Talk:Stephen Harper/Archive 3

Authorization From the PMO for use of Official Picture

Sorry for the edits. I sent an e-mail off to Luc Gauthier at the PMO, and here is his response:

From "Gauthier, Luc" <lgauthier at pco-bcp dot gc dot ca> Date 8/9/2006 6:47:13 am To (e-mail address removed) Subject RE: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre Attachments

Hello (name removed),

You could use the attached photo - it is the official one. If needed, give credit to the Prime Minister's Office for the copyright and authorization to publish on your site. Thank you.

Luc Gauthier Privy Council Office - Communications 613-957-5172 Here is the photo. Seeing as how all copyright issues are now settled, I have taken the liberty of replacing the picture on the main page with this one. I hope this ridiculous debate can now be put to rest. Official Photo with permission and Applicable Fair Use|200 px--John Hawke 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Permission can't be just given for use on wikipedia, however - to be truly free use, the permission needs to be given with the understanding that the image can and will be reproduced according to the free use license...was Mr. Gauthier aware of this? I'm all for using the photo but I don't see how this settles the debate of free use vs. fair use.Michael Dorosh 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

-Your concern is duly noted, Michael. Mr. Gauthier is indeed aware of this. When requesting a photo for use on Wikipedia from the PMO, I specifically asked for a photo that was in the public domain (and thus would be able to be reproduced according to the free use license. The following is a copy of the e-mail sent to the PMO:

From (name removed)

Date 8/8/2006 8:55:15 pm

To Harper dot S at parl dot gc dot ca

Subject Request for Photos of the Prime Minister

Hello all. I know you're all quite busy, so I'll be brief - I was wondering if you had any official portrait photos of the Prime Minister that could be sent via e-mail to me. The reason I'm making this request is because the official portrait used on the Prime Minister's Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper) is not suitable. As you may know, wikipedia is an online encyclopedia of sorts that is maintained by volunteer users around the world.

Currently there is a debate going on amongst editors in the 'discussion' section of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Harper) regarding whether or not the use of the Prime Minister's official portrait on the Government of Canada Web-site would violate copyright laws (the official portrait was the previously displayed picture of the Prime Minister).

Your input would greatly help resolve this debate. If you could send me an appropriate portrait photo that is in the public domain for use on Wikipedia along with a short response indicating that it is acceptable to use said photo, the matter can be dealt with quickly and easily.

• Sounds like he didn't really respond to the public domain issue, and sent the same stock photo as before. 198.20.40.50 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on now. How long are we going to debate this fair use vs free use nonsense? What do you need here, an official rubber stamped letter from the Prime Minister? The image is perfectly fine - if anything I would actually like to see the official portrait being used instead of this image. There's something about the white background that makes it look cheap.--Skwurlled 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is idiocy

Government of Canada Copyright Policy:

Hello all. The Government of Canada copyright policy is listed at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/notices.asp. The pertinent sections are reproduced below. It seems to me that Wikipedia would fall within the definition of "non-commercial reproduction" and thus the only "requirement" would be that photos and use theirof be simply credited to the Office of the Prime Minister. That being said, one could use the "official photograph" or choose a suitable photo(s) from the web page titled "Prime Minister's Photo Album" (photos from various government functions taken by Government of Canada photographers). The PM's Photo Album can be found at: http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media_gallery.asp?media_category_typ_id=3

Hope this helps, Cheers, Don Mackay

QUOTE FROM WEB LINK ABOVE. Copyright/Permission to Reproduce

Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Office of the Prime Minister for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada.

The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission.

Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Prime Minister. We ask only that:

• 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. END QUOTE.[Unsigned comment]

Unfortunately, if a free use image is available, the rules as currently intrepeted say that a fair use image must be replaced by that free use image. I'm not clear on what conditions would need to be met before free use is met, but these don't appear to match those criteria.Michael Dorosh 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dorosh, OK. I was just trying to be helpful by quoting the notice from the Government of Canada web site which seems to allow the use of an official photograph. A quick check of George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Regan and Jimmy Carter pages, shows that they all have (seemingly) official photos as illustration. Cheers to all. User: Donald Mackay.

Lemme get this straight.

Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, and not one single Wiki-expert can find a decent pic of the guy. Instead we are constantly resorting to the 'washed out' pic.

This is idiocy.

I say, don't put any pic until a better pic can be chosen.

S'right? S'right.

I would have to agree with that statement, whoever you are. He have pictures of backbench MP's, but not a good headshot of the leader of the Government of Canada? It's a joke! SFrank85 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We do have a good picture, his official portrait. One that his office sends out to anyone who emails and asks for one. --SFont 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So scan it and let's use that.Michael Dorosh 19:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a scanner, and it's signed. --SFont 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, it's better t simply NOT have a pic of Stephen Harper. It's not like this is some serious breach of Wikipedia formatting standards.

I just say we don't use the latest pic, and if someone puts it back on, they should be I.P. banned for they are blatantly trying to 'flame' the guy or whatevertthecrap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.97.126.227 (talk • contribs) .

This is, in fact, complete idiocy. As someone who has worked for a number of Canaidan politicians including a premier and opposition leader, I can say with some authority that no one in their right mind would ever consider that picture to be of acceptable quality for any public use, for any political figure. It would be unthinkable to use it for the Prime Minister of Canada. Harper's official portrait should be used, as this picture is unquestionably not of appropriate quality by any objective measure. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publicity medium, it is an free encyclopedia. The current picture, or any of the other pictures at Commons perform their encyclopedic purpose by showing who Steven Harper is. Aesthetics are of a secondary concern. -- Jeff3000 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff - I'm sure you would want to know that the use of Google's corporate trademark on your user page is against Wikipedia fair use policy; I've done you the courtesy of removing it from your User page so you can be in complete compliance with the rules. I'm still researching your use of the Mozilla logo on your user page as well. Looks like the Mozilla image is kosher, but as you can see, the infobox for google uses Image:Google logo transparent.png which is copyright, meaning you were breaking WP policy by displaying the image on your user page.Michael Dorosh 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Michael, if you'd taken a little longer to check the Google template on my talk page, you would have noticed that there is actually no image, but just coloured text. Regardless, your post is completely off-topic and is an Ad hominem argument, which does not prove anything. -- Jeff3000 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the talk page for that template - it violates Google's trademark because it is a derivative work. I'm going to have the userbox altered so it doesn't infringe on google's rights. Please use civility and presume good faith - you didn't think you were the only one who wants to keep Jimbo free from lawsuits, did you? Also, please check the page on Ad hominem as I think you may be using the term incorrectly; no offence meant, I realize Latin is not everyone's first language. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 14:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say that your words should follow your actions. You should assume good faith as well, instead of assuming different things, including my understanding of Ad Hominum. -- Jeff3000 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ec We're not working for politicians here. I encourage you to write a letter to Harper's agents and request from them a release of a professional-quality photograph under a license that allows both commercial and derivative use and to send that licensing agreement to permissions AT wikimedia.org. It would be more productive than complaining here about the work of people creating free content. Jkelly 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack Layton's official photo is currently used in his article. If I dig into my stash and find a photo of him looking absolutely horrible at an event, and release it for free use, should it replace it? Ridiculous. I wouldn't do that and anyone who would is NOT acting in good faith. I understand that there is a rule in place, but with room to maneuver on the "acceptable quality" issue, this sort of ultra-bureaucratic enforcement is counterproductive and unhelpful. The Prime Minister of Canada should be shown as he would be shown in any decent encyclopedia. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll pay you ten dollars Canadian via Paypal or cash (your choice) for a copy of that free use image. Cold hard cash, and no, I'm not joking. Let me know via email or at my talk page. Because hey, if some Ph.D in Germany who has never as much as set foot in Canada can be dedicated to the cause of making Canadian politicians look like utter boobs, so can I. Oh, and of course my good faith dedication to helping Jimbo put together a free encyclopedia and all that stuff.Michael Dorosh 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, please watch the ad-hominem attacks. The solution here is pretty straightforward - get the CP to release whatever photo you'd prefer into the public domain. With Wiki so high on the google search results, it's really just a matter of getting through the bureaucracy. I've already e-mailed them to ask about this; someone who cares more (and I think you might) should write a letter. 72.139.184.107 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like too much control; leave the picture alone. BarbWatts 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize it is a copyright issue; please excuse this newbie. BarbWatts 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll simply keep deleting the pic: forever

I really hate doing this, however I genuinely believe that Wikipedia should address this issue.

So in the interim, I'll just keep deleting the offensive pic until someone 'gets it' that it ain't right to use a horrible pic of a man who now is PM of Canada.

This isn't political either, I'm a Liberal for crissakes! I just however can't believe that nobody will solve this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) .

The issue is solved. The free image must be used unless there is consensus among the editors of this page (i.e. not just you) that it's better to have no picture at all than this one. User:Angr 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote on keeping the current image, having no image, or picking another one of these

• 
  Stephen Harper head.jpg
• Stephen Harper voa.jpg
  Stephen Harper voa.jpg
• Stephen Harper head 2.jpg
  Stephen Harper head 2.jpg
• Stephen Harper voa 2.jpg
  Stephen Harper voa 2.jpg
• Stephen Harper voa debate.jpg
  Stephen Harper voa debate.jpg

I suggest a vote on whether to go with no image, or keep the extremlely poor quality image now. A vote for Delete means we go with no image, a vote for Keep means we retain the image currently on the page. Don't forget to sign your vote with four tildes. (~~~~)

NOTE: If you wish an image, please state the name of the image you want.

• Image:Stephen Harper voa 2.jpg.Michael Dorosh 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, even though polls are usually not the way Wikipedia works. -- Jeff3000 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• No vote, but I should have been more specific in my comment above. It doesn't have to be the currently used free image, or none at all; it can be any free image (there are several at Commons:Stephen Harper) or none at all. So if there has to be a poll on this (and, of course, polls are evil), it should be more along the lines of supporting a particular free image, or none at all. User:Angr 15:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and comment: the picture under use is poor, and no image would be preferable. I absolutely oppose this image specifically because it is a re-use of one used later in the page. It's not that good of an image to use once in my mind (it's poorly lit, making him look washed out), never mind twice. --Hamiltonian 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and comment: delte.Calgarytanks 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if it's free, otherwise use #1 which seems to be free. I don't believe it reflects Mr. Harper in a poor light at all. (Better than most passport pictures) --Christian Edward Gruber 01:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What did you think of the other pics at Commons:Stephen Harper? --Rob 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Stephen Harper head 2.jpg *if* it can be used without enlargement. --Rob 15:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Stephen Harper head 2.jpg per Rob. Ardenn 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• VOTE: All of these pix are either too candid, or Harper looks like a dork (Anyone can look like a dork if the pic isn't done right, even supermodels face this issue). Until we can find an 'official' looking picture of Stephen Harper smiling and LOOKING right into the camera, like other official pix, I suggest we don't use any pic. It's fine to use other Harper pix in the BODY of the article, but not as the MAIN pic. - Stan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.30.35 (talk • contribs) .

• The VOA image is better than none at all, but needs to be improved on. Someone should just take a camera to the next public event he is at and take a bunch of snaps, picking the one that looks closest to the official website photo.Bdell555 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Stephen Harper voa.jpg - Personally I think the voa photo is best. The "head 2" shot is nice as well, but it is too tiny for my tastes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Head 2 though I would prefer we use the official image as these all look mediocre to just plain bad. --Habap 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like polls much but since it has been construed by some here as divining consensus, my opinion is Keep. I think that the debate picture is the best among those shown above. Although my preference would be if somebody got a better picture. Maybe e-mail all of the many people who have their picture taken with Harper posted on their websites (mostly MPs and Conservative activists). There are lots of those on the internet. You'd think some Tory would care about this as much as some editors do and would be willing to release one. --JGGardiner 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until something better can be found. --SFont 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mail the CP and pester them. I agree with JGGardner 100% on this one. 72.139.184.107 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Image:Stephen Harper voa 2.jpg. While it's not portrait-quality, it's still quite good. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Use the official Government of Canada Portrait, it's in the public domain. Why is this even an issue? Stop being so anal about this issue and go with the official government portrait. Regardless of any arguments made, there is no valid reason why the official photo should not be used at all, other than personal political reasons which have no place here. As a further note, I have sent an e-mail to the PMO requesting an official photo that is in the public domain for use on this article. I will post the reply and the photo upon a response. --John Hawke 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Vote

• Jeff - consensus is very often used in Wikipedia to settle matters; you must be rather new to WP. Once you've been here awhile, I am sure you will productively contribute to many vote-situations in order to build consensus.Michael Dorosh 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, yes, but not polls. Please read m:Polls are evil for why. User:Angr 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, please don't belittle me. With a little research you would have seen that I've been on Wikipedia for more than a year and a half (with active participation for more than nine months), and I do know how Wikipedia works; Polls are not considered the way to go, as Angr has pointed above. -- Jeff3000 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

By definition, votes do not build consensus, they identify if one has been achieved. If a vote is the means by which a decision is made, then you have not receive consensus, unless everyone agrees. Consensus building is much harder than a poll, and requires much more effort and maturity on its participants. Usually the best you can do is a "general consensus" which is more like an overwhelming agreement with the odd stubborn hold-out. At any rate, this whole thing seems rather crazy to me. The picture doesn't seem at all to represent Mr. Harper to his detriment - only to the detriment of obsessive photography geeks. :) (just teasing) --Christian Edward Gruber 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't you r userpage say "This user maintains a strict policy condemning all personal attacks. +?? or is that "just teasing' at the end supposed to be your out.?Calgarytanks 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted Michael Dorosh's edits. Feel free to put back *your* edits, but please leave everybody else's alone. --Rob 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to second that. A revert war (I'm looking at Michael and the accompanying anonymous editors) isn't going to sovle anything. The picture stays until the CP release a photo into the public domain. 72.139.184.107 23:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, an anonymous user is looking at me. I'm :mortified:. Incidentally, User:Thivierr was cramming a bunch of discussion into the voting section - my edit was to organize the voting section so it could be quickly and easily read and tallied, but since he decided to have a hissy fit about it, I guess it doesn't matter.Michael Dorosh 05:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in Wikipedia, "votes" without reasoning/discussion are normally ignored, and should be. In at least one of your edits, you actually removed my vote, because it didn't conform to the binary options of "keep/delete" you put forth. But the question is really, which of multiple free images, is best. --Rob 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayne_Gretzky#Fair_Use_vs._Free_Use

So why does the Wayne Gretzky article get to retain a Fair Use image, and this article does not. I've replaced the copyrighted image at that page with a Free Use image, and the talk there indicates an "FA Review". In fact, most of the photos on that page are copyrighted. This hardly seems fair. Does the FA Review have a bearing on this page? If the picture there is "iconic" I think we can presume that a studio portrait of Mr. Harper is also "iconic". I'd appreciate an answer to this - if the Gretzky article gets to keep copyrighted pictures, then I see no reason that the Stephen Harper article can't.Michael Dorosh 15:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so if this rationale is being accepted for the Wayne Gretzky photo:

Fair Use rationale for Wayne Gretzky I, RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} claim that the image linked here is to be used under fair use as

1. It's a historically significant picture of a famous person
2. It is at screen resolution and in a lossy format
3. The photo is being used for informational purposes
4. It is an iconic photograph of the person mentioned

Then why can the same fair use rationale not be applied to Mr. Harper's studio photo? It is also historically significant, it is at screen resolution, is being used for informational purposes, and is iconic in that it was intended for distribution as a symbol of the Prime Minister.

Can we not revert to the studio portrait of Harper by claiming this fair use rationale? If not, why does the Gretzky photo get to stay?Michael Dorosh 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the Wayne Gretzky picture is fine. My interpretation is that it should be replaced with a free image. You'd have to go through the talk pages and see the discussion relating to the picture. -- Jeff3000 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just put back the free image at Gretzky. There was no justification for a fair use image there. --Rob 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Same deal at the Queen Elizabeth page. Replaced Fair Use with Free image and I got dinged for the 3 Revert Rule, though it appears to have been cleared up at this point. --SFont 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

HEY!

Decent pic! Still would of preferred one with Harper sitting in front of the Canadian flag, but this is a MAJOR improvement over the previous one.

Well, looks like my daily/hourly/by the minute deleting of the old-crappy pic paid off.

Thanks fellas for addressing this issue, and now...if you can find a BETTER pic, POST it.

- Stan.

File:Stephen Harper voa debate.jpg

At 350px.

It's a terrible picture. Looks barely anything like him. If that picture of him standing in front of the microphone after the debate could be resized it'd be perfect though.--SFont 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I rescaled it to roughly 400px sq. Much above that and the artifacting gets pretty noisy. Jkelly 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous archive

What happened to the first archive of this talk page? It seems it was replaced by the latest change, rather than a new page being created. Is there a way to get the first one back? -- The Invisible Hand 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You can still read it. It's at the top, the link /archive 1. Homagetocatalonia 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there was another one from before that, with all edits prior to March 2006. Anyone know how to get it back? --The Invisible Hand 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

/Archive1 precedes /Archive 1/Archive2 (which I renamed, just now). --Rob 05:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Permission

If I received permission to use one of the studio Harper pics would it be allowed to be put up, or would this stupid fair use thing still apply? --SFont 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? --SFont 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it depends what permission you get. If you just got permission to exhibit the picture at WP, it still wouldn't be free and thus not ideal. That's my understanding anyway. --JGGardiner 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You want me to get permission to release it to the public domain? I doubt many photographers would be comfortable with that, and by that standard a good chunk of stuff should be off of Wikipedia. I really think getting permission to display it on Wiki should be enough. --SFont 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the policy is not to limit fair use per se but rather "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". We can display fair use but not give it away. Getting permission to exhibit is meaningless because we already were able to exhibit under fair use. The problem is that we want content that we can exhibit and give away. Like I said before, not my favourite policy but I don't make policy around here. --JGGardiner 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That just reeks of trying to one day sell Wikipedia. That said, how can the policy be changed? Every time I visit this article and see that picture of the Prime Minister it bugs me, and I want this changed. --SFont 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Article length

While making a minor edit, I got this error:

This page is 75 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

-b 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This thing should be cut in half. Content shouldn't be deleted, but moved to subarticles. It's like that for a lot of US presidents, and some time ago I created a Category:Pierre Trudeau. Why not a category of Stephen Harper articles? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some candidates for the category as of now would be: Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper Leadership Team, Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), Laureen Harper. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Detinitely a good idea. Perhaps a Stephen Harper as Prime Minister article, or something similiar? -b 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff here about his pre-Conservative career. Maybe fork that out. If it were, the article here now would be 48K instead of 75- much more manageable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a different idea. Give me a minute. CJCurrie 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• There: I've removed 8K without taking away any content.

• To the more general point: frankly, I think Wikipedia's guidelines on page size are a bit outdated. I don't have a problem with the current page length, and I don't see how removing information about Harper's pre-Conservative career would benefit the article. CJCurrie 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • They're not outdated in their point that still, reading through all this would be tiring. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reading through all of this in one sitting would be tiring, but not in two or three. Personally, I think that c. 70K is probably the minimum reasonable length for an article on a major world leader. CJCurrie 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should remove the honours section. I know the guidelines say that we can discuss honours but I don't think that it adds anything meaningful, can be found at the PM article and wastes a lot of space. There is also a whole section about that terrorist allegation which is pretty incidental to Harper, is mostly a trivia component (1st assassination attempt since '95) and, as the article points out, just an allegation (widely reported to have been dropped from consideration by the group anyway). --JGGardiner 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been several assassination plots and attempts over the past decade. 99.9% of them are just pipe dreams and complete crazies. Judging by the timelines, Harper wasn't the focus of these guys anyway. They shifted their alleged plan away from an Ottawa attack when Paul Martin was still PM. 64.26.147.136 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

I'm removing the Lebanon section. First, I think that it is relatively trivial and won't be remembered shortly (and removed for that reason anyway). The section is also misleading and omits the criticism which Harper took for the alleged photo op: he took along his photographer and three communications staff along with the "skeleton crew" (thus not the "maximum" number of evacuees our article describes). The latest I'd seen also suggest that not all of the evacuees will accompany Harper back to Canada and Harper may simply drop them off in a safe third country, possibly France. --JGGardiner 04:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WEll at least mention his position on the crisis and his role on the evacuation process including his personal plane helping out in the process. Of course, not to forget the critics here, because it has been one of the hot issues he got the most criticism. And keep in mind that it's involving 50 000 Canadians a significant number and there is heavy danger in that area. And it's a lot more important then the China issue.

So I would suggest to keep the Middle East issue. If not, it's like to simply forget the critics and only mention the good stuff (And I mentionned some good stuff too with the plane offer).--JForget 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the stuff that does not pertain to Harper. The fact that people were waiting in line and got dizzy may, and I stress that word, may belong in an article pertaining to the crisis, it most certainly does not belong in a biographical, encyclopaedic article in a general work of reference that WP ought to be.--Kalsermar 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there going to be a section for his opinion on every major world event between now and his eventual fall from power? -b 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is forever. I assume that with the passage of time and the waning of attention given this or that issue there will be a certain truncating of information. Fishhead64 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I love the simplicity and logic behind replies on Wikipedia. Point well taken. -b 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Anyone know what denomination of Christianity Mr. Harper belongs to? --Sima Yi 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are rumours that he's a creationist, too - any truth to this?72.139.185.19 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The church that Harper and his wife go to is a evangelical church. SFrank85 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I read that his wife doesn't go to church. Just Harper and the kids. --gg4rest 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there good sources we can use to add some information about his church attendance to the article? Jkelly 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian and Missionary Alliance according to List of Canadian Prime Ministers by religious affiliation. Fishhead64 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Do we have a reliable source for that? Jkelly 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the following article that claims that while Stpehen Harper was once a creationist, he's since "evolved". Many of his top advisors are still creationists, apparently:

http://www.tommydouglas.ca/news/2006/01/24/no-bush-please-were-canadian

That being said, it's a relatively partisan op-ed. Thoughts? 198.20.40.50 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That article said he evolved as a politician, not as in his religious beliefs. SFrank85 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right - the context made it appear otherwise. How about the bit about his top staffers being creationist? It's awfully juicy, but I don't know if we can include it. 198.20.40.50 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a lengthly article in the October 2006 issue of The Walrus magazine describing Stephen Harper's religous beleifs. SFrank85 was correct. He does attend an evangelical church, but his wife doesn't. The article also describes his religious history. Might be something worth commenting about. Thoughts? 70.53.129.123

I would like to see this article but I can't seem to find it on Google. FellowWikipedian 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/u/register/?ref=politics-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons. Found article but it is only available to subscribers :( FellowWikipedian 02:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Vandals

There has been repeated abuse in this article from 72.139.207.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user has also made vandal edits on other articles. Anyone know how to give a proper warning/ban?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.147.69 (talk • contribs)

You can read about what to do, and when to get administrator attention, at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Jkelly 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited since July 18, so there's no need to do anything. Jkelly 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Harper image

Sorry to open this can of worms again but could we perhaps use one of these images? The image we have now is of extremely low quality and makes the Prime Minister of Canada look more than a little silly.

http://clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2006-5-12-stephen-harper.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_stephen/gfx/harper_cp_5990651.jpg

http://www.canadiansportcentre.com/Communications/SportPerformanceWeekly/2006%20SPW%20Images/Stephen%20Harper.jpg

http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/img/pm_official.jpg

? --SFont 08:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I get an answer here from one of our resident copyright experts? --SFont 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Is there anything that leads you to believe that any of those are under a free license (meaning that they allow commercial and derivative use)? I really think that the best thing to do would be to get in touch with Harper's publicity team and ask them to choose one they have on file to release. Jkelly 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright bugger this, I am just going to crop my friend out of a picture he took with the Prime Minister and put that up tomorrow.--SFont 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If the photographer is okay with releasing it under a free license, that's great! Jkelly 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There we go. If someone wants to edit my friends arm out from behind his shoulders that would make it perfect. --SFont 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"With permission" image

It looks like we are making good progress with the images. We have a new one from SFont (although it would be very helpful to know the date when that was taken), and John Hawke is asking for a freely-licensed official image. We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves yet; Image:OfficialPhoto.jpg is a "With permission" image and we don't republish those when there are freely-licensed ones available. I've put back the VoA one for the moment, but have no objection to using SFont's instead if that's where consensus is. I'm sure that we're all looking forward to getting a high-resolution professional image under a free license, but we need to wait until we actually get there, both because of our policies, and because we cannot very well say "We can't use this image if you don't license it freely" if we are already republishing it. Thanks. Jkelly 16:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

- I did specifically ask for an image that was in the Public Domain, so it seems to me that the image I asked for is an appropriate one. Nevertheless, in order to satisfy the concerns of some of you, I have written back to the PMO asking for clarification that the photo I was sent is indeed in the public domain and is also available for commercial and derivative use (thus satisfying the requirements set forth by the most stringent application of the rules possible - and it seems we are following these to no end!). --John Hawke 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

- The Following is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Gauthier and the reply I received from him:

Evidently even direct authorization from the Office of the Prime

Minister of Canada does not satisfy the concerns of some of the editors

on the PM's Wikipedia article. That being the case, if would be so kind,

could you please clarify that the picture you sent me the previous day

is indeed in the public domain and is a "freely-licensed official

image?" (part of this description is that the image is available for

commercial and derivative use by anyone).

If this is not the case, is there a suitable alternative

photo of the Prime Minister that you could send me that

would fit these criteria?

Many Thanks again for your time,

(name removed)

From "Gauthier, Luc" <lgauthier at pco-bcp dot gc dot ca>

Date 8/11/2006 4:58:53 am

To (name and address removed)

Subject RE: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre

Yes, it is the freely-licensed official image. Please use that one.

Now that I've actually taken the time to go do something about this (as opposed to prattling on about asinine rules and regulations as has been done here), I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with Wikipedia when written permission from the government of Canada to use an image on Wikipedia is not enough to satisfy copyright concerns. I don't care about the reasons why, it's simply ludicrous. Does anyone think that the Government of Canada is going to sue them for doing what it gave them explicit permission to do? Even in the face of the fact that I specifically asked for an image in the Public Domain, some people doubted that the image sent in response to that very specific request met this criteria. I understand we all want things to be done according to the rules, and I respect that - but still, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Nonetheless, here is the proof requested. I ask you all to kindly pardon my frustration, as I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.

Finally, we have a picture! Now, for Pete's sake, let's put this issue to rest! :P --John Hawke 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't care about the reasons why, I'll just ask you to forward the conversation to permissions AT wikimedia.org, and add this information to the image description page. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to get an excellent freely-licensed image for us to use in any way that we would like. Jkelly 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm glad I could help. --John Hawke 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section?

Many other political leaders have criticism sections; I'm just curious if we want to include one for Steve. It could be used for stuff like this, for instance:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060808.DEFENCE08/TPStory/Front

Any thoughts? 198.20.40.50 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section integration

My mistake - the footnotes from the deleted trivia section were carried over (my mistake - see edit summaries) - but the stuff on his NHL book was mentioned TWICE in the background section, hence my confusion. I hope I managed to get everything back in order. I moved the mention of his dad's book to the footnotes. I also deleted the reference to the "late" Joseph Harper - I've had use of that word in that usage edited out so am believing it is not WP standard to use the term.Michael Dorosh 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked the trivia section. I realize it might not be encyclopedic, but it was entertaining and informative. Why was it deleted, anyway? -- 72.139.185.19 13:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question.Michael Dorosh 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)