Talk:Stephen Harper

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


BC and the HST[edit]

People don't read the footnotes; there's zero harm in putting it in the main text. We can afford the electrons. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 00:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cover article?[edit]

Osaka or whatever his name is, is right. Every time I search his name it's like hell just blew over. Apparently Canuckistan is getting oblivious about his behaviour.

Needs 53 tons of better before this can go anywhere near the main page. Sophiebecause liberals 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's as bad as Sophie suggests, but it does need some specific work on his positions. There are several that appear to be contradictory as written (the one that stood out strongest was his position on abortion). Each quote should be linked to a citation. I personally like the "reasons to like, meh and hate him", i think it's a cute take on the "same ol same ol" we do for each of the leaders around this place.--Green mowse.pngGodot 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be an understanding that cover articles would be about "the big topics" rather than specific people or things? The brain cell is hazy on this matter. Anyway, there's a long way to go with this article. Sophiebecause liberals 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, Mitt Romney is being considered as well. Anyways I'm gonna find citations for each quote.
@sophie, we have such a dearth of quality "cover" articles that there is a push for any article which is well written to be highlighted. If we actually get 20 or 30 covers, then we can think about what things should be covers. You know? either way, this one isn't nearly ready.--Green mowse.pngGodot 19:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
And I just saw the Lenski affair on the main page, so maybe it was just a suggestion, or I misremembered something from years ago. Have at. Sophiebecause liberals 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And the quotes are done! My goodness. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph isn't even written in coherent English. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

canada's doomed.[edit]

i'm gonna cry now. (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into Western Canadian society." Is this statement accurate or not? (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working out much of the kinks in this article, but yes, the Conservatives actually created their own list. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Gay marriage - category conflict[edit]

In the current state of affairs, Harper is sticking to his guns of "let's not reopen the debate" just as with abortion. Both of these are causing problems for him, and there's been threats of challenging not-conservative-enough MPs for riding nominations, which seems to me like the GOP/Tea Party specialty of threatening to primary RINOs. In 2006, when Harper did immediately test the waters and see if the temperature was right for a revisiting of gay marriage, I would definitely have placed his gay marriage position in the "reasons to hate him" category. However, since we're crediting him for holding the status quo (i.e., legal) on abortion as a reason to like him, shouldn't his current position of maintaining the status quo be reflected and upgrade him (while still acknowledging that he did go straight for it before realizing it was a bad idea) in that respect? He's risking the coalition by keeping the barn door shut on both of those, but our article treats them as night and day.

Yeah, in 2006 he was against the idea, and his own personal morals may still be against it, but he has the good sense to exercise discretion and keep that topic off the table, no matter how yappy the fundies in the back get. It's been more than six years, I think he's established his current position and deserves to be acknowledged. At the very least, the article's inconsistent. I've left my edits there without removing the "reasons to hate" entry in order not to step on toes until there's some reasonable indication or decision. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 09:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's listen to Harper = cut the fat on this article[edit]

Since this is the current state of the Duffy affair I'm going to have to make an effort to at least make this to 2000+ words and half the current sources. If this isn't updated by the end of November yell at me. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of environmental records[edit]

This article could probably have this important bit added: and I think several sources are available.

Fan of Nickleback[edit]

How is this note worthy or entertaining? Does Nickelback have political views that contrast with this politician's or what? -- Corpse in the bed (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasons to hate him[edit]

I think the whole thing about "stealing ballot boxes" is irrelevant because he didn't personally do it nor did he support it, but supporters of him did it. Election fraud exists everywhere, and every party has a minority that is willing to commit fraud. As well, the part on Bill C-51 should not neglect that the Liberal Party supports it as well.

I personally cannot stand Harper, but I think don't it's fair to criticize him for his actions during the attack on parliament. He actually did what the RCMP trained him to do in a possible assassination attempt. It wouldn't have been a good thing at all if Bibeau shot our prime-minister, even if he is a bit of a dick.