Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 7

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

Infobox

IMHO, the PM departure date November 4, 2015, should be deleted or hidden, until Harper actually resigns as Prime Minister on that date. There's no need for premature edits here. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My undertstanding of common practice here is we show known term end dates, especially when they are in the very near future. The reader wants info - like when does Harper's term end exactly. We serve the reader. Everyone can see Nov 4 is in the future, until its in the past. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The practice has always been to wait until the transition actually occurs. Anyways, we'll let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Technically there are no Members of Parliament at the moment. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Michael-D-Chong(25488) (he won) Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no exact end to Harper's "term" (hence, it isn't a term). Regardless, November 4 is the tentative date for Trudeau to announce the new Cabinet, not the date Harper hands his resignation to the Governor General. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we should mention that he is expected to resign Nov 4. I understand that in Canada the PM is appointed by the governor not elected and therefore does not leave office until the governor officially announces his acceptance of the resignation. But let's not be so pedantic that we fail to provide information that no one doubts. TFD (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there a source for that? The only event I've seen scheduled for 4 November is the revelation of who's to be in the new ministry. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I would oppose adding November 4, 2015 (or whatever the departure dates turns out to be) to the infobox, while Harper is still PM. I see no reason to rush this. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is a source that explicitly says that he will resign Prime Minister on a date, then we could do something. People are mistaking Justin Trudeau's planned swearing-in as Harper's own quitting date of the PM title. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 23:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And if there's nothing explicitly saying Canada can't have two concurrent PMs, we could do twice as much (Canada, not Wikipedia). One guy could handle the money, drilling and killing abroad and his partner could nurture, shelter and entertain us at home. If two consenting adults want to form a stable and responsible union in this day and age, I can tolerate not standing in the way of their double global leadership dreams.
But if Trudeau thinks he can raise us by himself, like his father managed, all the power to him, too! Struggling builds character. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The outgoing PM always tenders his resignation on the morning the new PM and other Ministers are sworn in. All previous Minister's terms end that day, which has been widely reported as Nov 4. Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The past is a fairly good indicator of the future, but every rule has occasional exceptions, especially the unwritten ones. Did you know Abraham Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together? Think of the children, Harper! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Last night on Raw, Mexico and the US formed a new nation. If Trudeau doesn't want to stay together for the kids, he can at least tie this knot for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not going to hurt anyone, to actually wait until Harper resigns, before adding the departure date. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

See this article for the process. [1] Harper is already moving out of 24 Sussex. [2] Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant, as he hasn't resigned as Prime Minister, yet. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

[3] says that NOv 4 will be the day Justin becomes PM, as published by every serious media outlet in the country. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not November 4, yet. There's no reason to insert the date, before it gets here. GoodDay (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Better go delete this page and all the articles linked from it then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_electoral_calendar_2016 Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as you & I are never going to agree on this topic. It's best we allo others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I support removing the date entirely. Adding "expected" to the date just highlights that we don't know for sure when the change will happen. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL the date is not definite until it actually happens. Meters (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the date should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Of many sources that mention Trudeau and 4 November, that's the only one I've seen that says that's the day he's to be sworn-in as prime minister. Are there others?
Regardless, even if there are, we can only say it's expected he's to be sworn-in that day. Nothing guarantees he will be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
But, should we be showing any such date, before Harper actually resigns? GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming there is more verification that 4 November is the date of the appointment of the new Cabinet: ideally, no. Especially not in the infobox, as the "expected" part isn't readable as specifically related to the 4 November date. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As much as I want to, I won't be removing the date. It's not worth my getting blocked, which is what might happen to me :( GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much support to keep it, and I agree it's seems WP:CRYSTAL, especially for the infobox where there isn't much context.I'll be removing shortly. — Strongjam (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not "Crystal Ball" to state what reliable sources expect to happen, only to report what editors think will happen. The guideline says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." That Harper will leave office on Nov. 4 is notable and almost certain to take place. TFD (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Normally it wouldn't be an issue, but for whatever reason there has been no official announcement this time of Harper's intentions/actions. Meters (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
A story in the National Post says Rideau Hall has just confirmed it.[4] But we do not need official announcements, just reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, it's always been the practice on the 'pedia, to wait until a lame duck office holder leaves office, before adding the departure date. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not know why that should be, and guidelines seem to be against it. A version of this article from 5 Feb. 2006 says, "takes office February 6, 2006." TFD (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper's already in office, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's in the lede already. When in the infobox, the "expected" part ends up on the next line, meaning it doesn't get read in conjunction with the 4 November date. It doesn't need to be in the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, he was not in office Feb 5, 2006, yet the info-box said he would take office Feb 6, 2006, which was still in the future, just as today Nov 4 is still in the future.[5] Mies there are only two reasons we would leave this information out of the info-box: (1) it is unimportant, (2) it is uncertain. Since Harper's main notability is being Canadian PM, it is important. And there is no doubt that Harper will follow convention and resign and that the governor will accept it. Yes I know there is nothing in law preventing Harper from remaining in office, but given Canada's parliamentary tradition, it will not happen. TFD (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That example would better fit the infobox at Justin Trudeau, however. Back to departure dates, we even practice keeping out such dates in fixed-term offices. See edit histories of American politicial officers bios (governors, senators, representatives), departure dates weren't added until terms ended. Guarenteed, between 8 Nov 2016 & 20 Jan 2017, the date "January 20, 2017" won't be shown in Barack Obama's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd be careful with that promise. Lots of things pop up in that guy's infobox, at least temporarily. For over two hours, he was apparently married to one of his relatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
"(2) it is uncertain." Yes, precisely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Leader of the Conservative Party

We need some clarification here, folks. Did Harper resign as Conservative leader effective immediately on election night (Oct. 19, 2015), or does his resignation only take effect when an interim leader is chosen (Nov. 5, 2015). -- GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he has resigned as leader, so we should continue to say he is leader until rs says he has resigned or been replaced by an interim leader. TFD (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
We're still at the end of the beginning, not yet the beginning of the end. Or some such political nonsense. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This source seems to add to the confusion. It's calling Harper the outgoing leader & also former leader. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits re. Harper's resignation

An edit I made today has been reverted twice (1, 2). I won't add it again because I have no interest in getting into an edit war but I would like to note that nowhere in WP:RS is there a policy that U.S. sources are unacceptable, and that a statement of fact from a reputable news organization like The New York Times is considered reliable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I can't find the CTV article that User:Legacypac makes reference to in the edit summary, but I don't think it necessarily contradicts the NYT statement – if the reporters were kept away from Rideau Hall during Harper's resignation, then indeed they had not arrived there to witness it. I reject the characterisation of the NYT statement as a "throwaway line" because it is somewhat specific and because, again, NYT is a reliable source. Altogether this is very weak rationale for stubbornly censoring a neutral and cited statement of fact. Citobun (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The referenced statement is based on the very last line in the NYT article, and not the thrust of the article. Stuff way down at the bottom of articles is often thrown away by newspaper editors (literally). I have no issue with The NYTimes as being reliable, but it is a trivial detail that may or may not be true published by an American newspaper. US media is not famous for getting the nuances of Canadian politics correct. Set against 10 years of being PM, and a long political career before that, this potentially true or false piece of trivia is an inappropriate addition to a biography, especially as it implies Harper shooed away the media, which is negative not neutral and even if it was an important enough detail to include, would need better Canadian sourcing, not just the NYT. Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's trivial – I found the statement while specifically researching the resignation on Google because I thought it particularly odd that I had seen no photo/video coverage of Harper's resignation as PM. Citobun (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not trivial; it is a typical & important example of Harper's style, like refusing to come to a national debate, telling Tory candidates not to go to local all-candidates meetings, and so on. The reversion looks to me like yet more whitewashing as discussed at #POV by glaring omissions above.
Whatever the motive for the reversion, User:Citobun's text or something like it should certainly be restored. Pashley (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Usually there is none. Day is about the new govt. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Harper and his cabinet resigned on the morning of November 4, 2015. Their resignations took effect upon being accepted by the Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Would you put such trivial speculation in John Turner or Kim Campbell or any other PM article? I doubt it. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

2011 census section

The section doesn't even refer to Harper and secondly it's hardly a defining decision of his leadership. Many countries do major changes to census. Suggest deleting the whole section. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

This article states that Stephen Harper is "a member of the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance and attends church at the East Gate Alliance Church in Ottawa." I do not dispute this at all, but this sentence is supported only by only one reference that is 10 years old. Are there any more recent sources about Harper's religious beliefs? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

More about Harper's anti-science restrictions

Is this an interesting link for this article? Nine Years of Censorship --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stephen Harper

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stephen Harper's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dominionofcanada.com":

  • From William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Commemorative Medals of The Queen's Reign in Canada".
  • From Pierre Trudeau: http://dominionofcanada.com/commemorative_medals/index.html

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Time as MP

In the news today it was announced that he would be resigning as an MP this summer.

Also, should the dates as MP be corrected, currently shows a gap between the date of the election call and the date of the election. Was he not technically still the MP for the old riding up until election day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.211.131 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Once parliament is dissolved there are no MPs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Hello Graham11,

You have added many Weasel Words into the article. These include the "Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")"

Sentences like "The CPC has been accused of...", "Some have alleged...", and "Some suggest..." and completely unacceptable. Who are these 'some'? Accused by whom? Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy has a section on 'Avoid gossip and feedback loops', that specifically instructs editors to immediately remove this type of contentious material.

Instead of a revert, can you perhaps specifically include (with at least 2 reliable sources) who is making these allegations, and a fair and balances response. Otherwise, leave them out. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, I agree with you that the use of weasel words is generally inappropriate; however, rather than attempting to fix that issue directly, you have removed multiple paragraphs of text not all of which is in violation of WP:WEASEL. Additionally, in those same edits, you have introduced euphemisms into the article such as "In an effort to increase efficiency" in place of "In an effort to cut costs". (To make matters worse, one such edit was marked as minor despite clearly not being a minor edit.)
If you wish to replace weasel words with supported attributions, all the power to you. But the existence of weasel words cannot be used as justification to remove appropriately attributed criticism. For example, in this edit, which had as its edit summary "Revert addition of weasel words. See Biography of Living Persons for Wikipedia policy", an entire section was removed (which happened to include, inter alia, statements with very specific attributions) and the aforementioned euphemisms were introduced in an entirely unrelated section of the article.
Therefore, I must revert those edits, but I encourage you to work constructively to replace weasel words with supported attributions. Cheers, Graham (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
No. When you introduce an edit that large with so many weasel word issues, it is absolutely appropriate to just blanket revert. You should not expect another editor to fix your mistake. Accordingly, I have again removed the edits. Please re-phrase your edits to alleviate this concern before re-inserting. Resolute 01:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Graham and Reso,
In the Veterans Affairs section, I replaced the Weasel Word "Shut Down" with the more neutral "Closed". This is not a euphemism. I have removed the Weasle Word "cut costs" with the term "modernize", which is the actual wording from both the article and Former Minister of Veterans Affairs Erin O'Toole.
Like Resolute mentioned, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is quite clear with regards to Weasel Words. I refer you again to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which states "some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said" are considered Unsupported attributions. If you wish to include this material, YOU must provide at least two scholarly sources and justify who specifically is making these claims. In the mean time, this content will not be included in the article. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether we used "closed or "shut down" doesn't really matter; both are neutral and accurate phrasing repeatedly used by the cited reliable source. [6]. The problem with Ontario Teacher's edits is changing "cutting costs" and "jobs were cut" which are both used in the cited source to "increase efficiency" and "positions were phased out" which are euphemisms used neither by the source, nor by any other reliable source to refer to the cuts. [7]. On the next edit, Ontario Teacher added the statement of O'Toole, which is fine, but she also changed the reasoning for the cuts to match the minister's statement by removing any mention of cutting costs. This leaves the sentence framed in the very positive context of "modernization" and in a way that presents the minister's statements as being unequivocally true. [8]
As for weasel words, it's disingenous incorrect to suggest that Graham11 introduced unattributed weasel word filled passages to the article when the environmental bit was introduced in June 2014 by someone else, has always been sourced to the NYT, and at a time when the media relations bit was already present [9]. It's disingenuous to cherry pick Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, which explicitly says "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source". It's also disingenuous to demand sources and attribution as if they weren't there. I added two other reliable sources to complement the NYT piece in October of last year [10], and the specific weasel word statements in the media relations section are cited to CTV News and the Toronto Star. The sentence about restricting access to scientists is cited to the New York Times, CBC News, and Maclean's and is an accurate representation of what those reliable sources say.[1][2][3]
If the complaint against inclusion is that specific claims and critics of the restrictions on journalistic access to government scientists/the PM are not explicitly included in the article, it would be trivially to expand it to meet those concerns, given the numerous verifiable cases listed in the sources already here and in other news sources such as Nature [11], The Guardian [12], The National Observer [13], and the BBC [14], among others for the environmental issue alone. It's pretty rich that when NeilN had problems with the neutrality of material added by Ontario Teacher that framed Harper positively and chose to remove it, she lectured others to make "adaptive edits" to deal with their specific concerns with the material [15], yet when she sees material that is critical of Harper and attributed to clearly reliable sources she cannot find a way to use the sources and make adaptive edits to satisfy her concerns over the text and instead just removes it.
This is the latest in a long series of edits by Ontario Teacher to push a pro-Harper POV on this article, best exemplified by this edit from last year [16] in which she claims that a project that has not yet been completed and might not be for quite a while was already contributing to reduced GHG emissions last year. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Patar knight,
With specific reference to Weasel Words, consider the following,
1. "Some have alleged that the prime minister's office also often informs the media about Harper's trips at such short notice that it's impossible for Ottawa journalists to attend the events".
2. "Some suggest that the Conservatives' then recent electoral success could be credited to their control of the campaign message, a practice that they continued when they became the government"
3. "The CPC has been accused of restricting the ability of government scientists to speak to the public, the media, and even other scientists, leading to criticism that they are trying to limit the debate on environmental issues by "silencing" or "muzzling" scientists."
In none of these sentences are there any specifics given as to whom "some" is, or who specifically is making these accusations. Whether a source is listed after the statement is not the issue. The issue is you can't have an unsupported attribution made by an anonymous authority. There needs to be a specific person or entity who holds this belief. For instance, you could write "Former NDP Finance Critic... says", followed by a quote. Or, "New York Times Columnist... believes...". This is especially true for Biographies of living persons. I encourage you to fix these sentences prior to reintroducing them into the article. If they can't be fixed because the source does not specify who "some" are, this means the source is unusable as it is repeating gossip from other anonymous authorities.
With regards to the VAC section, "Shut Down" has severely negative connotations. "Closed" is neutral. "In an effort to cut costs" also has negative connotations. This can't be presented as true either. We could amend the sentence to neither include the term "modernize" (which is used by the Minister) nor "cut costs" (which is not used by any specific source). This is an acceptable compromise. I will make an adaptive edit to address this. "Phased out" is far more accurate, as "cut" implies that everyone lost their jobs overnight. There is no evidence that the employees were not reassigned to other federal departments (like Service Canada). There is also no evidence that each centre was closed on exactly the same day. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually having a source is key in dealing with potential weasel words as it explicitly says "Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." Without sources it would be justified to remove the material since this is a BLP, but in all these cases they were cited to reliable sources, so the only reason they should be removed if the sources cannot be verified and/or they do not support the statement.
  • The source for the first one is behind a paywall and not available on webarchives [17], but the tone of the article as posted here seems to indicate that the subject claim could be covered, and this just-below borderline/borderline reliable source does report it. This is an okay removal and an edit summary or a post on the talk page could have tried and solicited more help on verifying it.
  • The source for the second one is can be found on a webarchive and cleary supports the claim, saying that "The Conservatives' success during the election campaign was premised in large part on steely control of the party message." Since this isn't a controversial claim at all, and this view is widely reported on as fact by other reliable sources (e.g. [18], [19]), "some suggest that" could simply be removed and the sentence updated with newer sources.
  • The claim that the Harper government is accused of muzzling/silencing scientists is accurate as shown in the three sources. All three sources repeatedly use the terms "muzzling" or "silencing" and list many cases of individuals and/or organizations criticising the media restrictions. So the statement isn't a weasel word, but rather an accurate representation of what reliable sources say about the matter.
In any case, the "Media relations and information" section from which the first two examples come from had 11 sentences, so while they were potential weasel words in the text, fixing that did not require removing the other nine sentences. All these examples of potential weasel words could easily be fixed by adaptive editing instead of removal (see WP:PRESERVE); what you're doing is removing negative information about Harper under the guise of an overzealous adherence to avoiding potential weasel words.
Like I said above, "shut down" and "closed" are both accurate, neutral terms, used interchangeably by reliable sources [20], [21], [22], so I have no problem with the use of either word, especially since you are so adamant that the use of one is problematic. Your claim that "cut costs" isn't used by any specific source is false and shows you haven't bothered to look at the sources in question here, since the CTV source cited says "Last year, the government shut eight veterans district offices in an effort to cut costs" and "The cuts, outlined in the 2012 federal budget, will help save the department $34.8 million a year." (cutting expenditures that save money is the definition of cutting costs). Other reliable sources also use either the exact phrasing or synonyms: "The closure of the offices as a cost-saving measure by the Conservatives" [23], "The Conservative government's 2012 budget slated to close nine offices in an effort to cut costs" [24], and "the number of people working at Veterans Affairs shrank...as the government cut spending to balance the federal budget" [25]. My prefered solution would be to simply include both (e.g. "cut costs" in the first sentence, than "modernize" as part of O'Toole's explanation in the next). Regardless, please actually read the sources before commenting on what is or is not in them.
Actually we should avoid using "phased out" because it's a euphemism, which Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch tells us to avoid in favour of neutral and accurate terms like "cut", which is used by all the reliable sources I listed above, whereas "phased out" is barely used. It's also preposterous to argue that "900 jobs were cut from the department since 2009" means that all those jobs were cut on the same day or that all the centres were closed on the same day; that's a bizarre straw man of an argument. Lastly, while it's technically possible that every single cut VA employee was moved to Service Canada (unlikely since modernizing VA and saving jobs would be something to loudly advertise) we don't exclude information on the basis that every other possible alternative has not been thoroughly debunked by reliable sources. If such an extraordinary situation did occur (unlikely) the burden of proof is on you to show that. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Patar knight,
I have transferred our comments regarding Public Transit to the Environmental Policy section. I feel this would make our discussion more organized. I will respond to your other concerns about Weasel Words in this section afterwards. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Patar knight,
We are in agreement that closed is a neutral term. We can't, however, state that the real reason for the closures is strictly budgetary. You believe that stating the Minister's modernization reason as unequivocally true is problematic. It is significantly more problematic to state that the Minister's reasoning is unequivocally false. To write this would be tantamount to calling the Minister a liar! The accusation that the move was strictly to save money is sheer speculation that is currently unattributed to anyone. I have done some research and discovered the Public Service Alliance of Canada union President, Robyn Benson ran an add campaign against the closures. It makes much more sense to attribute this view to a person, rather than an anonymous authority. It is also helpful to provide information on where the VAC's dramatically increased budget was spent instead of these offices.
With regards to the Weasel Word conspiracy theory of muzzling scientists, there must be a specific person or organization who is making this accusation, not another unattributed source. Specifics must also be given as to which scientists were allegedly silenced, and how exactly this was allegedly done. If you would like we could temporarily restore that section, and include the tag [by whom?]. If, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, no one has been able to verify who specifically is making this accusation, and no one has been able to determine what on Earth Harper was supposedly accused of doing (Did he waterboard scientists, or did Environment Canada deny giving someone paid vacation, airfare, and accommodations to attend a conference for a pet project?), than this sentence could be safely removed. Or if, as you say, a source actually lists a specific organization who is making this accusation, we could include the name of that organization (so we don't have yet another unsupported attribution), specifically what the organization has accused the government of doing, and an appropriate response from the government.
The "Media relations and information" content was almost entirely Weasel Words and conjecture. The only portion of it that had any credibility was criticism from the Canadian Association of Journalists along with a response from the Prime Minister's Office in regards to the 2011 Federal Election Campaign. There is also no need for this content to have an entire section on the main article. A more appropriate location would be to list the accusation that Harper took less interviews than his rivals during the 2011 Canadian Federal Election to the appropriate article.
The unattributed accusation, "Some accused him of manipulating the second poll to achieve the result he wanted" also has no credibility. This source (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper+initially+supported+long+registry/3519676/story.html) cites an unnamed newspaper story from 15 years prior to when the article was written (now 21 years ago) by an unnamed author who has made this accusation. We need to follow the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and refrain from gossip that uses weasel words to attribute material to anonymous sources (i.e. Some people suggest). Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually read the sources listed in this section about the restrictions on government scientists, you'll see that the Harper government was accused of "muzzling scientists", so the removed material was an accurate reflection of what reliable sources say. It is a claim backed by the New York Times, Nature, The Guardian, the BBC, plus numerous Canadian sources and is in no way a "conspiracy theory." When other editors disagree with your stance and provide sources to clearly reliable sources to back their position, you should at least read them before proclaiming what is and isn't in them and what available sources say.
The "Media relations and accusation" section had a citation from CTV News [26] and the Toronto Star. Sure the quotes from the CAJ could be cut down some, but Harper's poor relations with the media were the subject of multiple reports from reliable sources throughout his time in office, and was certainly not limited to the 2011 election (e.g. [27], [28], [29], [30]).
BLP is not a provision to remove criticism, especially when it's cited to a reliable source like the Montreal Gazette and in a piece credited to an experienced journalist. If attribution is an issue, just change it to say "According to the Montreal Gazette..." Your should also be careful while removing material, because your edit also removed the sourcing for the previous sentences about Harper breaking ranks with the party to vote for the bill ([31], [32], and Search the WFP title with the date range set to the date in the note and you get one result). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Silencing Scientists". New York Times. September 21, 2013.
  2. ^ Manasan, Althea (20 May 2015). "FAQ: The issues around muzzling government scientists". CBC News. Retrieved 15 September 2015.
  3. ^ Gatehouse, Jonathon (3 May 2013). "When science goes silent". Maclean's. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

Veterans

Under Stephen Harper, the annual budget of Veterans Affairs Canada increased from $2.8 billion in 2005—2006 to $3.64 billion in 2014—2015, while the quantity of veterans served has declined from 219,152 in 2008-2009 to 199,154 in 2015. [1] [2] User:Patar knight you have misrepresented a Globe and Mail article which states "According to the Royal Bank’s inflation calculator, $3.20-billion in 2006 would be worth $3.72-billion in 2015. So, given that this year’s Veterans Affairs budget is $3.55-billion, the increases have not kept pace with inflation". The same article also states "The annual budget of Veterans Affairs Canada increased from $2.85-billion in 2005-06". [3] The article argues that since the initial increase from $2,853.1 (2005-2006) to $3,202.8 (2006-2007), the subsequent increases have been at around inflation. However, since taking office, the CPC has increased the VAC budget in real dollars after all since the inflation calculation in the article was made from the 2007 numbers (after the initial large budget increase under PM Harper) instead of the 2006 (when Mr. Harper took office). Also, for most accurate numbers, please use the primary source (VAC) instead of secondary sources.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Patar knight,

You have stated "Under Stephen Harper, the annual budget of Veterans Affairs Canada increased from $2.85 billion in 2005—2006 to $3.55 billion in 2014—2015 in absolute terms, but in real terms the department has less funding than before because increases have not kept pace with inflation". [3] However, the source does not say this at all!

The Globe and Mail article states: "The annual budget of Veterans Affairs Canada increased from $2.85-billion in 2005-06, the year before Mr. Harper’s Conservatives were first elected to power, to $3.55-billion in 2015-16... when the Conservatives took office, they followed through with that commitment in their first budget, increasing the money to Veterans Affairs by $349.7-million to $3.20-billion in 2006-07... According to the Royal Bank’s inflation calculator, $3.20-billion in 2006 would be worth $3.72-billion in 2015. So, given that this year’s Veterans Affairs budget is $3.55-billion, the increases have not kept pace with inflation".

You have mistakenly overlooked the initial $349.7-million increase from PM Harper's first year in office! Please review the source prior to editing the article.

I have however, for now. used the Globe and Mail editorial numbers. They are pretty close to the VAC numbers. I will double check other sourced to verify the discrepancy. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not "speculation" or "a view", it's a fact. Every single reliable source I've listed in this section has said that the cuts were for budgetary reasons and on Wikipedia when all the reliable sources say something, we go with what reliable sources say. In any case, budget cuts are not mutually exclusive with the Minister's stance that it was as part of an effort to modernize – sometimes modernization means budget cuts to outdated expenditures – and I've already said that we can include both. The current section is way too long, with most of it better suited for inclusion at Veterans Affairs Canada or Erin O'Toole than here, and has way too many references to government press releases to be seen as neutral. If you had bothered to read the CTV source that is used as the source and which was repeatedly brought up in this section, you would have seen the PSAC's campaign mentioned there, so your need to do some research on this shows that your engagement here with opposing viewpoints is intellectually dishonest. Dramatically increased budget is simply incorrect, as the "dramatic increase" does not account for inflation, as the Globe and Mail source in the article points out, though someone (presumably you?) has removed that bit. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Patar knight,
You have stated on numerous occasions that it is important to carefully read the sources in full. I wholeheartedly agree. The Globe and Mail source does not say the VAC budget increases were less than inflation!. What the article actually says, is after the monstrously large budget increase during Harper's first year in office (a whooping $349.7-million!!!), subsequent budget increases were slightly lower than inflation. It is only by ignoring the first year's gargantuan increase, that you come to the false conclusion that the VAC budget declined after factoring in inflation. I hope overlooking the first year's colossal increase was an unintentional error on your part, and not an intentional act of dishonesty. Please review this source and comment specifically on the first year's budget increase.
This is why it would be inaccurate to characterize shifting spending from Veterans Affairs Offices to other areas within the VAC (like hiring case managers, adjudicators, disability benefits staff, and open new specialized mental health clinics) as a "budget cut". Context here is key. We can't mention the closures, and frame it as a budget cut, when in reality, the budget increased and spending was shifted elsewhere within the VAC.
Additionally, the subsequent WP article paragraph mentions replacing a pension with a lump sum payment. This is not accurate. CF Veterans have the option to select different methods of compensation, and are not required to only take lump sum payments.

"The Government of Canada has implemented new flexible payment options for disability awards. These options are: 

   a lump-sum payment;
   an annual installment over the number of years of a Veteran's choosing; or
   a combination of these two payment options." [4]
When I retired from the Canadian Forces Army Reserves two years ago, I had similar options. I could choose from a "Deferred Annuity, Annual Allowance, or Transfer Value". I chose the "Transfer Value" (lump sum payment) as this meant I did not have to wait until age 50 to receive my pension. I then invested my Transfer Value, and my annual earnings are more today than what I would have received annually, had I waited until age 50 to receive one of my other options. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Veterans Affairs Canada. "Veterans Affairs Canada's (VAC) budget has increased as the number of veterans has declined" (PDF). Veterans Affairs Canada.
  2. ^ Veterans Affairs Canada. "90% of VAC budget goes to services". Veterans Affairs Canada.
  3. ^ a b "Ask The Globe: Has Harper really increased spending on veterans?". Globe and Mail. 14 September 2015. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
  4. ^ "New Veterans Charter". Veterans Affairs Canada. 23 October 2014. Retrieved 30 July 2016.

Environmental Policy

The Environmental Policy section previously stated "Since 2006, the Canadian Conservative Party government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper has adopted few and gutted many environmental laws and policies dealing with rising greenhouse emissions, pollution problems and climate change". The only source for this statement was from the budget analysis of the Green Party of Canada-- a rival political party, and can therefore not be considered impartial. In order to preserve Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, the section had been amended to specify the source of the criticism of the CPC's environmental record. The greenhouse gas emissions levels graphed by Environment Canada during the tenure of the CPC has also been added to provide objective data on the environmental record of the CPC. The term "Conservatives" has been replaced by "the Conservative Party of Canada" to specify that the information is directed towards Canada's federal conservative political party as opposed to conservative Canadians in general. The 'silencing scientists' assertion made by the NY Times requires more substantial sources that specifically detail what legislation has been passed to 'silence scientists'. Moreover, if environmental regulations have been cut by the CPC, provide specific sourced examples. The sources themselves must not simply be editorial articles that also fail to include any specific details. Please post any feedback or concerns to the talk section. Review the guidelines of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons especially in regards to tone prior to posting.

The 'silencing scientist' section has been removed. This was a criticism made by the NY Times in an editorial article. It mentioned that Mr. Harper has been accused of silencing scientists. However, the NY Times editorial article did not specify who was accusing Prime Minister Harper of silencing scientists, nor did it give any specific examples of any scientists who were allegedly silenced.

The GPC's criticism of Prime Minister Harper's environmental record has been removed. The only source was a dead-link. Criticism made by opposition parties could be considered relevant to the WP article, but only if the criticisms are sourced and specific. Even then, criticisms made by opposition parties might be better suited for the Environmental policy of Canada page.

The National Post article cites the elimination of a seven-member team, saving the government $600,000 per year. Could this specific spending cut have been offset by a spending increase in other areas of Environment Canada? There is no mention of the overall spending towards Environmental Canada from 2006 to present. This section should be replaced by the annual budget change (increase of decrease) of Environment Canada from 2006 to present. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a few of your changes because it was your analysis of government numbers (which is WP:OR) and went against the cited source. I did however, add more sources to show the muzzling scientist issue, and I removed the Green Party criticism section, which definitely needed more neutral sourcing if it was to stay. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does it say Quebec's cap and trade system has helped to lower emissions? The program only started this year and any emissions data has a two-three year lag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.38.192 (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's from the source cited: "The report does credit the Harper government’s new regulations (a coordinated Canada-U.S. policy) to reduce emissions from cars and light trucks and its new performance standards for coal-fired generation. But the forecast also builds in provincial measures, such as B.C.’s carbon tax, Quebec’s cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, and, especially, Ontario’s phase-out of coal-generated electricity. As well, the report notes that energy efficiency has steadily improved since 1990—a key trend in so-called “intensity,” which means any government could look forward to a small annual decline in the amount of emissions for every dollar’s worth of Canadian economic activity." ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Patar knight

While the Lower Churchill Project will not be finished until 2017, this still falls under the scope of the Environmental Policy of the CPC. Hydroelectricity is a cornerstone of the CPC's environmental policy. The federal loan guarantee was a campaign issue during the 2011 general election. When completed, the the Lower Churchill's two installations at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls will have a combined capacity of over 3,074 MW and have the ability to provide 16.7 TWh of electricity per year.[1] This is roughly 50% more than the Hoover Dam, and will be the fourth largest hydroelectricity facility in North America! Its inclusion in the article, like 'Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act' is essential.

The silencing scientist accusation, while sourced, does not specify which scientists are allegedly being silenced nor in which way. Until this can be verified by concrete examples, it must be removed. Similarly, the budget cut accusation to Environment Canada does not have any specifics. For example, did the budget increase dramatically, and then dip slightly under the CPC for a net gain? Until solid numbers are put forth, this must be removed.

Federal funds for public transit expansion also falls under the scope of Environmental policy. In September 2013, former finance minister Jim Flaherty announced a federal contribution of $660 million towards the public transit expansion project. [2]

For ease of reading, the Environmental Policy section will be split into two paragraphs: measures which have already taken affect, and those which are either recently established/currently underway/ will be underway in the near future.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Since neither the subway or the Lower Churchill Project will be done anytime soon, it should not be in this article. In any case, you'll need a better source than the website of the company that's building the project. When you originally added the Lower Churchill Project to the article, it was made to appear as though the project was already lowering emissions when it wasn't even done! [33]. "Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act" died in 2007 and hasn't been passed since, even in majority. [34]. Worth mentioning sure, but also worth mentioning that it failed and was never implemented.
If you look at the sources, especially the CBC source [35] or the Maclean's source [36], there are numerous instances and examples of scientists being silenced. What exactly the numbers are doesn't matter in the case of the budget cuts, because their effects are verifiable and are what in the article, which makes no claims about net gains or losses. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Patar knight,

Thank you for pointing out that the Lower Churchill Project and the Scarborough subway extensions have not yet been completed. As you requested, I added another source to the Lower Churchill Project. I hope you would agree that renewable energy and public transit fall within the scope of an Environmental Policy. As you know, all public transit expansions and large scale renewable energy initiatives take years to complete. However the actual date of completion is irrelevant. It is when the government provided funding for the project(s) which is important. More specifically, which budget did the funding come from. Otherwise, you would be giving credit/putting blame on subsequent governments for past governments' spending. I hope you would agree that the environmental policy of a government should be assessed by its budgets as opposed to the budgets of previous administrations.

Thank you for pointing out the that Clean Air Act never became law. However, the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda was implemented. [3] This put strict emission standards on automobiles and light trucks. [4]

I have restored the 'silencing scientist' accusation for now. Although, to be fair, the article would benefit from a response from an environment minister (past or present) towards the accusation. This is why I have included a response by former Environment Minister Peter Kent towards the withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. In order to preserve WP's net neutrality, it would be prudent to avoid portraying this withdrawal as 'good' or 'bad'.

Prior to claiming that the overall (net) Environment Canada budget has been cut, perhaps take a look at the Environment Canada webpage https://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=31D9FF32-1 and compare funding levels over the past 3 budgets.

Lastly, thank you for maintaining civility in our discussions. I appreciate your professionalism and respect. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Digs at the other party? Check. Repeated reference to title? Check. Removal of criticism? Check. Highlighting "announcements"? Check. Looks like the editing I often see on U.S. political articles. --NeilN talk to me 07:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN,

Please explain what specific areas of the article you disagree with. Feel free to edit the tone of the article if required. Do not removed sourced content (such as renewable energy, public transit, or government regulations) without first attempting to reach a consensus on the talk page.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, you misunderstand how WP:BRD works. It is up to you to gain consensus for your changes, especially on a Good Article. Material should be left out, until this consensus is achieved. As it stands, I think your changes are wholly unnecessary and have a POVish tinge to them. --NeilN talk to me 07:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN, My inclusion of the Lower Churchill project in the article in particular was thanked by User:Ntb613 on (13 Oct 2015). Please explain to me why you feel public transit, renewable energy, and government regulations are unnecessary for an environmental policy section. In terms of tone, I removed the potentially biased tone for the Kyoto Protocol section, and replaced it with more neutral language. Please note, I left the Kyoto Protocol section intact. Had I been seeking a POV, I might have removed this section completely, or added biased language in the opposite direction. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see my initial post. Subtle POV editing is still POV editing. --NeilN talk to me 07:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else agree with Ontario Teacher BFA BEd's changes? --NeilN talk to me 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Lower Churchill Project". Nalcor Energy. Retrieved June 8, 2013.
  2. ^ "Harper pledges federal funding for Toronto's subway extension". The Globe and Mail. Sep 22, 2013.
  3. ^ "Clean Air Regulatory Agenda". Environment Canada. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations". Environment Canada. 4 April 2010. Retrieved 11 October 2015.

Hello User:Patar knight,

You have recently removed a sourced section on public transit and renewable energy under speculation that these projects may all be cancelled or that the federal government will withdraw its funding. Please provide sources that state that the York-University-Spadina subway extension, the Scarborough Subway extension, or the Lower Churchill Project will be cancelled.

If, of course, the current federal government withdraws its funding, we could add a sentence stating the project(s) was/were cancelled by a subsequent government. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello User talk:Patar knight,
With regards to projects like the Lower Churchill Project and York University-Spadina Subway Extention, the governments that fund these projects when they begin are what is relevant to the article. Who attends a ribbon cutting ceremony years later when they are completed is completely irrelevant. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and content on articles should be of encyclopedic value, not about routine funding announcements. It is quite ordinary for the federal government to provide funding for infrastructure projects, and unless the project is something out of the ordinary, including these announcements on the biography page would be giving undue weight to unimportant announcements (see the total lack of similar details on say Tony Abbott or David Cameron for comparison). They are more suited for inclusion on an article about Harper's infrastructure/domestic policies than here. The Lower Churchill Project may qualify given how much of a disaster the project has become, but the TTC subway line seems to be more or less successfully completed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Patar knight,
You have stated that you oppose the inclusion of Public Transit Expansion (specifically Toronto's subway expansion) into the Stephen Harper article because you feel A. You believe this is not included on other politician's WP articles, and B. you feel this is a routine funding announcement of no real significance.
A) The Line 3 Scarborough received funding from all three levels of government (Federal, Provincial, and Municipal). Former Mayor Rob Ford and former Premier Dalton McGuinty both have significant sections of their Wikipedia pages about this (and other) Subway Expansion projects.
The York University-Spadina Subway Extention received funding from all three levels of government. Both former Mayor David Miller and former Premier Dalton McGuinty have large portions of their Wikipedia pages describing this TTC expansion.
The Sheppard Subway Line received municipal and provincial funding only. Both former Mayor Mel Lastman and former Premier Bob Rae also have vast sections of their Wikipedia page about this project. As you can see, in all other Canadian cases specifically related to Toronto public transit expansion, all other Canadian politicians who have funded Subway Expansion in Toronto have detailed sections of their WP articles describing these events. Please note, this content is always included on their main WP articles, not hidden in separate articles.
B) You have also stated that it is quite ordinary for the federal government to fund infrastructure projects like Subway Expansion in Toronto. This is not true in Canada! The Sheppard Subway line received no federal funding. It has been several decades since the TTC has received federal funding for Subway Expansion. (with the exception of the aforementioned two projects funded under Harper) Previously, TTC Subway Expansion and Extension has been funded only municipally and provincially. Therefore, the inclusion of this content is not only as noteworthy as on municipal and provincial politician's WP articles, but it is groundbreaking news!
Do you believe we should remove all mention of public transit expansion from all of the other Canadian politician's websites, or should we just leave this content in? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Comparing the leader of a country to the leader of a city or a province is comparing apples and oranges. Under the division of powers, the provincial (and by extension municipal) governments are primarily responsible for intraprovincial transportation projects and fully responsible for the work on them, so it is natural that projects of this type get mention on the pages of politicians at that level. The federal government only has similar powers in interprovincial or international transportation projects (e.g. seaways, shipping, interprovincial roads and railways), and the usual extent of their contribution to provincial projects is the funding (or lack thereof). The better comparison is if other national leaders have specific infrastructure announcements on their pages, and I've shown that they generally do not (even David Cameron doesn't and the HOC is far directly responsible for all British infrastructure than the Canadian feds).
The federal government routinely spends millions and pledges billions of dollars various infrastructure commitments. Unless the sources available would indicate any lasting encyclopedic significance, they should not be mentioned in the main biographical article, which is supposed to summarize the main aspects of the person in question, though it's difficult to make the transition from pages on recently active leaders like Harper and more stable pages like Chrétien's. The first sentence in the section is sourced to a speech by a Conservative cabinet minister, and the next to a press release, neither of which are independent, reliable sources, and combined with the unbalanced weight given to these announcements, makes the section, like several of your edits to this page, violate WP:NPOV, as NeilN says above. The first sentence that you added is also highly misleading since it claims $5 billion was spent on infrastructure in 2006 alone, when the minister is saying that that amount was spent between 2006 and 2013.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Patar knight,
At your request, I have fixed the dates you mentioned and I have added another source.
You have acknowledged that other Canadian municipal and provincial leaders include renewable energy and public transit as part of their environmental policies. You have claimed that other world leaders's Wikipedia pages do not mention renewable energy or public transit as part of their environmental policy. This is false. Barack Obama's WP page includes sections on renewable energy under both the environmental policy and energy policy sections. David Cameron is a bad example as his WP page does not currently have an environmental policy section. If it did, surely renewable energy and public transit would be centre stage.
Regardless, other levels of Canadian government who have contributed funds towards projects like subway extensions in Canada's largest city have them listed on their WP pages. It would be inconsistent to omit one of the levels of government. It would also be irresponsible to suggest that renewable energy and public transit are not part of a government's environmental policy. Please explain why you believe that renewable energy and public transit are not part of a government's environmental policy. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not claim that "other world leaders's Wikipedia pages do not mention renewable energy or public transit as part of their environmental policy." What I said was "The better comparison is if other national leaders have specific infrastructure announcements on their pages and I've shown that they generally do not." The relevant sections on Obama's page do not mention specific infrastructure funding announcements, and all the references there are to independent, reliable sources, not transcripts of speeches by Government ministers or statements by government ministries when the politician in question was in power, as in the case here. Obama's article is actually a good case study for why Harper's page shouldn't have these announcements, since despite getting a 305 billion dollar infrastructure package through Congress recently (and other deals before that), not a single funding annoucement is on the main, biographical article. Instead, the main article focuses on issues that are more important both in terms of coverage and long-term significance (e.g. new regulations, the BP oil spill, the acrimonious debate over Keystone, the Obama administration's overall vision for energy). But if you go onto the relevant subpages (Energy policy of the Obama administration and Climate_change_policy_of_the_United_States#Obama_administration, you'll find many cases of specific funding announcements/projects, which is exactly the model I proposed above. The same scenario also more or less applies to David Cameron, where a subpage (Political positions of David Cameron, does have sections on climate change and transportation with information on specific investments there.
Other levels of Canadian government bear more of the cost of intraprovincial infrastructure projects - both in terms of funding and managing the project. I have never argued that renewable energy and public transit are not part of environmental policy, but as I said above, "They are more suited for inclusion on an article about Harper's infrastructure/domestic policies than here." Following the style of the Obama article and its subpages, a short sentence about overall funding infrastructure levels, and maybe a something about a massive investment like Muskrat Falls, with the rest being moved to a domestic/political positions subpage would be more appropriate, per WP:BALASPS. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests March 2017

Change "Stephen Harper and former CFL player Larry Smith watched a 2012 football game in Montreal." to "Stephen Harper and former CFL player Larry Smith watching a 2012 football game in Montreal." Simple grammar. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done, also “visited” to “visiting” in another caption. Thanks for pointing that out.—Odysseus1479 01:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Will keep going here - again what seems like simple wording. Change "Harper at 2015 G-7 summit with [...] in Bavaria, Germany." to "Harper at the 2015 G-7 summit with [...] in Bavaria, Germany." Maybe also check all images captions just to make sure. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

And a final one. "Stephen Harper gives a victory speech to party faithful in Calgary after his Conservatives won the 2006 federal election." to, respectively "giving", "members", "the". 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stephen Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Transparency Smearjob

Someone posted an unnecessary lengthy, and extremely biased paragraph about transparency. It looks like a vicious attack article one would find in a tabloid magazine. I believe this paragraph is should either be removed or significantly reworded. AstronautPants (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@AstronautPants: I've restored but trimmed back the section. --NeilN talk to me 20:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth Controversy

We need a section on Mr Harpers date of birth controversy. Indeed, numerous media reports and at least two published books on Harper and the Conservative movement peg the date as April 20.See for example The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, by former Ottawa journalist Lloyd Mackey,which reads: "April 20, 1959 is the exact date that Margaret Harper gave birth to little Stephen Joseph in Toronto.". or Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics (2006) by Bob Plamondon.

Many believe that a Wikipedia editor from Detroit, Mich., area edited Harper’s page and changed the date from the 20th to 30th to quash any attempt to tie Harper with Hitler whose birthday was on April 30th. (See:Here and Here)Jasonhaley (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018

In the Honours section it says "Right Honourable Stephen Harper was be awarded the medal" when proper grammar would be that he "was awarded" the medal. Anoplocis (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Anoplocis (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done The medal table had numerous errors including grammar and broken link / displayed references, which have been corrected. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018

Revome the reference to Harper being an “economist” in the first line of his bio. Although he studied economics and has his masters; the generally accepted criteria for calling oneself an economist is to have your PhD and to have actually been employed as an economist. Harper possesses neither of these requirements. Frankenstein67 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The definition of an economist is a person who works in the field of economics. It is a POV on your part that it only applies to doctorates. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 ‘’’Not done:’’’ If you want the change to be made provide authoritative source that says so. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If the definition of an economist is a person who works in the field of economics, then my initial request still holds true as Mr. Harper has never held a position in the field and therefore should not be referred to as an economist. As for the request to provide an authoritative source; will “The Economist” magazine do? How do I go about submitting the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 03 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. My sense of it is that all those "economists", including the professors without doctorates who teach the subject, are likely to disagree. In any event, your source would need to (1) state clearly either that only Ph.D.s may be termed economists or that those without Ph.D.s cannot be termed economists, and (2) not be contradicted by another reliable source. I'll say this much more: if what you allege is true in economics, then it is the only social science discipline—and possibly the only science discipline—for which it is true. In any event, you can make your case without using the edit request template; no experienced editor is going to make the change without clear consensus here. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2018

In the "Education" section of Stephan Harper, it states he enrolled and dropped out of The University of Toronto two months later, when in fact it was Trinity College, Toronto. Jimhabsfan (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Jimhabsfan (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source cited within the article specifically says he enrolled in and dropped out of the University of Toronto. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Plus, Trinity College is part of the University of Toronto: Trinity College Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

He adamantly called out Canada not in a recession between 2008-2010 when in fact it was

There is enough information on his debacle insisting that there isn't a recession when the country was in fact in recession was to add a full section on this.

This information should be researched and noted in this Wikipedia article: When the United States plummeted into a deep recession in 2008 he kept saying that Canada is not in a recession. Canada did not plunge right away into the recession, but it did follow the recession, like most counties.

This one time "economist" kept insisting that Canada was not in a recession when in fact it was in recession or was slipping into recession. He did this between 2008-2012 or longer. He was not called out on it.

How can an "economist" as they say he has a work/education background in, say that, when even the average person knows that when the U.S goes into a recession, Canada automatically follows into onto a recession. Its just common sense. The U.S cannot go into a recession without Canada, one way or another not following. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/stephen-harper-refuses-admit-canada-recession

https://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/

http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30665:stephen-harper-s-recession&catid=9644&Itemid=6&lang=en

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

2010 G20 Summit - Downtown Toronto

He insisted on having the G20 Summit right in Downtown Toronto, in a extremely congested area central and tourist area. This would be similar to having it in Manhattan, or Downtown areas of Chicago. An extreme amount of money was spent to secure the area and provide policing, heading up to the event and during the even. And this was from a conservative leader. And conservatives are supposedly concerned with saving money. Yet he hosted it in Downtown Toronto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G20_Toronto_summit selected inf oration pieces.

"The creation of the $23-million international media centre, which included the $1.9 million Experience Canada pavilion and $57,000 artificial lake, at the Exhibition Place was widely opposed and criticized by politicians as "a waste of taxpayers' money."[120] Criticism mainly targeted Stephen Harper and Canada's Conservative government. Some protesting groups gave names to the artificial lake, such as "Harper's Folly"."

"Members of Parliament Olivia Chow and Mark Holland labelled the initially claimed budget of $1.1-billion for hosting the summits as "obscene" and "insane" while others argued that the money could have been used for long-pending municipal projects in Canada,[115][116] such as Transit City.[117] The security cost for the two summits was believed to be more expensive than the combined security costs of the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia, which were $878 million.[116]"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020 what has he published to merit the title Economist. What has he published to qualify?

99.192.20.89 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Empty request (i.e. no change specified) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead: Stephen Harper is a Canadian economist?

Compiling a list of reliable sources to confirm/deny whether the phrase in the lead of the article, "Stephen Harper is a Canadian economist" is accurate based on Wikipedia criteria:Oceanflynn (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with other Wikipedia biographies of Canadian economists

There are over 227 pages in the Wikipedia category Canadian economists, including Robert Rabinovitch. The lead for many of these people, refer to them as economists in the lead, only when they work professionally in academia as economists, with organizations such as the OECD, the Economic Council of Canada, have numerous publications about the economy. For example, "Robert Rabinovitch" as is a Canadian public servant and businessman". His PhD in economics) is not mentioned in the lead but in the Biography section. Others listed in the category Canadian economists, are referred to in the lead as Professors, not as economists. Oceanflynn (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments specifically related to Stephen Harper as a Canadian economist

McGill University Economics professor, William Watson wrote in an email to the Ottawa Citizen, said "Harper’s MA in economics means he can use the label 'trained as an economist.' He added that, "The market will decide whether you are really an economist or not."[1]

Paul Jacobson, president of the Canadian Association for Business Economics's president Paul Jacobson said, "I don’t think anybody could call [Harper] a professional economist".[1]

John Ibbitson, author of the 2015 book Stephen Harper wrote that Harper's 1991 master’s thesis, which took him 6 years to complete, "is a fine dissertation that would have made a solid foundation for launching a PhD dissertation on a similar topic" but "by the time he had finished, it was clear he would never take a crack at a doctorate".[2]: 55 

According to Stephen Tapp in his June 27, 2014 article published in Policy Options by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, in response to media attention in 2014 regarding Harper's description as 'an economist', "Those people who know (the real economists), know when those who don’t know (the charlatans) don’t know what they’re talking about. Now if only our media " who work under tight deadlines on complex issues " could tell the difference between the two."[3]

In a June 20, 2014 article published in the The Telegram, Brian Jones wrote that Harper cannot be described as 'an economist'.[4][5]


Citations related to confusion over "What makes an economist?"

A 2007 article in The Economist, stated that Unlike membership in the American Medical Association", where "there exists clear education requirements", "[N]o such conditions are required to be called an economist or join the American Economic Association...The years of graduate-school seminars and rigorous mathematical training empowers PhD economists to converse with each other in a language all our own. This allows us to continue to believe that our years of education were worthwhile because we can recognize each other and sneer at the impostors. In the mean time, the rest of the world takes thoughtful advice and opinions from people who sometimes, while not having our illustrious pedigree, also have some very good ideas—and sometimes better ones."[6]

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics wrote in 2018 that "Most economists need a master’s degree or Ph.D. However, some entry-level jobs—primarily in the federal government—are available for workers with a bachelor’s degree."[7]

Oceanflynn (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b MacLeod, Ian (September 16, 2015). "Reality Check: Is Stephen Harper an economist?". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved October 14, 2018. Cite error: The named reference "ottawacitizen_2015_MacLeod" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ibbitson, John (2015). Stephen Harper. McClelland & Stewart. p. 436. ISBN 0771047037. Harper's 1991 master's thesis, which took him 6 years to complete, "is a fine dissertation that would have made a solid foundation for launching a PhD dissertation on a similar topic" but "by the time he had finished, it was clear he would never take a crack at a doctorate".
  3. ^ Tapp, Stephen (June 27, 2018). "Are you now, or have you ever been, an economist?". Policy Options. Institute for Research on Public Policy. Retrieved October 14, 2018.
  4. ^ Jones, Brian. "Tories' Comedy of Errors No Longer Funny". The Telegram. St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. On June 25, 2014 at 9:46 PM, David Akin @davidakin Asked on Twitter, "If @PMHarper has an M.A. in Economics, is he an Economist? S-J Telegram desker Brian Jones says no. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)
  5. ^ On June 25, 2014 at 9:46 PM, David Akin @davidakin Asked on Twitter, "If @PMHarper has an M.A. in Economics, is he an Economist? S-J Telegram desker Brian Jones says no.
  6. ^ "What makes an economist? Suffering, science, or sound intuition?". Free exchange. New York: The Economist. October 2, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2018.
  7. ^ "Economists". Occupational Outlook Handbook. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. April 30, 2018. Retrieved October 14, 2018. Most economists need a master's degree or Ph.D. However, some entry-level jobs—primarily in the federal government—are available for workers with a bachelor's degree.
Harper is clearly an economist with both his Bach and Masters in Economics. He choose to go into the politics where he practiced economics on a pretty grand scale. Always known as a policy wonk, he spent a lot of time planning and influencing how the economy could be managed. It is routine in Canada to associate politicians with their pre-political career, even many years after they did anything like their old job. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It is an exaggeration to claim that he as economist based solely on these criteria. Not every Prime Minister is called an economist because they handle economic policy. And having a Masters degree does not make you an economist, just as having a Masters in chemistry doesn't make you a chemist unless you work as one doing actual chemistry. Harper never worked as an economist and it also doesn't add much to this page to cite him as one--his contributions to the field were insignificant and his accomplishments as PM far overshadow any actual research he did in economics. It should be removed as it misrepresents his career and dilutes the meaning of "economist".--WaldorfPastorius (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

I would like to do editing and make Wikipedia more trusted and esteemed since many people edit and put incorrect information there. 70.79.169.230 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

re-org of sections

I find it pretty strange the way this article lays out specific policy issues. On most pages, the main sections listed are very major events, like elections and holding the office itself with policies listed under. (Examples: Barack Obama, Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien, Jack Layton. Anyone have any objections if I reorganize this article to match? WildComet (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"Nearly a decade" edit

That statement about serving for nearly a decade seems redundant to me, since it's in the same sentence as his start and end years. Randusk restored it, saying: "Have to restore this because there was consensus to include that line in the lead a while ago. Other changes should be discussed before being made." I've looked for that discussion on this page and two pages of archives, and haven't found it. I could just be missing it; my search skills aren't the best. Nonetheless, could you please point us to that discussion? Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Strange. Got a notice of an edit conflict and WP deleted my edit. Have now re-posted it. Can't see what the edit conflict was.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Going to @Randusk: in case you don't have this watchlisted. In any case, I can't find the relevant page either. I'm thinking if it does exist, we can have a new discussion on that to because it isn't standard the leads of any PMs I can see, and it seems rather pointless to specifically mention his tenure was nearly 10 years when the term start and finish follow it. WildComet (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I remember the discussion taking place sometime around the 2015 election, or some major event. I believe one of the reasons to keep the line was because of the length of time he served as PM, compared to other recent PMs. Regardless of whether or not it can be viewed as "redundant", I don't see the sentence as causing any harm; rather it just emphasizes his long career as PM. I'll have to take a look. Randusk (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Image

I'm not sure why Stephen Harper's image on the article was updated. As far as I know, the previously image File:Stephen-Harper-Cropped-2014-02-18.jpg should be used as it is from a time where Harper was Prime Minister, thus making it a more important image. MogasTheThird (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, particularly because I was the one to apply the 2014 image. However, unlike previous politicians, Harper seems to still be quite active in the Conservative scene thus somewhat justifying an updated picture, rather than using one from 7 years ago. Randusk (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue or Grey background

For the infobox pic, I put a photo with the blue background. Now it's a grey background. What's the point of changing it exactly? Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too. The headroom is awful and the blue reflections on his face don't match the grey background. The Conservative Party's colour is blue, so it's a better fit. The photo change is not better so I've reverted it back. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A merger consensus (merge economic policy and environmental policy into domestic policy)

Need input here in the discussion of Talk:Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government#Merger proposal.

Merge Economic policy of the Stephen Harper government and Environmental policy of the Stephen Harper government into Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government. I'd argue that it's better to be organized and have only two seperate articles rather than four. Both economic policy and environmental policy are pretty short too so it won't really do much harm if we add them to domestic policy.

Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Second longest PM from right of centre party

Pinging @Ak-eater06: I moved the sentence into another section of the lead because I felt it was out of place to include there. Usually, the first paragraph MOS:LEADBIO focuses on the main reason the subject is notable. In this case, it's being the PM and leading the CPC. I don't think Harper being the second longest PM from a right of centre party meets the criteria. It's certainly worth a reference to elsewhere, which is why I moved it to the section of the lead that discusses the end of his tenure, where it feels more appropriate. —WildComet talk 16:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it notable, just as I wouldn't consider second-longest Liberal to be notable. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say it is a notable point, in the context of Canadian federal politics : it’s a reflection of the unusual dominance of the Liberal Party that it took over a century for a conservative pm to come even close to matching MacDonald’s tenure. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

For much of its history, the Liberal party also would be right-of-centre by today's standards. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
A agree, which is why I moved it to a more relevant section of the lead, but don't think it's MOS:LEADSENTENCE worthy. —WildComet talk 04:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough, as the first and only prime minister from the CPC. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is deadlocked. Might as well open an RfC for this. Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Harper/Archive_7&oldid=1163694761"