Jump to content

Talk:Canadian War Museum

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

August 2007 Controversy?

[edit]

I'm going to add some sort of a warning until we get this matter resolved, I can't seem to find anything that will prove the plaque was actually changed to say,

"Thousands perished in the raids and millions were left homeless. While these numbers are very large, they pale in comparison to the genocide perpetrated...by the Germans and their proxies."

If anyone has a updated link can you please update the reference section?

--Elven6 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Canada's National War Mueseum made a huge mistake when they changed their exhibit on our bomb squads. By bowing to public pressure to misrepresent the debate over the morality of the bombings, they have bowed to change history.

Every surviving society has a chance to write history, but more often than not they're representation is biased in their favor. In modern times, we have weeded out much of this bias, but it does still exist. When the war veterans constantly pestered the mueseum to change their historically accurate exhibit, they pestered them with their own bias. Many historians still debate and feel that the morality of Canada's bombings were questionable - as they killed hundreds of thousands of civillians. This should be represented. This does not mean we can't or shouldn't honor the veterans for fighting for our freedom, it just means we should understand how they did it and how it could have been better.

In the end though, one mueseum changing it's exhibit to hide the controversy of war morality will not hide or change history, but it is a start. The mueseum, whos job it is to represent all modern opinions on chapters of our past has fallen to the pressure of the victors point of view; is that really right? The bombers were just doing their job, and they succeeded, but by rewriting historical fact with political bias - the war mueseum has failed at theirs.

- Ryan

Looks like someone edited out the whole Bomber Command controversy section. Surely a balanced and referenced account of the affair is justified. It was notable event that touches on some important museological issues.Letterofmarque (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-and-Beaver poster

[edit]

I doubt that the image of the Lion-and-Beaver poster really belongs in this article. It seems to have no connection with the Canadian War Museum, beyond that both relate to Canadian military history. I suppose the museum might hold a copy of the poster, but nothing in particular points to this being so.
However, if the poster's image is included here then the caption used must not make "original research" (OR) interpretations of it. The source of the image says, "British lion and Canadian beaver armed with swords". Thus claiming that the lion represents "the Crown" is pure OR. Personally, I'd be comfortable with the paraphrasing "a beaver representing Canada and a lion representing Britain"; that is, I think that this is, plainly, the very meaning of "British lion and Canadian beaver". I've swapped that paraphrasing for the source's own words, though, because the latter are more concise and so as to head off any arguements about whether the "representing" wording is OR, too.
"Recruitment" is also OR. I don't doubt that part of the the poster's purpose was to encourage volunteering for Canada's military, but it looks as though it was also meant to keep up national resolve, generally. In any case, the source classifies the poster under both "Patriotism" and "Propaganda" (among other groupings), but not under any of "Canada. Canadian Armed Forces", "Military recruiting" or "Recruiting and enlistment".
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an image. Symbolism within imagery is open to interpretation, unless explicitly explained, as the beaver is in this particular poster. The other symbol here - the lion - however, isn't obviously designated as representing anything. A library in Minneapolis says it represents Britain. They are entitled to their take. However, theirs isn't necessarily the only allowed reading of the image; the lion could represent the Commonwealth, it could represent the Crown, it could represent Churchill (what with the cigar and all), it could represent all of the above. So, either state who says the lion is Britain, or don't give one, singled out analysis at all. --G2bambino (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are indulging in OR in the above. The source says what it says. Find a source that says different if you want to dispute it. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would if I wanted to dispute it. Perhaps you had trouble understanding that I don't? --G2bambino (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me it comes down to this: the lion has been used for ages as a personification of Britain, and its use here is pretty obvious. Having said that, I don't think G2bambino's incorrect when he says that the lion could represent the Crown. Frankly, the artist could have intended both, and a more sophisticated view of the poster would suggest a number of additional interpretations. But the Crown allusion is a lot less obvious, and Lonewolf is probably right when he says it should be cited.

The description of the image is sourced on the image description page, as per Wikipedia norms. In my opinion, the description is uncontroversial and obvious, and does not require any unusual attribution (suggesting that it is the opinion of the Minneapolis library) or removal of the word "Britain". However, if anyone disagrees and thinks Royalguard11's original image description goes too far, feel free to get consensus for a change here on the talk page.

My own view is that rather than insisting that the lion doesn't necessarily represent Britain (which, fairly or unfairly, comes across like an attempt at making a point in retaliation to Lonewolf's revision), efforts would be better spent seeing if we can find any source for the Crown interpretation. This poster was mass produced, it is held by a number of archives and libraries, and I believe that it has been reproduced numerous times. Someone has likely written a more detailed interpretation that might contain the necessary information. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Right now, the gallery violates the policies at WP:IG, as its simply an unorganized collection of random images. Unless someone has an idea as to how we can improve it (for example, by establishing a theme and a meaningful way of organizing these or other images, so that at the end of the day the gallery conveys more information than just "look at this collection of photos of stuff from the museum"), the gallery should probably be deleted here and moved to the Commons. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery just got worse, with more random images added today, and it was moved up so that it now interupts the prose of the article. Any ideas for improvement? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is room in the article itself for a couple more images, but the others would be better relocated to Commons, where such galleries belong. - SimonP (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step, I will make sure that any locally uploaded images are transferred over to the Commons. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, except for the one unlicensed image which can't be transferred. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Canadian War Museum

[edit]

I would like to add the Friend's web site to the listed links. It is www.friends-amis.org Can someone who knows how to do this please add the link Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by CWMFriend (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added under External links. DGERobertson (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better photos please

[edit]

Can someone in the Ottawa area, or visiting the museum please take some more informative photos of the exterior of the museum? Currently the infobox photo is a distorted and vignetted wide angle picture, with the building silhouetted at sunset. Likewise the panoramic view in the middle of the article, while technically proficient, again fails to show us simply what the building looks like. And a more informative photo of the LeBreton Gallery would be excellent as well--the current one shows what looks to be mainly empty space, with a few tiny shapes representing the rows of vehicles and armament.Guinness323 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The panorama is particularly poor. There are usually some great photos on Flickr - unfortunately, most of them are copyrighted with all rights reserved, or have a license that is not acceptable on Wikipedia/Commons (the only two licenses we allow are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA). However, I have found in the past that if you simply send a note to the photographers over at Flickr kindly asking them to consider changing the license of particular photos to a creative commons license (either "Attribution Creative Commons (CC-BY)" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons (CC-BY-SA)") so that it can be used in Wikipedia, about 50% will happily agree to do so. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had few images at the Commons which I have added to the article. The new infobox image isn't fantastic, but it is a better portrayal of the building than the previous one. I also added an aerial image, in place of the pano, that gives a good sense both of the building's context, and also how it rises out of the ground. I actually don't think the image of the LeBreton Gallery is a bad one - it is a large space with equipment along its periphery.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New photos are a vast improvement, thanks. When I was at the museum four weeks ago, the open space in the LeBreton Gallery was much smaller than on my previous visit--some of it is now taken up by new additions to the collection. Unfortunately I concentrated on photos of individual pieces rather than an overview shot. Guinness323 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to hear that - it's been awhile since I visited. It might simply be tough to get a good overview shot unless one has the right camera. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank.DiFalco has provided a large number of new photos, but they make the article appear rather cluttered. Would a photo gallery be useful? Guinness323 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A photo gallery needs to comply with WP:IG -- in other words, it can't just be a tool to shoehorn random images into an article. But rather the gallery should have a cohesive theme - which may, in fact be possible here. Sometimes the multiple image tool works better. I just glanced at them -- the new images look great. Let's see how we can organize them.
Much better image of Lebreton Gallery. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to bring some order to the images, while also respecting WP:IG - a gallery (even one that uses the multiple image template) that shows an overview of the galleries does have a theme. I moved the images of Lebreton and Regeneration to the top of the section, because at the bottom, along with the gallery, it appeared cluttered. I agree with you, Guinness323, that the pano isn't really great -- frankly, due to their nature and the resulting fact that they take such a prominent position in an article, panoramas should only be used if they are truly fantastic, and this one is not much more than an image of a concrete wall. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skeezix1000, nice touch with the photos, the article looks 100% better. Now I'll dig around to see if I can find some more references for the material.Guinness323 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Mention of Hitler's Car?

[edit]

Isn't it one of the most notable displays at the War Museum? An actual Mercedes car driven by Adolph Hitler and captured by the Allies in WW2. Considering the mention of his infamous car a few times in pop culture, its presence should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.47.230 (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a weird but popular and notable artifact which merits a brief mention in context. I put in a sourced referenced to it.Letterofmarque (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI --> File:Hitlers Car 1 db.jpg - File:Hitlers Car 2 db.jpg - File:Hitlers Car 3 db.jpg.Moxy (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

I need help with the infobox. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: Fixed ;-). Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio content removed

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1032769 by User:Victoriaedwards. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  BC  talk to me 19:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian War Museum. 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) 02:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian War Museum. 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) 15:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

[edit]

The infobox photo of the museum was replaced with another, apparently because the former photo is 15 years old, and the new photo was taken in 2022. It's always good to update photos. However, the new photo is a wide angle shot taken from a high angle that significantly distorts the image of the building. Is it really representative of what the building looks like? Guinness323 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_War_Museum&oldid=1225355723"