Wikipedia

Talk:Eaton's/Archives/2014

< Talk:Eaton's
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Bearcat in topic More

Eaton's in Quebec (section)

Latest comment: 10 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

User:70.26.45.111 has been inserting some text into the article about Eaton's in Quebec in the 1970s and the effect of Quebec's language laws (i.e. the removal of the apostrophe in the Eaton's name in that province). User:Apple2gs has reverted the changes. I have no opinion on the content itself (other than I doubt the correctness of one element of it, which I shall explain below), and whether it should be included or not, but I will say this:

  • 70.26.45.111 was justified in making his initial bold edits to the article, and Apple2gs was equally justified in reverting changes with which he disagreed.
  • 70.26.45.111 and Apple2gs subsequently began reverting one another. I have reverted the article to how it stood before 70.26.45.111's edits. His/her edits have been challenged, and as per WP:CON and WP:BRD, if 70.26.45.111 still wants to implement the changes (s)he should seek consensus for the changes here on the talk page. Further reverts are not appropriate and could lead to a block.
  • I wish both contributors would be more careful in how they interacted with one another. Comments like "Back again to cause trouble, are we?" and "No editorializing like you are so fond of" are unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I ask that both editors have regard to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as they discuss this further.

Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to initiate the discussion, I believe one of 70.26.45.111's insertions may be incorrect. The removal of the apostrophe from the name Eaton's in Quebec was not directly caused by Bill 101/178. While Quebec's language legislation controlled ads, billboards, wording on signage, it did not affect trademarks such as Eaton's. Trademarks, and usage thereof, are strictly within federal jurisdiction. So while many chains may have changed their trademarked names in Quebec, it was a business decision. The Bay, for example, switched most, but not all, signs to "La Baie". To this day, some chains maintain usage of their English trademarked names in Quebec (even in face of some controversy) -- Home Depot, Second Cup, etc. And, as an aside, Eaton's did not remove "Eaton's" from all advertising in the province -- they continued to refer to the store with the apostrophe in ads in the Montreal Gazette, on tv ads on English-language tv stations, etc.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

All I have done is correct the article so that it includes exactly what happened, in both the text and footnote. Eaton's was in no way intimidated or pressured into making the changes to their signage and ads. All they were doing, like many other business in Quebec at the time was FOLLOWING the law as enacted by the Assembly Nationale. Debate about the law and how it was received by the general public is for another article. I am at a loss to see how the facts are not sufficient in this or any other case on wikipedia. There is no reference or citation for the previous unsupportable assertions. Eaton's business decisions were made dispassionately, with their bottom line always first and foremost (and they changed their signage policy without a iota of fanfare or publicity.) In the interests of veracity, I'll revert the article back to the intellectually honest status.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert the article again. You need to obtain consensus to make these changes.

You have also not responded to the issues I have raised with some of your proposed content. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, all business had to comply with this:

Sections 1, 58, 69, 89, 205, 206, 207 and 208 of the Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q., c. C‑11, provide:

1. French is the official language of Québec.

58. Public signs and posters and commercial advertising shall be solely in the official language.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the cases and under the conditions or circumstances prescribed by regulation of the Office de la langue française, public signs and posters and commercial advertising may be both in French and in another language or solely in another language.

69. Subject to section 68, only the French version of a firm name may be used in Québec.

89. Where this act does not require the use of the official language exclusively, the official language and another language may be used together.

205. Every person who contravenes a provision of this act other than section 136 or of a regulation made under this act by the Gouvernement or by the Office de la langue française is guilty of an offence and liable, in addition to costs,

a) for each offence, to a fine of $30 to $575 in the case of a natural person, and of $60 to $1150 in the case of an artificial person. b) for any subsequent offence within two years of a first offence, to a fine of $60 to $1150 in the case of a natural person, and of $575 to $5750 in the case of an artificial person.

There was nothing about trademarks, indeed, if there was you wouldn't have seen hundreds of taped and painted out apostrophes in Montreal at the time (where I grew up and lived.) Indeed, many companies that had names that read as text (National Cheese Co. Ltd. to La Cie de fromage nationale Ltée) had to change their names fully, and these were most certainly trademarked, which is why the case went to the Supreme Court. And this makes the current situation, where many newer multinationals retain their full name in English, stunningly hypocritical, but I guess times change.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it not hypocritical, but you are still wrong in your assertion. Section 69 of Bill 101 made only the French version of a company name legal and usable in Quebec. The Supreme Court decision of December 1988 (I stand corrected, I mix them up ...) determined this was unconstitutional (re: Canadian Charter of Right.) Bill 178 instituted new signage restrictions, which maintained the prohibition on English outside signage (including signage using a company's trademarked name) but repealed Section 69 that made it illegal to have a company name in a language other than French. And, as we know, the Liberal gov't promptly Section 33'd this with "notwithstanding."

So, what do you say to this ... Just the facts, ma'am. (This certainly disproves the unfounded assertion that Eaton's was intimidated or pressured, so I as I have clearly edited and have proven, all they were doing was FOLLOWING the law of the day.)70.26.45.111 (talk)

That's helpful, but I am not sure that what you have provided is the full answer. It doesn't explain how many companies continued to use trademarked English names throughout this period, long before Bill 178. I stand to be corrected. But from a consensus perspective, I can say on this one piece I am not convinced as to its accuracy. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, lots of companies were forced to change after 1978, the OLF made sure of that, and it took a decade to get a SCC ruling. My favourite, and my favourite bar in NDG, was Ma's, which I only ever knew as Maz ... figure why they changed the name? It was only after the Liberal gov't came to power that the OLF really started to lighten up, and remained so even after Lucien Bouchard took power, as he really was a bit of a softy (and had his eyes on the real prize ... which he almost got.) I couldn't disagree more, the 78 to 85 decade was the period of the most strenuous enforcement of Bill 101. Do you have evidence?70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you remain unconvinced of what? The accuracy of my facts? They are taken from the SCC ruling in Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, December 15, 1988. How much fuller can my argument be? I have stated the law and the amended law. Eaton's was following the law. The OLF enforced the law. The SSJB made sure of this.

Certainly all of this counts for something ... tho this is wikipedia, the cyber-space truth forgot. Nothing here surprises me. 70.26.45.111 (talk)

"I'm sorry, you remain unconvinced of what? The accuracy of my facts?" Wow. I again refer you again to WP:CIVIL. I started to type a response about how Ford does not deal with trademarks and why the clauses you've cut-and-paste here are not necessarily as conclusive as you think they are, but it is just too exhausting trying to have an adult discussion when the other person thinks snark is a good substitute for consensus-building. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh cry me a flipping river! What is it with the "cult of consensus" on wikipedia. It seem to be a short hand for rule of mediocrity. Consensus-building is no excuse for sloppy research and inaccuracies. What in the world does Ford have to do with Eaton's? And how can THE LAW not be conclusive ... seriously, what in the world can I be missing? Seriously, fire with both broadsides! Let me know why my arguments isn't 99.9% better than what the previous editor posted.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Before investing anymore time in this debate, I suggest you review this anonymous user's Talk page, in particular his incivility towards others and complete disregard and disrespect for Wikipedia rules and guidelines. After dealing with his continued harassment for 4 and a half years, it's been made quite clear his presence on Wikipedia is just to incite mischief and provoke contributors; myself in particular.
As for "THE LAW" in Quebec, it should be pointed out the United Nations has officially denounced it, stating Quebec laws are in violation of breaking international covenant on civil and political rights, and violate basic human rights and freedoms.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion the entire section "Eaton's in Quebec" should be removed. The information contained in that small section is all political in nature and bares no relevance to the former department store. The information contained is simply: 1) Eaton's catalog, staff and signage were bilingual (French and English). 2) Quebec separatist spread myths to make the store a scape goat. 3) It lost its apostrophe 'S in the 70s. None of these facts are unique, they could be seen applied to everything in this province. I suggest preserving "In 1910 Eaton's produced its first French catalogue" by merging it into the "The Eaton's Catalogue" section. Don't see the value in any of the other text or having any historical significance. Please share your thoughts. --Apple2gs (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, as always, you started this. You couldn't contain your urge to add your own opinion (intimidate, pressure) and add more verbiage when the simple truth of the matter was Eaton's was being a good corporate citizen and simply complying with a law. It doesn't matter what you, I or the useless United Nations thinks of it. (I'd think the SCC would be somewhat more germane.) Your baseless assertions are unsupported and unverifiable. I'll revert back to a truthful and verifiable version of the article.

After that, you can do as you please. Delete the whole section if you want. Just don't post lies.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

70.26.45.111, you would have a much easier time convincing people if you were able to remain civil. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
To someone living outside Quebec, Quebec's draconian language laws sound completely absurd, unreal even pure fantasy. Where else in the civilized world can you find actual Language Police, of which enforcement includes treating the verbal, written or visual presence of English as a criminal offensive. All under the guise of protecting the French language? "Intimidation" and "pressure" is wording that is actually too weak for the situation here, if anything. It should be noted these laws were engineered as a form of soft ethnic cleansing, as-is, they've already driven out well over a quarter of a million English speakers from the province of Quebec. Countless head offices have also been intimidated and left too over language laws and other hostilities here. All this political nonsense and xenophobia is the reason Montreal (and Quebec as a whole) is so deep in the hole its in now. Of course, interesting as all this may be, I don't see any reason to include it in an article about a defunct department store. It just does not belong--any of it.
One thing I will add, at least you have shown you are indeed a Quebec language extremist. Hence where all this harassment started 4 and a half years ago (over an article edit where I reverted the name of the Montreal Olympic Stadium; you decided the article title should be French and I changed it to back to English, in compliance with Wikipedia's Common Name guideline; plus the fact its official name is English anyway. This led to you following and harassing my edits to most of the other articles I've contributed to since. A form of obsessive revenge if you will). I've told you I welcome your contributions when you act civil and have constructive things to say or add, but I don't appreciate you constantly trying to bait me.--Apple2gs (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well don't just sit on your hands! Its agreed. The section should go ... its pretty well useless anyways, and anything that takes your excesses and verbiage out of wikipedia is fine by me! Heck, we are probably the only two people on the planet that cares about this. Oh, I may loathe your writing style, and given the insults you've called me, I have questioned your mental health ... but I've never once commented on your nationality, politics, race, sexuality or any other personal integrity related matter. I know it may be asking too much, but do the same.

I'll delete the section.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, it has NOT been agreed on, unless you and I are the only ones who have say in the matter. It would be nice to hear from others and gain a general consensus before rushing to delete an entire section, as you have just done.
You've never made any personal comments towards me? You really do have a short term memory, go re-read what you wrote here specifically about me last month. My writing style and performance in bed ring a bell? Bad enough your rude and uncivil, but juvenile as well. And where have I insulted you? Stating your a language extremist perhaps? It's not name calling, it's stating a fact based on what I seen you dwell and obsess on.
At any rate, back on topic, I'm going to look to restore some of the text you removed by integrating it into other sections. Feel free to edit my writing, assuming you can be civil.--Apple2gs (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pleeze ... your memory is going with age ...

1. 19:24, 9 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-1,902)‎ . . User talk:Apple2gs ‎ (→‎Please Learn to behave yourself: Go to hell, you separatist racist scum)

1. 20:50, 9 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-2,473)‎ . . User talk:Apple2gs ‎ (I make no apologizes towards persons who spew hateful slurs and insults, and otherwise acts in a infantile manner. Or someone who is purposely committing acts of vandalism against my contributions, and obviously a xenophobic Quebec language radical.)

You don't know a thing about me. Why would you say these things. All I do is point out the flagrantly obvious fact that you are a very poor writer and an exceptionally bad wikipedia editor. For all I know, you are a saint, or a God fearing Muslim, or a woman. And if you are, more power to you! I celebrate your individuality! Its just you are a bad writer. Embrace the truth, it will set you free.70.26.45.111 (talk)

I just removed the above because this is getting way off topic, but you seem intent on letting it stand by restoring said text. OK, the only inflammatory comment I made is the first one, and it was immediately upon discovering you copied and pasted an IP block warning posted on YOUR talk page (intended solely for you!) onto my Talk page! How much childish nonsense and vandalism should be put up with from an anonymous editor? Almost 5 years of provoking me, insulting and baiting me, and causing general mischief on Wikipedia? I still make no apologies for that comment, the way you insult and act on this website, you are scum sorry to say (or as a Wikipedia editor who came in to judge your behavior recently stated, "a dick"). If you wish to bring up quotes though, here are a collection of yours:

12:50, 29 October 2007‎ 216.254.160.18 (talk)‎ . . (8,190 bytes) (-101)‎ . . (why don't you fix this abombmination

11:05, 29 October 2007‎ 216.254.163.112 (talk)‎ . . (8,190 bytes) (-101)‎ . . (My god man, leave the change. Apple2gs writes so poorly it is painful to read. He uses more words than less, ironically he can't edit, and he can't spell, and his phrasing is back-asswards. Leave it!) k-asswards. Leave it!

04:02, 14 January 2009‎ 207.112.30.173 (talk)‎ . . (13,033 bytes) (-242)‎ . . (Who wrote this unadulterated shit ... a 3 year old?)

00:52, 25 July 2011‎ 70.26.51.102 (talk)‎ . . (9,886 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (Completely unnessecary edit, additional verbiage added for no reason, meaning is self evident without edit. ARRET!) (undo)

19:46, 12 September 2011‎ 70.50.219.58 (talk)‎ . . (9,898 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (When you are dead and gone, your grave stone will read: "One word too many. No, far too many.") (undo)

-Oh PS: You still can't write. Have you thought of taking some remedial courses at any of your local CEGEPs? I'm sure they offer night courses

-And all because this guy Apple2gs is a bad, nay dare I say very bad, writer. My year old Lab mutt writes better. It make my eyes bleed to read his edits.

-How the hell do you know? You read any of the crap he writes, have you?

-You are making some pretty big assumptions on your part, all because this delusional wing-nut is seeing shadows, and HE CAN'T WRITE.

-You know, the two lies everybody (but mostly men) tell to themselves is "at least I can write a book and I'm good in bed." Well, his bubble is 50% burst, I won't guess on the other half.

How your IP has not yet been blocked is quite astonishing. --Apple2gs (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

But ...

You are a terrible writer. Its a fact. Look how you are ruining this article.

Mind you, if you took my little joke about me commenting on writing and sex badly, for which I may add I made no inference as to your actual skill at or the enjoyment of carnal knowledge, you have my most sincere apology. It seems that, in this case, my humour was misunderstood, and my criticism of your writing and editing style (or lack thereof) should not have included a unintended insult or attack on your personal life.

I truly regret this.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, enough with this You're-a-terrible-writer crap. You know absolutely NOTHING about me, except as someone who thwarts your attempts to apply Quebec's backwards, ridiculous and racist language laws to Wikipedia. I believe in equal rights and the freedom to express ones self in any language of their choosing, especially in a country like Canada (where Quebec resides!). I do not believe in supremacy of one culture or language over another. You, obviously, do not, and despise me for that and my interference in your playing language clown-cop on Wikipedia. So, without knowing anything about me personally, how can you focus your anger and enact revenge? Simple, the ONE and ONLY thing you can: insult my writing style. Quite venomously too, I might add. And I disagree you with about my writing; as a matter of fact you're the first and only person whom has ever criticized it. I've written for magazines, newspapers and other literature, and received countless compliments for my writing. You are certainly free to disagree and feel as you do, but keep it to yourself. A decent, respectable and compassionate human being will not tell someone who is physically unattractive, "you're ugly". They will not tell an intellectually challenged person "you're a retard". They will not tell an questionable artist "your artwork sucks". Maybe a small child, or middle school bully, but not a full grown and mature adult which from what I know of you, you are. There is a thing called tactfulness, try and use it sometime. If I am a terrible writer, you must be a terrible social being.--Apple2gs (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do know one thing about you ... you are a very bad writer. This, good Sir, is a fact beyond debate. Go and look at your first edit of June 5. EVERY word you added was unnecessary and did not add to the quality, veracity, or usefulness of the article. Everything you added was self explanatory, could be learned from following a link thru to another article, and was excessive or redolent of your POV and agenda. We could go thru it word by word if you'd like.

That you say you have "written for magazines, newspapers and other literature, and received countless compliments for my writing" leaves me dumbstruck, and I'll restrict my comments to your contributions to wikipedia, not what other people think of you.

Finally, tact doesn't exist on the internet. You don't really exist to me as a person. I can't make any judgment, good or ill (and as I tell my children, make no mistake, humans are judgmental animals, we do it 100s times a day, its whats make us) about you because you are nothing more than Apple2gs to me. You are a figment of my computer's imagination. Mind you, your writing is all too evident. I don't take a thing you say seriously (tho I did feel sincere regret for having made a personal crack about you, I let myself down there.)

It would be entirely different if we were having this exchange over a cup of coffee, but that ain't never going happen, is it!

Finally, you seem, like so many on wikipedia, or the internet, or being children of the net, seem to think that because you have an idea, and can blurt and brup it out into cyber space, that its worthwhile. Oh, but its not, unless you accept the responsibility for it. And that includes consideration, rigour, thoughtfulness, meaningful and articulate expression, and finally the acceptance of dialectical engagement with those which might disagree with you. This is a significant burden and demands non-thin skin. Used to be only the educated and those who could write would do this, but electronic media, but mostly the internet, changed this. But it still means you have the responsibility to TRY TO BE BETTER.

In your case its critical editing, which I don't think you've once done.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and spare me ... best I can tell (by the content and carbon dating your contributions) you are neither a child or mentally challenged. Ostensibly you are an adult, aware of the nature and responsibility of your wikipedia contributions. Try to be a big boy and you'll get treated like one.70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy that story. Much like "the protection of the French language" is a thinly veiled guise to allow for soft ethnic cleansing and promotion of hatred and intolerance (FYI: it needs no protection and never has been in danger), so too are your comments about my writing style. Yes, a thinly veiled guise to detract from the real issue. Honestly, you would not so much have blinked an eye about my editing, had I not pissed you off about the use of English in the Montreal Olympic Stadium article (see its Talk page, where this all started). You were completely out of place and made to look like a fool in the Talk section, and for that I've had to endure close to 5 years of childish insults and baiting from you, as you stalk me from one article to the next.
Complain and nitpick all you want about my writing, I do not now--and never will--take you seriously. I know you are just looking to bait me, you're all about trying to drive me away through intimidation. Just like the clowns at the OQLF and SSBJ which you seem to think so highly of. You're just grasping for something, anything, to crush me with.
Finally the fact that you think I am not a person because I'm communicating via written text, and that gives you the right to defecate such vitriolic comments towards me, shows exactly who and what you are. As I said, I have never made personal attacks towards any contributor on Wikipedia, as I know there is a human being on the other side of the screen. No matter how heated the debate gets, I keep my civility (save perhaps with you, when I called you scum for vandalizing my user page). The only thing that is "a fact beyond debate", as you so put it, is your lack of common decency and flawed social interaction with other people. You need to grow up. Better yet, you need to have your IP blocked because you have proven time and time again, you cannot follow rules or maintain any level of civility, regardless of how many official warnings are slapped on your user page (look how your Talk section has grow). If you are sincere about contributing to Wikipedia, including fixing my oh so awful writing, then log in with your account, or create one if need be. At this point I have to say you have long since worn out your welcome as an anonymous contributor.--Apple2gs (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never gotten this rant of yours ... "anonymous contributor." So, just how are you not anonymous? All you are is Apple2gs. If you are hell bent on making a distinction, could you tell me your name? I thought not. Your just anonymous as anyone other editor here. This place is anonymous central ...

And please, try to have a clear mind. I fear you are deluded. I'm not trying to crush you. I'm just trying correct your terrible writing and prose. You know, I will tell you this, I (indeed, everybody) has to start somewhere. It just so happens you regular disfigure articles on topics I have a keen interest in or ones I have contributed too. Its easy for me to help wikipedia by correcting grammar and improving articles ... I just follow the sorry trail you leave and start picking up the pieces. There is no better way, really. And I correct and add to many other items, its just you can be trusted to deface good work with your verbosity.

But, SVP, could you tell me, exactly, word for word, how your edits of June 5 improved this article. Seriously. I would love to know and stand corrected.

You really are a bitter person, the perfect example of an "angryphone." I wish you peace, and peace of mind. Vive le Quebec libre!70.26.45.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I may be anonymous to you, but my REAL name and REAL e-mail address are linked to this Wikipedia account. The editors and administrators of this site know who am I, and can even contact me if need be. That's far more than I can say for you, you hide behind your anonymity like a coward (I would bet any amount of money you do have a registered account here and use it regularly, except when it's time to pick on me or others). And I certainly will not share who I am with you, or with any language extremist for that matter. Look at Hugo Shebbeare for example, he's had "surprise protests" in front of his home, and death threats against him and his family from Quebec language extremists for speaking out against Quebec's unconstitutional laws (e.g. the Milice Patriotique Québécoise; the Quebec version of Brown Shirts). Intimidation in this province is very much alive and wide spread, sorry to say.
Seriously? You're going to nitpick that I added about 10 words to an entire section? One example:


"Originally Eaton's mail order catalogue was English, including in Quebec."
I changed that to...
"Originally Eaton's mail order catalogue was English, including in largely French-speaking province of Quebec."


Remember this is read internationally, how is someone supposed to know what "Quebec" is? Even most of our friends to the south, living in the United States, have no clue about Quebec or ever heard of the place. How is better defining that sentence ruining the article? Funny how I didn't see you jump in when literally pages and pages of verbose trivia was added to the Centre 2000 and Cavendish Mall articles by another user. Where were you to clean up that, or to add your negative comments I've become so accustom to?
Bitter person? No, I am just tired constantly having you singling me out to bully. Frustrated and tired is more accurate. At least I had some peace for a couple of weeks when the Ben's Deli article was locked specifically to keep YOU out, because of your behavior and mischief. And that is what you relish in, causing mischief. I really wish you would call a truce, as I said before, edit my writing to your heart's content, I actually welcome it when it's done constructively. Even your comments when civil. Unfortunately that seems to be once in a blue moon.--Apple2gs (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
70.26.xx.xx, on his own accord, removed the 'Eaton's in Quebec' section in June 2012. For all intents and purposes, this debate was done and over with.
Now he has done an about face and decided to bring it back. No need to rehash what has already been discussed above...this section holds no merit, value or relevance, it is merely Quebec separatist propaganda vilifying the defunct Eaton's as an English-owned and operated institute. Sound paranoid? Read it, line by line. The ONLY piece of information possibly worth preserving, is that in 1927 the first all-French catalogue was published. That bit of trivia can be inserted into 'The Eaton’s catalogue' section if necessary.
That said, I am putting things back the way they were and re-removing the section. DO NOT undo that change, discuss it here (civilly) if there is any disagreement. --Apple2gs (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to put this on record, it is exactly one year later and for no apparent reason, 70.xx.xx.xx has arbitrarily decided AGAIN to restore the highly political and heavily slanted "Eaton's in Quebec" section. I can see no reason except to stir up conflict once again. Though to be fair, I'm opened to discussing it here if it can be done intelligently and amicably. If he simply just reverts back the text, which I'm guessing he will, well...actions speak louder than words.
So, as mentioned a few years back, the only potentially relevant information I can see is a mention of the first French-only Eaton's catalog being published and printed in 1910. I suggest it be added to the 'The Eaton’s catalogue' section. Beyond that, no need to repeat what was already said years ago. Please read above for the reasoning why the rest of the text has no place in the article.--Apple2gs (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Please stop this edit war. The section in question has been back in the article for a year now (since March 2013 - correct me if I am wrong), and before your previous fight the section had been in the article for years in a similar form (mind you, it is completely unreferenced). Leave it for now, and please post a notice of this discussion over at WP:CANTALK to get more input. It does not appear that either of you are going to resolve this between you, and reverting each other on a daily basis is not the best way in which to proceed. The best way to resolve it at this point would be to the input of others and to hopefully secure a firm consensus. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok lets start form the beginning - is there a source for the contested info? Not what some laws says but what Eatons did? What I can find with a fast look. some book, lawtimes, cbc, Toronto star-- Moxy (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Acting as an administrator, I have removed the disputed content and placed the article under semi-protection for the time being. This is not an endorsement of one version or the other, but given that the text in question is the source of the dispute it cannot be left in the article pending the resolution of said dispute.
That said, what I'm seeing when I read the disputed text is a total lack of reliable sources which confirm the accuracy of that version of events. In addition, it's apparent from the above discussion that at its core, the matter is rooted in a particular editor's political agenda — what we don't have, contrary to the above assertions, is verifiable proof that Bill 101 had anything to do with Eaton's decision to drop the apostrophe-possessive in Quebec. As far as I know, in fact, Eaton's was already dropping the possessive from its stores in Quebec several years before Bill 101 even existed at all — and as Skeezix correctly pointed out above, Bill 101 did not cover trademarks, meaning that while it certainly covered whether the sign over the discount rack said sale or vente, it did not require companies to drop apostrophes from their own names (some companies did do so, yes, but they made that decision for their own independent reasons, and not because Bill 101 in any way required it of them.) So what we would need is coverage contemporary to the changeover which proved a link to Bill 101, not opinion columnists claiming an association 40 years after the fact.
(I'm also waiting, 42 years and counting, to meet just one critic of Quebec's language laws who's even remotely as concerned about the language rights of francophones in Ontario or Alberta — people who are infinitely worse off in respect to their language rights than any Quebec anglophone has ever been, yet seem to be of little concern to these APEC types. But I digress.)
I'm not opposed to the fundamental principle that our article could discuss the matter in a neutral and verifiable way — but it cannot make loaded political assertions which are not properly sourced at all. Again, I'm not opposed to our article including properly sourced content about the Eaton's-vs-Eaton situation in Quebec — but it cannot contain unsourced assertions about the matter. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Eaton's in Quebec - a fresh start

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Given the above discussion, this morning I started searching for sources related to Eaton's operations in Quebec, not necessarily just related to language laws. Here are a few things worthy of possible mention:

There's lots that can be written about Eaton's operations in Quebec. Some of it is standard business operations fluff. Of course, the same can be said for its operations elsewhere, so how we proceed is the key. Mindmatrix 23:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

CBC site

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/language-culture/fighting-words-bill-101/three-strikes-against-bill-101.html

Three strikes against Bill 101

On March 31, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Quebec's language law but ruled that the province must allow greater access to English schools. Back in 1977, when the Parti Québécois first introduced Bill 101, critics compared it to "lunatics taking over the asylum." Under Bill 101, even the "apostrophe s" in Eaton's, became illegal. The charter's defenders said such measures were necessary to protect the dwindling French culture and language from English dominance. CBC Archives looks back at the most debated law in Quebec.

Eaton's department store can put the "apostrophe s" back on its sign. The Supreme Court of Canada deals another blow to Quebec's already-battered piece of legislation. It upholds the appeal of five Montreal-area businesses that fought for bilingual signs. Canada's highest court unanimously rules that Section 58 of Bill 101, requiring French-only commercial signs, is in violation of freedom of expression as protected by both the Canadian and the Quebec Charters of Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.227 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, coverage from 30 or 40 years after the fact which asserts a connection between Bill 101 and the apostrophe in Eaton's does not cut it — people, even journalists, make unwarranted assumptions and misremember things all the time. Sometimes untrue things are so widely believed that they become accepted as true, and get repeated as being true by journalists even though they're not. You can find after-the-fact "reliable sources" which assert that Doug Henning was the leader of the Natural Law Party of Canada in the 1993 election — but go back to at-the-fact sources, and he wasn't. You can find after-the-fact "reliable sources" which assert that the Apollo astronauts went to Sudbury to see what the surface of the moon was going to look like — but go back to at-the-fact sources, and that wasn't why they went. Common perception and memory muddle things over time — so if you want our article to say anything about an Eaton's/Bill 101 connection at all, you need to find sources published at the time the changeover was happening which demonstrate the connection. In other words, publications dated in 1976 or 1977, not publications dated in 2005 or 2014. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

More

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.tomifobia.com/eaton.html

INSIDE QUEBEC

With PETER BLACK

Apostrophe Politics

Quebec anglophones feel a little bit subversive when they pronounce the "s" in Eaton's; indeed, even writing it now with the apostrophe seems a little rebellious. The apostrophe-free Eaton is now such an accepted feature of the Quebec fabric that it's matter-of-fact for blokes to say "I got it at Eaton," or "Eaton has a sale on pantyhose."

Eaton, sorry, Eaton's and the troublesome apostrophe have become a symbol here of the on-going language tug-of-war. The latest twist, and surely a development that would have old Timothy E. spinning in his Mount Pleasant tomb, is that his stores in Montreal have become aligned with the language hard-liners in the province. What would he think of English Montrealers, his former cherished clientele, trying to organize a nation-wide boycott of his stores because they refused to post signs in English?

A quick history lesson is required here to help make sense of this seemingly absurd situation. We must go back to post-war Montreal when the English minority was probably at the peak of its dominance and arrogance in Quebec.

It was a time when all but a few business leaders were English, when the Board of Trade was almost exclusively English, when 40 percent of anglos had professional level jobs compared to 17 percent for their francophone fellow citizens.

As for the commercial core of the city, even as far back as the turn of the century, a visitor to downtown Montreal could easily assume he or she was in an entirely English city. By the 50s the situation had only worsened.

Among the highest profile villains - creatures of their times, to be fair - were the St. Catherine Street department store giants Eaton's, Simpson's, Morgan's and Hudson's Bay. They presented a tempting array of apostrophes for the resentful and embittered francophone majority about to unleash a campaign to reclaim its identify. Eaton's, for some reason, became particularly identified with the worst of English arrogance and indifference towards the French-speaking population who had a right to be served in their own language in their own city.

The "fat, damned English lady" at the counter in Eaton's who was unable to speak French, became the symbol of every store clerk, bank teller, construction foreman, plant manager, or taxi driver who at some point insulted or humiliated a francophone by not speaking their language.

There are explanations, one supposes, for this situation, but few excuses. So, as a corollary to the corrective language laws imposed by the Parti Quebecois government of 1976, was the guilt that invaded the English community.

Much of that guilt has dissipated in the 21 years since Bill 101 was passed. It has withered with each ratcheting of restrictive language laws in the face of an enfeebled English population - long gone as the barons of business and the puppeteers of compliant francophone politicians. So when Alliance Quebec under the leadership of William Johnson launches a campaign to revitalize the English language in Quebec, it is irony at its best that Eaton should be its first target.

Eaton committed two sins. Back in the late 80s when the Bourassa government was planning to amend Bill 101, the store urged the government to maintain the unilingual status quo. But Bourassa did ease the sign law to allow signs inside a store to be posted in English, but only half as large as French.

Alliance Quebec asked Eaton and other merchants to exercise this freedom. Eaton's St. Catherine Street store's manager committed the second sin by saying "no, thanks, St. Catherine is an exclusively French district."

Eaton's management has since said it will reflected on this French-only policy, which, naturally sparked an equal and opposite reaction from defenders of the French language. So, with boycotts threatened from both sides of the linguistic divide, what’s Eaton to do?

Unfortunately for the venerable merchants, there is no equivalent to bankruptcy protection in the rough world of linguistic politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.227 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That's a person's own blog, not a reliable source for our purposes — and with a copyright date in the 1990s, it also fails the "contemporary to the changeover itself" test above. In addition, it fails to actually demonstrate that the company dropped the apostrophe because Bill 101 required them to do so, as opposed to making its own business decision to minimize its exposure to linguistic controversy independently of any law forcing their hand. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eaton%27s/Archives/2014&oldid=1038855291"