Talk:Catherine Chatterley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claims of misrepresentation by Ms Chatterley[edit]

Not at all true. There was never any attempt by UCCLA to request a Holodomor gallery equal to the one for the Holocaust. No community's suffering should be elevated above all others in a taxpayer funded national museum. All of its galleries should be thematic, comparative and inclusive in content. That is what UCCLA has repeatedly said. Ms Chatterley mendaciously misrepresented our positions, repeatedly. She is entitled to her opinions, of course, but how that constitutes a biographical detail is debatable, particularly since she misrepresented our postcard campaign - the fact is that a majority of Canadians (over 60%) do not support the CMHR's allocation of preferential, permanent and privileged space to one community above all others, a fact that the CMHR's boosters find hard to cope with, save by name-callng. The postcard, by the way, was never withdrawn, so much for that allegation, and anyone who actually looks at the card, in toto, instead of cut & pasting portions of it in order to create a straw-man, will see that its point was to say simply that we object (see above) to ANY group (including our own) having its suffering elevated above all others, that we object to the balderdash that "all galleries are equal but some are more equal than others" and that we will not be bullied by name callers into silence. See the recent article by Dirk Moses in the Journal of Genocide Research for a trenchant analysis of the many failings of the CMHR, intellectually and in reality (he makes a few minor errors in fact, and one might argue in interpretation but these aren't really in reference to the points above). As for both sides being heard - we never indulged in ad hominem attacks, we never questioned the ethics or common sense of our opponents, we never called them Ukrainophobes; we just pointed out that we object, and still do, to a publicly funded national institution promoting one interpretation of history based on a debatable understanding of the human rights story.

Whether someone merits inclusion on Wikipedia is worth discussion; what is offensive about this entry are Ms Chaterley's misrepresentations about the legitimate objections many Canadians have tabled about the nature and contents of the taxpayer funded Canadian Museum for Human Rights. She is entitled to her opinions, however odious some may find them; she is not entitled to include such matter in what purports to be a biographical note. Her efforts to spread her views should be confined to her blog or "institute" (sic) - since they are often inaccurate, off point and mendacious and target other people and organizations they do not belong on Wikipedia, especially hidden in a biographical note. Polemics don't constitute fair content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mendacious" is rather a strong term. Who is the judge of that, you? Based on your previous attempts to derail and bias the article Canadian Museum for Human Rights, without providing a shred of evidence for the validity of your personal opinions (i.e. unsourced opinion), I do not put much weight on your statements here. Furthermore, we have placed the personal views of Ms. Chatterley into a section entitled " Involvement in public debates", rather than "biographical notes". Her views were never hidden. She is very outspoken, and when overt signs of insensitivity arise, as shown in the postcard campaign promoting a separate but equal gallery for the Holodomor, a person such as Chatterley obviously objected to the depiction of the current proponents of the Holocaust gallery as "pigs". Anyone who understands the history and the significance of the image of a pig, in sociology and literature, must recognize the dangers of painting anyone with that label. The offensive postcard was withdrawn. That is a clear indication that the UCCLA realized its inappropriate nature.
The reason for placing Chatterley's remarks in the article for the CMHR, is that already adamant voices on the Ukrainian side of the issue have made their points and were included in the article, taking up an entire section, "Concerns over the proposed museum content", and these needed to be balanced by the opposing point of view, or the article would sound like a soapbox for shrill voices against the design of the museum. Both sides need to be heard to comply with WP:NPOV. --Skol fir (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


To 67.193.142.54 (talk) -- Please submit your comments in chronological order. It is very difficult to follow the thread of a conversation when you keep adding your remarks to the top (which should be the earliest comments, with later ones following farther down the page, like a timeline).
As for the UCCLA, I mixed that up with the views of the UCC (you can see the similarity there). The UCC wants the CMHR to create a separate Holodomor gallery that provides "no less coverage" than that given the Holocaust. By contrast, the UCCLA thinks all genocides, including the Holocaust and the Holodomor, should be explored in one "thematic gallery. This quote was taken from Ukrainian association tells foreign scholars to stay out of museum debate in The Globe & Mail, 21 April 2011. Separate or not, the point is that both these advocacy groups favor MORE recognition for the Holodomor, as they feared it would not feature prominently enough in the current plans for the CMHR.
Chatterley's objection was not to more recognition of the Holodomor. She was specifically targetting the way that the UCCLA tried to demonize those in favor of a separate gallery for the Holocaust, because the purpose of that gallery was to define a moment in history when brutality of the highest and most orchestrated kind was invoked upon the Jewish faith, not a particular nation, but a religion. The Holodomor, on the other hand, was a communist-led plot to suppress rumblings of national independence for Ukraine, hiding the true intent of a genocide behind the mask of a tragic famine. As evidenced by the most recent statements from the CMHR, the Holodomor will receive its due recognition in a permanent exhibit within the Mass Atrocity zone. The Holocaust gallery was intended primarily as a lead-in to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From there the journey to a better world with less hate and more respect for cultural and religious differences begins. Both sides of this issue have been presented in the article for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and the personal opinion of any one editor at Wikipedia has absolutely no bearing on the public debate, which is already on the public record. --Skol fir (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sticking the Holodomor into a "Mass Atrocity" gallery (with the 4 other genocides recognized officially by the Government of Canada, one of them the Shoah) would be fine if there wasn't another, separate, central, permanent, and privileged CMHR gallery space dedicated to elevating the suffering of one community above all others. Why can't a single CMHR gallery be dedicated to the concept of 'genocide' to therefore include the Shoah, Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide etc...why should one group be afforded pride of place in a taxpayer funded national museum, especially when a majority of Canadians object to any such preferential treatment?

The distinguished Holocaust scholar, Professor Michael Marrus, has challenged the ahistorical notion that the modern human rights story somehow began as a consequence of the Shoah; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights certainly was not simply an outgrowth of the understandable disgust that the civilized world came to share when the atrocities that befell the Jewish people (religious and otherwise) during the Second World War came to be better understood. Most certainly, human rights issues were already on the international agenda well before then, especially after the First World War at the League of Nations (ever heard of the Nansen Passport?). Even the father of the UN Genocide Convention, Dr Raphael Lemkin, objected that the Declaration, however admirable for its sentiments, was toothless. Saying that the Declaration was a result of the Shoah is not true and repeating that fiction won't change that fact.

The CHMR spokespeople have a deserved reputation for never answering a straight question with a straight answer. They continue to spin their replies on what the CMHR will include. See the article by Professor Dirk Moses in the Journal of Genocide Studies.

In discussing this so-called "biographical" entry we should be asking ourselves if obviously contentious and partisan views merit inclusion in what should be a simple biographical entry on who Ms Chaterley is, what she has written, where she teaches and the like. Giving online space to polemics, based on what we contend are inaccurate and provocative misrepresentations about what a legitimate Canadian Ukrainian organization has done or said, remains objectionable. Nothing of the sort would ever be countenanced in any real encyclopedia. That is precisely why Wikipedia continues to fall short of being credible. It's not really edited.

I am in no way linked to the CMHR, and have no interest in taking sides on the matters concerning the design of this museum. As an experienced editor at Wikipedia, with a broad scope of interests as you can see from my editing pattern, I work towards achieving a balanced presentation at any article that I encounter. The job of editing is to present both sides of any argument, with the limitation that any information presented in the article must be supported by outside reliable sources. In the case of Chatterley, she is a voice on the side of the museum's plan to keep a separate gallery for the Holocaust. She is not a spokesperson for the museum, as they have their own Communications Director. The other side of the issue has already been given ample coverage, so the article is currently balanced, as an encyclopedia should be.
With your clear bias towards the Ukrainian-Canadian point of view, you should not be editing the article on the CMHR anyway, since you have a conflict of interest. Please see WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I have no bias either way. I just make sure that both sides of the controversy are included, so that the readers can make up their own minds about the issues and the merits of each case. Your strident objections to Chatterley's views are just what an encyclopedia does not need. Create your own website for that sort of personal vendetta.
Furthermore, if you have objections to the way Chatterley's views are included in the CMHR article, voice your opinion at that Talk Page, not here. This Talk Page is for her biography, which includes her own public image. That means her views can be expressed here without Wikipedia taking sides. They are just HER views. --Skol fir (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one said you were connected to the CMHR. That said your editorial skills leave much to be desired: clearly you were sloppy for not knowing the difference between the UCC and UCCLA, which you admitted. As for the issues surrounding the CMHR you are likewise misinformed or negligent, i.e. you wrote that the postcard was withdrawn, which it wasn't. Where did you get that little tidbit of information?

Since employees of the CMHR of "Friends of the CMHR" have obviously been editing that entry perhaps you can send them a note about "conflict of interest" as well.

A biographical entry is not the place for a description of a controversy, particularly when the latter was very much a problem fabricated by a person intent on misrepresenting the views of a legitimate Ukrainian Canadian organization. We are talking about the CC biographical entry, not the CMHR one (which is likewise biased in favour of the CMHR). A biographical entry may well describe an author's concerns or the issues that they have addressed but elaborating and peppering that kind of entry with falsehoods is hardly credible. As for the "reliable outside sources" being cited I would suggest that most are far from.

Conversation closed - your partiality only reconfirms why Wikipedia remains a very unreliable product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

It's pretty obvious that this article was penned by Ms. Chatterley herself in an attempt to make herself more relevant than what she actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.44 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but as the reviewer that moved this article into the mainspace I did seek a second opinion before doing so. If you are concerned that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements you are perfectly entitled to nominate the article at articles for deletion--where the community will discuss if the article should be kept, or not. Pol430 talk to me 23:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the article passes WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the advertising fluff was added back with a rude note about me... lovely. Please remove it and find proper sourcing. --Errant (chat!) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantX, no need to get defensive. Who are you to judge about a person's notability when you have no knowledge of the subject's area of expertise, and what has given her notability within Canada and Manitoba? My remark in the edit summary was well placed, because your only reason for non-notability was ignorance of what CISA signifies, at least in a Canadian context. I did not add anything back to the article. I added new information which helps to show why Chatterley deserves a biographical article of her own. I have no relation to this woman, and only found out about her through Wikipedia. I have no interest in "advertising" for her. My recent edits improved the format, added sections to divide up content and provided new reliable sources for that content. You have not even looked at my recent edits, it seems, and that is rather careless, if you ask me. You should not be editing this article, since it appears that you have a built-in bias to find any reason to trash it. --Skol fir (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was no need to be rude. So don't get on any high horses :) because your only reason for non-notability was ignorance of what CISA signifies; nonsense. I examined the subject carefully - and the sources in this article. Plus ran a search for further sourcing. There is no reliably published independent source that covers the subject in enough detail to warrant a biography. When I started the article was a fluff piece; it still is. Rather than cut it further I simply prodded it because it is unrecoverable. I am sorry I accused you off re-adding fluff. But what you did add (in your last edit) has no relevance to this biography... --Errant (chat!) 08:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the references currently in use in this article, and all but one are independent published sources. Chatterley is non-Jewish, so you cannot even claim that the word "Jewish" in the source precludes independence. The only source that is clearly linked to Chatterley is her University of Manitoba official page, which I used to back up her current position there, and her educational background. Please don't bandy about terms like "reliably published independent source" unless you know what they mean. As for notability, Chatterley has achieved that primarily because of founding CISA, whether you personally like it or not. Her strong opinions on the subject of anti-semitism have also made her notable in Canada and the USA, maybe not in the UK. Your claim that she does not warrant a biography is your own opinion, without merit, since I can testify to at least two criteria at WP:SCHOLAR that the Chatterley bio has met, when only one is required. --Skol fir (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal views on this; can you please stop moaning about me (i.e. comment on the content, not the editor). The only source that is clearly linked to Chatterley...; there are two sources written by her :) However; what I was explaining was that we have no independent sourcing that significantly covers her as an individual. This latter point is the key facet (see WP:GNG for an explanation). You've made claims of notability via WP:SCHOLAR - when I prodded the article I used this as reference (as you are right, it most applies) and found nothing in any of the sources to meet any of the options. If you can support one of those points with a source I'd happily accept that. --Errant (chat!) 13:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also; what does The president of the University of Winnipeg, Lloyd Axworthy, also addressed the one-sidedness of IAW, by ensuring that during the first appearance of IAW at that university campus, both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and of wider Middle East issues could be presented and debated in a series of dialogues and talks organized by the university administration. have to do with Chatterly's biography? That is content about IAW --Errant (chat!) 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantX, I do apologize for my nasty ad hominem remarks. I did let my emotions take hold for a minute, because I often see decisions on Wikipedia based on lack of information, and I needed to be sure that your willingness to delete this article had no ulterior motive (i.e. some personal animosity towards the subject). Now that I am reassured that this is not the case, I will look closely at your suggestion to improve independent sources proving scholarly achievement.
My sentence about Lloyd Axworthy was meant to further expand on the IAW at the U of W, since this event in particular, in March 2011, was the exact event that stirred up Chatterley's remarks on IAW 10 days earlier. In other words, Axworthy's response to Chatterley's concerns (expressed in the National Post) was to allow for both sides of the issue to be discussed, and not let his university fall into the trap of allowing a one-sided diatribe. I'm sorry for not explaining that more thoroughly in the article. As for the sources currently in the article, I realize now that two of them were penned by Chatterley, albeit in newspapers that she herself does not control. That means the papers could have refused to publish her articles, as they have editorial control.
I am too busy to take care of this today, but if you give me 48 hours as of now, I will deliver the necessary evidence to show that this bio is worthy and notable with the conditions that you have correctly pointed out from Wiki policy. Thank you for your patience and bearing with me. As Mr. Fawlty said about Manuel, "I'm so sorry. He's from Barcelona." :-) --Skol fir (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added further proof of Chatterley's scholarly achievements, to the article. The new additions show evidence of at least two of the possible criteria listed under WP:SCHOLAR, only one of which is required to demonstrate notability for academics. The two criteria are # 3 and #8. She is an elected member of IASA, indeed, the Vice President (which could practically qualify her for criterion #6 as well), and has been chosen as a chief editor of a major academic journal in her subject area. These facts are verified by independent and reliable sources that Chatterley does not control. --Skol fir (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine; the article needs some work, but I withdraw my suggested lack of notability. Thanks. --Errant (chat!) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last section[edit]

I fail to see the point in the last section. Another sentence or two describing subjects she often deals with would make sense, but a long section with long qoutes seems to be there simply to promote viewpoints. Beach drifter (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this matter resolved?[edit]

Is this matter now resolved given the fact that there is no further discussion for over one year? This individual clearly exceeds the requirements for notability, the entry has been edited and augmented by a variety of editors, and the initial complaint seems to be related to someone who is angry about the new museum in Winnipeg, which is only one thread of the content on the original page. Also, I wonder if Wikipedia should allow someone to accuse the subject of the page with misrepresentation (especially when other editors clearly see that this is false) when that could be construed as libelous and in violation of Wikipedia terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.18.194 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Catherine D. Chatterley. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_Chatterley&oldid=1206632271"