Talk:Stephen Harper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

G7 and Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

This section

During mid-2015, Harper repeatedly voiced his opinion that Russia should be excluded from association with the G7 group of nations because of Russia's support for Russian-speaking Ukrainian dissidents. On June 8, Harper said, "Mr. Putin ... has no place at the [G7] table, and I don't believe there's any leader who would defend Mr. Putin having a place."

is putting a spin on both Harper's remarks and on the war in Ukraine that is not supported by the cited refered. It is claiming that the war in Ukraine at that time was being conducted by "Russian-speaking Ukrainian dissidents" with Russia's support, rather than being primarily conducted by Russia. Harper's actual comments (see the the video in the source cited for this paragraph) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-renews-attack-on-russia-s-vladimir-putin-over-ukraine-1.3104202 were that Russia "illegally annexed Crimea" and "invaded eastern Ukraine". The quoted paragraph above about Russia's exclusion from the G7 should reflect these explicitly stated reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.70.97 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

GAR

Stephen Harper

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Tags and major concerns appear to be resolved Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username6892 (Peer Review) 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Username6892: If the dispute has been resolved, it's OK to remove the POV tag—better than leaving it in place indefinitely. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would seem that User:Randusk recently did some very good work to fill in requested citations. I no longer see any cleanup tags. As for the lead, it seems okay to me, other than being a smidge too long. But I wouldn't flunk this for GA because of that. (@Buidhe: perhaps you could elaborate on the MOS:LEAD issues you see, assuming they still apply?) Colin M (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Glad to see the cleanup tags have been dealt with, but there remains further clearly unsourced text throughout the article, a series of single paragraph sections, and various sections that read as wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting looking at older revisions of this page to see how the infobox pics have changed over the months (not years) ...

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

  • Agree with other comments, the lead is far too long. The third paragraph needs considerable trimming.
  • I am not enamoured of having three photographs in the Foreign Policy section. Looks a bit WP:CRUFT to me.
  • Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? I cannot see why this is necessary. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this particular editor's point is in creating a so-called (→GA Reassessment: new section). Is there a direction to this effect that is to be done? I'd like to know.
  • 72 bots on page with Internet Archive bot visiting on 1 February 2020
  • Page created on 7 June 2003 with 8,031 edits by 2,708 editors. 3,873 edits in the year 2006.
  • 31 protection events for this page. Sensitive.
  • Justin might be Prime Minister but this fellow is still getting a lot of page views: 116,578 in the last 90 days with daily average = 1,281
  • There is a statement on Electoral history of Stephen Harper the to the effect that Harper led the Conservative Party in five general elections. He won three (2006, 2008 and 2011) and lost two (2004 and 2015). He won minority governments in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a majority in the 2011 election. He lost the 2015 election to Justin Trudeau. This might be an appropriate inclusion at the end of the lede.
  • I am not comfortable with the relevance of this particular citation: In 1994, he opposed plans by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to introduce spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Citing the recent failure of a similar initiative in Ontario, he was quoted as saying, "What I hope they learn is not to get into it. There are more important social and economic issues, not to mention the unity question. Given the current mileau of rights for same-sex couples, this is a bit of an anachronism if not a particular POV inclusion.
  • The sections Reform MP, Out of Parliament and Canadian Alliance leadership all suffer from WP:Proseline, he did this, he did that, he aligned with this fellow, he aligned with that fellow, he made this statement, he made that statement. A bit of cleanup could be done in these sections. Are the MP's he aligned with or won support of really relevant?
  • There is a bit of proseline or waffling around Zytaruk in the Leader of the Opposition section; this and the following paragraph might be surplus to needs. (This accusation, that investigation, that accusation, this investigation ... see earlier paragraphs about seizing power)
  • The paragraph In his first address to Parliament as Prime Minister, is not necessary; the section is about the election and throws off to a main article.
  • Reading Reference 153, it is not made clear - there, or in this article, why the government lost the motion of no confidence. Is this able to be rectified?
  • Official Opposition → Is "Official" really needed with regard to an opposition?
Yup. That's the term used in the House of Commons for the second largest party. The Leader of the Official Opposition has privileges that leaders of the third parties don't have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
No nigher
No 184.145.37.199 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Constitutional issues section does not appear on the main article Domestic policy of the Harper government. Why is it here? Why is it not mentioned on that page?
  • Ditto 2011 Census, not mentioned on that page.
  • Israeli and Jewish affairs is too long and needs to be reduced as this matter is covered on the Foreign Policy main page.
  • Keep after attending to issues raised. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you're talking about wrt the cn tags, currently there are eleven in the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I did a search yesterday on a revision of this article, and no tags popped up. Checking today, yes, they are there. Dunno how that happened. I have struck that out. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Stephen Harper

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Tags and major concerns appear to be resolved Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username6892 (Peer Review) 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Username6892: If the dispute has been resolved, it's OK to remove the POV tag—better than leaving it in place indefinitely. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would seem that User:Randusk recently did some very good work to fill in requested citations. I no longer see any cleanup tags. As for the lead, it seems okay to me, other than being a smidge too long. But I wouldn't flunk this for GA because of that. (@Buidhe: perhaps you could elaborate on the MOS:LEAD issues you see, assuming they still apply?) Colin M (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Glad to see the cleanup tags have been dealt with, but there remains further clearly unsourced text throughout the article, a series of single paragraph sections, and various sections that read as wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting looking at older revisions of this page to see how the infobox pics have changed over the months (not years) ...

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

  • Agree with other comments, the lead is far too long. The third paragraph needs considerable trimming.
  • I am not enamoured of having three photographs in the Foreign Policy section. Looks a bit WP:CRUFT to me.
  • Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? I cannot see why this is necessary. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this particular editor's point is in creating a so-called (→GA Reassessment: new section). Is there a direction to this effect that is to be done? I'd like to know.
  • 72 bots on page with Internet Archive bot visiting on 1 February 2020
  • Page created on 7 June 2003 with 8,031 edits by 2,708 editors. 3,873 edits in the year 2006.
  • 31 protection events for this page. Sensitive.
  • Justin might be Prime Minister but this fellow is still getting a lot of page views: 116,578 in the last 90 days with daily average = 1,281
  • There is a statement on Electoral history of Stephen Harper the to the effect that Harper led the Conservative Party in five general elections. He won three (2006, 2008 and 2011) and lost two (2004 and 2015). He won minority governments in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a majority in the 2011 election. He lost the 2015 election to Justin Trudeau. This might be an appropriate inclusion at the end of the lede.
  • I am not comfortable with the relevance of this particular citation: In 1994, he opposed plans by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to introduce spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Citing the recent failure of a similar initiative in Ontario, he was quoted as saying, "What I hope they learn is not to get into it. There are more important social and economic issues, not to mention the unity question. Given the current mileau of rights for same-sex couples, this is a bit of an anachronism if not a particular POV inclusion.
  • The sections Reform MP, Out of Parliament and Canadian Alliance leadership all suffer from WP:Proseline, he did this, he did that, he aligned with this fellow, he aligned with that fellow, he made this statement, he made that statement. A bit of cleanup could be done in these sections. Are the MP's he aligned with or won support of really relevant?
  • There is a bit of proseline or waffling around Zytaruk in the Leader of the Opposition section; this and the following paragraph might be surplus to needs. (This accusation, that investigation, that accusation, this investigation ... see earlier paragraphs about seizing power)
  • The paragraph In his first address to Parliament as Prime Minister, is not necessary; the section is about the election and throws off to a main article.
  • Reading Reference 153, it is not made clear - there, or in this article, why the government lost the motion of no confidence. Is this able to be rectified?
  • Official Opposition → Is "Official" really needed with regard to an opposition?
Yup. That's the term used in the House of Commons for the second largest party. The Leader of the Official Opposition has privileges that leaders of the third parties don't have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
No nigher
No 184.145.37.199 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Constitutional issues section does not appear on the main article Domestic policy of the Harper government. Why is it here? Why is it not mentioned on that page?
  • Ditto 2011 Census, not mentioned on that page.
  • Israeli and Jewish affairs is too long and needs to be reduced as this matter is covered on the Foreign Policy main page.
  • Keep after attending to issues raised. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you're talking about wrt the cn tags, currently there are eleven in the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I did a search yesterday on a revision of this article, and no tags popped up. Checking today, yes, they are there. Dunno how that happened. I have struck that out. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2025

REPLACE "During his third term, Harper withdrew Canada from the Kyoto Protocol, launched Operation Impact in opposition to ISIL, privatized the Canadian Wheat Board, repealed the long-gun registry, passed the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, launched Canada's Global Markets Action Plan, and grappled with controversies surrounding the Canadian Senate expenses scandal and the Robocall scandal"

WITH "During his third term, Harper withdrew Canada from the Kyoto Protocol, repealed the long-gun registry, privatized the Canadian Wheat Board, launched Canada's Global Markets Action Plan, negotiated the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), launched Operation Impact in opposition to ISIL, passed the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, and grappled with controversies surrounding the Robocall scandal and the Canadian Senate expenses scandal". 65.93.16.5 (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Question: Why? This is just moving text around. Seercat3160 (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
It moves text around (plus adding the negotiation of CETA) based on when these initiatives took place, which is consistent with most articles on both Canadian prime ministers and other world leaders. 65.93.16.5 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I failed to notice that. I've struck my comment about just moving text around, and reopened the edit request so someone else should come and have a look. Seercat3160 (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Done with some minor re-wording. ▄︻デȶɦɛ աǟʄʄʟɛ══━一 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2025 (2)

REPLACE "Harper officially stepped down as party leader on October 19, 2015, and resigned his seat on August 26, 2016"

WITH "Harper officially stepped down as party leader in October 2015 and resigned his seat in August 2016". 65.93.16.5 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Question: Why? UmbyUmbreon (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
It’s consistent with other articles on prime ministers (see Mark Carney, Justin Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, and Brian Mulroney as examples). It’s also consistent with Harper’s article itself (note the article says he became Conservative leader in March 2004; in month/year format). 65.93.16.5 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
If we have the precise dates, why wouldn’t we use them? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Because, again, it’s a matter of consistency. We have the precise dates for other prime ministers as well (e.g., Justin Trudeau announced his resignation on January 6 2025; Jean Chrétien resigned on December 12 2003; both articles state January 2025 and December 2003, respectively, in their main paragraphs), why should Harper be different? 65.93.16.5 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Consistency can go either way. If we have precise dates for others, why don’t we use them for those others? I think the more data we can give the reader, the better. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I’m just relying on precedent, but let’s agree to disagree. While you’re here, though, could you look at my proposed edit from earlier on 18 August? 65.93.16.5 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Image discussion

@MediaKyle: Firstly, I must note that I am irked when WP:BOLD edits are reverted purely for being bold rather than with any specific problem with the content change itself.

Should the lead image be changed? Compared to past Prime Ministers, Harper remains relatively public: he's served as the head of the IDU, a globally significant role, since 2018. A reader from outside of Canada seeking to learn about him in that capacity would understandably be a little surprised to find his infobox illustrated with a picture from 16 years ago. MOS:LEADIMAGE instructs to use a recognizeable and informative image; the present one is neither. The good news is that we have some decent pictures on commons of him. Here are some. Which should we use as the lead image?

  • Harper in 2017
    Harper in 2017
  • Harper in 2019
    Harper in 2019
  • Harper in 2019
    Harper in 2019
  • Harper in 2014
    Harper in 2014
  • Harper in 2010 (Current)
    Harper in 2010 (Current)

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think the first image is the best and the clearest. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I happen to think the current image is fine, and much preferable in quality to the rest we have at the moment... The 2014 one would be good if it was a higher resolution. I think he has a bit of a goofy expression in the image you picked, so I didn't revert it just for being bold -- that being said, image choice for these articles is rather contentious, and if you've been following articles like Mark Carney you should know it's best to bring it up first. MediaKyle (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
You're not wrong about the goofy expression, but except for countries where the official portraits are under a free license, nearly all our politbios have some unflattering pictures: Paul Martin looks like he's about to cry, Justin Trudeau looks like he's talking to a three-year old, and Scott Moe just looks like a doofus. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The third one is the better of the two most recent ones. I'd go with that unless there's something newer that's available. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The current one is fine. I don't think an image change is needed, at least with these options. I'd rather not change it if we'll end up with a lower-res image to replace it. Ideally we would have official portraits to use, but until crown copyright goes, we're limited with what we have to work with. PascalHD (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Resolution isn't everything. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Of course, it is an important factor though. I have noticed there are many editors (in general across Wikipedia) whom are obsessed with using the most recent image possible without considering quality. For an infobox photo at least, we should use something of decent image quality/resolution. Just my two cents. PascalHD (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The current image is fine. The others are either crooked or poor quality. —WildComet talk 21:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI