Talk:Stephen Harper: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Harper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 365 days

	Stephen Harper has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 22, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept October 21, 2020 Good article reassessment Kept A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 26, 2011. Current status: Good article

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Canada: Alberta / Toronto / Ottawa / Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Holiness Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Holiness movement (assessed as Mid-importance). 2010s High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: October 18 to 24, 2015 (21st)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Contempt of Parliament#Contempt citation cases for governments|Commonwealth history]] The anchor (#Contempt citation cases for governments) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Tags and major concerns appear to be resolved Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has several citation needed tags, a lead that doesn't meet MOS:LEAD, and a four-year old neutrality tag on one section. These issues need to be resolved for the article to remain a GA according to GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Username6892: If the dispute has been resolved, it's OK to remove the POV tag—better than leaving it in place indefinitely. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would seem that User:Randusk recently did some very good work to fill in requested citations. I no longer see any cleanup tags. As for the lead, it seems okay to me, other than being a smidge too long. But I wouldn't flunk this for GA because of that. (@Buidhe: perhaps you could elaborate on the MOS:LEAD issues you see, assuming they still apply?) Colin M (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Glad to see the cleanup tags have been dealt with, but there remains further clearly unsourced text throughout the article, a series of single paragraph sections, and various sections that read as wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting looking at older revisions of this page to see how the infobox pics have changed over the months (not years) ...

* The 8 citation needed tags mentioned by User:buidhe have all disappeared ...

• Agree with other comments, the lead is far too long. The third paragraph needs considerable trimming.
• I am not enamoured of having three photographs in the Foreign Policy section. Looks a bit WP:CRUFT to me.
• Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? I cannot see why this is necessary. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this particular editor's point is in creating a so-called (→GA Reassessment: new section). Is there a direction to this effect that is to be done? I'd like to know.
• 72 bots on page with Internet Archive bot visiting on 1 February 2020
• Page created on 7 June 2003 with 8,031 edits by 2,708 editors. 3,873 edits in the year 2006.
• 31 protection events for this page. Sensitive.
• Justin might be Prime Minister but this fellow is still getting a lot of page views: 116,578 in the last 90 days with daily average = 1,281
• There is a statement on Electoral history of Stephen Harper the to the effect that Harper led the Conservative Party in five general elections. He won three (2006, 2008 and 2011) and lost two (2004 and 2015). He won minority governments in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a majority in the 2011 election. He lost the 2015 election to Justin Trudeau. This might be an appropriate inclusion at the end of the lede.
• I am not comfortable with the relevance of this particular citation: In 1994, he opposed plans by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to introduce spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Citing the recent failure of a similar initiative in Ontario, he was quoted as saying, "What I hope they learn is not to get into it. There are more important social and economic issues, not to mention the unity question. Given the current mileau of rights for same-sex couples, this is a bit of an anachronism if not a particular POV inclusion.
• The sections Reform MP, Out of Parliament and Canadian Alliance leadership all suffer from WP:Proseline, he did this, he did that, he aligned with this fellow, he aligned with that fellow, he made this statement, he made that statement. A bit of cleanup could be done in these sections. Are the MP's he aligned with or won support of really relevant?
• There is a bit of proseline or waffling around Zytaruk in the Leader of the Opposition section; this and the following paragraph might be surplus to needs. (This accusation, that investigation, that accusation, this investigation ... see earlier paragraphs about seizing power)
• The paragraph In his first address to Parliament as Prime Minister, is not necessary; the section is about the election and throws off to a main article.
• Reading Reference 153, it is not made clear - there, or in this article, why the government lost the motion of no confidence. Is this able to be rectified?
• Official Opposition → Is "Official" really needed with regard to an opposition?

Yup. That's the term used in the House of Commons for the second largest party. The Leader of the Official Opposition has privileges that leaders of the third parties don't have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Constitutional issues section does not appear on the main article Domestic policy of the Harper government. Why is it here? Why is it not mentioned on that page?
• Ditto 2011 Census, not mentioned on that page.
• Israeli and Jewish affairs is too long and needs to be reduced as this matter is covered on the Foreign Policy main page.
• Keep after attending to issues raised. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you're talking about wrt the cn tags, currently there are eleven in the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a search yesterday on a revision of this article, and no tags popped up. Checking today, yes, they are there. Dunno how that happened. I have struck that out. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Tags and major concerns appear to be resolved Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has several citation needed tags, a lead that doesn't meet MOS:LEAD, and a four-year old neutrality tag on one section. These issues need to be resolved for the article to remain a GA according to GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Username6892: If the dispute has been resolved, it's OK to remove the POV tag—better than leaving it in place indefinitely. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would seem that User:Randusk recently did some very good work to fill in requested citations. I no longer see any cleanup tags. As for the lead, it seems okay to me, other than being a smidge too long. But I wouldn't flunk this for GA because of that. (@Buidhe: perhaps you could elaborate on the MOS:LEAD issues you see, assuming they still apply?) Colin M (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Glad to see the cleanup tags have been dealt with, but there remains further clearly unsourced text throughout the article, a series of single paragraph sections, and various sections that read as wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting looking at older revisions of this page to see how the infobox pics have changed over the months (not years) ...

* The 8 citation needed tags mentioned by User:buidhe have all disappeared ...

• Agree with other comments, the lead is far too long. The third paragraph needs considerable trimming.
• I am not enamoured of having three photographs in the Foreign Policy section. Looks a bit WP:CRUFT to me.
• Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? I cannot see why this is necessary. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this particular editor's point is in creating a so-called (→GA Reassessment: new section). Is there a direction to this effect that is to be done? I'd like to know.
• 72 bots on page with Internet Archive bot visiting on 1 February 2020
• Page created on 7 June 2003 with 8,031 edits by 2,708 editors. 3,873 edits in the year 2006.
• 31 protection events for this page. Sensitive.
• Justin might be Prime Minister but this fellow is still getting a lot of page views: 116,578 in the last 90 days with daily average = 1,281
• There is a statement on Electoral history of Stephen Harper the to the effect that Harper led the Conservative Party in five general elections. He won three (2006, 2008 and 2011) and lost two (2004 and 2015). He won minority governments in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a majority in the 2011 election. He lost the 2015 election to Justin Trudeau. This might be an appropriate inclusion at the end of the lede.
• I am not comfortable with the relevance of this particular citation: In 1994, he opposed plans by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to introduce spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Citing the recent failure of a similar initiative in Ontario, he was quoted as saying, "What I hope they learn is not to get into it. There are more important social and economic issues, not to mention the unity question. Given the current mileau of rights for same-sex couples, this is a bit of an anachronism if not a particular POV inclusion.
• The sections Reform MP, Out of Parliament and Canadian Alliance leadership all suffer from WP:Proseline, he did this, he did that, he aligned with this fellow, he aligned with that fellow, he made this statement, he made that statement. A bit of cleanup could be done in these sections. Are the MP's he aligned with or won support of really relevant?
• There is a bit of proseline or waffling around Zytaruk in the Leader of the Opposition section; this and the following paragraph might be surplus to needs. (This accusation, that investigation, that accusation, this investigation ... see earlier paragraphs about seizing power)
• The paragraph In his first address to Parliament as Prime Minister, is not necessary; the section is about the election and throws off to a main article.
• Reading Reference 153, it is not made clear - there, or in this article, why the government lost the motion of no confidence. Is this able to be rectified?
• Official Opposition → Is "Official" really needed with regard to an opposition?

Yup. That's the term used in the House of Commons for the second largest party. The Leader of the Official Opposition has privileges that leaders of the third parties don't have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Constitutional issues section does not appear on the main article Domestic policy of the Harper government. Why is it here? Why is it not mentioned on that page?
• Ditto 2011 Census, not mentioned on that page.
• Israeli and Jewish affairs is too long and needs to be reduced as this matter is covered on the Foreign Policy main page.
• Keep after attending to issues raised. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you're talking about wrt the cn tags, currently there are eleven in the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a search yesterday on a revision of this article, and no tags popped up. Checking today, yes, they are there. Dunno how that happened. I have struck that out. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original text is far too wordy and precise, if people want exact data they have the sources for that exact purpose (rewritten parts in brackets), remember that this is Wikipedia, not datapedia

<<During Harper's tenure, Canada had [ significant budgetary surpluses in 2006 and 2007 ]. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Canada ran deficits from 2008–2013. The deficit was $55.6 billion in 2009 and was gradually lowered [until 2014 when it was balanced with a surplus]. For the first 11 months of the 2015–2016 period, the federal government was on track for a $7.5 billion surplus. [] Following the 2015 federal election and a change in government, the 2015 fiscal year ended in a $1 billion deficit instead. In 2010, Canada had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies. The Economist magazine stated that Canada had come out the recession stronger than any other rich country in the G7. [ ]>>

Of course you might not completely agree but a rewrite is in order for at least some of that. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only edit I have to the above.

recession of 2008-2016 2601:248:C000:3F:41AF:BA75:2DBE:F0B2 (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<<During Harper's tenure, Canada had significant budgetary surpluses in 2006 and 2007 . Following the 2008 financial crisis, Canada ran deficits from 2008–2013. The deficit was $55.6 billion in 2009 and was gradually lowered until 2014 when it was balanced with a surplus. For the first 11 months of the 2015–2016 period, the federal government was on track for a $7.5 billion surplus. Following the 2015 federal election and a change in government, the 2015 fiscal year ended in a $1 billion deficit instead. In 2010, Canada had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies. The Economist magazine stated that Canada had come out the recession of 2008-2016 stronger than any other rich country in the G7.>>

Any disagreements? I'll give it a week or two CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The more precise the better because it provides complete information about the government's economic management. You can not change it just because JJ McCullough said it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you, the more percise the less it provides useful information, the overwhelming majority of users won't be gaining anything from something so pointlessly precise CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote, what does a NJ senator have to do with this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._McCullough CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the orignial vs mine above, which sounds most enticing?

During Harper's tenure, Canada had budgetary surpluses in 2006 and 2007 of $13.8 and 9.6 billion respectively. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Canada ran deficits from 2008–2013. The deficit was $55.6 billion in 2009 and was gradually lowered to $5.2 billion in 2013. In 2014, the federal budget was balanced with a surplus of $1.9 billion. For the first 11 months of the 2015–2016 period, the federal government was on track for a $7.5 billion surplus. For 2015–2016, the federal government projected a $1.4-billion surplus. Following the 2015 federal election and a change in government, the 2015 fiscal year ended in a $1 billion deficit instead. In 2010, Canada had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 economies. The Economist magazine stated that Canada had come out the recession stronger than any other rich country in the G7. In 2013, Canada came out with Global Markets Action Plan to generate employment opportunities for Canadians. CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper is a member of the committee of 300. A significant part of his biography that is omitted. A part of such an entry should include what is the committee of 300 and how did Harper end up on it. 66.185.202.161 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lists John Key as preceding Stephen Harper. They must mean Jean Chretien.

Semi-protected, so I'm unable to edit, but this is a no brainer IMO. 198.2.78.141 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Or I suppose it should be Paul Martin, but either way, it certainly isn't Mr. Key.) 198.2.78.141 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely at the infobox. He was preceded by John Key as IDU chairman. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Thanks for the correction! 198.2.78.141 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]