Talk:Laureen Harper

Not quite sure...

If this qualifies as a citation of the Wiki: http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060126/ca_pr_on_od/brite_mrs__harper but interesting still. Marskell 12:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Degrees, divorce, the game of life

• Did SAIT offer degrees per se at the time she graduated?

NO. It is a technical school, like NAIT. Most programs are, at most, one or two years in length. Garth of the Forest (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why did the mention of her brief prior marriage fall out of the article's orbit some revisions back? I hope somebody didn't sweep it under the rug for fear it reflected badly on LTH or husband #2 – I'm not the only lefty I know who thought it kind of helped humanize them both... Samaritan 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Source problem

This line: "Some of Harper's earliest political contemporaries, including Jim Hawkes, Preston Manning and Deborah Grey, have said that the 'intensely cerebral' Stephen Harper appreciably 'mellowed' after their marriage." is sourced with this article[1] which doesn't include that sort of statement. Is there a source on that? --JGGardiner 16:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Separation?

I've removed the quotation: "That may change for the upcoming election now that she and her husband have separated" from the campaigning section. In hours of searching, I was not able to find a single credible source (or even any questionable sources for that matter) to suggest that this is true. So, until someone is able to cite that Laureen Harper has separated from her husband, Stephen, I think it should stay out of this article. andrew.lawton (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In the lastest issue of the University College Gargoyle--a University of Toronto newspaper, and not one with a particularly good reputation--a student who (supposedly) worked for Liberal party last summer claims that apparently it's well known in Ottawa among the media and the politicians that Laureen Harper is cheating on Stephen with her mountie bodyguard. It's an anonymous source, and no real names are used, but maybe it bears repeating--it's that questionable source you mention. I haven't been able to find any mention of it elsewhere, however. 99.232.244.13 (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there's been a rumour kicking around for a while, but even a year and a half after the original comment was posted here there's still never been a single reliable media source to corroborate it. For what it's worth, Susan Delacourt at the Toronto Star has written a column pointing out that everybody and their dog in the press gallery has gone after the story at some time or another — but the reason it hasn't come out isn't because media are conspiring to bury anything, but that nobody's found the first shred of real evidence. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Name

Laureen Harper should be referred to as Teskey or Harper consistently throughout the article, and /never/ Laureen. This is an encyclopedia and that is inappropriate and disrespectful. 142.157.128.66 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some irregular users who aren't familiar with encyclopedic conventions do, for some reason, like to write first-name style instead of last-name. You're right that it's inappropriate, but Wikipedia isn't deliberately trying to be "disrespectful" (albeit that our job isn't to be "respectful", either, but to maintain neutrality) — the problem is that in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", you sometimes end up with articles which look very much like anyone and everyone did.

Though I should also note that it's not quite a case of "/never/" — for instance, it may sometimes be necessary to refer to her as "Laureen" in sentences where there's a grammatical ambiguity as to whether "Harper" is referring to Stephen or Laureen, usually because both of them have been referred to earlier in the same paragraph. We should certainly try to avoid that whenever possible, but it's not strictly wrong to use "Laureen" in that particular scenario. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)