Talk:Canadian Museum for Human Rights

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV & Controversy Section

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

This article needs work. It reads like a flack for the museum project wrote it. Also, the bibliography ought not list every newspaper article that has ever been written about the project.

I've done some work to it. JacobTwo 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are many references to what will be in the museum. The future cannot be foretold. The wording should therefore be adjusted to reflect that these are proposals and plans. Okinasevych 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The controversy section has been removed on the following grounds: firstly, no other museum on Wikipedia has a controversy section that takes up more than half of the entire article. The controversy section also strays from the NPOV by presenting an overly negative and inflammatory stance on the museum, its design, and message. I am putting my explanation here so that the users Okinasevych, DivaNtrainin, and Franamax will take note. This is not the place for your views on the museum, and it will remain neutral. Any instances of personal opinion should not be on this article. CStudios 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the views on the need for NPOV. The particular information that has been removed, however, is a matter of public record and not "personal opinion." Whether or not other museums noted on Wikipedia have "controversy sections" should not be relevant.

It should further be noted that a concerted effort is still being made to secure funding for the museum -- this morning, I heard one of the museum's representatives state that another $9 million is needed. The fact that fundraising relies heavily on marketing and PR efforts, political posturing, and pretty videos, it is no wonder that this forum appears to have been co-opted at this time by posters who claim NPOV to take down anything that is less than flattering wrt the museum. Okinasevych (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi I've reverted the Controversy section. For starters, can have large controversy sections. Although I have trimmed it down a bit (I didn't think the design was that critical). Controversy is not NPOV. Andrewuoft (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Andrewuoft, your 'trimming the article down a bit' removed vital parts of the museum's design history that were informative to the user who is looking to this page to be educated on the museum. Also, you stated yourself that controversy is not NPOV. Exactly. Therefore, I have reverted the article to its prior state. You stated only one example of a museum on Wikipedia with a controversy section; the vast majority do not have them (and it should stay that way). Creationism may be up for debate depending on your beliefs; our inalienable human rights are not, which is the purpose of this museum. This is not the place for you to voice your opinions, and this article -will- remain neutral. CStudios 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen the old controversy section, but given this is a private institution funded heavily by public money, operated by a family that has a history of being very pro-Isreal, these are very unique circumstances for a museum, so a controversy section is certainly appropriate. For example, the Yasukuni Shrine is a controversial monument, if not a "museum" per se, and as such, its article contains a controversy section. So long as the section is properly sourced, it can be NPOV. aoystreck 31 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC).Reply

Proximity to impoverished area incorrect

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The proximity of the proposed museum site to some of the most socially and economically depressed areas of Winnipeg have been decried as "savage irony." (http://blog.uwinnipeg.ca/ius/archives/002804.html)"

The above comment has been removed because it is both confusing and incorrect. First off, the area that the museum is being proposed to be built in is the Forks. The Forks is surronded by high priced office buildings, a very new and very expensive ball park, and old St. Boniface, a very posh neighborhood. The Forks has been subject to a great deal of development, including a brand new hotel, a new skatepark, the development of a children's museum and a new bridge which has become a landmark for the city. Another new building in the area has not caused surprise or contraversy.

However, let's assume that this museum is built in an impoverished area. Is that a bad thing? Is economic development in a poor area of town a bad thing? It would certainly bring jobs to the poor and attention to the social problems that surrond them. I would like to know what kind of economic developments that the author would like to see in economically depressed areas: soup kitchens and thrift store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

References to Asper "family"

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Many people have chosen to make accusations on this page that the Asper "family" has presented a biased view towards the Isreal-Palestinian conflict in the newspapers that Canwest Global owns. Wikipedia has pages for many people and companies associated with the Asper "family" and it would be appropriate to voice this bias on those pages.

If we want to discuss the bias of a certain people on this page, first we will need to establish a certain person is bias and then explain how that person influences the decisions that are made in relation to the museum. Gail Asper is the only member of the Advisory Committee of the Canadian Museum of Human Rights that is a member of the Asper family. The Advisory Committee consists of nine members that come from all across Canada. Gail Asper's Wikipedia page is completely absent of any bias towards any political issue.

Being related to a person who is racist does not make a person racist. There have been accusations that Gail Asper's late father may have been biased towards the Isreal-Palestinian conflict. Those accusations does not make Gail Asper guilty of being biased. There needs to be greater burden of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The material in the "The Site" section (added here) is largely a direct copy from the CMHR website. It has some minor rewording and rearrangement but slavishly duplicates distinctive phrases and structure. CMHR displays a copyright notice which protects its original creation, thus I have removed the infringing text. Editors are invited to expand the section if it can be made relevant, non-copyvio, and non-advert.

On the issue of advertising, the modified article still reads a little breathless. For instance, there is a section discussing polls indicating public support for government funding, possibly as a response to the "Controversy" section which used to be present. The section basically amounts to advocacy, which we generally don't do. Other wording is also problematic. The advert tag should stay until the article is rewritten to address the concerns. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Disputes over the content of the museum galleries

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section of the Talk Page has been started to allow discussion to take place over the recent brouhaha, with the CMHR, that has erupted in the public domain. One anonymous editor (67.193.137.116) has taken it upon himself to promote his own cause, which appears to be the depiction of the Holodomor in its own gallery next to the Holocaust, or lumped in with the Holocaust. Although this is all very noble, this editor (not willing to use a registered handle) has removed fully referenced material from this article and replaced it with personal opinion, and no references to back it up, except for a vague allusion to the "Hill Times." This sounds like a person advertising his position, with no regard for the opposing opinions. In order to have a balanced article (see WP:NPOV), we must respect all the viewpoints and give them exposure here.

The controversy over the content of the galleries came about primarily because of one group's jealousy over the exclusive assignment to one gallery for the Holocaust, while the Ukrainian "holocaust" of its own does not receive equal billing in the current plans. I am trying to include all viewpoints, with references and citations to support them. If anyone has objections to the balance in the article, please voice them here, not by crude blanking of referenced and cited information. If this article is to remain of high quality, it must include all opinions, and allow for a full description of the facts as they appear in secondary and tertiary sources (i.e. not from "the horse's mouth."). Personal opinion is not allowed on Wikipedia. Whatever is stated here, must have a secondary source to back it up, or it will look like someone is trying to promote their own views. --Skol fir (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reason for logo in infobox

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a copy of a note to another editor and I just repeat it here:

...I have been following this article for quite some time now, and happened to notice this change in April 2011 -- Revision as of 16:18, 13 April 2011 by Cmhr mcdp -- about the time that the official logo was also changed at other sites [members of the CMHR] do control (granted that Wikipedia is not really under their control). The change also appeared at Facebook, Twitter, etc, because they wanted to establish a uniform presence across all avenues. I did notice that the main image on their Facebook page has since changed to the picture of a child's face -- Friends of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. However, as the Museum itself approved this logo at Wiki, it would be impolite for us to unilaterally change it without their knowledge. I guess that User:Cmhr mcdp would be the go-to guy for that.

If you go to the description page (click on the logo) you will see the purpose -- "The image is used to identify the organization Canadian Museum for Human Rights, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." --Skol fir (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

References

^ "We Need an Answer", Winnipeg Free Press via HighBeam Research, Editorial, 21 March 2007, retrieved 20 September 2014

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090619222143/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/manitoba/story/2009/06/16/mb-museum-artifacts-human-rights.html? to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/06/16/mb-museum-artifacts-human-rights.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] "We Need an Answer", Winnipeg Free Press via HighBeam Research, Editorial, 21 March 2007, retrieved 20 September 2014

[1]

Talk:Canadian Museum for Human Rights

Contents

NPOV & Controversy Section

Proximity to impoverished area incorrect

Further reading (moved from article to talk page)

References removed

References to Asper "family"

Disputes over the content of the museum galleries

Reason for logo in infobox

References

External links modified

External links modified

Talk:Canadian Museum for Human Rights

NPOV & Controversy Section

Proximity to impoverished area incorrect

Further reading (moved from article to talk page)

References removed

References to Asper "family"

Copyvio & note on "advert" tag

Disputes over the content of the museum galleries

Reason for logo in infobox

References

External links modified

External links modified