Talk:National Research Council of Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The paragraph commenting on NRC's troubled past with one of his employee (including the external link) should be removed from the article for the following reasons:
- (removed per WP:BLP)
- Because of all of the above, it seems that this was not written in good faith but more to publicize a dispute. This has no room in this Encyclopedia.
--Andy 20:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've re-added the comments, don't think it's fair to exclude them. I don't agree with them though. -- Barry Zuckerkorn 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph commenting on NRC's troubled past with one of his employee (including the external link) should be not removed from the article for the following reasons:
- The National Research Council Canada (NRC) is a large institution with over 4000 employees working in several buildings. Such a vast government organization should maintain standards to treat each employee equally regardless of their race or background. The NRC should reflect Canada's values as being a cultural mosaic and not discriminate against any individuals.
- The paragraph ends with "Complaints of racial discrimination are ongoing against the National Research Council". These are legitimate points in favour of Dr. Grover against the NRC and should be allowed. Racial discrimination from any government institute should not be acceptable and the NRC should be penalized for such actions. These actions define the NRC and this should be considered a big news story.
Roytoubassi 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hate to break it to you, but what happens to one employee in one building CAN BE news. Michael Smith was one employee in one building in Vancouver. Tak Mak is one employee in one building in Toronto. And Chander Grover is one employee in one building at NRC. Whether or not "other employees" are involved in news is irrelevant. Andy, you are undermining the scope of what is a very serious problem:
- The question that is fundamental is whether signficant human rights problems (a) occurred at NRC and (b) are significant enough to be on Wikipedia's page about NRC:
So, did significant racial discrimination occur at NRC?
(i) Since 1992, the Federal Court and its jurisdiction has issued a total of 4 decisions (Grover v. NRC -- 1992 accounting for one of them, also Liu v. NRC, Grover v. NRC -- 1994 and CHRC v. NRC -- 1996) condemning NRC of serious violations of human rights involving more than one employee (and more than one building, Andy).
(ii) Every president of NRC (with the exception of the current) since 1987 has participated at a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal regarding racial discrimination against an employee.
(iii) Every time NRC has been before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it has been found responsible of racial discrimination against employees. This is a systemic issue, and nothing has been done at this organization to fix the issue.
(iv) Senior management at NRC has been found responsible in the above cited court decisions of calculated strategies to undermine career progression of racialized employees -- i.e. systemic racism at the core. In Canada.
So, is it significant enough to be on Wikipedia's NRC page?
(i) Over 200 articles have been written in Canada's news media (National Post as recently as October 6, 2005, The Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, every major newspaper in a city greater than 300k), in international news media (Europe and Asia), and even in scientific periodicals including Nature) regarding NRC's track record of racial discrimination, with the Grover affair being the highlight.
(ii) A Canadian standing parliamentary committee in 1993 was convened wherein the then-president of NRC was questioned regarding the racial discrimination occurring against employees of NRC; the questions were based on the reports of the Grover case.
(iii) On November 5, 1997, the Chief Commissioner and General Counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The General Counsel called the Grover v. National Research Council case a landmark case and stated:
"On the tribunal side, the commission has been quite active. If you were to check in the Human Rights Reporter, you would find that the major race discrimination victories in Canada have been won by the Canadian commission, starting with a case that some of the senators may know of, Chander Grover vs. National Research Council which, at the time, was a landmark in establishing race discrimination."
(iv) MANY managers at NRC were referred under Section 59 of the Canadian Human Rights Act for criminal investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their actions in the Grover matter (see Grover v. NRC -- 1992 decision). Think about it -- in Canada, of all countries, members of management at a national agency were referred for investigation of criminal actions stemming from racial discrimination.
(v) The fact that complaints of racial discrimination are ongoing against NRC has been reported in press media (Ottawa Citizen, Oct 5, 2005; National Post Oct 6, 2005)
This isn't just a "dispute" of one employee and there is no undue weight NPOV bias as per the above. Andy is misinformed. It's not the "viewpoint" of just myself or the minority. It's fact with wide ranging interest. It's fact substantiated by multiple decisions in the highest courts in Canada, discussed in the parliament of Canada, and reported in media internationally for the past 15 years.
This has shaped NRC history for the past 15 years probably more so than anything. Repeated findings of racial discrimination today in a national agency of Canada are news. Big news.
I've met Gerhard Herzberg. He should probably be in this article also. But Chander Grover definitely should be. The NPOV flag should be lifted.
-- Samir 
(the scope) 03:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It's been almost a month with no reply... will remove NPOV tag. -- Samir (the scope) 04:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to air controversial, individual disputes. A personal website is appropriate for such issues. Read official policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
"Undue weight
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all".
Based on the number of postings, no one, other than Grover, considers this to be a significant viewpoint, or a prominent event in the nearly 100-year history of the NRC. If this was just one item in a huge entry, it would be fine, but since the NRC entry is brief, it is all out of proportion. 70.25.91.244 16:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm unclear why you think this is an individual dispute, because the importance of the issue has been listed by Samir Grover above. It sounds like your opinion is an NRC party line and indeed I'm speculating as to why you think this is a minority view or a tiny-minority view. I didn't reply before because I supported his opinion. From what I can see, the evidence shows that there have been three findings of racial discrimination in Canadian government agencies by Federal Court (or tribunals appointed under its purview) in the past 30 years, and 2 of these were against the NRC condemning it of significant acts of racial discrimination against Dr. Chander Grover. Their actions have been reported in major media (which have been listed above, including Canada's largest newspapers and Nature). This is a big deal with respect to the NRC's history (be it 100 years or otherwise) and deserves to be in wikipedia. I don't think this is a minority viewpoint at all. Jack Stanley 14:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relevancy of Grover to NRC
It's my opinion that listing Grover in this article is crucial. The racial discrimination that took place at NRC is a sad, but major part of their past, and it wasn't limited to just Grover. The only thing you heard about NRC in the early nineties was related to systemic racial discrimination. Saying that Dr. Chander P. Grover disputes the fairness of hiring policies is a misstatement (don't recall him ever saying that in the media). I think it's more fair to say that NRC was repetitively found guilty of racial discrimination against Grover and other employees, and was reprimanded for their systemic racial discrimination. -- Barry Zuckerkorn 20:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I think there were other findings of racial discrimination against NRC, not just the 1992 CHRC decision, weren't there 2 other findings, and other scientists involved, including Anthony Liu? Didn't a former president admit systemic discimination before a parliamentary subcommittee? -- Barry Zuckerkorn 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Needless to say, I'm unimpressed with the anon's edits -- what's funny is that the IP doesn't lead to NRC like previous anons did. Barry, links to the relevant history are available on the Chander Grover page as well. To say that this is not a prominent event in the history of NRC is laughable. Was going to revert, but will see what further comments arise.
-- Samir (the scope) 09:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
- Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
- Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. ... Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. 70.25.91.244 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Propaganda? Advertising? I think the facts are being ignored. The Grover case is well substantiated (just look at the above), so claiming that this is a soapbox is rather a big stretch. Three lines for an issue that has been shown to be important (Google > 1000 hits, press articles as above) and relevant to NRC is appropriate in my mind. It's not like this is a bio article so quoting WP:Notability or WP:Autobiography is irrelevant. I've reverted both the text and the link. Barry Zuckerkorn 18:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the more appropriate policy is: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You shouldn't delete facts. I don't think three lines on Chander Grover are a soapbox, as per the above. I've already refuted your undue weight theory. The facts have been more than substantiated on Chander Grover. It clearly meets verifiability WP:V. J.Stanley 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
i'm just scanning thru but i think the racist actions of national resaerch council of canada are terrible they need too be in the article and they well known,also Chander Grover is good man,he contribute to country 205.211.160.1 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] racists
Racism defined NRC in the 1990's. It must be included in the NRC article. There is much literativre on the subject/
