Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Stephen Harper. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

• With this sponsorship scandal getting really nasty, he probably will be the next Prime Minister...also I changed it slightly since he would become the Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper.

Don't you think you are jumping the gun just a wee bit here ? Talk about counting chickens .... :-) Xamian 04:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this being here. It's only a discussion page and if someone wants to do this work to be prepared should Harper become prime minister, that's his/her own business. That said, this box on Harper as PM seems to have confused at least one other person, who seems to believe it is part of the article. Perhaps, Earl, you would consider moving it to your own discussion page to avoid further confusion? HistoryBA 13:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Rt. Hon is reserved for the Governor General of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Chief Justice of Canada. Steven Harper is not the prime minister, and he may never be for all we know. It would be like someone writing and article on a death row inmate and declaring they were already deceased simply because they were in line to be executed. This is why I have changed Steven Harpers title back to Hon, the only prefix he is currently entitled to. 04:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted "However, in the end, many of the allegations against Grewal turned out to be unsubstantiated" as tendentious. This is in any case irrelevant to an article about Harper: what Grewal has been cleared of is criminality in his visa-bonding scheme and airport fiasco. But neither of those matters have much to do with Harper.

Let's try to keep this article neurral and verifiable as much as possible. I have removed the comment about "independent observers" because no information on who these people are was provided. I also modified the statement about Harper's position being "manufactured" as that sounded unnecessarily critical. Let's just state the facts and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Ditto for Belinda Stronach "defection... in exchange for a cabinet position". "Crossing the floor" is neutral, "defection" is POV. Did she cross the floor just because she wanted to be in cabinet, or because she disagreed with CPC policy? Only she knows -- we can't know her true motivation. Ground Zero 17:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

A little while ago operating out of the University of Guelph a broadcaster announced something about Stephen Harper having connections with the CIA? I don't know much about what was broadcasted because I only heard it from a friend who is a ammature radio operator. Can anyone give me more information on a possible Harper/CIA link?

I got something for you dude, there is no link. Detractors of the guy do anything to play him up, including starting rumors of CIA involvement to make him seem like a scary American plant. Don't even worry about this. --SFont 07:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I got something for you, http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial.asp?Key=2074&editorType=news&editorPrimeKeyword=hollett&editorLink=RobertBond might be what you heard.

An anonymous editor has tried to remove the link to More Stephen Harper Quotes, a Liberal Party website, on the basis that "Wikipedia should be unbiased". The article also links to the Conservative Party's website, which is also biased. There is nothing wrong with posting links to both pro- and anti- websites. In fact, Wikipedia would be biased if it only had links to sites that are friendly to the subject of the article. We have had this question before, and the consensus was that attack sties are relevant and should be included, as long as the article link identifies that the site is an attack site or who has posted it, as is the case here. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that Stephen Harper is opposed to lesbians and gays having the right under the Charter of Rights and Freedom to equal treatment under the law, and specifically under the Marriage Act of Canada. Eight cof the high courts of the land ruled that the rght to equal treatment means that the previous Marriage Act violated the Charter. I think that is pretty clear, and is not POV. I'll wait for a response before reverting, however. And I am not a left-wing extremist. Please avoid name-calling. Ground Zero 09:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, IMHO, I don't think he should be labeled as a person "opposing" rights. He allowed the basic rights (Financial benefits, et al) of marriage, but not by name. I'm for SSM, personally, but I don't think supporting civil unions instead is enough to say he's opposed to "Rights". If he had opposed ANY union, he'd probably be in the category.Habsfannova 02:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The courts did not rule that there is a "right to marriage", but that the Marriage Act violated the right to equal treatment under the law. While I would not put every MP who voted against C38 into this category, Stephen Harper has been very vocal on this issue, and has used it to rally the social conservatives to his party -- he spoke vehemently at an anti-SSM rally on Parliament Hill, and he is promising, if he becomes PM, to bring in a bill to restore the discriminatory provisions of the Marriage Act, which would, in the opinion of eight (or is it nine?) high courts of the land, violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equal treatment under the law. So, I think that it is fair to asy that S. Harper opposes LGBT rights. Maybe not all of them, but equality under the law is a pretty big one. Ground Zero | t 13:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think that category is useless as it is too general. Harper could certainly be in an same-sex marriage opposition category, but a general opposition category allows for no distinction between Harper, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, and the bunch of White Supremacist groups also in that cat. - SimonP 14:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, Simon. The category is probably pretty useless. Ground Zero | t 15:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Simon, it isn't that good of a Category....Habsfannova 21:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be "moderately" opposed to LGBT rights. He doesn't belong in that category (reserved for hardline opponents), but many of his party members do. CrazyC83 05:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Harper is not against their rights. The courts did not rule on the issue, they said it was up for the government to decide on Same-Sex marriage.SFrank85 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of the nine provincial and terrorial courts that ruled on this issue, nine of them ruled that the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do apply to gay and lesbian Canadians. Steven Harper has rejected those rulings, and voted against the legislation that implemented amendments to bring the Marriage Act in line with the nine court rulings. (The Supreme Court said that since the government had already indicated that it would introduce legislation, there was no need for it to rule.) He has reiterated that he is against allowing smae-sex couples to marry in the same way that opposite-sex couples do. I'm not crazy about the category, but as long as we have it, and as long as S. Harper speaks at Parliament Hill rallies against SSM and is willing to use it as an election issue, it seems to fit. Ground Zero | t 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the section on his politician impressions back in, since it can be verified. His liking of AC/DC and playing it at party events is also confirmed, but I don't know if that's notable enough for the article. --The Invisible Hand 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Many colleagues report that Harpher has a charming sense of humour and a well liked candour. As well as noting that he has an uncanny ability to do impressions of other politicians, such as: Preston Manning, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, John McCallum, and even California governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar. He sometimes performs these impressions at the annual Parliamentary Press Gallery dinners to great aplomb.

Am I alone in thinking that this is not NPOV and an is not encyclopedic? Come on. "Great aplomb"? "Charming sense of humour"? "Well-liked candour"? I watched the Press Gallery dinner this year, and his speech fell pretty flat. There weer a few good lines, but no impressions., and his sense of humour was not any more charming than anyone elses, and frankly, I think it was less so. Thats is, of course, just my opinion. But then, this whole paragraph is just somebody else's opinion. I don't think it belongs, but I am looking for others' views before I delete it. If I'm off-base on this, then please tell me why. Ground Zero | t 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I saw his speech and thought it was hilarious - and he gave numerous impressions. Were you watching the same speech I was watching? Mr. Harper is not the most animated man in Canadian Politics, but he does indeed perform excellent impersonations of these individuals. My advice? Leave as is. His colleagues do say those things about the man, regardless of public opinion about the man. The quote states MANY COLLEAGUES REPORTwhich is what they have done. The only way the statement would be NPOV would be if the writer stated that as fact. THEN it would be NPOV. As it stands, there is nothing wrong with the statement. Perhaps an addition of public opinion of the man would make things more even. John Hawke 04:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you and, in fact, would go even further. Isn't it an oxymoron to have a "trivia" section in an encyclopedia entry? HistoryBA 00:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a funny speech, but it didn't seem like he was particularly funny (a little too wooden, prefaced too many statements with look- seriously- and other things telegraphing him saying "No that was a joke). And it's definitely a garden-variety Schwarzenegger (but his Canadian conservative politician impressions were good, his Clark is a little wavery). Still he did get off some good zingers.

-Look around wikipedia, pretty much every entry about any public figure contains a trivia section. This isn't encarta remmeber.

Yes, I know that it exists elsewhere in Wikipedia and I know this is not Encarta. I am arguing that if we are to make Wikipedia a more respectable encyclopedia, we should eliminate the "trivia" sections. HistoryBA

Even if there is trivia, it still has to be verifiable. His dog's name would be both trivial and verifiable. If he won a university beer-drinking competition in 1985, and the results have been posted on the web, same thing. No evidence of his alleged sense of humour, uncanny impressions and well liked candour (whatever that means) has been presented. This is just fluff that someone has made up. If outside sources are not presented, then it should come out. Ground Zero | t 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I know it's not a verifyable source, but I remember Jack Layton mentioning the impressions in a speech...Habsfannova 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There's clips of Harper doing impressions of Chretien, Manning, Mulroney, and others here and here (check the video links on the right). I think the section should be put back in, but without out all the POV stuff about "charming sense of humour" and "great aplomb." (Would it be tooting my own horn to suggest using the wording of my edit from Dec. 4th?) --The Invisible Hand 08:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think it was put in their by a Harper supporter whose aim is present the "friendlier face" that the Conservative Party wants people to see. I don't think that it is the role of Wikipedia to assist a political party in promoting the side of a party's leader that the party is trying to promote. I doubt the Martin or Layton articles have and don't think they should have references to the press gallery dinners. Ground Zero | t 13:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The contributor's motive is irrelevant. The only things that matter are whether the section is 1) notable, 2) verified, and 3) presented in a NPOV way. Harper speaking at the press gallery dinner isn't notable, since most party leaders do that, but the fact that he does impressions of other politicians is notable. (How many other Canadian politicians do them?) The press gallery dinner is simply the vehicle for verifying the story. --The Invisible Hand 06:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --John Hawke 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the fact that his campaign office looks like it got hit by a bomb count for anything? WestJet

If there's any bias, it does seem to be against him. I fail to understand the significance of people leaving his communications staff; in politics, this is a regular occurence. Take for example, Paul Martin. Earlier in the year he let much of his communications staff go, and it went unreported, yet five people left Harper's staff and somehow it's news? These things are not notable. With that in mind, will people please quit reverting the wiki to older, incorrect versions?

Harper has since apologized for this comment, while maintaining that he meant Atlantic Canadians feel left out and that their opinions don't matter in Ottawa. Do not revert the Wiki to statements saying he has not apologized because that is false. John Hawke

Can you show us where he said this?Habsfannova 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

----I sure can. Harper's Apology and Explanation as Covered by the Globe and Mail Since you need a subscription to see even more of the article (although if you search for "harper""atlantic canada""interview" on google you can access it, wierdly enough) I'll post the meat of it here:

"Defeatism Comments taken out of Context, Harper Says"

By JANE ARMSTRONG

Thursday, December 1, 2005 Page A9

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said yesterday that comments he made in the past equating the East Coast with defeatism were taken out of context, but he's sorry they were misunderstood. Mr. Harper made the comments in an interview with CTV News in Halifax. It was the closest thing to an apology Maritimers have heard from the Tory Leader.

"Those comments may have been taken out of context and everything, but they were, you know, they were my fault that they were taken out of context," he said in the interview on the second day of the election campaign.

When pressed by reporter Elizabeth Chiu on what exactly was his mistake, Mr. Harper replied: "I grew up in a family . . . our friends, my relatives, my dad were all Maritimers, and there's a lot of frustration about the fact that this region hasn't been treated fairly in Confederation, has never realized its potential.

"And I made comments about that. I used terms defeat and defeatism. And I suppose the truth of the matter is, I got angry when I found myself being taken out of context. But, you know, it was my fault," he said.

"People who saw that had a right to misinterpret that, had a right to interpret it wrongly.

"What I learned about that is: 'Don't worry about what you're trying to say. Worry about what the listeners hear.' The listeners heard something they shouldn't have heard."

Mr. Harper was quoted in a New Brunswick newspaper in May, 2002, as saying a federal government with a "can-do" attitude could end the pessimism that exists in the region.

John Hawke 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"These things feed on each other," Mr. Harper said. "Atlantic Canada's culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country. When that starts to change, the culture will start to change, too."

Thanks, but he's only really apologizing for the misunderstanding they've caused, not the comments themselves.I've added the fact that he apologized three years after the incident.Habsfannova 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. I stated that he apologized for any offense people might have taken due to misunderstanding his comments, and that's what he apologized for. He also apologized long ago for the commments; this is just a repetition of his apology. Read the article again until you get it straight. Reverted. John Hawke 15:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

He never apologized when he released those comments...he simply said the reaction to them was partisan politics.Habsfannova 18:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Habsfannova on this. Harper apologized for the offence given, but still stood behind the substance of his comments. I don't see any reason not to include the comments, along with a brief summary of any clarification he might have later issued. HistoryBA 19:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

He did apologize for the comments previously. It's really splitting hairs when you debate whether or not the words "I'm sorry" are an apology or not. When you apologize for something, you are saying you're sorry for causing offense. That's what he did; he apologized for the offense his comments might have caused. What else should he have apologized for? Secondly, he did stand by the nature of his comments, but I believe you may be confused about that nature. He never ever said anything disparaging about Atlantic Canadians; I'm one myself so I should know. He simply said that Atlantic Candians feel like they don't matter to Ottawa and feel that nothing they can do will change this. Thus, he said that things needed to change in order to give Atlantic Canadians the voice in Ottawa they deserve. Unofortunately for him, an election was in progress and these comments were played up for votes (as in politics is a common occurrence for all parties). I agree with you completely in that the comments should be listed in addition to any clarification he has issued (and they have been numerous), but I believe the substance of Habsfannova's edit was slightly lacking in clarity and, although completely unintentionally so, somewhat misleading ( :D No offense intended, my friend). John Hawke 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not splitting hairs to say that there is a difference between "I'm sorry I said that" and "I'm sorry you misinterpreted that." If he had said "I'm sorry Atlantic Canadians were so stupid that they thought I was insulting them," would that constitute an apology? After all, it does contain the words "I'm sorry." HistoryBA 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey man, Harper's apology wasn't an insult like you imply there BA, so that argument doesn't really stand up well, dude. 16:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (Posted by John Hawke)

That's exactly my point. Just saying "I'm sorry" doesn't mean that you have changed your views. You have to look at the substance of the apology. HistoryBA 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As a Nova Scotian, I heartedly disagree. He did say disparaging comments, they are there in black and white ("Can't do attitude", "Culture of defeat"). He did not specifically mention that the government was "ignoring" Atlantic Canada, quite the opposite: He implied that Atlantic Canadians were dependent on the government. Even Premiers Hamm (And the entire NS legislature) and Lord agreed with this interpretation when he said them. They were terrible comments designed to support his Western base when polls were low. The fact that he only started "regretting" the comments when he was leader of the new Conservative party reveals a lot.Habsfannova 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

--Did you even read the quote I carefully took the time to provide? He never said the words "Can't do attitude", he said a "federal government with a "can-do" attitude could end the pessimism that exists in the region" in regards to being ignored by Ottawa. What you are saying is entirely factually incorrect. I repeat again, he simply said that Atlantic Candians feel like they don't matter to Ottawa and feel that nothing they can do will change this. I remember when he made the original statements, and as an Atlantic Canadian I feel that this is an accurate summary of the situation. John Hawke 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not "partisan editing". Trust me, I'm not a Liberal or NDP partisan, and I resent that accusation (You may notice my edits on Stockwell Day). I remember those comments too. The "Government with a can-do attitude" remark meant, essentailly, a government that provided tax based incenetives instead of the programs offered. And, quite frankly, they were in a much different tone then you describe. And, again, if he did say only "that", then why did Hamm condemn him? Why did Lord condemn him? And why is the only apology that you can find three years later? And we're both Atlantic Canadians, so you can stop citing that every time.Habsfannova 16:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll retract my comments and I have deleted them from my previous post. My apologies to you, I can tell from the response you gave that I'm more than likely wrong about it. But the issue still stands: Regardless of the public knee-jerk reaction (and that best describes it) to the "culture of defeat" comment, there was no disparaging intent behind what he said and Mr. Harper has apologized for it before. I can't see a man who's very father was from Atlantic Canada turning around and insulting the region. The reason people view him as being unrepentant for these remarks is because Harper knows he never meant anything disparaging by them, and so he was initially slow off the bat to apologize for the offense people took from them. I think he best sums it up in this quote "I don't typically apologize for being misrepresented. I've never ever suggested that the people of this region are responsible for the region's have-not status...I'm not going to quarrel about this. My father was from here. My relatives were all from here. . . . This region is part of my family. I'm not going to be labelled as someone who doesn't like the region or doesn't like the people." In addition, here is a link for an article published by the Canadian Unity Council in 2004 which states that Harper has "long since apologized" for the comments.

But overall, I do agree with you in that we should look at Bernard Lord's reaction to the comments in order to best analyse them: "Lord put the past to rest Tuesday by proclaiming; 'I will vote Conservative on June 28. I will support Stephen Harper.'". And with that, I do believe we should just drop the debate already about any changes to this comment. We both are apparently satisfied with the nature of the reference to the comments in the wiki as it stands, and I think that means we've got common ground here. John Hawke 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should stop this article on Stephen Harper from being edited because of the constant vandalism SFrank85 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an election, you'll always get people with nothing better to do trying to mess up the article. I'm just glad I'm not babysitting the Wiki on President Bush. John Hawke 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also wikipedia policy to not lock high-profile pages (aside from the front page). FireWorks 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a "random Stephen Harper quote of the day" site. We have a sister site called http://www.wikiquote.com/ for listing quotes, and I have now added a link to the Stephen Harper entry on Wikiquote (look under "External link" to find the wikiquote box and click on it).

In general, quotes should only be added to the main article if they are directly relevant to and part of the person's biography (eg, Martin Luther King Jr. and "I have a dream..."). The Wikiquote site was created for other quotes. -- Curps 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Harper's birthday really April 20? Seems a little too convenient. And google indicates that the entry used to have April 30. No solid info on the net, though. Cincinnatus c 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• His birthday is on April 20. SFrank85 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• The English Canadian Encylopedia gives a birthday of April 30 [1], but the junior and French Canadian Encyclopedia articles say April 20, reflecting the general confusion around his birthday. [2] [3]. Peachy1 02:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Parliament page gives the 30th..hereHabsfannova 03:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• have read a biography on him, and it says the 20th. Oh, well we will know for sure if he becomes the PM. SFrank85 03:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I have sent a email to the parliment website, and they confirmed that Harper's birthday is April 30. SFrank85 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Official biography at Parliament of Canada website says April 30: [4] -- Curps 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A question for any passers-by. Does Harper speak French? I viewed some of the French ads on the Tory website and noticed that he wasn't in them, which was different in my mind to the Liberal ads. - Thanks, Hoshie | 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he does, he participated in the French debates. My conjecture as to why he isn't in French ads are because he isn't as popular as a leader there, and they go for more of the "vote for our party, and we'll decentralize" message.Habsfannova 14:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, my suspicion on why Harper isn't in the French ads is that his French is still rather clumsy. On CBC's Your Turn he described himself as something like "still a beginner in French". Though he certainly gets points for improvement from 2004. --Saforrest 15:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was, he could easily make a prepared statement on a TV commercial.Habsfannova 18:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering why Stephen's religion is no longer on his info bar? Good on you for calling him the Rt. Hon.! HD 123321, 7:16pm (PST)

• I will fix that now. SFrank85 03:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses. :) He's not Right Honourable yet, though all indications are that he soon will be. --Saforrest 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Religion on the info bar someone keeps on taking it off. 207.6.241.252 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened I think the religion of people is important. Why does some keep taking it off? Please responde otherwise you have no reason to do so. HD 123321 07:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Harperbruce 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This might be moot after tomorrow, of course; but the last section needs to be examined and rewritten for clarity. It seems muddy and confused to me, and I'm not even eligible to vote in the election (grin). Someone with more knowledge than me should give it a quick go-over -- though, as I say, the entire section will probably need to be rewritten on Tuesday (one way or another; remember the previous election!).

(BTW, my handle indicates no relation to the man under discussion here!! It's simply the nom de net I've used since the 1980s.)

I bet the whole section is going to be re-edited tomorrow night anyways. Someone even made the new information bar for him as the new Prime Minister. If only the pollsters are off by that huge of a margin, he will be having at least a minority government in the 39th parliament for sure.

Don't worry... over the next few days this article will be edited quite a bit. Things will work themselves out. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For now, we can use this source. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this even remotely true? Can anyone provide a citation? Exploding Boy 03:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... I don't think that's true. The platform is that the PC would pass legislations barring any further same-sex marriage, but keep any current ones. I can't see an opposite position being taken by their leader. At least that's my view. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in high school??? No idea. A source would be nice. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be locked to prevent vandalism. Harper was never a gay rights activist - this is libel.

I second the locking suggestion. It's gonna be quite insane the next couple of days, in both the Harper and Martin pages. People are gonna go nuts, writing crap. Best to lock it until the insanity dies down, I think. --Buchanan-Hermit 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Semi-protection would be a good compromise. It blocks unregistered and new users, while allowing thers to edit. Ground Zero | t 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus that semi-protection on him and Martin is needed? It's not generally intended to be used as a precaution for pages that might be vandalized. -- Pakaran 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, this should be locked...or semi-protected at the very least.Habsfannova 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As Harper hasn't yet been appointed Prime Minister he isn't styled the Right Honourable. I'm going to revert it. Only when he takes office should it be put back up. (Alphaboi867 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

Could someone fix the page layout? Dooga 06:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he start out as a Liberal is his earliest political activity? Can somebody add this info to the article?--Sonjaaa 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was once a member of the Liberal Youth but left in anger after Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program. - anon - Feb. 1, 2006

Or at least that's his version of it. --JGGardiner 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe they're called the Young Liberals, not the Liberal Youth. --Saforrest 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Young Liberal seems preferred but Liberal Youth is sometimes used as well. --JGGardiner 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes he was a Liberal. He left after National Engery Program. Then he joined the Progressive Conservative Party. He remained a loyal Progressive Conservative even in 1988 when He ran for Reform. He was actully recurted by Tom Flangin to help out the Reform Party develop Policy and make it elecatble, but he left after numerious altercations with Preston Manning as did Tom Flagin at this time.

Please put [[sh:Stephen Harper]]. --M. Pokrajac 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

All Canadian media refer to his wife Laureen by her maiden name, not as Laureen Harper. Given the media style guides, which default to women's preferences, there is no evidence she prefers otherwise.

This National Post article says that she has kept her maiden name but that she wants to be known as Laureen Harper in the political arena. Most media call her Teskey, so I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps they just put "Stephen and Laureen Harper" on ads sent to conservative people: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:DLomGda3WzAJ:www.robanders.com/News/20040522Smyth.htm+laureen+teskey+maiden+name&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3

I think there was a bit of ambiguity and uncertainty on this point. I'd noticed as well that all mentions of her in the media recently were using Teskey, but I'd also previously seen media references to her as Harper. I asked for clarification at the Canadian Wikipedians' discussion board, and got no answer — so in light of this, I've moved her article to Laureen Teskey, but Laureen Harper will also stand as a redirect. Bearcat 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

she now wants to be known as Laureen Harper. Writerchick 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just read something about this in the Globe and Mail -- and the article referred to this Wikipedia article on Teskey-Harper. --Westendgirl 00:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mainly detailing his victory, his speech and his new vision as Prime Minister? -b 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is Martin will be staying as leader of the Liberals until the convention. He should be listed, therfore, as the leader of the Opposition in the infobox. 23skidoo 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Harper's biography box: from Feb/6/2006- present, to Due to take office Feb/6/2006. Why? because he's only scheduled to take office on that day, he hasn't taken office yet. So, why not wait until February 6th, 2006 GoodDay 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He needs Template:Infobox PM anyway (which is currently at the top of the talk page). I suppose there's no harm adding it now, provided it includes your caveat. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what WP standard is but I'd prefer waiting. I know that it is almost certain to happen but it hasn't yet. WP is an ecyclopedia after all. At the very least, it should not say that Martin is his predecessor yet and also that he is not the incumbent yet. --JGGardiner 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is rather trivial to say that he enjoys ice hockey. I'd prefer to see the space used for something more substantive. As a side note, I would note that a lot of politicians try to humanize themselves by connecting to popular sport like that. Have you ever seen the footage of Diefenbaker pretending to enjoy the Summit Series? It is very difficult to watch. Or perhaps how Hillary Clinton says that she secretly enjoyed the Yankees while growing up in Illinois? I'm not doubting Harper, I just think that it isn't very meaningful because everyone likes it or fakes it. --JGGardiner 22:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He's writing a history of hockey so I assume he likes it a bit more than the average Canadian. Mithridates 05:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing I was looking for. It sounds like it should be in the article. --JGGardiner 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But who is she? Just though I'd point out to the more enterprising researchers out there that his father mentioned by name but his mother isn't. 69.157.184.7 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Abe

According to this CBC profile (see section "A very private man"), Harper's mother's name is Margaret. He also has two younger brothers, Robert and Grant. --Saforrest 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Harper's mother's name is Margaret. I saw William Johnson's book on Stephen Harper being sold at Save On Foods this week in Delta, B.C. and quickly broused through it. Johnson mentions this fact. I believe she is alive although Harper's father is well known to have died in 2003. Harper did a touching eulogy about his father's influence on him at the funeral and has mentioned many times how he misses getting advice from his father. --Leoboudv 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Harper is alive. According to the Toronto Star story, she will be flown from Calgary to Ottawa to witness her son's inauguration as will Harper's 2 brothers and their respective families. It is interesting that all 3 brothers followed Joseph Harper's career into accounting. Maybe Harper will do better than just balance Canada'as books. Methinks Canada has had too many lawyers governing Canada over the years. Regards. Story --24.87.128.182 10:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? No one said she wasn't alive. Incidentally, while Harper's two brothers may be accountants, Harper is not: both his undergraduate and masters degrees are in economics. (I'm not sure whether that makes him an "economist"; like "physicist" and "mathematician" that title seems to be reserved for those with doctorates in the subject). --Saforrest 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[[ta:சிரீபன் கார்ப்பர்]]

He is also an avid fan of ice hockey and of the Calgary Flames.

I thought I had read somewhere that he is still a Leafs fan (he grew up in Toronto, after all) along with his wife and kids. Is that not true? (I suppose it might be partially true and could've been spun a bit to make him friendlier to Ontarians.) --Saforrest 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• He was a Leafs fan, but is now a Flames fan, according to his biography by William Johnson. SFrank85 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Right Honourable" should appear in bold before "Stephen Harper" in the first paragraph Petro_56

No, it is explicit policy not to use The Honourable or The Right Honourable in the introductory text about a politician. Look at the source for the relevant link to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Saforrest 06:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In the paragraph immediately above "Honours", a colon after Clark should be a semi-colon. GCapp1959

For goodness sakes, stop putting gross links up at this article. If you want to insult the prime minister do it somewhere other than this public website.

The image currently on Wikipedia's front page is unsourced. -- user:zanimum

Could we please stop playing around with the photograph. If you don't like the one that appears on the top of this page, please start a discussion here about why another one should be substituted. I, for one, will revert any changes to the photograph that are not prefaced with a discussion here. HistoryBA 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the one of him with the suit and blue tie? It was replaced by the one with the bright blue background.Habsfannova

This photo makes his head look big. MonsterTruck 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To User:MonsterTruck: if you continue vandalizing this page, I will block you for 24 hours. This is your only warning. CJCurrie 03:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I consider your threat an abuse of admin power. MonsterTruck 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken. CJCurrie 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, not really, Mr.Dictator MonsterBus 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the one I mean: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/5/5c/20060115033319%21Harpes.jpgHabsfannova 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the current picture (unless MonsterTruck has changed it again in the time it takes me to type this, in which case disregard) is more professional. CJCurrie 03:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...has an official picture been released yet, like the Martin one?Habsfannova 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please change the picture. It's kinda embarassing not only to our new Prime Minister but to our country as well!

Not sure I'm in favour of a revert war ... but given our new Prime Minister is kind of embarassing to our country, then perhaps it's fitting! :-) Nfitz 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the picture to the present one because that is the one that was used throughoiut the entire election campaign with no objection. It's a good, neutral picture of him. --SFont 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion at the top of this discussion was designed to avoid a silly revert war. Let us please reach a consensus here before we change the photo. I don't think it's relevant that the picture you prefer was used throughout the entire election campaign. The issue before us now is which of the two pictures is better. If there is a consensus that yours is the better one, let's change it. But let's not go back and forth on this until we have that consensus. HistoryBA 15:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you prefer that picture over the one I put up? I obviously don't care that much, it's just that the one we have right now just looks damn ugly. In my humble opinion of course. --SFont 06:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

When did I say I preferred it? HistoryBA 13:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Stephen Harper's electoral results are needed, it's not on any other prime minister or member of parliament, so I removed them... any input?

• I've been adding these to other MPs' pages, and I've not received many complaints so far. The other PMs don't have an "electoral results" section yet, but (i) they might, in the near future, and (ii) that's no reason to delete here, one way or the other. I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you believe it's so important to remove the information. CJCurrie 23:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it adds uneeded space, these results are already available if you click the riding which the MP represents. Your call I guess. If you feel it needs to be in there I won't remove it. Tkyle 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Some candidates campaign in different ridings (including Harper, who was originally elected in Calgary West). I think it's convenient to have the all information in one place. Also, the space problem isn't too serious from my vantage point, given that the information is located at the bottom of the page -- people can bypass it, if they have no interest. CJCurrie 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tkyle, actually...I think it's a bit too much. It should be in his riding page(s).Habsfannova 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would actually like to see something like this on all the pages for elected officials. However, I think it is too cumbersome as it stands. What about an abbreviated table for individual candidates, pointing to the more detailed available elsewhere? I've mocked up this table:

Election	Constituency	Affiliation	Votes	%	Place
1988 fed.	Calgary West	Reform	9,074	16.58%	2/6
1993 fed.	Calgary West	Reform	30,209	52.25%	1/6
2002 by	Calgary Southwest	Alliance	13,200	71.66%	1/5
2004 fed.	Calgary Southwest	Conservative	35,297	68.36%	1/6
2006 fed.	Calgary Southwest	Conservative	41,549	72.36%	1/5

Feel free to use / edit / ignore, etc. --Hamiltonian 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks much better...even better in a (Compact) table.Habsfannova 06:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been using a variation on this table for politicians on list pages, but I still think the "extended detail" approach works better for those important enough to have their own biographies. I recognize that some readers find this cumbersome, but there are certain advantages (ie. the margin of each victory does not need to be worked into the text, third or fourth place candidates who are notable for other reasons receive fair mention, general trends can be determined, etc). The section can always be ignored by those with no interest in the matter, in any event. CJCurrie 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of the wikipedia community, but when I see the words dumbest in bold (dumbest of 4 brothers) and stuff about Canada's prime minister beeing a drunk I would normally consider that slander and vandalism and I'm a liberal! I am reverting this to its pre-vandalized state. --Diploid 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone (possibly Willy on Wheels) has replaced the images of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper with borderline-pornographic images. This appears to be advanced vandalism, in that simply deleted the "image" in the template has no effect. Please do not return the template until this matter is resolved. CJCurrie 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Only WoW would accuse someone blatently un-WoW like of being WoW! That can only mean one thing, you are a WoW sleeper account!--152.163.100.9 15:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't see that quote section as being either necessary or an improvement to the article. There is already a link to wikiquote, which has all the quotes here plus many more. The article is already quite long, adding all those quotes makes it look cumbersome.

I've removed the quotes previously only to be reverted, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. 207.6.31.119 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was the section called 'famous quotes'? They seemed like a collection of partisan quotes with no apparent purpose. What was "famous" about them?Michael Dorosh 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are bias against Stephen Harper and are obiously taken out of context

They should stay removed

Under 'Trivia', it says that his father was a collector of badges till his death. Is there any reason that this is euphemised to 'passing'?Stearnsbrian 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Canadian. It's in my blood to be polite. :-P If it is against the manual of style, feel free to change it.Michael Dorosh 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

the statistics are nice, they are very detalied, but isn't there a map that has the provinces highlighted? It would be less of an headache. The pointer outer 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened??? 24.82.136.103 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This man is an imposter, for I am the prime minister of Canada!!!! Fear my wrath for I control the Candians!! The most feared fighting force in the known world!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.9 (talk • contribs)

• Good luck with that, eh! SFrank85 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm... yes... you have my unswerving loyalty and... um... whatever. Ground Zero | t 15:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, no, did Harper appoint you to the Senate too?Habsfannova 16:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen Harper/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article requires a properly licensed photograph. I just discovered someone had included the official photograph of the PM that is actually listed on the parl web site as copywritten.Alan.ca 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)