Talk:Hudson's Bay Company/Archives/2014

"The HBC"
I just noticed that the article, when using the acronym for the company, often refers to "the HBC" (e.g. "the retail era had begun as the HBC began establishing retail stores across cities in the prairies"), instead of just HBC. Typically, when we refer to an organization by its acronym, we drop the "the" (even if we'd use it with the full name) - e.g. the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce → CIBC (not "the CIBC"). I note that HBC itself refers to the company as HBC (not the HBC), and it appears that the media does as well. Before I replace all references to "the HBC" with "HBC" (where appropriate given the context), I wanted to double check here. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dropping the before initialisms does not happen all the time. For example "the RCMP", "the CPR", "the CBC", and "the HBC", seem normal to my ear, but dropping the would not. There does not seem to be a simple rule to predict which initialisms keep it and which drop it: changing "the CPR" to "CP" loses the article for some unpredictable reason. Indefatigable (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and you are correct in your general comment about initialisms. But for this specific example, a Google search seems to indicate that the only real usage of "the HBC" is when HBC is used as a modifier -- the HBC Coat of Arms, the HBC Foundation, the HBC 2014 Olympic Kit, etc.  Otherwise, the only references I could find to "the HBC" were things like term papers, links and mirrors to this article, or references to other entities entirely (e.g. Hamilton Board Committee). Given that HBC itself does not call itself "the HBC", nor can I find any many instances of usage of "the HBC" (compared to the plain "HBC"), I'd ask for something more evidence that "the HBC" is actually a thing, and commonly used, before making all references in the article consistent (right now the article uses both).  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the article should be consistent. If it’s clear that the the-less form is predominant, go ahead and make the change. Indefatigable (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's NOT clear that the the-less form is predominant; I'm widely read in BC and Western Canadian history and it's clear to ME that the "the" form is mandatory. Even without looking hard it's easy to find numerous examples via Googlebooks...."response to a strong and growing threat to the hbc's business"... "The HBC as a business enterprise evaluated everything"...."features that made trade in the Arctic lucrative for the HBC"...."Gispaxlo'ots wrote several times to Superintendent Powell about the impasse with the HBC, arguing that he and Legaic already had houses standing on the land and wanted to build more. The HBC had not objected to them building on the".   Quite frankly, it would sound wrong (and is wrong) without it.  Why is this even being discussed? So often, I see experienced Wikipedians discussing points of style, coming up with not-of-this-world conclusions, imposing them, but doing nothing to improve or expand the content itself.  Are fifty more examples from nosracines.ca or the HBC's own archives in Manitoba going to be necessary to avert this war on the definite article?  Which btw I see often dropped from other normal usages, as is often the case with regional districts and other organizations (and on their acronyms) and even landforms.  All such instances sounds like ESL mistakes, or in the case of RDs, somebody thinking  that those names operate like county names (which they do not).Skookum1 (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for this media usage, that's a headline, not in the context of a sentence. And as for the current company's news release, that's a complete modernism concocted by a company that has little relation to the historical one or to historical context; and smacks of a Wall Street-ism being used to justify a change to historical usage.Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Skookum, unless we are quoting or doing something similar, we reflect modern and current usage on Wikipedia. Just because we are discussing a subject that has a historic aspect does not generally mean that we revert to usage from the period. And it seems especially off to be using an archaic form when referring to the company's current activities as a department store chain. To the extent that "the HBC" was once a common form, then the article should mention it, but that does necessarily mean that we use that form. Also not clear how you jumped logically from archival and historical book references to the suggestion that "the HBC" is "mandatory". Other than nosracines.ca and archival documents, can you provide evidence that "the HBC" is the favoured modern usage, or even common relative to the plain "HBC", from current day sources. That's the question we need to answer. As for your comment "that's a headline", please look at the body of that article. Or any other modern-day news article, I suspect. As for the comment "that's a complete modernism concocted by a company that has little relation to the historical one or to historical context", I agree (although not sure it was necessarily "concocted" by the company). And that's what we're after - the current, common usage. We don't use expressions and forms from the 1910s to write about Canada and World War I on Wikipedia, we don't use the terms used in the 1950s and 1960s for gay men to discuss the history of LGBT rights in Canada on Wikipedia, we don't revert to early 19th century English when describing the War of 1812 on Wikipedia, so not clear why we would revert to historic language for this article. But, as I mentioned in my earlier comment to Indefatigable, I am interested in knowing if "the HBC" has common usage today. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, gee, there's a separate article for the retailer which does use it the way you want to impose on the historical article. The onus on you is to prove current academic and journalistic usage about the history of the company and the historical company uses only "HBC"; nosracines.ca includes major historical works such as Bancroft and Howay and Scholefield and Begg and countess others, they are not "archival" nor are they "archaic".  What you engaging in is something like original research - "I am interested in knowing if 'the HBC' has common usage today" - i.e. rather than "I am interested in knowing if 'HBC'-only has common usage today".  Well, there's any number of current titles in Canadian history on the bookshelves and I suggest you read some instead of using googlesearches.  And for modern usage, Canadian Geographic is a modern publication, and it uses "the HBC"'.  So is the Canadian Encyclopedia and it also uses "the HBC". Maybe you should be interested in learning about the company instead of wanting to put up changes of style which have no bearing on improving the encyclopedia and seemingly more to do with the company's own efforts to brand itself for stock exchange purposes.Skookum1 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Skookum, I am happy to reply to you on the other article, onus, etc., except that I have no interest in having a discussion with someone who is so rude, sarcastic and condescending ("Well, gee...", "the way you want to impose...", "there's any number of current titles in Canadian history on the bookshelves and I suggest you read some...", "you should be interested in learning about the company...", etc.). Moreover, I have been here on Wikipedia for years, and would have thought I'd get a little good faith shown my way, instead of being told I have motives other than improving the encyclopedia.  When you are ready to have an adult discussion, let me know.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the various books and such I have, which are about the "historical" HBC, the usage is "the HBC". I don't know about the present-day company. Historically the HBC was similar in many ways to the East India Company, which is commonly abbreviated as "the EIC". Same with the Russian American Company, the RAC. That said, the "the" gets dropped when "HBC" is used as a modifier, as in phrases like HBC officials, HBC trappers, HBC's monopoly, etc. Pfly (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of that. Putting aside the historic usage, and the use of the acronym as a modifier, I suppose the real question is trying to figure out what current usage is to refer to the company.Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (moved my reply to current section end) Pfly (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO we're confusing names with writing sentences. The correct common name for that species in my house is "dog", but that does not mean that it is incorrect to construct a sentence that says "The dog ate the newspaper". There's a bit more complexity because in sentences, "company" can be the noun and "Hudson's Bay" is a qualifier. Alternatively the whole thing can be considered a proper name. So IMHO it can be correct either way. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is a grammar or correctness issue as much as it is a style and usage issue. While there are a lot of usages in English that are correct, we don't use a number of them on Wikipedia if they are inconsistent with current usage.  I suspect no one is advocating inconsistent usage within one article, so we are not so much picking which one is correct (I think neither is incorrect) but rather which makes the most sense.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the name of the company is clear (there's no "the" in it) I think that the question is use in a sentence. I think that further developing my previous thought, if one puts a lower case "c" on "company" then the noun is "company" and "the" is in order, e.g. "The Hudson's Bay company sells coats."  And with a capital "C" the whole thing is a proper name and so there should be no "the",  e.g. "Hudson's Bay Company sells coats".  North8000  (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What *you* think is irrelevant; WP:MOSFOLLOW applies - "follow the sources", and the overwhelming material throughout the sources, "archaic" (as Skeezix labels anything pre 1960s) and modern, is the "the" usage. This applies to the newspapers, except in the business sections when discussing the corporate ownership of the retail entity.  "if one puts a lower case 'c'" is a non sequitur; the company name is never seen that way; in fact in historical ("archaic") sources in accounts of its doings on the frontier or in diplomacy (e.g. the Anglo-Russian convention of 1838) quite often you will see "the Company".  The modern affectation to drop the "the", used on the modern HBC-clone's corporate site, is the confusion of person with corporate entity, i.e. talking about a company as if it were a person.  Rewriting this article to drop all the "the" uses would sound completely wrong and would be mis-quoting the sources.  Historical writeups in particular should not be subject to errant wikipedians' desires to reinvent history in modern style; that's just 'not on'.  I've already pointed out the "the" usage can be be easily found in modern publications such as Canadian Geographic and the Canadian Encyclopedia and could come up with dozens of modern books and news/magazine articles that obey the same, normal usage.  So instead of you lot opining on what you think should be the proper usage, why not actually read some of the sources and improve the article instead of trying to change normal English usage to suit your own quasi-intellectual ambition/vanity????Skookum1 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to help, (and the manner of writing sentences in English is relevant to writing sentences in English, which is what we're doing here) not incur painful faulty insults and false accusations from you.  I'll bow out on this.  Happy editing, I'm sure it will turn out fine.   North8000  (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What's "painful" is being confronted day after day by jejune efforts to rewrite how English is used in the face of not just tradition but normal usage, offering up half-baked theories and opinions instead of actually improving the article's contents.  Your interpretation of how a company name should be used bespeaks a lack of education as well as erudition.  The truth hurts, yes, it does.   But sometimes pain is the only way some people learn their errors are serious, not trivial matters for armchair speculation.  Stripping the "the" usage out of this article would fly in the face of the sources as well as in the face of, yes, writing sentences properly.  Reinventing English is not Wikipedia's job.Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are nasty. The best to you anyway, and I'm sure that it will turn out fine.   North8000  (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not nasty, just very tired of endless inanity.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (moved my reply to Skeezix1000 to end of thread) I didn't mean old books but rather contemporary books about history that involves the HBC. Things like this scholarly book from 1997, . Link to its 90 or so mentions of "HBC", always with "the" with a few understandable exceptions (like "HBC transport systems were..."). Perhaps the present-day company is different and doesn't use "the" so much, but for most of its history the HBC was a quasi-governmental agency with sovereign-like control over huge areas. It makes me think of other major government-type institutions like the CIA. You wouldn't say something like "In 1961 CIA tried to invade Cuba". Nor would you say something like "In 1833 HBC expelled Americans from Oregon". That said, it doesn't sound wrong to me to say something like " In 1965, HBC rebranded all its department stores as The Bay", as this page does. I see no need to consistently use or not use "the" when writing about the long, complicated history of the HBC. Pfly (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to mischaracterize what you'd said above. Thanks for your clarification.  I am not going to respond at this time, because despite the efforts of you, North8000 and Indefatigable to have a civil discussion, Skookum1 has decided that the best approach is to be uncivil and to assume many of us are idiots acting in bad faith.  It's the holidays, and life is too short to spend the holidays engaged in a discussion involving Skookum1's nastiness.  We can restart in the new year.  In the meantime, thanks for your assistance.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So in typical wiki fashion you're going to shoot the messenger and continue to have a "discussion" about a non sequitur issue, that has no bearing on the sources nor will do one iota to improve the comment of a top-priority article. To what end?  In what way will coming up with a "policy" or "guideline" about the use of the definite article improve this article - or your own knowledge of the history of the Hudson's Bay Company, or anyone else's for that matter.  Calling me "nasty" for telling y'all the truth of the irrelevance of this non-point is just 'more of the same' in the Wikipedia of irrelevant concerns about style point, based in opinion and without a full appreciation of the topic and the literature on it, which both Pfly and I have pointed out is the NORM and there's NO REASON AT ALL to "discuss" it further.  You "want to know" if the modern usage is different from what you call the "archaic" usage?  It's NOT.  You want it to be, but it's NOT!.  You can call me nasty all you want, but it's you that's being pretentious, and you refuse to acknowledge the sources already given that prove that you and your little speculation that "the" before "HBC" is archaic is COMPLETE RUBBISH.  I haven't looked to see in what ways you've improved the content of this article, but it's clear to me that you and the others here who are trying to say "well, maybe we should look at this "the" question" haven't really read very much about HBC in the slightest and are not here to contribute to the article, but to field a stupid idea - yes, a stupid idea - and whine and put up hurt feelings if somebody points out how boneheaded it is.  "In the New Year" why don't you do a lot of reading about the HBC and expand and improve it, not vandalize it by committee-stripping it of the definite article in places you don't think it's "modern". SHEESH.Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As for claiming "good faith" and talking about civility, that this has gone on past the obvious citations available in modern publications about the normal use of the definite article with this (and other) acronyms, your persistent in wanting to continue the conversation with equally ill-informed and unread editors as a "civil discussion" is not civil at all, and it is in bad faith against the sources and against myself, for persisting in this "debate" about a complete non-issue. While you've all been playing with your thumbs about whether or not to impose the modernism favoured by the company, I've actually gone and read sources and fixued up a few things on the article itself. Good faith? I'd have more in all of you if I'd seen more work on this article, instead of fielding this completely bizarre notion about stripping a long-standing norm in English because you "wonder" if things could or should be different, or even maybe are. They're not. Stop trying to make it so. The only guideline you need to consider here, irrespective of my irritation at the ludicrousness of this whole matter, is WP:MOSFOLLOW. But it, like the sources, you're apparently not interested in reading and want to continue to have a "civil discussion" about something completely irrelevant.Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Skookum, you seem to be unable to distinguish between forcefully arguing one's viewpoint on one hand, and being condescending and patronizing towards people with whom you disagree. The former is good, the latter is not.    I would have thought given your years here that it would be unnecessary to do so, but I ask that you please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.  Again, when you are prepared to have an adult discussion, please let us know.  Until then, I personally am ignoring your comments.  I will re-initiate the discussion sometime in the near future, and I hope that you will contribute in a manner in which you express your opinions, but are respectful of others.  Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern section seems larger than the retailer article
I haven't checked to compare the lengths, but seems to me this article on the overall company has way more than in the retailer article or at least about the same; shouldn't there just be a short section here and a link to the other one?Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The other article is not the "retailer article". Hudson's Bay is one retail chain, among several, owned and operated by the Hudson's Bay Company.  HBC is a company which has played various roles and being involved in many businesses over its history, and which today is a retailer.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * i'm not the one who labelled it the "retailer" article, that's its dab, which I note you've conveniently omitted Hudson's Bay (retailer). And I hope the undabbed version is a dab page, as it should be due to the common misperception of the geographic bay as having the apostrophe. So, tell me, what are the differences in the content of hte 'modern' section on the Hudson's Bay Company page and the Hudson's Bay (retailer) article?  What are the similarities?  How much overlap is there?Skookum1 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, how about that; the old Hudson's Bay redirect/dab was deleted 'non-controversially' then reinstated to only point at the modern retailer and not to either the geographic bay or the parent company, both of which are commonly referred to by "Hudson's Bay". Gee, how did that happen?? :-|.Skookum1 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated/converted the Hudson's Bay title as a dab page, which is what it should be, not a redirect to the modern retailer; exactly when it was deleted by User:Megadiliotis (however that's spelled) I couldn't see, nor could I see the former article/page, but the claim that it was a "non-controversial" deletion doesn't sit well with me.Skookum1 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Largest landowner in the world?
Reading the article on Rupert's Land, I get the impression HBC never owned it at all. Quoting from that page:

In 1670, the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) was granted a charter by King Charles II, giving it a trading monopoly over the watershed of all rivers and streams flowing into Hudson Bay. (...) ''In 1869–1870, the Hudson's Bay Company surrendered its charter to the British Crown, receiving £300,000 in compensation. While it is often said that Hudson's Bay "sold" Rupert's Land as well as the North-Western Territory, the fact is that it had no land to sell since its Charter was essentially for a trading monopoly enforceable on British subjects. ''

Did they ever really own that much land? 82.139.86.180 (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't just a trading monopoly; that applied only outside Rupert's Land, i.e. in the Columbia Department and the North-Western Territory, i.e. areas not draining into Hudson Bay. Within Rupert's Land it was clear title (not that the aboriginal peoples agreed...).Skookum1 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)