Many of these Stephen Harper quotes are taken out of context and portray him to be a poor leader. The link at the bottom of the page links to an anti-Stephen Harper website. There is no way that this page was created with a neutral point of view. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 24 June 2006, 23:12 (UTC)
concur.. should list quotes that reflect both p.o.v.
Quotes are not "out of context." These are things that our Prime Minister has said and must be held accountable for, as the rascist biogoted, right-wing nutjob that he is :D - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006, 1:41 (UTC)
- Wikiquote does not follow the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia because of the differing nature of its articles. A Wikipedia article is a series of statements weighed for accuracy and neutrality. For a Wikiquote article, the standard for accuracy is this: did the person in question say or write this statement? And if the statement is proven genuine (sourced) or at least believed in assumed good faith to be genuine (unsourced), is it also something that would generally be considered notable? This last question is of, course, fairly subjective.
There is, however, no standard of neutrality in Wikiquote as there is in Wikipedia. If you feel that a Wikiquote article has an unfair selection of quotes, you have the solution at hand to this problem, and one that requires no one else to serve as arbiter. Simply add some more notable quotes that, as you believe, put the person in question in a more balanced or nuanced light. In this way, everyone benefits. The editors will have attained a more balanced article without the edit wars and monitored disputes that are the plague of Wikipedia. At the same time, the general public who read the article will have a more rounded, complex portrait of the person who is the subject of the article.
Since a Wikiquote article is simply a collection of quotes by people who have chosen what they think is interesting, it does not aim at the sort of encyclopedic completeness and balance that are the goals of Wikipedia. As with Wikipedia, however, we have a similar faith in gradualism: i.e., that in time each article will be added to and improved until the ideals of completeness and balance will be naturally reached.
As for quotes being accused of lacking context, keep in mind that a quote should always be self-sufficient. It should be chosen because it makes sense on its own and does not require explanation or argumentation. We've found from experience, especially in articles about political or religious leaders, that there is tendency to buttress quotes with labored commentary. Since people with differing beliefs will rarely agree on whether a quote is taken out of context, there would be no end in sight to the additions and deletions on contextual grounds. Explanations of a quote should therefore only be a last resort; they should be exceedingly brief, should stick to matters of fact and should not presume to offer the reader an interpretation. - InvisibleSun 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I don't really support Stephen Harper, but I still know there are lots of quotes out there that would show him in a more positive light.
I live in Canada and watch the news from multiple sources daily. I know these to be legitimate quotes, and I'll allow it. Positive light? Nah. Nobody with a sense of decency seriously places full support behind the Iraq war. 22.214.171.124 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag because this page is not POV. These are Harper's statements and are not disputable. --FWN 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is nothing more than a collection of out-of-context quotes designed to falsely show the Prime Minister in a bad light. There is not so much as a shred of balance here. It's is little more than biased lib-left propaganda that falls well below Wiki's standards.
Has it struck you yet that he hasn't exactly made a number of quotes that show him in a 'good' light?