Talk:National Research Council Canada

	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 Governments of Canada.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NRC's troubled past

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's been almost a month with no reply... will remove NPOV tag. -- Samir (the scope) 04:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^^ I'm completely agreed with the above. When I was at NRC in the late 1980s, I witnessed many instances of what could be termed "systematic racial discrimination". Sjcbr 2015 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

racists

Racism defined NRC in the 1990's. It must be included in the NRC article. There is much literativre on the subject/

deadend institute links

Most of the institute pages don't exist - is it useful to have them in as wiki links, since most of them just lead to an empty edit page? Rakerman (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new president

Information about the President needs to be updated. I believe the new president started April 19, 2010.

John R. McDougall Appointed President of the National Research Council of Canada

OTTAWA, April 1st, 2010 — The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), today announced the appointment of Mr. John McDougall as President of the Council.

“I am pleased to welcome Mr. McDougall to the Council; his work has had a major impact on the evolution of public policy in business, trade, science and technology as well as innovation in both Canada and beyond,” said Tony Clement.

“With his vast wealth of knowledge and professional experience Mr. McDougall will be an asset to the NRC’s work in advancing research and development in Canada,” said the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology).

“The NRC has an historic reputation of scientific excellence and I’m thrilled to accept this new position. I look forward to contributing to the growth and advancement of the Canadian science, technology and innovation sectors,” said Mr. McDougall.

Mr. McDougall is Chair of Innoventures Canada and a Director of PFB Corporation. From 1997 to 2009, he served as CEO of the Alberta Research Council. From 1991 to 1997, Mr. McDougall served as the inaugural Chair in Management for Engineers in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Alberta. In addition, he founded and served as senior executive of the DALCOR companies from 1976 to 1998.

Mr. McDougall received his Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Alberta in 1967. He also completed a number of postgraduate courses in environmental engineering.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/05449.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.153.111 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineers, Mr. McDougall has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Alberta with a number of postgraduate courses in environmental engineering to his credit. He is an active participant in professional and community affairs, having served on a number of influential advisory boards and committees, including the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the AUTO21 National Centre of Excellence, the Edmonton Space & Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Advisory Committee. He currently serves as Chair of C-FER Technologies Inc. and Innoventures Canada, while holding duties as a Director of PFB Corporation.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Research Council (Canada). 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/20061210035840/http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca:80/aboutUs/facts_e.html to http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/aboutUs/facts_e.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} 21:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on National Research Council (Canada). 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) 06:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name - of or not?

The title was moved to National Research Council Canada in January, from National Research Council (Canada). I declined an "uncontroversial" request to move it to National Research Council of Canada. Both are used in official sources and so the title needs to be discussed before another move. Fences&Windows 00:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided in the reasoning shows that "of Canada" is the proper name, apparently... I made the initial move based on what I saw in sources, and this request when the official/legal name was pointed out through the recent edit by User:Itamblyn. I assumed there was little to no likelihood of any response, let alone discussion or controversy, but I'm fine with either title to be honest. Figured I'd just ask for the mop. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear (to me, at least) when (or even if) the name was officially changed from "National Research Council of Canada" to "National Research Council Canada". The latter form seems inspired by the banner which came into use a long time ago. Sadly, the History pages of the NRC Web pages are silent on this matter. Urhixidur (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the organization is very clearly defined in legislation: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-15/page-1.html National Research Council Canada is not the name of the organization, even if someone wants it to be. It doesn't matter what a marketing department or banner producer calls it, it is not the official name. The official name is National Research Council of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itamblyn (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]