Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Harper Progaganda Machine

March 5th this entry is consistently having its editing re-edited removing SALIENT entries on Mr. Harper's political record. I would submit that this entry should be frozen and all further editing reviewed by an impartial non-canadian editor

While I think some of the article is rather POV, I wouldn't call it a propaganda machine...Habsfannova 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Habsfan, someone is systematically removing edits such as that one below

---

Regarding appropriateness of material: I'm not sure this is the right place/method to make this comment, but I'm surprised that the article mentions the name of the school that the PM's young children attend. Why is this important? Surely safety concerns should trump any need-to-know value of this info? I know we're pretty casual about security in this country, but this seems a bit much. Any thoughts?

I was actually thinking about that too. One guy came in and added it for all the PMs...I'd actually reccomend taking it out.Habsfannova 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

/Archive1

Whoever yanked the thing about him resigning because of resenting Manning's desire to talk to constituents you're hiding reality. It's a well documented fact

To quote Preston Manning off a freely available cbc 2006 contenders page

""'Why do you take these [policies] – which some have spent our entire lives studying and working – you take them to these meetings in school gyms and skating rinks and expose them and listen to people who haven't thought about it for 15 minutes – why do you do that?' And I used to say, 'Because it's their money. That's why.'...

"Of course, Stephen and others would point out there's a dark side to populism. Majorities can not only be wrong but viciously wrong ... but I was always more on the optimistic side."

"

put back the edit

---

Listen 216.58.10.1, never deleate someone else response or ideas from this talk page again. SFrank85 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Hey Frank the word is "delete"

k WELL I put in an edit, a FAIR edit of the part about he had a problem with constituents about the gun registry vs. the constituents on tax reforms and someone yanked it. PUT it in, whoever yanked it can just put it back in correct? Like I'm sorry I hate Harper but I don't HAVE to bullshit him to show his negative side. I did NOT put in a knock on him I put in a very fair, very politely worded edit and this is bs

full name

I see that the name in the lead has gone back and forth between Stephen Harper and Stephen Joseph Harper. I suggest that the full name goes in the lead as per normal encyclopaedic practice. That is the place most people will expect to find it.--Kalsermar 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what is suggested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). --JGGardiner 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The shorter rendition – Stephen Harper – is a conciliatory attempt to include only the common name in-text (viz. in the intros for Canadian PMs), while including everything – full name, pre-/post-nominals – in/atop the infobox since including pre-nominals in the intro is discouraged. While there's no inherent difficulty with including his middle name upfront, it seems redundant given the above and may prompt editors to load the intro with other details better placed elsewhere.

A proposal to revise the guidelines will be forthcoming (to accommodate for other biographies) and, in any event, comments are encouraged. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense per WP:MOSBIO (which states: ...the article should start with the complete version) to put the full name in the intro and the short versionin the infobox.--Kalsermar 20:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think this would result in a rather odd melange of common name/pre-/post-nominals: The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC, MP, MA. This is obviated when the full name is rendered with everything else in the biobox. (This might also not be as problematic with Harper as it might be with other PMs with longer names like Pierre Trudeau or with pseudonyms like Kim Campbell.)

I realise the MoS advocates for a fuller rendition upfront, but it is also currently ignorant of bioboxes. I know it's imperfect but in the interim and until/if it is modified, this is likely as good a place as any for those details. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to keep things simple, short and readable. My problem with styles is that they are just ostentatious devices that supporters like to see because it makes their guy seem important. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a compilation of press releases. So I'm happy with the infobox compromise. --JGGardiner 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the style going into the infobox. There is no particular need for rt. hon. and PC, MP, MA and such in the leading sentence but I do think the full name is better served there than in the infobox.--Kalsermar 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the following (as per MoS variant) can appear in the intro lead:

Stephen Harper, born Stephen Joseph Harper on 30 April 1959, is the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada ...

The full name should appear in the biobox (given the other nominals there, not the common name except when it differs from the given name (e.g., Kim Campbell)); however IMO either or both can appear in the article lead. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism notice

I really, really want to delete the following: *This Steven Harper Page Is Under Considerable Threat Of Vandalisim. Please Do Not Delete This Note. But because Indy64 said "please", let's discuss it. I really don't see what this note is supposed to accomplish. It seems to violate Wikipedia policy, as it does not deal with the article's subject, but with a technical issue. If vandalism really is a huge problem for this article (and I'm not conviced it is), there must be better ways of dealing with it, such enlisting help from vandal fighters or semi-protecting the page. Indefatigable 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

- Yes, there is a way to do this. Not that I think it is at risk. But I know the mods can "Freeze" a page.... Mbgb14 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Succession

I think that the succession section is misleading. The list that it refers to [[1]] is not an order of succession to Harper per se. Rather, it is a list of succession should any minister be unable to perform their duties: so if Chuck Strahl can't perform his duties, then Gary Lunn takes them on, then Rona Ambrose, then it goes down the list. The reason that this important is because the list is thus structured with the chairs of the two main committees (Priorities & Planning and Operations) on top. That makes sense because they should be the ones to take over the various ministries if somebody has to. Those two committees in particular are a very important part of the Canadian cabinet system. Thus the reason that Cannon and Prentice are on top is because of their jobs as committee chairs; their position on that list just flows from that (Harper is the technical chair, Cannon the deputy and effective chair of Priorities and Planning). So while the list applies to the PM, it is not really about that office. It is really a list about what to when cabinet ministers step down or are fired. Incidentally, the reason that MacKay couldn't get one of those important committee chairs is because he got a more important cabinet post (Foreign Affairs) which comes with the chairmanship of a less important committee (Foreign Affairs). --JGGardiner 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kicking against the ocean...

Though it may be in vain, I'm just trying to trim some of the bloated/out of date/partisan portions of the article. Any advice is appreciated.Habsfannova 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You've been doing a good job so far. HistoryBA 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, CJ, with all respect, and with admiration at your research, don't you think we're getting a tad too indepth? I mean, just because a few staffers said that he'd make a good leader doesn't really make it that noteable. Maybe a fork would be in order if you don't think we should remove some of it?Habsfannova 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What specifically are you referring to (re: "few staffers")? CJCurrie 01:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just using an example...the article seems to be balooning in size with insights that could be trimmed.Habsfannova 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point, though I've long thought that the "out of parliament" period needed some expansion. In any event, my usual method for writing "in depth" articles is to do some pruning/re-arranging once the basic material is all in place. CJCurrie 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, right on.Habsfannova 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Shapiro

I can see no reason for deleting this relevant and cited section of the article about Shapiro's report:

according to the rules, but indicated that the 'spirit' of the conflict-of interest ethics code was violated in the MP's floor crossing, and encouraged Parliament to review and modify legislation and procedures on Members crossing the floor. [2][3] [4]

I ask User:GoldDragon to explain his/her deletion or restore the passage. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The cabinet controversy is getting too bloated while the 2006 election is too watered down. I'm balancing it out.GoldDragon 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Over-Wikification

I have reverted a massive and unnecessary Wikification of this article. Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style and WP:MOSNUM. There is no need to Wikify years and months. Complete dates ([[Month date]] [[Year]]) are Wikified in order to enable user preferences that allow the reader to see dates as "Date Month Year" or "Month Date, Year" according to their preference. The Style Manual recommends against Wikifying dates otherwise. In this article, which is already heavily Wikified, Wikifying the months and years adds to the clutter and over-linking of the article. Ground Zero | t 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In particular, the Style Manual says:

Avoid overlinking dates: If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.

I didn't write this myself. It's in the Manual of Style. See WP:MOSNUM. Ground Zero | t 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to Ground Zero. I seem to have reverted his/her effort to de-Wikify the article, when my intent was to revert the previous edit, which had added all sorts of unnecessary links to the article. I agree wholeheartedly with everything Ground Zero says above. HistoryBA 14:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ground Zero. John Hawke | John Hawke02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Harper photo

From the vandalised version, I put the "Official" portrait up.Habsfan|t 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

I am trying to find out how much money the Prime minister makes a year

The PM makes $295,400 per year. Parliamentary salaries were just increased slightly.[5] Are you suggesting that information should be included in the article? --JGGardiner 18:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Infor bar

I have asked question and not got the results to them. Why is Stephen Harper's (or many other people's) religion not on the info bar I found it a big help knowing someone's religion. I need the result to my questions207.81.122.3 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If he's not a religious figure, why does it matter? --Habap 18:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya, why is this information important? I don't see this kind of inof on other politcal leaders... AMac2002 22:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Member of the United Church of Canada?

Someone added him in the category as a member of the United Church of Canada. Was he ever a member in his life time? I just think this needs to be clear. SFrank85 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that he was raised as a Presbyterian, and is now a member of the Alliance church. I don't believe he was ever a UCC member. CJCurrie 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing that aswell, but I don't believe he was a member of the UCC. SFrank85 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Most Presbyterian churches in Canada joined the UCC in 1925, but many (particularly in Harper's ancestral homeland of the Maritimes) didn't. I suppose I can understand the source of confusion ... maybe. CJCurrie 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it for the time being until someone can confirm it. SFrank85 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't think Harper would be a member of the United church...he's been critical of those who run it.Habsfan|t 01:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it in because that's what it says at List of Canadian Prime Ministers by religious affiliation. If you're going to change it here, you have to change it there, too. Are we certain that it's incorrect? Carolynparrishfan 17:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus it's a weak argument to say it can't be true b/c he's critizised the denomination. Its not like he had a say as kid (and it only says raised in the UCC). I've been critical of the Roman Catholic Church. I still grew up in it. Carolynparrishfan 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks, guess what? Not only was he raised in the United Church, but he's not currently a member of C&MA.

"I was raised in the United Church, but my parents are fairly conservative in a religious sense and have left the United Church. I am an adherent in the Alliance Church, but I am not a member at the moment." [6]

This comes from 1995, so he may be a member now; I don't know. We should check this out. But in the meantime, I'm putting the cat back in. Carolynparrishfan 15:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Now since we know he was never a member of the United Church of Canada, cat is now removed. SFrank85 00:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I just provided a citation? Carolynparrishfan 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

He is neither a current nor deceased member of the UCC. I'd say that he should be taken out. We don't categorize atheists or Buddhist converts as Christians because they grew up in it. Nor do we classify Harper as a Liberal because he left the Liberal Party in his teens. 67.68.10.100 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Shorthand titles

Do we really need it? No other Prime Ministers have a Shorthand titles section. SFrank85 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think those sections are pointless. I previously noted that on the Canadian wikipedians' notice board after I first saw it on the Ed Schreyer article. They seem to have come over from the British articles, via the GGs, where they serve a somewhat useful purpose because Mr. X might become Lord Y. Although now every university graduate can feel important for having changed titles at least once in their life. Although the current Harper one could use some cleanup besides that. --JGGardiner 04:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a lot of the Cabinet and pre-PM sections could be trimmed considerably...we don't need to have every editorial he ever wrote there. Habsfan|t 04:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you want to cut? I think the pre-PM sections are fine as they are. CJCurrie 06:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think it is an all-or-nothing sort of option. But I would cut the dates down to the years. That seems standard on the other articles. We'll never know the day he got his degrees anyway.

But while I'm at it, there seems to be a few problems or perhaps I'm just not familiar with honorifics. Shouldn't his middle name be in all of the entries? Why is he not given the use of "Honourable" until several years after he is opposition leader? Isn't Prime Minister a title? Should he have "Mr." included as on the Schreyer article that I mentioned above? I don't know these things and honestly I don't care much. But since we're including this, it seemed incomplete. --JGGardiner 07:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is he not given the use of "Honourable" until several years after he is opposition leader?

IIRC, Chretien refused to follow the tradition of making the Leader of the Opposition a member of the Privy Council, and so Harper (and Day, and Manning, etc.) didn't become "The Honourable" while he was in power. Harper didn't gain the title until Paul Martin became PM and put him on the Privy Council. --The Invisible Hand 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism

As I have already pointed out to Habsfannova, Harper is the first Protestant Prime Minister since Pearson. The only Prime Minister between the two who was not a Roman Catholic was Kim Campbell. She was not a Protestant because:

a) She practiced no religion at all. b) She was raised in the Anglican Church of Canada, which is not considered a Protestant Church but a Via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

This argument has already been settled. If you feel you have something fruitful to add to it, please discuss it here rather than making knee-jerk reflexes. See also my post at User_talk:Habsfannova. Carolynparrishfan 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My responses:

a) I don't think it's our responsibility to distinguish between practising and non-practising members of any particular faith. Wilfrid Laurier is considered a Catholic, although he "practiced no religion" in the strict sense.

b) I'm well aware of the fact that Anglicanism is often regarded as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. I'm also aware that the Ontario CoE was divided between "Protestant" and "Catholic" camps in the 19th century (hell, the 20th as well ...) and that in many of the Orange communities of eastern Ontario, Anglicanism is not regarded as anything but "Protestant". My understanding is that, in the modern Canadian experience, Anglicans are generally regarded and categorized as Protestants (I should be able to find an almanac to back me up on this ...).

Also, please note that I reverted your edits before reading your comments -- sorry for jumping the gun, but I stand by my actions. CJCurrie 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see this page, which contains a detailed overview of religion in the 2001 census. Anglicans are, for official purposes, counted as Protestants. Please note that I'm not trying to be flippant or dismissive -- I understand (and to some extent sympathize with) the nature of your objection, but I don't believe it's applicable to the present situation. CJCurrie 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

An argument wasn't "Settled" by any means...just becasue someone doesn't "practice" doesn't mean they lose their religious status. And Anglicans are generally considered Protestants.

Besides, I don't understand for the life of my why, in the 21st century, a PMs religion is relevant.Habsfan|t 02:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends. Not relevant to his leadership, perhaps (although in Harper's case I think he has made it an issue). But I think too that it is legitimate biographical information and as such belongs here. Carolynparrishfan 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that in This Anglican Church of Ours, Patricia Bays writes "Many Anglicans are uncomfortable beind described as Protestants--though society outside the church often places that label on us". Where I go to school, marble cheese is "generally considered" to be a mix of cheddar and mozzarella. That doesn't mean its not a misconception, just a popular one. The fact is that scholars of religion no longer generally consider Anglicanism a branch of Protestantism. The Anglican Church has the historic episcopate, the seven sacraments, weekly celebrations of the Eucharist, the communion of saints, priests, etc. I am aware that many people believe the Anglican Church to be Protestant but to be blunt "many people" are just wrong. Carolynparrishfan 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This appears on the internet site of the Anglican Church of Canada: "Waterloo Ontario, 8 July 2001 - An exuberant service of joint worship between Anglicans and Lutherans here today marked the capstone of celebrations concluding nearly two decades of discussions culminating in this week's historic entente between Canada's two largest episcopally-based protestant religious denominations. ..." If the Canadian Anglicans call themselves "Protestant," who are we to say they're not? HistoryBA 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglicans mostly do consider themselves Protestant. A minority consider themselves Catholic. As for the list presented by Carolynparrishfan, Anglicans do not have recognition of the pope, transsubstantiation, the immaculate conception, assumption of the virgin Mary and a whole host of other things that go to making up Catholicism. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I recognize the point Carolynparrishfan is making, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic. That said, Anglicans are officially counted as Protestant in the Canadian census results -- I believe we should take this as our guide. (Anyway, I seem to recall that Kim Campbell told some idiotic joke about converting to "ward off the demons of the papacy" or somesuch -- we can probably assume she didn't see herself as "Catholic".) CJCurrie 21:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Some clean up

I cleaned up some unverifible information and some things that were quoted as denied or factual and referenced a website that was clearly meant as a parody and therefore not valid information. --Kirkoconnell 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Harper has done his impressions in public. I've seen them. He did them at the national press gallery dinner, where all the politicians try and make jokes (you may remember the GG got in trouble for her jokes there this year). I don't think that I'd say that he has a talent for them but he does do them. --JGGardiner 16:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

headline news

Someone should probably include something about how Stephen Harper allegedly eats babies. I'm far too lazy to do it myself.

• But is it really that important? I mean, who really can say that they've never eaten a baby? Really, you're in hospital maternity ward, you find yourself quite hungry, and the cafeteria is way down the corridior... what are you going to do? Of course you'll pick up a baby or two for a snack. Who wouldn't? I think Harpie is getting a rough ride over this. It really isn't a big deal. Ground Zero | t 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone who reads Jonathan Swift gets my vote.Michael Dorosh 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

There's two sets of footnotes! Srnec 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. I created the first set a while ago; another user later began to change the format but didn't finish. I've been dreading the prospect of completing the job myself, but it looks as though I may have to. CJCurrie 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael, for sparing me the trouble.  ;) 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I messed up some of the footnotes - I may need to revert and start from scratch. Actually, there are THREE sets of footnotes - those with {{ref}} tags, those with

<ref> tags and those with [URL] tags. Ouch. Michael Dorosh 15:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think it is done. Hope I didn't lose anything. Some of the URLs could use a cleanup, and frankly, I think some of them are dead anyway ie the yahoo.ca news ones.Michael Dorosh 15:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

War on Terror

Am I the only reader who finds this section inherently POV? CJCurrie 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited comments - see page history and comments below.Michael Dorosh 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood the intent of my previous comment. A while ago, someone added a dubious-looking "War on Terror" template to the article. I suggested that it was POV; others agreed, and it was soon removed.

Thanks for assuming the worst, though. CJCurrie 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. My cup is half empty. I obviously thought you were referring to the article as a whole. Michael Dorosh 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and sorry for the churlishness. CJCurrie 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court

The section on the Supreme Court says that the Constitution of Canada precludes any kind of committee veto, which isn't the case at all. All the Constitution says is that the Crown appoints Justices, and traditionally this power is exercised by the Prime Minister through the Governor General. There's nothing in the Constitution to stop Harper from putting his nominee before the committee and pledging not to appoint him if the committee doesn't approve. In fact, most of the guidelines for the Supreme Court aren't in the Constitution, but in the Supreme Court Act, an ordinary piece of legislation. Thus, there is no prohibition of a veto, it's just that Harper didn't want the committee to have one. CaptainCanada 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's correct. Otherwise appointing an elected senator would be unconstitutional in the same way. --JGGardiner 21:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Harper propagandists removed my link

I posted a link to an indymedia story which, unlike pretty much the entirety of this wiki article (including all of its external links), has some negative things to say about the Harper agenda. The link was removed within an hour of it being posted. It looks like this page is being micromanaged by Harper's PR staff. That's not right. I posted the link again and it was removed within minutes. Give me a break.

Here's the link: http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?2976S

Ground Zero is a regular, long-standing Wikipedia editor and hardly a Harper propagandist. Please remember to assume good faith in the future. --JGGardiner 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Harper fan in the least, but the material at that link is much too POV in content and tone, it has no place in this article. Wikipedia is not an op-ed piece. mhunter 03:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That link is idiotic and unencyclopaedic. If the author was serious about what he was saying he wouldn't be making petty attacks and carrying on with childish name calling. Political BS at its embarrassing worst.Michael Dorosh 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero may be a regular editor. But who contacted Ground Zero so quickly? It's amazing how quickly my link was removed while all of the content of this page is partisan proHarper. There is no reason why opposing views shouldn't be included. If a cartoon gallery (which is Op Ed) is ok, then an article about Harper's proAmerican imperialist agenda should be ok too. Michael Dorosh is a Calgary military propagandist. Of course he doesn't want people to see alternate perspectives about Calgary and the Conservatives. It's that kind of micromanagement that is truly political BS at its worst. As fpr "hunter1084", you clearly are a Harper fan or member of his PR team. [Unsigned Comment]

• Unlike you, I'm not too cowardly to assign a real name to my comments. The idea that I work for any political party is laughable - feel free to google me to your heart's content. The link is idiotic and won't be permitted here, end of story. If you have specific complaints about neutrality make them; otherwise stop wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.Michael Dorosh 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The link in question is a politcal diatribe. I know little about Canadian politics, but having spent some time editing the Cindy Sheehan article, I have seen diatribes from both ends of the political spectrum. The article has far too many glowing words about it's heroes and far too many disparaging words about Harper and his "cronies". It's simple POV without using verifiable facts. If there is another article by that author which is more detailed, I would recommend linking it, but this one is simply "everything before Harper was sweetness & light and now we're doomed." --Habap 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Registered Wikipedia users have watchlists that, by default, include all articles that one edits. So when someone changes the Harper page, it will jump to the top of my watchlist. Thus changes get noticed quickly and are usually changed very quickly, or not at all. Look how quickly obvious vandalism is changed in the history of this or a comparable article. My last three vandalism changes all happened within 15 minutes of those postings. I don't know Michael or Hunter but I do know that it is Wikipedia policy to refrain from attacking other users. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and you will probably find that most editors are simply trying to uphold the standards that they believe this encyclopedia should have, regardless of the topics of the articles they edit.

Ground Zero's response: I actually did not review the link before deleting it. I guess that was a bit lazy on my part. I did so because articles about the leaders of the main political parties attract links from bloggers and partisans like a garbage can attracts WASPs. I figured that since it was posted by an unregistered editor, it was a safe bet that it should be deleted. The comments above support the deletion. For the record, I have no connection to Stephen Harper and his merry band of bigots, and would not consciously do anything to support their evil cause. My reversion of the addition of this link was motivated simply by a desire to improve Wikipedia by keeping out unnecessary or inappropriate links. Ground Zero | t 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We really shouldn't even dignify this deluded anon with any sort of response, it's obvious that they are engaging in a polemic and juvenile attempt to rile us. I would encourage them to put forth the effort to create an account, gain an understanding of the wikipedia process, and if they feel so inclined they can attempt to build a coherent and well supported criticism section in the article. Otherwise, in my opinion, simply and continuously posting a link is lazy and obstinate. I have no problem with criticism of Harper, and indeed have my fair share criticism for him, but our anonymous editor needs to realize that there is a process to wikipedia and he is more than welcome to engage in it, but in a mature and logical manner. mhunter 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - that he presumes to know what any of our personal politics are, and then insinuate we lack the objectivity to filter that out when editing, is frankly, insulting.Michael Dorosh 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, my biggest surprise that he implied that Wikipedia has a conservative bias. Like I said, I end up spending a lot of time on Sheehan and always read that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Maybe I should direct the people who complain from these articles to look at the other.... --Habap 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's reaching the frightening point in both the US and Canada that any political discussion must be fraught with partisanship. It has gotten so bad that the ones most likely to discuss politics are the radicals; moderates get fed up with the crap, like we've seen here, and give up altogether. God forbid one side should give the other side a break on anything.Michael Dorosh 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember, this is the internet...most people you talk to on the streets don't give a damn about the "blogosphere" and all that crap...most typically, the blind partisans are laughed at in discussions, but are "praised" on the internet.Habsfan|t 13:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I almost never discuss politics despite being in Washington, DC as I type this for exactly that reason. I moved here back in 1990 and found (even then) that the people who wanted to discuss it the most were often full of themselves and unwilling to allow that any rational person could disagree with them. As such, I only know one or two people in politics despite being a mile of the White House and the Capital building for most working days in the past 6 years. --Habap 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are particular passages that the anon editors believes are inaccruate, biased, or present a distorted perspective on Harper, I hope that s/he will identify them here so that they can be discussed and edits to improve the neutrality of the article can be made. Ground Zero | t 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a bias, that article is extreme in it's wording. The article makes Harper to be Hitler, and his Calgary agenda as the Third Reich. If you have problems with the "right wing" bias of this article, find a newspaper, or well big media source which have fair criticisms. SFrank85 05:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Harper Puppet

The puppet cartoon is getting tiresome, but what I would genuinely like to know is what would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the POTUS is pulling the strings here in Canada - our policy in Afghanistan was laid out by the Liberal Party, Harper has simply stuck to the program. *weird* I'm not sure I understand what the vandals hope to accomplish by spamming wikipedia with unfunny cartoons. I guess they are bereft of any intellectual capital with which to prosecute their views.Michael Dorosh 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They just want attention. Don't give the more than they deserve. --JGGardiner 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well at least it is not the George W. Bush article. SFrank85 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize profusely for portraying Harper as a puppet of Bush. I develop such a distaste for his politics when I see that fake smiling mug of his...His committment to erasing Canada's work in trying to achieve our Kyoto goals, eliminating the rights of gays, wanting to engage Irag (alongside bush) in an illegal war...and on and on. He might have received a more favourable treatment if his politics didn't allign so closely with our current presidential neighbor.

Beheading

Can we add a section about the beheading of Harper and who would likely replace him if an accident like that occured to him? --Sonjaaa 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it is highly unlikely Harper will be beheaded any time soon I suggest we do not.--Kalsermar 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of precedence is already a wikipedia article. We could link to it in the "See Also" section. But I think it is already covered under the article on Canadian government. No need to introduce it here, you would need to put it in every Prime Minister's article then.Michael Dorosh 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see some anonymous editor added this. I've edited it down severely. What was the threat in 1995? People threaten the PM all the time, the distinction here is a public threat. If this is to stay (the reference to past threats), it needs a verifiable source.Michael Dorosh 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the requested citation for the attempted attack on Chretien in '95. Schrodingers Mongoose 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

go to [7] and go to "Did You Know?" section on the right, 3rd of 4th slide. SFrank85 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Birth Date

I notice the infobox is tagged "some sources say (April) 20th, but Parliament website biography says 30th". Which sources say the 20th? It's interesting in that a certain fascist dictator was also born on April 20th, so I wonder...Michael Dorosh 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd Mackey's, The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper book states he was born on April 20. SFrank85 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, an actual sources. So much for that conspiracy theory then. Thought "some sources" was a weasel word for vandals. Thanks for the reply.Michael Dorosh 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Middle name

Didn't we use to have that his middle name was "Joseph"? I see it's not there anymore. Was it incorrect? Mad Jack 06:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We should remove the unfree image

I've tagged Image:Harpers.jpg as {{PUI}}, and think it should be removed from teh article. We have a free image in Image:Harper,-Stephen-Jan-23-06.jpg, so there's no reason to use the unfree one. I don't see any special discussion of the official image, so there's no particular reason to keep it. --Rob 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the other picture is unencyclopedic and just plain garbage. There's been no complaints about the use of the official image so it's no deal. Chill bro. --24.68.182.5 08:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria point #1. --Rob 09:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See discussion further down - Rob (Thivierr) has, in my opinion, misinterpreted the free image guidelines, and unless a clear reason for not using the studio portrait is offered, I will change the photo back.Michael Dorosh 04:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest pic of Harper looks like crap. Please put back the official pic.

Or do we have to go to all the NDP/Liberal pix and post crappy looking ones too?

I find it funny that that Harper pic has been there since January, now all of a sudden you want to remove it? I agree, that cropped head pic of Harper is crap. Why get rid of this picture, while Paul Martin's picture is fine?SFrank85 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the link I gave (Wikipedia:Fair use criteria), which states clearly that we can't use a non-free copyrighted image, when a free image is available. This is a matter of policy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with which image you think looks nicer. Also, replacing this image isn't tied to what image we ues for other Prime Ministers. There isn't always a known free replacement available. A similiar replacement has occurred of images in many other (non-PM) articles, and this article does not get special treatment. --Rob 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is a note to remind editors here of two things. The first is to assume good faith. Image cleanup jobs happen at their own pace -- there are not a lot of people working on it and there is a lot to be done. Making snide comments speculating about ulterior motives isn't helpful. The second point is that neither political nor aesthetic considerations can trump our policy of maximising freely-licensed reusable content. Please don't revert unfree image cleanup in the future. If other Canadian politicians have unfreely-licensed images, please do put some effort into finding free, reusable alternatives. Thanks. Jkelly 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An alternative is the official image from the Conservative Party website which would easily meet the qualifications of {{promo}} - Jord 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please go for it. I can't stand that mickey-mouse atrocity on the page now; this is a world leader and he's being treated like a frat boy caught by Polaroid.Michael Dorosh 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not an alternative. {{promo}} and {{Canada-politician-photo}} are both fair use, and both state that they can be used only "in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose". If we want an image from the party (or from anybody), we would have to get them to agree to release it to the public domain, or on a free license. --Rob 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thivierr, isn't your signature against Wikipedia rules regarding "easter egg" wikilinks? Just curious. Michael Dorosh 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no rules against using something other than your name for your sig. See WP:SIG. If it were a link to Special:Logout, that would be different. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the Conservative Party of Canada, explained the situation, and asked them to release at least one official photo of Stephen Harper into the public domain. Since wikipedia is the number 2 search results for "Stephen Harper", hopefully they'll agree. 198.20.41.74 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If a free image is available and isn't so poor-quality as to be unusable, an unfree one should not be used. The image we have now is less than ideal but is basically okay. Ideally, someone with Photoshop skills could tweak the lighting a bit. In any case, if you really want a more professional-looking image, you could try convincing Harper's office to get the image released under a free license, stressing how bad he looks in the current image; how popular Wikipedia is; and how little they should care how people use their one little photograph. It's worth a try, at any rate. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody think Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg would make a better lead image? --Rob 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks about twice as idiotic as the idiotic one already in place, in my opinion. I'd suggest jettisoning the photo altogether until an appropriate one is found. Michael Dorosh 02:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Free Use permits use of copyrighted photo "for effect"

Incidentally,, the last line of the policy on fair use states: As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above. I would argue that the really bad looking photo in place now does NOT have the "same effect", and therefore, I strongly suggest the previous professional studio photo be immediately re-instated based on that clause. The effect of a professional studio shot vice a cropped, fuzzy, candid picture of him with his mouth hanging open should be obvious. Please explain if anyone feels differently - if not, I will replace the free picture with the previous copyrighted studio portrait.Michael Dorosh 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this one? [8] It looks decent and is from Parliament, not the government. What is the status for those images? --JGGardiner 02:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks good. See above - I think according to fair use, the problem with the previous images was due to a misinterpretation of wiki policy, and the former image should be reinstated until a free one that "has the same effect" can be found.Michael Dorosh 03:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's copyrighted, with no claim of a free license. Therefore it can not replace a free image. --Rob 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See my post above, please. Unless you can state why the current picture has the same "effect" as the previous ones, there is no reason not to use the fair use image, as per the stated WP policy that you provided the link to. The "effect" of a studio portrait is obviously much different than that of a poorly taken candid shot. Please respond.Michael Dorosh 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. I think that the point #1 which Rob indicates above primarily applies to creative works like writings and drawings which could be written or drawn in a different way to make them free. In any event, the point of the policy is a compromise between perpetual free use content and a quality encyclopedia. If we were to insist that any photo is of like quality, there would have been no need for such a compromise in the first place. --JGGardiner 03:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Harpers.jpg

This is the issue - User:Thivierr is arguing that the picture at left is equally suitable for the "effect" of illustrating PM Harper; I disagree, and feel a studio shot is much more encyclopedic than a cropped, fuzzy candid photo. Under the terms of the rules that Thivierr himself posted then, there is no reason not to revert from the photo on the left, to the one at right, and unless he can explain how the photos have the same effect, I propose to do so, until such time as a free use photo of equal quality is proposed.Michael Dorosh 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Stephen Harper voa.jpg A public domain image of Stephen Harper we can use. --Rob 04:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Thivierr, that is not of suitable quality either - his eyes are half opened, it is too small, it is fuzzy, and his mouth is open, and above all, it is a candid photo, not a portrait. If you do not respond to my very specific comments either here or on your talk page, I am going to make a formal request that your conduct in this matter be reviewed by other administrators. Now please state why you think an unfocused candid shot has the same effect as a studio portrait. If you can't, there is no reason not to use the portrait indicated above, in accordance with the guidelines you yourself posted.Michael Dorosh 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia administrators - especially jkelly who has discussed this specific image with me before - I believe in good faith that the use of a fair use image is specifically allowed in this case, and that Thivierr (Rob) has not presented a rationale for using a poorly composed candid free shot in lieu of a studio photo - please see discussion above. I've therefore reverted the photo to the earlier contentious one until an appropriate free image can be obtained, in accordance with the guidelines Thivierr (Rob) posted here. Michael Dorosh 04:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And we're back to the free image, as I reverted you. I suggest you put your focus on finding a better quality free image. --Rob 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why use the big head one? What is wrong with the VoA one? Jkelly 05:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit-conflict Well, believe me, I'm not taking any more admin actions over this image (but please, please don't render unfree images in Talk space). That said, I reiterate that it isn't okay to make our articles less freely-resuable because professional images look better. Let me draw an analogy. If a politician's office were to release a professionally-written bio for the media to use, should we paste that into the article, claim "fair use", and remove the amateurish work of Wikipedians who are trying to create freely-licensed content? Articles on living politicians are one of the hardest ones to get right, and image choices can be particularly tricky, but we don't get it right by giving up core goals. Jkelly 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the analogy holds water; besides which, we need to go on what the Wikipedia rules state, and it specifically states we can use the fair use image until such time as a suitable free use image is used - which puts Thivierr (Rob) in violation of WP policy. I can understand your reluctance to get involved, therefore, can you recommend another admin who would be able to rule according to the policy as I outlined? My impression is that Thivierr (Rob) is not communicating in good faith, given that he has not responded to my concerns. I suggest someone revert his latest edit as he had no basis for doing so, as discussed above.Michael Dorosh 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already brought it to the attention of the admin who offered the best criticism of my take on the situation. Further input can be sought at Wikipedia:Fair use review. If WP:FUC is written in such a way that it can be read to allow an unfree image to be used out of aesthetic preference, we need to tighten the writing. Jkelly 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

• Stop reverting. (And that goes for everyone.) Leave the free image in place while we discuss things. The edit war is helping nobody here.
• In general, "same effect" should be interpreted somewhat narrowly. Obviously, images created by amateurs (which most freely-licensed ones tend to be) will often fail to display the level of technical expertise that could be expected of a professional photographer; we cannot expect otherwise. At the same time, free images—being preferable from a copyright standpoint—should be rejected only if they are actually deficient in some substantial way, rather than merely being "not as good as" the non-free ones.
• At the same time, we must be careful not to lose sight of neutrality. When dealing with images of people—particularly those of politicians and leaders—the question of whether the image portrays them in a particular (positive or negative) light will naturally arise. I do not think that "official" photographs (or even posed photographs) need necessarily be the only option here, though, unless the candid ones are actually significantly worse in some sense. The question, for example, of whether the subject's mouth is open, for example, does not seem to me to be sufficient grounds for rejecting an otherwise suitable photograph. Kirill Lokshin 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Another obvious point that has occurred to me: has anyone (particularly any Canadians here) considered writing Harper's press office (or whatever the correct term is) and asking if they'd be willing to release an official portrait of him into the public domain so we could include it here? I would suspect that they'd be fairly receptive, given that it would allow them to have a higher-quality photograph on a rather high-traffic article. Kirill Lokshin 05:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The photos here are clearly unsuitable - see the difference in composition, contrast, clarity (the two free photos are unfocussed and pixelated). I recommend the fair-use photo be reinstated to bring it inline with the photos of other world leaders and past PMs, until a suitable free-use photo is found. I agree with and understand the underlying reasons for the policy; I feel that policy is not being exercised to the advantage of the subject in this case and that the rules specifically allow the fair use image. Thanks for taking the time for looking into this matter, I realize your bread and butter is the military history project. As for writing to the press office, that has been done. In the meantime, the WP rules specifically state a fair use image can be used until such time as a replacement image has been found. All that being said, could you please reinstate Harpers.jp as the image on the article page? The photo currently in use is extremely unsuitable - look at the lighting and how washed out the colours are; also the lack of focus.Michael Dorosh 05:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure how Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg is pixellated; it looks fine on my monitor (at 1280x800). Are you trying to resize it past the image width?

I am running at 1024x800 and viewing it at the normal size as it appears above - it appears blurry (in addition to the candid nature of the shot which has his eyes half closed and looking like he's asleep or mentally handicapped or both).Michael Dorosh 05:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the candidness of the shot is really a valid point for rejecting it as a temporary measure. Kirill Lokshin 05:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to all of the comments made rather than out-of-context parts - his eyes are half closed and he looks like an idiot. Is that reason enough? I don't know how I can make it any more clear. Do you really not get that impression from the photo?Michael Dorosh 06:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I would say that he looks more personable there than he does in the official photo (the expressin on his face looks much less forced, for one). In any case, I don't think that our personal views on which picture depicts him more favorably should be the determining issue here. So long as the picture is not substantially inappropriate (think paparazzi-tabloid-type picture rather than possibly-less-complimentary-than-his-official-portrait picture), I don't believe it's worth an edit war. Kirill Lokshin 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the one up there at the moment; perhaps we could stick with using the second one as a temporary measure? I would advise against having the fair-use picture up during the discussion—at least unless a broader consensus for using it forms—as its presence will likely be seen as provocative by the more zealous copyright enforcers. Kirill Lokshin 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that zealous copyright enforcers don't have a leg to stand on, for the reasons stated above.Michael Dorosh 05:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing they—being zealous copyright enforcers—will probably not agree with you. Are you planning to revert-war with them over the issue? Kirill Lokshin 05:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would I "plan" to contradict WP policy? Please assume good faith, as that is my stated intent. What I "plan" is to find an adminstrator not afraid to interpret the rules in a common sense manner, especially if both the letter and spirit of the rules is being contravened, as it clearly is here.Michael Dorosh 06:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rob etc. Why does this even matter so much to you guys? Just lay off, this is such a petty thing for you people to try and change, there was nothing wrong with the status quo. I mean at the very least stick with the status quo till a consensus can be reached. --SFont 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It matters so much because it is violation of Wikipedia policy to use a fair-use image when a free image is available. Since fair use images of Harper are available there is no excuse whatsoever to have fair-use images of him on this page. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, no more, no less. User:Angr 12:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated several times now, it is NOT a violation of Wikipedia policy to use a fair-use image. We are all working towards that goal, but in the meantime, desecrating the often viewed page of a world leader is not a solution. I have a hard time believing that making a world leader look foolish was the intent. I'll reiterate here the exact wording of the WP policy for those still not understanding it - As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above. Now, in this case the answer is No, the free use image does not have the same effect as the fair use image. Therefore, WP policy is to use the fair use image until such time as a free use image of the same effect can be located. I understand all parties involved are acting in good faith, but I feel some are selectively interpreting the rules, and I would suggest that the appearance of partisan politics is also a factor; I honestly can't understand why anybody would choose a poor, fuzzy, candid shot as being equally effective as a studio portrait - nor do I think anyone would honestly fear that Mr. Harper or the PMO would really sue "Jimbo" for presenting him in a good light. At any rate, if this is honestly the interpretation, then I am going to remove the fair use image of Paul Martin and other Canadian political figures, and when people object, I can refer them to Kirill's talk page or to this discussion, where he will I am sure be happy to explain why they need to find free use images immediately.Michael Dorosh 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps subtlety was an inappropriate approach to take; my apologies. I'll try to be more direct:

• The criterion in question reads "No free equivalent is available or could be created..." (emphasis mine). A strict reading of it means the official photo gets deleted, because it would be trivial to create a free one (we do have Wikipedians who can get within camera range of Mr. Harper, obviously). Even if the proposed replacement were completely unsuitable, it would be a stretch of the criteria to ask that the fair-use image be retained in the article (as common practice is to simply remove the image and leave the article unillustrated); doing so when the concerns with the replacements appear (at least to someone coming in from outside the discussion) to be relatively minor is unlikely to result in any sympathy.
• Per the above, replacing the fair-use image at this time is likely to (a) be immediately reverted, (b) get the page protected, and (c) get anyone doing it blocked for "willful copyright violation" (or whatever the term du jour is). I really don't think that the issue is worth it, especially considering that we've only just asked for a suitably-released official portrait. Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, subtlety was the wrong approach, so I will also try to be more direct. I didn't say it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to use a fair-use image, I said it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to use a fair-use image when a free alternative is available. A free alternative is available, so you must use it. You (Michael Dorosh) keep insisting that the free alternative does not have the same effect as the fair-use one but you are simply wrong: the fair-use image serves only to show what Stephen Harper looks like, nothing more. The free image also serves that purpose, therefore the fair-use image may not be used. Calling the free image a "desecration" and suggesting it fails to present Harper in a positive light is an egregious exaggeration and possibly even a personal attack on User:-b, the photographer. And I personally will not mind in the least if you remove fair-use images from other articles when there is no free alternative available yet; nevertheless, many people will (quite rightly) consider it a violation of WP:POINT if you do. User:Angr 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. --JGGardiner 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He'll be exercising the same bloody rules you guys seem to live by. Don't be hypocrites.--SFont 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, JGGardiner - not trying to prove a point, just ensuring the rules are applied fairly and equitably. If User:Kirill Lokshin, Rob, and User:Angr are going to twist the rules and fail to apply the letter and the spirit of the rules, then that same application of the rules needs to be applied evenly across the entire site. I am sure they will applaud me for my assistance in their quest to save total strangers from unlikely lawsuits.Michael Dorosh 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the availability of free images in Commons:Category:Prime Ministers of Canada, and their useage in other language Wikipedias (especially the German one), I welcome more free image replacements. --Rob 00:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You said that you would do it in the same paragraph in which you said that it was wrong. Selectively enforcing a policy while advocating against it, is exactly what is discouraged by WP:POINT. Frankly I agreed with you above but that isn't the right way to go about it. Although I think that your interpretation might be a bit off. The policy is not because of a worry that we'll be sued for showing fair use images (they're fair use after all) but rather it is to distrbute content that is is reusable however the readers see fit. --JGGardiner 00:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Christ, as a Canadian I am embarassed right now. The page of UK Prime Ministers and US Presidents has high resolution top quality pictures of their leaders, and we have blurry crapshots. What a joke. --SFont 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should lobby your government to release all its works into the public domain as the U.S. Federal Government does. That's the only reason we can have professional-quality photographs of U.S. presidents. User:Angr 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, if the Prime Minister's Office threatened a lawsuit I would see the point in bringing it down, but since it hasn't I don't see the issue here. It's just some Wiki hardasses trying to be jerks for what I can only assume are partisan reasons, since the Jean Chretien etc pages are still fine. --SFont 09:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I assure you in my case at least there are no partisan reasons. I had never even heard of this guy until I saw on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions that a free image had been replaced with a fair-use image, in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you have a free image of Jean Chrétien, by all means use it instead of a fair-use one. Whether the PM's office threatens a lawsuit or not is irrelevant, this is purely a matter of Wikipedia policy: freely licensed content is to be preferred over fair-use claims in all instances without exception. User:Angr 10:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with lawsuits. If you read WP:FUC, it is quite explicit: "The primary goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy is to protect our mission of producing and distributing free content which is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification, and application for all users and in all mediums." They think that free content is better because then a reader can put it on his webpage or use it in her school project, etc. If it is free, we can give it away, if it is fair use we can't because it wasn't really ours in the first place. --JGGardiner 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the Wikipedia founders want to eventually make money selling WP on CD, and can't do that effectively if their editor-monkeys are using fair-use images. Sucks when we cut into potential profit margins. But kudos to all those who are so concerned about keeping Wikipedia safe from "harm" and are buying into the official line of reasoning. Any kid using wikipedia for a "school project" would deserve to fail based on that alone, let alone for stealing copyrighted images. Off topic, but IMO it is better kids should learn what copyright is (when they are not downloading illegal music, I mean) and gain respect for it rather than be shielded from it. I reiterate, the "fair use" vs. "free use" debate in this particular instance is only an issue because of faulty interpretation of WP's own rules. Michael Dorosh 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I've been asked to comment on this topic. Let me first say that I am not generally political (in fact, I would support a Non-partisan_democracy system), so please don't take my comments to be because I either support or am against one party or another. After reading the above discussion, and having been involved with the Canada page in trying it to pass Featured Article Status, which should be the goal of every article, I believe that the free image should be used. In my opinion both free images (Image:Stephen Harper head.jpg, and Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg, I like the first one better) are pretty good, and given the thumbnail size of the image used on biography pages do not show any blurriness or pixelation. The images serve their purpose of showing who Steven Harper is, and that is the fundamental purpose of the image. I don't believe the Fair Use criteria can permit the use of the Fair Use image given the availbility of these images, and the article would definitely not pass a Featured Article check with the non-free image. So let's go with the free image, until a better free image comes into our possession. Also in regards to a comment regarding that the free image is only being used so that Wikipedia makes money, remember that Wikimedia is a non-profit association, and any money it earns only allows it to fulfill its goal (to spread free information to everyone in the world) better, and given that our purpose in being Wikipedians is to also serve that goal, we should help Wikipedia achieve that purpose and strive to use free images whenever possible. -- Jeff3000 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to quote the sentence being used to defend the unfree image: "As a quick test, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above" (emphasis added). First of all, it's a quick test, a simplified summary of the policy above. Second of all, it only explicitly states that a positive outcome is relevant, not mentioning what happens if the answer is no. And finally, it explicitly uses the word probably.

Referring to the full policy, we see "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" as the very first sentence. Does the free image give the same information as the unfree image? Certainly it does, it just doesn't look as pretty.

And I would like to note that if anyone's only goal in addingthe only reason to add the image to the article was aesthetic, as the removal of even the free image would seem to suggest, that's immediately against fair-use policy. The point of allowing the image altogether is to allow identification of Harper, not to make the page look pretty, and if the latter is the goal that's actually being served, you're running into FUC #8. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"If anyone's only goal in adding the image to the article was aesthetic... that's immediately against fair-use policy." According to whom? In the Army we refer to pedants who talk like you as "barrack room lawyers". So now you're arguing that aesthetics are unimportant to web page design? You're joking, right?Michael Dorosh 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about web page design or making something look good, it's about building a free and neutral encyclopedia that is free of copyrights and limitations. Making something look good is of secondary importance. -- 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics are important to Wikipedia. Freeness is more important. But you're right that my remark about fair-use policy was poorly phrased, so I've corrected it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the family photo shot on the prime-ministerial home page, at http://pm.gc.ca/eng/pm.asp?featureId=7. It's reasonable, it's clear and professional, it's use is governed by http://pm.gc.ca/eng/notices.asp which allows for non-commercial unlimited reproduction, providing it is not taken to be an "official" document. Specifically the terms are:

• Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
• The Office of the Prime Minister be identified as the source department; and,
• The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Given the above, it seems reasonable to use it, or a cropped version that focuses on the faces. Just a thought.

Note: I too support the ideas of a Non-partisan democracy and have no party affiliation, though I am a proud and loyal Canadian, and wish no disrespect on any one of any party. --Christian Edward Gruber 01:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting bit of research, but the photo should be of him, not his family. I think it would be a great inclusion to the article though, where his family is discussed.Michael Dorosh 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, permission for "non-commercial use" is not "free enough". The official photo of Harper had the same license terms, which is why it was deleted. --Rob 03:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can this page be locked?

Until a better picture of Harper can be put in place, flamers/trollers will keep posting that crappy pic of Harper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.106.169 (talk • contribs) .

The current picture is just fine, as noted in the talk pages most people who are advocating that this free picture is just fine are not pro- or anti-conservative. -- Jeff3000 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just extremely poor judges of photo quality. I guess that transcends politics.Michael Dorosh 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a vote. I find it hard to believe many people would find that to be a suitable picture. --SFont 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and no "vote" will trump the policy that (for what feels like the 4000th time on this page) fair use images may not be used when a free alternative is available. A free alternative is available, therefore no fair use image may ever be used. If you want to gather consensus, the only appropriate question is "Is the free image better than no image at all?" because those are your choices: The free image, or no image at all. User:Angr 08:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a image of the U.S. federal government (i.e. Image:George-W-Bush.jpeg) is in the public domain, but whne it comes to a work of the Canadian federal government, it is not? SFrank85 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The United States federal government by law releases all its work into the public domain. The Canadian government doesn't. User:Angr 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And for the millionth time, I'll remind the Ph.D that fair use images are permissible if a free use image of suitable quality is not available. Selective interpretation....Michael Dorosh 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The "selective interpretation" is yours: you keep adding the bit about "of suitable quality" hoping that people will believe that's part of the policy. It isn't. Per WP:FU, so long as a free image is available that "adequately give[s] the same information" as the fair-use image, the free image must be used. That's why you aren't getting blocked for replacing fair-use images of Canadian Prime Ministers with free images of them: I suspect you believe that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (in the sense that you're hoping to annoy enough other people by doing so that they will come around to your position), when in fact what you are doing is improving Wikipedia to make a point. So, keep up the good work of finding free images of Canadian prime ministers and replacing the fair-use images with them. The only thing I ask is that you remember to replace the fair-use image with the free image on every page where the fair-use image occurs, not just the PM's personal article. And when the fair-use image is no longer used in any articles, please tag it with {{subst:or-fu-re|Image:XYZ.jpg}} (replacing XYZ with the name of the new free image). Thanks! User:Angr 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think I'll be doing your housekeeping for you, but thanks for the offer. TTFN! Oh - and please presume Good Faith and use Civility when conversing on Talk Pages. Thanks! Michael Dorosh 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean being an idiot. When you are diligently replacing fair-use images with free images while at the same time arguing against doing so, and carefully providing a link in your edit summaries to the page where you argue against doing so, only an idiot would believe you weren't trying to prove a point. And I don't know any idiots at Wikipedia. User:Angr 08:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank God I'm not an idiot then! I see Wayne Gretzky is today's feature article, and damned if there wasn't a copyrighted portrait of him in the first line. I did provide a link to this talk page - not to disrupt, but because all of you have argued so gosh-darn eloquently about what the policy is and how it is best implemented, that I thought it would save me a few keystrokes. I'm sure you don't mind, being as committed to a free use encyclopedia as me.Michael Dorosh 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If I scanned the official portrait of Harper that I have and put it up would that be legit? I didn't care enough before but because of your (Angr's) highmindedness and general nerdity I'm pretty much in the mood to go out and do so just to spite you. --SFont 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Scanning an image does not create a new copyright opportunity. Also, do not use Wikipedia talk pages to make personal attacks. There are now many images at commons:Category:Stephen Harper. Surely they cannot all be so unappealing you would rather have no image for the lead. Jkelly 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling a spade a spade here dude. For someone to come onto some page and enforce rules that have no real bearing upon anything just so they can is pretty damn nerdy. --SFont 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to use Wikimedia resources as a forum to call other editors names. The "rules" that you're objecting to, whether they be the Wikipedia:Image use policy or Wikipedia:No personal attacks, exist because this is a project to give away a free, reusable encyclopedia. We're not very interested in material we cannot give away and we are entirely uninterested in internet forum-style name-calling. Seriously, can you not find a single image in that category that is acceptable? Jkelly 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)