussion was taking place, as I was not looking at the Talk Page, only at the edit History.
 * After I made the Rv at Revision as of 11:22 CDT, 28 March 2011, I received your message on my Talk Page that "You really shouldn't be reverting when it's up for discussion on the talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC) or 11:31 CDT"—which was 9 minutes after I made my reversion.
 * After that, both I and Fat&Happy made one more reversion each based on reliable sources, not POV. --Skol fir (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should be returned to the previous neutral version, and then discussed before any changes are made! --Skol fir (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one altering the tone. I was the one who created the section. Calling it a coalition doesn't make make it POV. What Stephen Harper was trying to do meets the definition of a coalition government. And you might want to stop your personal attacks. Kingjeff (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally. Just calling a spade a spade. As for the consensus you are looking for, both Fat&Happy and myself agree that right from the start, when you created this section, the wording was controversial and biased from your own POV. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not encourage political grandstanding. Do that somewhere else...and in your spare time, read WP:NPOV. --Skol fir (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If describing it as a coalition is not POV, then why is removal of that word being characterized as weasel-wording? If the word is neutral, it is not required, since agreement serves perfectly well. The situation was not described as a coalition when it occurred in 2004; in fact, according to reliable sources, the three participants stated it was not a coalition. For one of those participants to now say it was, seven years later, might be seen as indicative of either faulty recall or revisionism. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Agreement" and "Cooperation" are weasel words or coalition government. These words can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Which isn't correct. I t doesn't matter how anybody described it. The definition of coalition government. Kingjeff (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your viewpoint. Wikipedia articles are not based on your viewpoint. Wikipedia articles are not even based on "facts", whatever those may be. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. Do you have any supporting your contention? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I started the section by saying, "On March 26, 2011, Gilles Duceppe stated that Stephen Harper was ready to form a coalition government with the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party." So, it is really about what Duceppe said. In a later edit, I wrote "Harper denied trying to form a coalition government and called it a "co-operative effort."" Which I believe clearly shows that it is a neutral point of view. Kingjeff (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that at the time of this incident (2004) all three parties said it was not a "coalition." Now it is Duceppe's interpretation against Harper's (2011). That means you do not put the word "Coalition" into the title of this section, because that skews the interpretation in favor of Duceppe. Our role as editors is not to side with one or the other, but to present a balanced view. That means using unbiased words in the title, that do not favor one or the other. All three parties agreed that it was an agreement, or "cooperative effort." They do not agree that it was a coalition. So leave out the contentious word in the title, to keep the neutrality.


 * I repeat what I said in one of my edit summaries, that this article is about Stephen Harper, and to protect his rights in a BLP, we must be extra careful not to show a bias. We already have enough opposing opinions from reliable sources in the text to strike a balance for Harper's opinion on the matter. --Skol fir (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Extremely prejudicial language assuming intentions, mandate and "strength" of government
This page is supposed to e about Harper, not about his government's intentions. So what is this doing in the opening paragraphs?
 * ''...winning 143 of 308 Commons seats, a strengthened minority government.[1] Harper stated on October 15 that he would summon Parliament later in 2008, would soon convene a meeting of Canadian First Ministers, and that his Finance Minister Jim Flaherty would present a mini-budget in November, 2008, to deal with the turbulent economic conditions.

My primary reservations here are the discussion of the upcoming budget and what he'd asked Jim Flaherty to do; this is all de rigeur in the case of any newly (re-)elected government, a non sequitur that sounds too much like a press release. i.e. pro-government hype/p.r. I don't think it's at all relevant in a lead/opening bio of Harper &mdash; it's politics, and something that hasn't happened yet. This should not be a platform for Harper's agenda.....also as any political pundit (who's not a spin doctor or party hack) will tell you there's not very much difference between a "minority government" and a "strengthened minority government". As one wag puts it, it's like "pregnant" vs "almost pregnant". either you are or you aren't. A minority is a minority, and implicitly is not "strengthenable", and can only really be strengthened by a formal coalition with another party. The reality is that Harper set out to get a majority and failed - that should be clearly stated here, rather than underscoring the government's p.r. that this is a "strengthened mandate". It's not; and the mandate actually dropped in raw numerical terms; a "strengthened mandate" could be talked about if there had been an increase in the popular vote figures, and an increase in the percentage of the vote; a 1.4% increase may have yielded an (undeserved) block of new seats, but it'se a reflection of voter disinterest - and the failings of the first-past-the-post plurality system, much more than it is anything toe do with the government "strengthening" its support. No doubt there's other soft-soapings throughout this article; I only happened to notice these because they're out-of-place in the intro (and misleading).Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The motivation seems to be to get the POV words "strengthened minority government" in there. The current wording "won a new mandate" is also unacceptable as it is very POV.  In Canada there is no formal granting of "mandates" and the government does not even exist until a Throne Speech passes votes of the full Canadian House of Commons and also the Senate.  So the only neutral thing that could be said is that Harper's party won more seats than any other, and expected to govern.  However all these questions became immediately very important during a series of events - the Canadian federal confidence crisis, 2008 - in which his legitimacy and authority to govern was not just challenged but literally *lost* to a coalition of other parties.  Technically, it's in doubt whether he even *is* the Prime Minister as of early December 2008, and certainly no "government" or "mandate" can be said to neutrally exist until the vote of confidence can be held, which Harper has now delayed.


 * To top it off, both John Baird and Jim Prentice have apparently begun campaigns for the leadership of the party, to replace Harper and try to end the crisis while retaining the role of government. Which makes it very important not to pretend Harper has some "mandate" or that he rather than his party was "strengthened" as it is extremely prejudicial against all his rivals both inside and outside his party.  This language absolutely must be replaced as 62% of Canadians are now actively engaged in a campaign to remove Harper and his party from power, and they would certainly not accept that he was "strengthened" nor has any "mandate". (post by User:142.177.104.18 who did not sign).


 * This issue of prejudicial language and bias is a real one. This is a man who has a very strong reputation for micromanaging his public persona, tightly controlling all news about him and constantly placing favourable pieces about himself into the media. There is a large and growing body of evidence for his use of this strategy in fact and a number of the statements in this section are taken straight from people representing him, with no critical comment. For example, his spokesperson is simply quoted as stating that Harper has allowed unprecedented access to the media, a statement that is patently untrue, based on complaints about his government by the Canadian Association of Journalists. Since it no longer appears to be possible to edit this entry (a reasonable precaution during an election), there should be an effort to remove such untruths.MJeanHellyer (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Jean

Plagiarized John Howard's March 18, 2003 speech arguing the war on Iraq
A most remarkable video has appeared on YouTube juxtaposing Stephen Harper's March 20 speech to the Canadian parliament with John Howard's ditto to the Australian legislature. I suspect this to be a scandal brewing, but we probably need independent commentary on this incident to merit inclusion in the article. __meco (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Luckily this is already in the news media:


 * Apparently the above is not the only instance where Harper copied text from John Howard:
 * __meco (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * __meco (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * An opinion piece in Toronto Star even states:
 * ''Plagiarism, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has learned to his cost, is no small thing.


 * ''It may well be, if his decline continues to election day – costing him not just the majority mandate he coveted, but possibly the government itself – that historians will track its beginnings to the day it was learned that Harper had mouthed to the nation, on an occasion of great import, stolen words.
 * __meco (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * __meco (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This story is already present as a separate section at List of plagiarism controversies and further details are described at Canadian federal election, 2008. __meco (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A question for Canadian Wikipedians
Since nobody seems to be concerned that the story detailed somewhat above be incorporated into this article, can that be interpreted as Canadians in general finding this incident to be of little import? I find it more than a little curious that nobody has felt it pertinent to add this material, with the article prominently featured on the front page now for several days and everything. My reason for not adding it is that I'm very unfamiliar with the subject, and I hadn't heard of Harper until I watched the YouTube video. Would any of you care to give a comment on the non-inclusion yet of this material? __meco (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The incident in question is described in depth in the article Canadian federal election, 2008. It's not that it's trivial or unimportant — it's a question of putting it in the proper context. Because this article doesn't otherwise contain very much content on the election campaign at all, the plagiarism incident currently fits in much more naturally there than it does here. It might fit in here if somebody added a much more substantial review of the Conservative campaign, but right now it would just be a contextless tangent with potential WP:BLP problems. Bearcat (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with Bearcat. So far, it has only been an election issue. As for not adding my comment to the discussion above, I find, to my surprise, that until now, this article has not been on my watchlist. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must aver that it's been much more than an election issue; that's purely a Canadian viewpoint, fostered by our own media and somehow dealt out of the deck during the campaign (a POV opinion I know but this is a talkpage); but put in a global perspective - and an honest national one - this is one of the very few occasions in which a Canadian prime minister has made headlines around the world, no less during a campaign, and no less concerning something scandalous (if trashy and puerile). The Bernier scandal is much more salacious, for instance, but it's not the same thing as a head of government committing a gaffe of this kind (unless you're GWB himself or types like Dan Quayle who made gaffes on a daily basis.  Point blank, this was an international embarrassment and made more impact on Canada's name globally than it did on the campaign; to which it's incidental alrgely, given the result (to me it says more about the lack of originality of Tory speechwriters than it does of any particular inadequacy of Harper's....just conservative boilerplate, after all, tht got tossed around committee rooms in Washington, Canberra and Ottawa and variously regurgitated)...nobody really expects PMs to write their own speeches anymore; they just should have speechwriters that don't crib from other speechwriters.......  So I must differ - it's the opposite; it was not an election issue (though it tried to be) and rather it stands out as one of e few times in Canadian history any  scandal involving as PM made it outside the country, and any election side-issue attracted international notice.  The election's not the main issue, the nature of the international exposure was....  It doesn't have to be phrased as elaborately as this, but it should be mentioned in his bio; it is significant and not just in an electoral campaign sense.  It's not the in-Canada profile that matters in such cases; it's the international perspective that does....it all got upstaged by the financial crisis of course....Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, multiple international sources would make me reconsider. Double Blue  (Talk) 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do; the Aussie and Us papers for sure, according to our own networks' coverage...I'll check the Latin American papers I know of, and the main European magazines and daililes.....computer's running "boggy" so may take me a while (too many files on-drive).....Skookum1 (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found the other 1834 yet; hard to dig through all the blog mentions and Canadian media coverage.... That's all for now, I've got other things to do - but I haven't even scratched the Aussie papers or the UK ones, or other languages yet....Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Washington Times
 * BBC
 * CTV, but headline is "Harper's plagiarized speech makes worldwide headlines
 * Alphatrade.com - "Media Advisory - Following the revelations concerning Stephen Harper's plagiarism and the worldwide media attention it received" and ''"Two days after the video's release, 1834 foreign media have covered it."
 * 3News, New Zealand
 * Welt Online (online version if Die Welt'', Germany).
 * news.com.au (Australia)
 * Boston.com (Boston Globe online)
 * CNN.com
 * BayNews9 (Tampa FL
 * Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
 * Swedish paper:
 * Svenska Dagbladet
 * __meco (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should mention at least that Harper argued for Canadian involvement in parliament for both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, before the government had decided. But I do not think Canadians care about the plagerism charge, and even though it gained international press coverage, it will not long be remembered. It rates along with things like George W Bush choking on a pretzel or Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly will be forgotten if your advice is taken and it is not mentioned in the public record, and we focus on his bugger-ups with Afghanistan and Iraq instead (although I gather you might want to talk about them as "accopmlishments"). "It will not long be remembered" if the spin doctors have their way with it; but somehow for all the spin doctoring in the world British Columbians haven't forgotten Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving charge in Maui (even though they'll still vote for him in spite of it).  But you're asking us compare apples and oranges and want us to look at watermelons instead.....and your trying to downplay plagiarism as the equivalent of pretzel-choking and bunny-attacks is ludicrous.  Plagiarism is morally suspect; pretzel-choking is accidental, although it could perhaps be deemed a sign of gluttony and haste.....bunny-attacks maybe are morally suspect, depending on what you did to the bunny first....Skookum1 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The matter is unimportant because, if the speech was copied from John Howard's, the blame lies with one of Harper's staff, not Harper himself. (Personally, I think the speech was written in Washington and sent to friendly political leaders.)  This reminds me of Whitewater, Glen Clark's porch, and Shawinigan:  take an offence vaguely connected to a politician and flog it to death.  Focus on character, not policies.  We should be talking about Iraq and Afghanistan and many other issues.  Unfortunately, both Conservatives and Liberals have the same policies, which is why they resort to personal attacks.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't get it: hiring bad staff is a matter of poor judgement, and in countries with more reputable parliamentary systems cabinet ministers and even PMs have resigned because of such poor judgement. Not firing the speechwriter in question is an endorsement of the wrongoing, also.  That what was copied over from Howard's speech was actually a copy-over from a Bush speech makes it all the worse; the speechwriter should have known that story, and the PM should have been advised by that speechwriter that it was "Tory boilerplate" that had already made the rounds in two other countries.  If Harper had the character you're pointing to, he would have fired the speechwriter and made a public apology.  He hasn't.  Stonewalling the public is not a sign of character, although in Canadian politics it's often presented by our media as "perseverance", even when blatant wrongdoing is clearly the case (I mean much worse wrongdoing like Campbell's drunk-driving or stuff like the BC Rail scam or federally any number of Tory or Grit scandals where the perpetrators have clung onto office, with their spinners trying to get them "more positive copy" on other issues in the hope/pretense that what happened "wasn't important").  The article will not be benefitted by substituting information about this, howevermuch trivial it may seem to you (it was un-trivial enough to get our nationa some of the rare news copy worldwise it ever sees), that's no reason to "take it out and talk about Afghanistan instead".  yes, the article should have something more of Harper's Afghanistan and related militaristic, I'm sorry "military and diplomatic", policies, but that expansion/improvment has nothing to do with getting rid of the account of how one of Harper's speechmakers brought us (yet another) international embarrassment....Skookum1 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Harper did not "hire bad staff", the staff member had an impressive resume. Furthermore, the staff member did resign and claimed that Harper was unaware of the "plagiarism".  The Liberals chose this issue because they could not talk about the real issues:  Iraq and Afghanistan.  Ignatieff out-neoconned Harper on Iraq and Chretien provided Canadian support to the invasion. Paul Martin sent Candian soldiers to fight the Pashtuns, and John Manley helped ensure they keep fighting.  But at least the Liberals write their own speeches.


 * Incidentally, no one outside Canada cares about its politics. The only Canadian politician anyone can name was Pierre Trudeau, and he was best known for his marriage.  By the way, do you call Conservaties "Tories"?  I remember when we used to call them "Socreds".  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They do care about our politics - when scandal or embarrassment is involved. And that's hte point here.  it really doesn't matter twaddle that you think it's unimportant; enough major newspapers and news networks aroudn the world covered it so that it becomes, by that definition, alone notable outside of Casnad; not acording to wehtehr someone inside canadia thinks it's importnat or not.  The world media has spoken and they're al ot louder than your attempt to treat it as insignificant.  it's that simple.  The citations exist to the effect that it caused our election campaign to receive worldwide coverage (if briefly and largely irrelevant to the campaign proper - but then so was teh whole campaign, no?); a citation for your opinion - a citation proving objective fact, not merely citing another opinion - would be interesting to see; the point remains that it is notable that this fracas got Harper world-wide attention.  And yes, bad staff is bad staff - and a good resume means piffle as to whether or not somebody is qualified for their job and/or actually worthy or capable of it.  Everybody knows a good resume is largely a piece of creative fiction....especially in politics....and in politics, it's who you hire that reflects on your own judgement.  Somebody who would plagiarize so freely being part of an inner-circle of executive-level consultants does not speak well to the quality of moral fibre of said group; if he's exemplary of it, then all are suepct; if he's not, then they made the error in hiring/absorbing him....in Canada, as with your argument, it's being treated as if it'll go away if it's called insgnificant enough; by now, in teh US, there'd be congressional hearings....Skookum1 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And one big reason the world doesn't care about our politics is we ahve an overall policy of not talking about it, and keeping it as publicly dull as possible, so all the dirt goes on away from public, and world, eyes. "If only they knew" they might find damned good reason to care; but both we and they are trained not to know anything actually important about the way the country is actually run and what our politicians are actually up to. The real politics is suppressed; the big public stuff - Quebec, e.coli, equalization payment arguments, health care policy - that's made headlines in order to keep the other stuff out of the headlines.....but the point is headlines are headlines, and in this case it was newspapers around the world that 'cared", if only for five minutes, but that they cared is in and of itself notable.Skookum1 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue about plagiarism is not minor. For one thing, it has reemerged again in comparing the most recent Conservative ad to another ad by the Republican Tim Pawlenty. MJeanHellyer (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Jean

This speech is known to have been plagiarized. Should it be included also? Outback the koala (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-serving codswallop also self-describing

 * ''Soon after leaving parliament, Harper and Tom Flanagan co-authored an opinion piece entitled "Our Benign Dictatorship", which argued that the Liberal Party only retained power through a dysfunctional political system and a divided opposition.

LOL. ROTFL. PCKB (pot calling kettle black).......substitute the word "Conservative" for "Liberal"....ROTFL, good humour at bedtime.....this whole article stinks of p.r. machinery and spin doctors and COIism....but that's just too funny....Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof of COI? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Occupation
Is his occupation actually an economist? According to his biography, it seems as though he never has worked in a role as an economist for any significant period of time. Homagetocatalonia (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This happens with many politician articles in Wikipedia. Supporters insisting on inaccurate and grandiose occupations for their politicians.  If truth were the key factor, a lot of politicians occupations would be "idiot". The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken "economist" out for now, but what can we put in there?-Wafulz (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He was trained as an economist. Some people finish law school and are deemed lawyers even though they never practiced law.  We could put "politician".  If so, then this treatment should be afforded to all politicians.  So let's have it...all politicians to be called politicians? The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The best I can think of is "activist" or "lobbyist" for his early political career. It sounds better than "mailboy" or "sysadmin", I guess. The only pertinent example I can find is Joe Clark (businessman/journalist), but he at least spent a few summers working as a journalist. Every other PM seems to actually have worked as a lawyer or professor at some point before politics.-Wafulz (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems he was an activist more than a lobbyist. What do you think? The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put "Activist" in. I wouldn't mind more input though.-Wafulz (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kind of reminds me of "community activist". I would say that he was the head of a lobbying organization.  Our article calls the NCC a "conservative lobby group".  Though, for what it's worth, Harper declared that he was an economist when he ran for office.  Although I agree that he seems to have never actually been employed as one. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Encyclopedia calls him an economist in the intro sentence, but again, no mention of him actually working as one. Has he written anything about economics (aside from his thesis)?-Wafulz (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He seems to have never worked as an economist per se. The education would obviously it would have helped him as a policy advisor, MP and lobby organizer of course.  But as an actual economist this seems to be a sort of "a man becomes what he dreams" kind of thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Every job he's had outside of parliament (working for a Tory MP, Reform organizer, running the NCC) has been political. I think politician is the only accurate way to describe his occupation. - SimonP (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that "lobbyist" is a better fit than "activist". He was the head of the NCC after all. I wouldn't exactly call them activists. The most accurate is probably "politician" though. --MTLskyline (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not an economist but a politician. You would have to edit all the other wiki pages for the other elected officials.  People are defined by the current job they work not their education.  If someone goes to law school but becomes a Realtor, are they still called a lawyer?  If you go to school for doctor and become taxi cab driver then are you still called a doctor?,etc.  Harper went to school for Economics but never had any job in this particular field from what I can tell.  Labeling him an economist is misleading and should really be changed.  I have an Economics degree but do not go around calling myself an economist.  Michael Ignatieff (Liberal leader) obtained Ph.D in history but he's not called a historian.  Mr. Ignatieff's (past) profession is listed as, author, screenwriter, journalist, professor & academic - jobs he has done during his life.  Staying consistent means, Harper's profession should be something similar to, mail clerk & system administrator.  It is not about what jobs make him sound good but being honest & truthful!!!  Not bending the truth to make him look good.  Though it really should be politician for him & the others because that is their present occupations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.13.236 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted his profession back to Economist. There are few primarily notable sources that call him a "lobbyist" and lots that call him an economist. WP:SOAP --J2000ca (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than my ongoing discussion/objection to the notion of mainstream media in Canada as "reliable", I believe the reason that he's called an "economist" is that's because what he puts on his tax forms - even though he's never worked as one; is that what his degree is in? But for all of the last so many years he hasn't been an economist (except in his pretensions) and his job has been "professional politician": before that he was a "consultant" - meaning a lobbyist.  But this is Wikipedia and it's not about WP:TRUTH is it?  Only citability?  And when the citations are stacked with lies/distortions, that's what Wikipedia will have, too....Skookum1 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to put your profession on your tax form? I do not recall doing that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, if you're self-employed you do, it's a number-code that classifies your occupation so as to determine what you can write off and at what rates; "professional and business income" is the form, go have a look, it'll ask for an occupation code or something to that effect, and in the guide there's a listing of all the codes; though finding out what rates of which you can write off is a little more detailed to find out; actors don't get to write off what accountants and lawyers get to write off (which is virtually everything); but even plumbers, if self-employed, have lots they can write off. If you're self-employed and having been filing the business-and-professional income form, you've been paying way too much tax.  Actors get to deduct 20% or so of their rent, 40% of phone, all their drycleaning/laundry, their union dues, and more....I just happen to know that because I filed as one ("creative professional").  Save your receipts.  Anyways yeah, there's no place to put "Economist" or "Actor" or "Conman", but every category of self-employment has a code and a given rate (escorts put "personal services", for example, and can write off their rent as well as their fishnets and/or whips, chains etc.).Skookum1 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gordon Campbell still is described as a "school teacher", though the last time he did that was in Telkwa back in the early '80s...."real estate consultant and professional politician" is his actual occupation ever since, but the Wiki article still says he's a school teacher....but I betcha he doesn't use teh deductions schoolteachers get (which is zilch compared to "consultant" or whatever his new job is - "senior advisor to the Liberal government" at last I heard, though the press stays away from that because he's supposed to be "gone").Skookum1 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Other than my ongoing discussion/objection to the notion of mainstream media in Canada as "reliable",", that would fall under WP:SOAP. If you do feel that way you could try to find other countries media articles that mention him. WP:BLPREMOVE is very clear that anything contentious has to be sourced.--J2000ca (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why didn't you source it when you changed it to economist? I assume that was you. You said you changed it above and it is currently unsourced. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2 section down on the talk page has a citation for it--J2000ca (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean "two sections down" or "the two section" which is "down on the talk page"?  I don't see a relevant citation in either so I'd appreciate if you could be more specific. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot sections can move. The citation is http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009624--J2000ca (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Although that link is broken now unfortunately although it is probably safe to assume you meant their main Harper article which is here now.  The problem I have with that is encyclopedias are generally not useable per WP:RS.  Basically it is a dead-end reference that doesn't satisfy WP's Rankean policy.  We need to have very good sources here to demonstrate that he's worked as an economist because it is at odds with all the sources which describe his background in detail. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * His official biography descriptions him as an economist as does http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/conservativeparty/p/stephenharper.htm . Also bring up some citations as a counter point. Your views on how sources describe his background aren't relievant. You have to find a source that describes him as something else. Also he has a degree in economics. --J2000ca (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You think that a bullet at the "Gov't Basics" section of About.com is a high quality source that should counter all of the biographical information we have on the man? We've had two sources and neither one is in sentence form.  I do agree that he has a degree in economics.  Two of them actually.  That's what makes him an economist -- as a dictionary (let's use Wiktionary) would put it "an expert in economics".  But that doesn't make it his occupation.  Saying so would be SYNTH of course. --JGGardiner (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.chbcnews.ca/story.html?id=4603215 http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/facts_about__stephen_harper http://www2.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=0218bf67-ef3a-4a8d-8ab4-0229e4fcaa54&Section=Publications etc, etc. The point is also moot until you product some sources supporting something different--J2000ca (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy IRL and trying to keep politicians out of my mind. As for the content, the point is certainly not moot.  Every inclusion must stand on its own merit; it can not remain awaiting a better one.  The burden of evidence lies with you per WP:V.  In any event, one of your sources also listed his NCC position, so it meets your standards at least.

This information is in an infobox which requires the highest standards for inclusion. The information is included without context so it requires us to be completely accurate without nuance or explanation. When we are saying that he is an economist by profession, we mean both terms in their most general senses. It can't be a point that is debatable or has merely been said. Like all content in the articles, it has to meet the burden of WP:UNDUE. It can't merely be a point of view but it must be what nearly all prominent viewpoints are since it is included without further explanation. The fact that you are still having trouble finding RS at all suggests this is not the case. Your second source in your last post comes from a search engine for example. Although I realize it could simply mean you were just hasty when Googling for sources. If you can't find a source that describes Harper's career as an economist with any context or detail, it suggests it is a characterization rather than a fact. It might be reasonable for a person to say but the point is debatable and it is not appropriate for us to include it as though it was objectively true. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic policy
Economic and fiscal policy is another part that is missing. (Harper is an economist after all). Plus economic policy is usually a very important part of the biography of a Prime minister from a developing country.VR talk  22:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like there is a sub-header under the Domestic Policy section here, though this I don't believe this is written without bias. Could this be re-written in an expanded (and unbiased) form? 70.27.74.136 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

canada is hardly a developing country, asswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.36.125 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

npov
large sections of this article are a joke. very obvious iggy's hacks are here in force. Why are is the Prime Minister of Canada section just a list of the liberal talking points against harper? proroguing, george bush, senate appointments. None of these are notable enough to constitute their own headings. the info should be interlaced in to the article but I'm sure those edit would be quickly reverted my the liberal trolls that are all over wiki since an election has been called. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, you've figured out how it works around here, everyone works in bad faith. Oh wait.  We don't.  Register, and you can edit the article.  You can assume that if you add anything that can be verified with reliable sources, it will stay.  By the way, I edit article, and I am not Canadian, a member of any Canadian Party, and could care less about the article, except that it's as accurate as possible.  Also see WP:BLP for what can and can't be done.  By the way, assuming bad faith on other editors is not exactly a sign of good faith on your part.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the wiki policy of assuming good faith. Unfortunately the realities of wikipedia have shown that this guideline is little more than wishful thinking, specifically when it comes to article that are political or in anyway controversial. My issue with the article is not that they aren't more pieces of information, its that the info here does not meet WP:undue guidelines. As an editor of the article would you not agree that there seems to be a specific list of all the issues/policies/actions used by opposition parties against harper? why would that be if everyone here is editing in good faith and seeking a balanced, neutral article? 207.216.253.134 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It happens innocently enough. For example, I will assume that you are not a Conservative Party hack.  And yet, on the adjacent article on my watchlist, I see that you asked to have information included in the Ignatieff article, that he lived out of Canada for 30 years, which is also emphasized by the Conservatives and used in their attack ads.  By your standard, I could assume you were a Conservative operative.  Doubly so because I could combine that with what you've written here and think you're "pro-Haper" and "anti-Ignatieff".  Of course I would never actually do something like that.  But I hope it shows you it is too easy to dismiss an editor as partisan.

I think there is a natural tendency for negative facts to have the most resonance. That's why political parties spread them in the first place. That's also why the media writes about negatives more than positives. I don't think I've ever picked up the paper and read "Good Governance" in the headline. In articles about contemporary figures, our sources are almost all news media and they reflect this. This is a real problem in Wikipedia but it is more widespread than just political leaders and editors who make the mistake are not usually political partisans. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Usually the controversial stuff is what garners most notability. Which means, oh 207.216.253.134, editors may got Michael Ignatieff, and add controversial stuff about him there.VR talk  03:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up any uncertainty, I am a right leaning canadian (not a member or "hack" of any party though). and was seeking to help wiki articles that will undoubtedly be viewed by many voting canadians represent a balanced view of both leaders (in their current state, iggy's article could easily be characterized as a "puff piece" while harpers has a slight toxic tone). I believe that both should have adequate coverage of both the positive and negatives that go along with each leader but wikipedia is dramatically slanted to the left of the political spectrum and its becoming increasingly less-npov.207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree with you on the article friend. It would appear to me that the acts listed all took place and are verifiable. It should be left up to readers to asses the information presented, not controlled by your political leanings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Twain's Ghost (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Prorogue parliament
I removed the part of the first paragraph that states that he "is the first Canadian prime minister to request a Governor-General to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid a vote of confidence in the House of Commons", and added the info and refs to the section Parliamentary dispute and prorogation. I would argue that this is not notable enough for the intro: it's not one of his more famous traits/actions, but is just one of the many actions he's done as PM. If we were to include this, maybe we should include every "first", such as that he is the first PM to visit the front lines of a combat operation (mentionned later in article). -M.Nelson (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that not being notable enough for the intro. It was a huge deal when it happened, and it'll be a huge deal for some time to come. Your example about him being first to visit the front line is not even in the same league. That was a news tidbit, this was a several month long drama that gripped the nation.


 * He is the only Canadian prime minister to request that Parliament be prorogued in order to avoid a non-confidence vote. Every other prime minister in such a situation just went to the vote and took their lumps. Whether you think he was right to do so to avoid an "undemocratic coalition" or that he was just "saving his ass", it's still a big deal. Brendtron5000 (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He is not the first Canadian PM to visit a combat zone as suggested by the colonel in the referenced CTV article. Mackenzie King did so in 1944 as reported in here. Can someone do a fact check to confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.215.11 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MK visited troops in the UK, not on the front lines anywhere. Outback the koala (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The anon. editor is right, the source supporting the statement is clearly attributed to the "opinion", though he seems to mean guess, of one man, the officer in Kandahar. I don't think that's enough to support including it as an unambiguous fact.  In any event it really isn't true.  Borden visited the front lines several times during the First World War. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The anon. editor again (I'm not registered and normally do only typo corrections). JGG, thx for the Borden info. As for MK visiting troops only in England (I vaguely remember reading about this as a kid), the wiki entry does mention he visited troops in continental Europe after D-Day. I couldn't find any other reference to this. I also found an Esprit de Corps mag article relating to the Harper visit and recalling Chretien's 1994 Bosnian visit and how he was metres away when a Bosnian 'traitor' was executed. The article also says that to add to the significance of Harper's visit, it was said the colonel held a PhD in History. The article can be found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.138.246 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I realize this is a highly controversial event, however it seems to be the case that PM Harper is *not* the first Prime Minister to use prorogation to avoid a vote of confidence. Indeed, the wiki entry on "Prorogation in Canada" speaks specifically to the 1873 case. Furthermore - and this might be splitting hairs - there was an opposition day scheduled for Jan 5, 2009. Opposition days, or more precisely 'alloted days', are intended to allow opposition members the opportunity to consider, and to make motions aregarding, the Business of Supply - which is inherently confidence-related - but it doesn't appear that any *specific motion* regarding confidence was scheduled. Akiracee (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Premiership"
The Canadian federal government has a Prime Minister, Canadian provinces have Premiers. Calling his term in office his premiership means he is a provincial leader which he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.35.89 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the word "premiership" refers the tenure of a prime minister or premier. See for example, Premiership of Tony Blair. Also, a Google search of premiership "stephen harper" will give you more than two million hits; premiership "kevin rudd" yields something like a million hits, and premiership "julia gillard". Rudd and Gillard are, of course, the two most recent prime ministers of Australia, where the word "premier" is used for heads of state governments. -Rrius (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * why is this section simply a list of opposition talking points? Are prorogations and votes of non-confidence really the only notable things regarding his premiership? This seems very npov 187.131.61.151 (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section
As this man and the party he is leading are quickly becoming one of the more controversial figures in Canadian political history, I don't think it is unreasonable to request a section in the article to discuss them. He has numerous such controversies attached to his name by this point, which is almost guaranteed to get larger before the end of the year. The robocalls, the F-35 debacle, etc. 184.175.49.105 (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And those that are important should be included with appropriate weight in the relevant portion of the article, with proper chronology and context. There's no need for a separate, non-neutral dumping ground. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Marriage troubles
There are rumors of marriage problems. Apparently Laureen is being paid off by Conservative Party staffers. Is this claim legitimate? --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first three words answer the question: rumors simply aren't good enough for inclusion at WP, especially for a BLP. -Rrius (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Public Perception
I think there needs to be a section on how he is perceived in public. Obama has such a section. --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Harper Painting
Should the recent painting depicting Harper be included in the article somewhere?

It seems noteworthy. --67.189.30.170 (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? It was in the news, but nobody really made a fuss about it.  It'll probably be forgotten in a year.  If mentioned, it should probably only be briefly.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 06:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pets
Does anyone know if he has any pets, and if so, what are they? ~ ravagekitteh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.29.93 (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion
Harper " ... is a member of the Alliance Church, more specifically the Christian and Missionary Alliance.... The church believes the free market is divinely inspired and views science and environmentalism with what might be called scorn ... Mr. Harper openly sympathizes with, if not endorses, evangelicals’ climate skepticism, their distrust of mainstream science and their view of libertarian economics as God’s will.... "
 * Religion’s fair game if it motivates politics theglobeandmail.com Jul. 31 2012.Nemissimo (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hollow force
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-defence-chief-takes-helm-as-forces-look-to-cut-spending/article4716968/ What’s left is the training and equipment tuneups that keep units ready to ship out, he said: “It means that the operational readiness is going to be reduced.” The Harper government, however, has made it clear that it does not want the cuts to show in public.


 * That's the definition of a hollow force. Hcobb (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actions and items of interest from 2012
From reading this article it would appear that Stephen Harper has done nothing for the entirety of 2012. I could not find any significant references to the year anywhere in the body of the article. It needs to be updated with any major items from last year at some point in the near future. Readers might mistake the fact that he is still in office by the lack of anything recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.15.98.36 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GA status
There is far too much uncited material for this article to be considered of Good status. Hopefully someone watching it can address the cn tags (I removed one) and give this a general copy edit or it could be delisted. AIR corn (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition to personal or early life
He is the fourth cousin, twice removed of former PM Richard Bennett: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=rcarroll&id=I18421 http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=neogeo&id=I252567

108.34.100.30 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Ron Bauerle 5/4/13

Financial data in election-result tables
Why is the source for financial contributions given under some tables that don’t actually show those figures? Either the contributions should be added to the tables or the reference removed as confusing clutter. Wouldn’t a single credit (perhaps with an “except as noted”), at the foot of the whole section, suffice?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

French speaking
Isn't it a bit curious that the fact that M. Harper speaks French is deemed to be "not encyclopedic", while the names of his "two cats, Stanley and Gypsy" are accepted ? Codex26 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Youtube videos are not references, find a RS and we can certainly discuss putting it in. That said, is he noted for this?  Is it somehow important to this BLP? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy to find a ref..... Just needs to be worded much much better. . The last prime minister to be just English  was John Diefenbaker. Now a days it would be odd that anyone would become prime minister who was not bilingual.Moxy (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Evangelical?
The lede contains an unsourced opinion labelling Stephen Harper as an "Evangelical" Christian. I have never seen any evidence anywhere of this, other than the observation that SH attends an Alliance church. Since there is a world of difference between a listener at an Alliance church and being an evangelical who publicly carries the message, I'm asking for any evidence from a Reliable Source that SH is actually evangelical in these matters. If this descriptor cannot be supported by a RS, then it should be removed. Santamoly (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Evangelicalism is a type of Christianity. And, is as usual, followers can decide how strongly they follow specific precepts. -- Neil N  talk to me  19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources if you want:, -- Neil N   talk to me  20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Harper's membership in an evangelical Christian congregation affiliated with the Christian and Missionary Alliance is supported by WP:RS in the body of the article; it does not need to be sourced in the lede (see WP:LEADCITE). To suggest (without cited evidence) that he is a "listener" only and does not subscribe to the faith of the church where he is a member would itself be a violation of BLP. That he doesn't proselytize from the office of the Prime Minister does not change his religious affiliation, nor make it off-limits to mention. Dwpaul (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems an odd phrasing. TFD (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the CBC a RS on this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/from-bible-bill-to-stephen-harper-the-evolution-of-faith-based-politics-1.1369490 Hcobb (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is the phrasing. The CBC article does not say Harper is an evangelical but he "joined the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance Church in the 1980s...."  Would you say "my friend is an evangelical Christian " or "my friend belongs to an evangelical Christian church?"  TFD (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we don't know who your friend is, it would be pretty much impossible for us to say if he is an "evangelical Christian" or that he "belongs to an evangelical Christian church". You would be better off asking your friend the question.142.177.43.218 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * M.nelson removed two references calling the subject an evangelical Christian in a straightforward manner., -- Neil N   talk to me  03:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer TFD's question, I would generally say the former, knowing that the two statements are virtually identical. Given the denomination's dogma, it is virtually impossible to be one without doing the other, and vice versa. Dwpaul (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems pejorative to me and so btw is the word "dogma". TFD (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Look them up. Neither is pejorative when used properly. Both are sometimes not used properly, and both are sometimes used in phrases that are critical. That does not make the words pejorative. A member of an evangelical Christian church is generally happy to be known as an evangelical Christian, because that is what their faith encourages and expects them to be. Dogma (from Greek) is the set of official teachings of a religious denomination. Dwpaul (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you and I are both aware that the word dogma, like propaganda and condescension, has developed negative connotations, I can only assume that you are being disingenuous about the term Christian fundamentalist. TFD (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since folks seem to be either disinclined or somehow unable to follow the links that NeilN thoughtfully provided above:
 * "An evangelical Christian and economic libertarian, [Harper] vowed ..." - The Economist
 * "[Harper] is the first evangelical prime minister since John Diefenbaker ..." - Macleans
 * In context, neither of these articles uses the term in a way that disparages the subject, because they understand correctly that the term is not pejorative, except perhaps to those who dislike evangelicals by any name. Dwpaul (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * NB - I don't recall mentioning Christian fundamentalist, but you can attach whatever baggage you like to the term. That doesn't mean it's incorrect, improper or inappropriate; it just means you have baggage. Dwpaul (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you too, need a pointer to WP:ABF. Both you and Santamoly seem quick to cast aspersions on editors who call a religion by its chosen name. Seriously, have you not read Evangelicalism? Yes, it may have a negative connotation for some people, but so does the Roman Catholic Church and I doubt I'd see a fuss if we had a sentence, "xxx is a Roman Catholic."  -- Neil N   talk to me  06:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The RS say that a) Harper is an Evangelical and b) it is controversial. a) see the Maclean's article at this URL for full details.] It says "Harper is the first [Prime minister] in recent times whose religion has become an issue, largely because it is seen to cut against the grain of mainstream Canadian social values. He is the first evangelical prime minister since John Diefenbaker...." ‎ Rjensen (talk)‎ 07:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 63,600 hits on google for "Stephen Harper evangelical Christian", while there are 2,210,000 hits for "Stephen Harper belongs to an evangelical Christian church". I don't see how this can possibly be a marker because when you search "Stephen Harper is the greatest person in the world", you get a wopping 35,100,000 hits. If you ask me, this whole thing is bizarre.142.177.43.218 (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your numbers are completely wrong for those phrases. I suspect you searched without using quotes - a useless exercise. -- Neil N  talk to me  10:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Without quotes, you have run afoul of Google's search expansion algorithms, which are more liberal in their substitutions the longer/more complex the phrase (because they have more to work with). However, even the first, least productive search provides ample evidence from RS both that Harper is an evangelical Christian and that this fact is controversial in the context of his service as PM and should not be suppressed. Dwpaul (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Observing the lede's for other national leaders, like Barack Obama, George Bush Jr and David Cameron, it seems very unusual to mention the politician's religion in the lede, especially if it has apparently played no role in their politics. Agree it should be left out of the lede and included in the "personal life" section, where it belongs. TastyCakes (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have hit on the reason for the controversy here, as many of the cited citations (and others of the 63k+ mentioned above) maintain that his religious viewpoint has very definitely played a role in Harper's politics and is expected to continue to do so. Dwpaul (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate that in a fact-based manner, not based on the opinions of people that oppose him? Plenty of people painted George Bush as a fundamentalist Christian, but you don't see that in his article's lede because it can't be demonstrated to have had a significant effect on his presidency. Biographies must be extremely careful to include only demonstrable facts, not speculation, and certainly not speculation by opponents. Proving that a politician's religious views have impacted their politics is extremely difficult, particularly if there have been no overtly religious actions taken during his time as PM, as is the case with Harper. If he had moved to reduce the separation of church and state, or eliminate non-Christian religious symbols, or anything *tangible*, then maybe. As it is I see no hard evidence that religion is a significant part of his politics, other than his opposition to Quebec's "Charter of Values", which seems to put him on the other side of the argument. TastyCakes (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I can't personally, and I'm not strongly invested in the inclusion of his religious affiliation in the lede. I was mainly involved in this discussion because several editors have aggressively insisted that the phrase evangelical Christian is pejorative to the subject (hence a BLP violation, and I spend a good deal of time at WP:BLPN) when it is not, and shouldn't be suppressed on the basis that it is. Relevance is a different question, and I will leave that to others to sort out. Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between being an evangelical Christian and belonging to an evangelical church - it's not like he is actively going around trying to recruit new members to his professed faith, as "evangelical" implies. Personally, I think calling him an evangelical Christian in the lede was done to suggest he's a member of the Christian right, which I don't think accurately reflects his politics or actions as PM. Whatever he believes in private, it doesn't seem to show through into his public life or work very often, and hence I don't think it should be in the lede. TastyCakes (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal/reframing of "World view" section?
The discussion above was getting a bit long winded, so I thought I'd start on a new tack. As discussed above, I think having a "World view" section is inappropriate, since it implies we can know how Stephen Harper sees the world, which is of course not the case. I think instead we should aim to structure it more like the Obama article:

Premiership
 * Domestic policy
 * Economic policies
 * Environmental policies
 * etc
 * Foreign policy
 * Afghanistan
 * US
 * Free Trade
 * etc

By doing so, we would help reframe the article from "people think this, this and this about him" to "he's done this, this and this, and said this, this and this". What do you guys think? TastyCakes (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would, of course, need to be written as a summary given we don't want to excessively duplicate Premiership of Stephen Harper. Resolute 16:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

World View
The "World View" section is clearly a biased and subjective assessment. The phrase "dismantle the country's most significant environmental laws" cannot be based in fact. There should either be a source cited that proves the repeal and non-replacement of environmental laws or the phrase must be changed. Amendments to laws do not constitute the 'dismantling' of those laws. 'Dismantling' is a political term that is based upon the opinion of the writer; it is not objective. "Known as an ally of Canada's fossil fuels"??? How can someone be an ally of fossil fuels? An ally of fossil fuel producers, perhaps. If biased statements intended to present a negative view of Stephen Harper must be put on this page, they should at least make logical sense.

Also, the reference to the federal debt is totally out of context. Harper is presented as responsible for the entire debt accumulated over many decades. Overall, the "World View" section does not appear to serve much purpose aside from being a place for people who oppose Harper to put their musings about his alleged hypocrisy and his supposedly-malevolent motivations. I hope that this article will be a more objective description of Harper's policies, actions and political associations in the future.

- Sean H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.223.70 (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article on a Prime Minister. I'm amazed it's lasted as long as it has. TastyCakes (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the same section from the intro for the reasons listed by Sean H. Additionally the intro of other heads of government/state such as Barack Obama (a featured article) chronicle specific events without making judgement as this section does. Without this paragraph the lead is perfectly objective and is similar to Obama's, and provides a good overview of Harper's political career. That said it could use additional discussion of the policies of Harper's administration (specific bills etc), and I invite anyone to come up with a paragraph that does so objectively like Obama's. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia NPOV rules require inclusion of fully sourced material from reliable sources that directly bear on the topic. The rule says that you can INCLUDE new material from an opposing viewpoint but you can't delete because you dislike the ideas presented. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As a WP:BLP, this article needs to be held to the highest standard of NPOV. That means that if it is not neutral, the non-neutral bit should be removed, not left in for someone else to balance out. See the second paragraph of Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The section seems reasonable to me. TFD (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section per WP:BLP. At the moment, myself, Sean H, and Tastycakes believe this section to be non-neutral. As a BLP this article must strictly adhere to NPOV, and in this case there is significant concern that it is not NPOV. Until there is consensus that this section is in fact NPOV it should remain in the talk page. I would be happy to assist in making this section a neutral overview of Harper's policies as PM. TFD could you respond to any of Sean H's comments? -M.Nelson (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Contrary to some comments above, Wikipedia rules do not require inclusion of anything. That's what talk pages are supposed to use actual policies and guidelines to make decisions about.


 * Clear disclaimer: I'm nowhere close to being an expert on Canadian politics and issues.
 * In a vacuum, I would have a couple of problems with the content below. As mentioned above, "dismantled" seems a bit POV and difficult to support. And even though there are reliable sources that Harper is an Evangelical Christian, that doesn't seem to be an important componemt of his notability or his Prime Ministership. But overall, I can't quite work myself into full dudgeon about how POV the paragraph is. What bothers me more is its apparent disregard of WP:LEDE; practically nothing in the paragraph aside from a brief mention of Harper's religion seems to be in the main article, unless phrased so as to be completely hidden from normal "find" commands. With a little tweaking, I wouldn't have a problem with restoring the content, but first I'd like to see some more expansive treatment of the issues in the main text, so the lede doesn't purport to tell the whole story. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Santamoly's rather disagreeable posts on my talk page, I did some reading up on the subject. It seems that Evangelicals form a significant part of his power base. Important enough to mention his religion in the lede? I don't know, but probably not, if there's no context. -- Neil N  talk to me  04:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * '''Removed section
 * Harper is an evangelical Christian with a power base in Alberta, home of Canada's oil boom. Known as an ally of Canadian fossil fuels, he has promoted their export to the U.S. and China. He has helped the federal government to dismantle some environmental restrictions on economic growth. Harper increased federal defense spending by nearly $1 billion annually in his first four years in office, with more projected. Canada has amassed a federal debt over $600 billion by mid-2013. 
 * -M.Nelson (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the proposal is to reinsert the above, I agree with M.Nelson that it is totally inappropriate. It is a hodgepodge of items picked specifically to portray Harper negatively. Specifically, a) His religion has never entered his politics as PM as far as I'm aware, b) "power base" is a subjective term, and inappropriate since the Conservatives won many more seats in Ontario than Alberta, c) an "ally of the fossil fuels" sounds subjective to me (supportive of energy sector development, might be more neutral), as does "dismantling environmental restrictions", when the Conservatives would probably describe it as "stream-lining environmental regulations". A balance should be sought between the two views. d)"Increased federal defense spending" is accurate, but it feels out of place, and it should be spelled defence. The statement that follows, that he's run up the debt, seems to imply that it's all Harper's fault, caused by reckless military spending, which is biased if not outright unfair considering his government ran a surplus until the global recession started in 2008, and military spending is still far lower (proportionately) than many others in the G8. The debt is now about $605 billion, but was $515 billion when Harper came to power, and there is no mention of the number that really matters, which is debt relative to GDP, which is now about 34%, far less than the peak of 68% in the late 90s.
 * Anyway, all in all the paragraph is clearly biased. If it is to be re-inserted, I think it needs modifying dramatically. TastyCakes (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia NPOV rules refer to Editors, not to reliable secondary sources. The cited article says explictly: "Harper, a right-wing policy wonk and evangelical Christian with a power base in Alberta," see text at this URL. Rjensen (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the rules. The cited article is very clearly an op-ed piece. It doesn't matter if it's a reliable source, it's only a reliable source of one person's opinion, in this case Andrew Nikiforuk's, a well known environmentalist best know for his opposition to oil sands development. It is not appropriate to take material from such an obviously biased source and include it in the article as though it were undisputed fact presented in a fair, balanced, neutral manner, especially in the biography of a controversial figure. Taking material from an anti-Harper op-ed piece as fact to be included in the article is no more appropriate than taking material from a pro-Harper op-ed author, such as Ezra Levant. There are many excellent biographies of living people far more controversial than Harper, we should seek to emulate those rather than injecting partisanship into this article. TastyCakes (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * NPOV applies to content. When you take the opinion of someone with a clear bias and present it as if it were fact in an article, you are slanting the article to fit a POV. As TastyCakes notes, this particular source is reliable only to the point that it expresses a single individual's opinion. To represent it as being anything else is dishonest. Resolute 14:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. that is all viewpoints (apart from fringe) must be presented in the article. That means editors can NOT erase viewpoints that meet the criteria. Rjensen (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Properly supported, factual material is fine. Presenting criticism from environmentalists (and properly identifying it as such) is fine. Including material from an anti-Harper op-ed piece as though it's undisputed fact is not fine, and arranging information in such a way as to emphasize one point of view is also not fine. The removed section was obviously, transparently biased. If you want to try to fix it, please go ahead, but as it was it made the article look non-neutral and amateurish. I strongly oppose reinserting it in the original form. TastyCakes (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The passage, as it was written, presented Nikiforuk's opinion, not Harper's "world view". Treating that opinion as if it were undisputed fact is blatant POV pushing. Treating it as opinion - and specifying it as such - as part of appropriately placed criticism is fair game. Resolute 23:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not see anything biased about it. Saying that he dismantled some environmental restrictions is accurate, and can only be seen as criticism if one believes that those restrictions were more important than economic growth.  TFD (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see my post above for reasons I think it is non-neutral. I'm fine with material being in the article about him "dismantling environmental restrictions", but the whole story should be told, including the Conservatives' stated rationale, and it probably shouldn't be in a "World View" section. In fact, I think having a section called that at all is a bad idea, because it seems to suggest we're speculating on "what Harper thinks" or "how Harper sees the world", rather than the hard facts - what he has done and said. TastyCakes (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that Harper has not dismantled some environmental laws and that he believes those laws are more important than Canada's successful economy? If sources say that, we can put it in.  How would you describe his views on the trade off between economic development and environmental protection laws?  TFD (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be guessing at his views at all. Merely stating what he has said, what he has done, and how others have responded.  On the point of removing or modifying environmental policies, it certainly should be mentioned - and the later passage was worded far more neutrally than it was when this discussion section began.  But is it a "world view"?  No.  It is controversial? Yes.  Is it part of his record as PM? Yes. Should it be noted in the appropriate location? Yes.  "Dismantled" is a peacock term though.  Resolute 14:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry? You do not think that the views of political figures are relevant to articles about them?  That makes no sense to me.  And if you dislike the word "dismantled" then recommend another.  TFD (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I said we should not be guessing at their views. If Harper (or anyone) says "my views are this", then we can make such claims. But we should not take actions and extrapolate them into views - that's just us applying our POV. We should state those actions as being actions. Resolute 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see policies regarding primary sources and original research. We are supposed to read through political figures' words and figure out what they meant but rely on secondary sources.  TFD (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the Obama article. Frankly, I think it's a lot better than this one - it's more thorough, well balanced and neutral. In the "Presidency" section, it outlines things that Obama has done (appointments, bills signed etc) and things he has said (speeches, press conferences etc). It for the most part does not go into what other people have said about him, at least not in the section on his term of office. I think that is how this article should be structured as well.
 * As discussed above (and below) I think calling the section "World view" at all is a mistake. How exactly are "domestic policy", "economic management" and "2011 Census" categorized under world view? TastyCakes (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Trust me, friend, I well know our policies. I can also spot POV pushing.  One sign of it is when people act evasive in their responses in talk page discussions. Resolute 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Economist
AS I mentioned on another article, About.com is not a proper source to use to claim that Harper is an economist, there needs to be a more reliable source which shows where he worked in that function. A degree in something does not make one a practitioner of that occupation. If there is a better source feel free to re-add it. --Kuzwa (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When he received his MA he was working for the Reform Party and two years later was an MP. Since he never worked as an economist, it would be incorrect to say his profession is economist.  TFD (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Supreme Court appointments
Long time fan, first time poster. Could someone update the section on Supreme Court appointments to include Marc Nadon nominated October 3, 2013: Thanks! Rounderjd (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. TFD (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This article mentioned in the news
George W Bush Paintings: Did Bush Paint Harper’s Wikipedia Photo?. -- Green  C  05:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article (in introduction?) include the fact that S.H. is a very controversial prime minister?
Just floating the idea, but shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article that Stephen Harper is one of the most controversial prime ministers, considering his "partisanship, lack of respect for Parliament, and an authoritarian approach to government" and how he has alienated so many voters with his overall gutting of the environmental laws in Canada (already mentioned in this article), and how he keeps trying to degrade the privacy/security rights of Canadian's online activities with bills like C-30  ? And there are a lot more controversial things he has done, like his interactions with the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm trying not to be biased here, but after 2 full terms, and some of a 3rd, it seems pretty clear that (he is / he s going to be remembered as) a very controversial prime minister in Canada.

Finally, looking at the Pierre Trudeau wiki page [] the introduction has some statements about critics views on his prime ministership, but the Stephen Harper introduction does not. Perhaps the Trudeau article needs polishing, or perhaps the Harper article isn't yet conveying the full picture of the man by leaving some important stuff out?

Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra6c (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We have an WP:NPOV rule, so while it is possible to include some content of the type you suggest we would have to be very careful to phrase it in a neutral and unbiased way. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * we have a problem here. I have never seen such a depoliticized political lede in Wikipedia. He has elections but no policies or positions, no achievements or failures. It needs some substance. Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay I looked at the WP:NPOV rule, thanks for pointing that out, and I don't think it would be that problematic to add seemingly negative information about him if it is sourced by a reliable source. Here are some quotes from the rule:


 * "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."


 * and


 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects".


 * So, as long as the information is FACT and sourced, it should be fine to add. For example, his "partisanship, lack of respect for Parliament, and an authoritarian approach to government"  is a fact.  As is his interactions with the SCoC, and his policies that negatively affect online privacy.  Though I guess the conclusion that he is one of the most controversial prime ministers would be considered derived, and thus original research, unless a reliable sourced quote about that can be found. Still I am sure it wouldn't be hard to get the news media in Canada to write an article ranking the most controversial P.M.s.  Until then, I think this article could use some [more] fact based, seemingly negative, information that is sourced and the WP:NPOV rule looks to allow this without much issue, though the wording of the seemingly negative information would need to be made neutral (unless a direct quote?).


 * So, what does someone who is new to Wikipedia editing have to do to edit this article, as it is partially locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebra6c (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since any change along these lines is likely to be controversial, I would suggest writing what you propose the lead should be here on this talk page. From there, interested editors can debate what should be included and how it should be phrased before transferring (if there is consensus for it) to the article itself. Resolute 20:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Harper as PM is controversial and if there is not a lot about what he has done, it could be because he has done little. The Economist article says "Harper has pulled off two surprises."  First, winning elections, and second continuing the policies of his Liberal predecessors.  No doubt the second accounts for the first.  The issues which have attracted media attention - ending the long gun registry, putting the Queen's portrait back in high commissions and embassies - are relatively minor.  TFD (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Steven Harper's Christian Zionism
I would like to suggest an improvement to the "Stephen Harper" Wikipedia article. As of now the article doesn't accurately reflect the diversity of opinion on Harper's Israel stance from within the Jewish community, which has a vastly diverse political spectrum.

Specifically in question is the "Israeli and Jewish affairs" section.

I would like to suggest the following edit based on this article: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2014/01/26/harpers_christian_zionism.html

Toronto has Canada's largest Jewish community, alongside Montreal.

Something to the effect of "Steven Harper's political stance towards Israel might be influenced by his personal Eschatological Evangelical Christian beliefs which allow for Christian Zionism as a legitimate expression of Christian theology. Christian Zionism contends that the creation of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy which will precede a mass Jewish conversion to Christianity in conjunction with the second coming of Jesus Christ. Others contend that although some Jews will convert to Christianity when Jesus returns, most will not and will face eternal damnation. Christian Zionists call these Jews, "the righteous remnant" or the "Israel within Israel", based on Romans 11 in the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Harper government's unwillingness to recognize a Palestinian state, specifically any borders, may be influenced in part again by his Christian Zionist beliefs that all the land of "Biblical Israel" or "Greater Israel" and its borders, belong eternally to the Jewish people.

(see also wikipedia articles: - Christian Zionism -conversion of the Jews -Second coming - Revisionist Zionism)

Other sources regarding the state of Israel and biblical prophecy: Line of Fire radio program with Dr. Michael Brown (A Jewish convert to Christianity, who self-identifies as a "Jewish believer in Jesus") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeinginamopbucket (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if one of the letters is signed by a professor emeritus from York University, letters to the editor of a newspaper do not qualify as reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The proposed reference is a series of letters to the editor (or possibly just extracts from letters to the editor?) not the newspaper article Peeinginamopbucket claims. Meters (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That Toronto Star link is not an article, but a letter to the editor. As one person's opinion, it does not come remotely close to satisfying Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view.  Suggesting weasel wording such as "might be influenced" is likewise problematic and argues that you are intending to push a POV.  That is not going to happen. Resolute 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Not an edit, but a question: how does one "prove" that a person's beliefs influences their policies? If a reliable article doesn't exist, can I write one? Does it become reliable if it's published (except in the case of a letter to the editor))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeinginamopbucket (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.225.113.31, 7 July 2010
On the page about Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his profession is erroneously listed as "Activist". Mr. Harper, is in fact, an Economist, not an activist. You can see Harper's biography on the Conservative Party of Canada website, www.conservative.ca, for proof that he is an economist. Please change his profession from Activist to Economist. Thank you.

99.225.113.31 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spigot Map  18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

what reliable evidence do you have to say that he is an activist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.8.12 (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian Encylopedia calls Harper an economist http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009624. There is one reliable source that calls him an economist. Stronghold1245 (talk • contribs)


 * Have fixed the box...But this fact is clearly noted in the "Early life" section.... He took up post-secondary studies again at the University of Calgary, where he completed a Bachelor's degree in economics. He later returned there to earn a Master's degree in economics, completed in 1993. pls see Stephen Harper..Moxy (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * dude's never worked as an economist and he's never published any economic research. he's spent his whole damn life as an activist against taxes, the government, public health care, whatever. all you have to do is call yourself an economist when registered to run for office, and every other media source will repeat it.69.196.163.36 (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources to back up your claim. Please see WP:V.VR talk  11:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Canadian Encylopedia says he got his BA in 1985. Is that a good enough source for the date? Keith McClary (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

POV by glaring omissions
I was a bit stunned to see totally missing from the section on the 2011 election what it is most notable for. Charges of electoral fraud. Even more stunned to have Crtl-F this page and find NOTHING AT ALL for "robocall", "electoral fraud" or "in-and-out scandal". Doesn't surprise me that this article is regularly "washed" either by fans or p.r. operatives, and familiar with their defenses about such; I grit my teeth thinking about going through it to see what else is missing, no doubt lots......."sanitized of controversial content" is not wikipedian, though wikipedian logics are used to justify it with some regularity; "Concerns and controversies about the Harper government" could be a whole article in and of itself; but would be no doubt judged a POV fork, and any hint of criticsm that's not couched in polite but false language in the HOST of articles about him will be condemned as POV........sigh. No, not gonna bother making this an issue, just voicing a complaint about what's gone on with bios like this. Wikipedia political bios are a minefield, either that or sanitized to the point of being a castrated mule.....I'll have a drink or two to be able to stomach the experience, and will re-read this; but have to throw the challenge out there about AUTO/COI edits and censorship, which are obviously at play. And don't give me that 'not proven in a court of law' cr#p to justify it "not being notable" or whatever......NB it's because of arguing about the over-coverage of this person, and the soapbox-parade of articles, even a whole template, based on him constituting political advertising that I was blocked during this election, leading to my until-now boycott. I see nothing's changed and am probably gonna get a stern note on wikiquette from someone determined to use a hammer instead of a scalpel.Skookum1 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC) And the cite is out there for how Elections Canada warned various Tory campaigns three days ahead of the election to cease and desist, which they did not. So how is this "like a forum post"? Because it contains facts that some would like to see kept out of what is now "the encyclopedia of record". This is in so-called "reliable sources" of all kinds; and complaints in 234 ridings is not un-notable nor something to be sloughed off as a "forum post".Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am curious about how this post might improve the article. This seems more like a forum posting to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * indeed, and predictable as response; but it's fact-based and readily citable. So why isn't it included?  Even a simple statement "because of suspect phone calls claiming to be from Elections Canada, many (or "some') Canadians feel this election was tainted by electoral fraud and was not a legal election, and that the current government is illegitimate. The Harper government has maintained that this was either a conspiracy to impugn them, or that it cannot be proven that any votes were actually affected.  Court challenges have been launched in 6 ridings, asking for a judicial review, while Elections Canada continues its investigation concerning allegations that such calls were made in over 230 ridings" (279 last I heard).  How's that for factual??  Blog post?? NO, readibly citable.  Not opinion, statements of fact.  The same with the In-And-Out Scandal and the false charges against Ralph Goodale in the lead-up to the 2006 election; and the Del Mastro scandal......"truth is not a POV, it is the truth"........so, perhaps you could sanitize these facts and render them in the article in a duly wiki-fied form, without spinning them to make facts into mere "opinions" and therefore not allowed in the article?  Pray, do....Skookum1 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * re citability here's a good example, and I quote "The number of complaints about fraudulent or misleading telephone calls in last year's federal election has almost doubled, according to court documents filed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.By mid August, Elections Canada had received 1,394 complaints "alleging specific occurrences" in 234 of Canada's 308 federal ridings, the lawyer for the elections watchdog says."
 * railing on about PR operatives and censorship sounds like a forum post. As for the various scandals about elections, I think they belong in articles about elections, not in this BLP.  . Oh, before you accuse me of having an agenda, I do, my agenda is to build an encyclopaedia. Nothing more.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Railing on"? I'm being conservative in my speech, only offering facts, including the known factor of p.r. operatives here who do not identify themselves (see WP:COI which allows for disclosure). If your agenda is to build an encyclopedia, then you should be aware of the issues surrounding each topic; and at the moment the most notable thing about the 2011 election is, other than handing Harper a majority, the allegations of rampant electoral fraud and also a revisitation of the in-and-out scandal. That none of these is at all mentioned here is a case of POV by omission.  Don't tell me it's an oversight.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole article strikes me as a puff piece for Harper, with NPOV badly neglected. All of Harper's election victories are mentioned, but not the alleged cheating in every sinlge election.


 * 2006, In and Out scandal, party pled guilty
 * 2008, Chuck Cadman attempted bribery
 * 2011, Robocalls scandal,one Conservative convicted
 * Nor is the Canadian Senate expenses scandal &mdash; which, at least in some interpretations, reflects very badly on Harper &mdash; even mentioned. Pashley (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as you are reduced to rhetoric like "alleged cheating", then you are deep in biographies of living people policies and must tread carefully. Also, this is a BLP of Harper, not an article about the Conservative party itself. In this article, the Cadman affair is already covered, and if our current articles on the In and Out scandal and the Robocalls scandal are any indication, there isn't much about those to add here, as Harper is only trivially mentioned in each.  Now, that isn't to say 'no'.  Merely that I suggest you propose any changes on this talk page first, and using high quality reliable sources.  We can discuss what additions, removals or alterations, if any, are appropriate. Resolute 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Auto Archiving
I've gone ahead and archived all the closed edit requests and sections that haven't gotten an edit since 2008. Is there any objection to setting up User:MiszaBot/config here? Doesn't have to be anything aggressive, even anything older than a couple years would help. — Strongjam (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and enabled auto-archiving. — Strongjam (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Dropped the writ"
"Dropped the writ" in the 2015 election section. "dropped" is slang and should be avoided in an encyclopaedic setting. "Issued the writ of election" is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.28.2 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You are not wrong.  And yet, "drop(ed/ing) the writ" has become ubiquitous when stating the point an election is called.  Wikipedia even has an article about the phrase.  I am personally inclined to leave it as is, though I would not oppose using your proposed phrasing if others find that preferable. Resolute 13:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Protesting a deletion
This edit removed some material I had added with the edit summary "Remove criticism section, not NPOV and anything else should be put into the main election page". It was well sourced and I think it belongs in this article.

Other opinions? If not where does it belong? Pashley (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The section should have been removed for WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Criticism backed with reliable sources is fine as long as it's not given WP:UNDUE weight, but as it was, that paragraph isn't appropriate for a biography. — Strongjam (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Critique: The Guardian - Nick Davies - Stephen Harper: master manipulator, 15 October 2015.    ←   ZScarpia  09:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2015
Edwardzchen (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015
it is no longer Stephen harper

208.101.84.173 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "it" you mean Prime Minister, then no, he is still Prime Minister for now. — Strongjam (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You haven't actually made a request. Resolute 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Governor-General" with a hyphen is incorrect spelling in Canada
That is how it is spelled in Australia but not Canada. Masalai (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization
I have restored my correction of the capitalization of "chief of staff", and made a couple more, which should be lower case in these instances per MOS:JOBTITLES: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting." The exceptions identified in that guide do not apply here. Ground Zero &#124; t 02:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Updating the page due to 2015 federal election!
Erm, isn't Justin Trudeau the Prime Minister now? The election just happened so yeah...

(I would like to request that the page be edited to say he WAS, not IS the Prime Minister of Canada) Great Hero J (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Until he formally submits (which I don't think he has yet) his resignation to the Governor General, Harper remains PM. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to make that change, you will be providing reliable sources, right? Go look for them, and you will find that they all say that Harper still is prime minister. Because you wouldn't make such a big change without providing references, would you? Ground Zero &#124; t 00:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * He said he'd accept the result "without hesitation" and gave up his party leadership. For all intents and purposes, he's done, and most mainstream sources are clearly calling Trudeau the Prime Minister in present tense. But yes, there's probably some royal scepter (or mace) business that needs to be done before it's totally official. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * CBC calls Trudeau the Prime Minister-designate, but also call him and Obama the "two leaders", not "one and nine-tenths". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I ran out of popcorn on election night, from throwing it at the screen, each time Peter Mansbridge erroneously called Trudeau the new PM. Each time he said it, I knew a batch of IPs would start making premature changes to Harper's & Trudeau's bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So Harper has said he will resign. He has not resigned yet, agreed? There is a difference between a future state and the present state that does not disappear because you add "for all intents and purposes". In fact, for all intents and purposes, Harper is the prime minister: legally, constitutionally and really, truly, Stephen Harper is prime minister. If anything needs the PM's signature, it will be Harper who signs it. It is true this state will change in the coming weeks, and then Wikipedia should be updated. But it has not changed yet. That's why we distinguish between "Prime Minister Harper" and "Prime Minister-designate Trudeau". Ground Zero &#124; t 10:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how we define intents and purposes. Is it maybe safer to say he's done for all intensive purposes? If not, yes, I officially agree. He's still the boss. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no rush, when the current PM resigns he is no longer PM, when the new PM takes over, then he is PM, not before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If he resigns. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please, the idea that he wouldn't is ridiculous. I don't think you know how our system of government works.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Only very vaguely. I know the idea that Royal assent is always granted is based on it simply always working that way, so it wouldn't surprise me if there is no election enforcement policy on paper. There's a first time for everything, even an impolite Canadian. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of our constitution is unwritten convention. If I cam off as impolite I am sorry, it was not my intention.  Anyway, this  says they will come in on Nov 4 so I expect the current PM to resign that day.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not impolite, I meant the Prime Minister who one day refuses to budge, even after the Crown says "Excuse me, sir." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If he didn't resign, the Governor General would dismiss him and appoint Trudeau. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Harper is Prime Minister until he resigns, which will tentatively be on November 4, 2015. If he were to refuse to resign (when Trudeau's ready to be appointed & sworn in), then the Governor General would merely dismiss him. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In theory a defeated PM could hold out for a vote of confidence when parliament resumes (assuming the GG didn‘t care to be proactive), but even facing a minority it would be a long shot, and of course utterly futile against a majority.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of precedent at 1975 Australian constitutional crisis for this dismissal stuff, and CBC says ours could do the same, but I still can't find it in legal writing. If he refuses to be dismissed, is it something like treason? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He couldn't refuse to be dismissed; if the Governor General dismissed him, he'd be dismissed. If he refused to resign, though, after a vote of non-confidence, it'd just be unconstitutional; contrary to the unwritten conventions that are part of the Canadian constitution. (I highly doubt the Governor General would even allow Harper to carry on as prime minister, knowing his chances of getting the confidence of the House back are infinitesimal.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, per tradition, the Canadian thing to do is say "We gave it our best, but our best wasn't good enough, eh?" Don't make the GG ask twice, because it wouldn't be nice to make her ask a third time. Thanks for clarifying! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the results of the 2015 fed election, the GG would merely be carrying out the people's will, by saying in words/writing to Harper --- "YOU'RE FIRED". GoodDay (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that other boss. If we still lived in a simpler time, the old PM could simply pucker up and keep his job. But no, that'd be a brand new low. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)