Jump to content

Talk:Bens De Luxe Delicatessen & Restaurant

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

Restaurant's fate: Demolition or preservation?

[edit]

The article mentions the official sale went through with SIDEV on June 19th. According to all accounts I've read, this was the very day the demolition was to begin, however a few days earlier a small protest/ralley was held in front of Bens opposing it. We're now into late July and the restaurant is still there (and so is the demolition banner). I've not heard anything in local news, was the restuarant saved or is the go ahead for demolition merely delayed? The article will obviously be updated if there's any change but I was wondering if anyone heard any news on the restaurant's fate...--Apple2gs 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-September, still no change. The restaurant has now been closed for business well over a year now. I wonder if like many other Montreal landmark buildings, it won't get bordered up and sit empty for years until it falls into a state of disrepair.-Apple2gs 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Passing by tonight (glancing through the window) I noticed ALL the old autographed photos were removed from the "Ben's Wall of Fame" area at the back, as well as any signs, plaques, menus and other potential memorabilia hanging from the walls (now stripped bare). Even the sign at the exit that said "Through these doors pass the nicest people in the world: our customers" has been removed. The chairs have been re-stacked too. Looks like they're in the process of finally stripping things down and getting ready to move them out. This rules out the possibility of the preservation of the restaurant as-is. My best guess is in a few more weeks it'll be gutted and demolished.--Apple2gs 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of January 2008, while passing by on the road, I've noticed while the building is still standing, all the bay windows are frosted and iced up. Looks like they've stopped heating the building, which undoubtable is going to speed up its deterioration. Looks as though a few lights are still kept on though, probably to keep it from being vandalized. As of yet, there is still no news about the fate of the building....though not maintaining it (heating) says something. Apple2gs (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like demolition COULD happen any day now--can anyone confirm that? That city permit duct-taped to the front door basically sounds like if no one (legally) protests the demolition request by April 14th, Ben's will be torn down as planned. That date has come and gone but I've not heard anything on the news. Just wondering if anyone has walked by Ben's in the last few days...are there any wrecking cranes or construction barriers being put up?Apple2gs (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite and cleanup

[edit]

This article seems to be more about labour relations than the actual restaurant. Maybe someone who is familiar with the restaurant can add a bit more about its history, I mean it is a local landmark in Montreal after all. Davelapo555 13:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. I'll start some cleanup and rewrites, someone may as well start (I pass by Ben's everyday travelling to and from work, so it's given me some inspiration to do so). :) --Apple2gs 00:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There, done! Could probably use some more tweaks and touch ups, but it finally looks and reads like an article. I've gotten the bulk of things done though.--Apple2gs 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

[edit]

I recently discovered a duplicate article covering Ben's under the name: Ben's Deli. Would be best to intergrate anything not currently covered in the present article, then blank it with a redirect to this main article.--Apple2gs 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What were the upper floors at Ben's used for?

[edit]

There is a second and third floor above Ben's. Looks like they've been sitting empty a number of years judging by the dusty "for rent" signs in the windows, but I just assumed it was rented office space used in the 50's through 80's and mentioned as such in the article. Anyone know what was officially there in the past? Adminstrative office for Ben's? Leased office space? Apartments? Storage?--Apple2gs 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I know from some old guides i have there was a travel agency up there at one time, mrs kravitz had the heat turned off in the 90s, hence the drips in the restaurant

soyonsexpositifs 27 sept 2007

Comparing photographs from 2002, 2005 and 2007, the "for rent" signs seem unchanged, making it safe to assume the floors have been sitting empty since at least 2002. --Michael-stanton (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

As is clear from the picture, as a Wientraub notes, Bens never had an apostrophe in its name

Ah, researching this a bit it appears that is correct, however it had nothing to do with Quebec's draconian language law--it was always "Bens" since the beginning.
On the subject of spelling, the article needs to be renamed "Bens Restaurant and Deli" however. Is there a simple way to do this?--Apple2gs 04:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the full name be: Bens De Luxe Delicatessen and Restaurant?
Never heard of "De Luxe", the actually title of the restaurant is "Bens Restaurant Deli". As a matter of fact that is what the article should be renamed to. If someone could go ahead and do this, it would be apprechiated.--Apple2gs 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever eat there? I have a really old yellow matches pack (about 25 years old) from Bens with Bens De Luxe Delicatessen and Restaurant on it. Try Googling this, you will find it shows up in several articles. Wonder where the CBC and CTV got the name ....

From online: 15 June 1960, LIBRARY JOURNAL, Pg. 2343, col. 2: Smoked-meat is quite a fad in Montreal, but the onlyimportant Kosher restaurant in this region is BENS DE LUXE DELICATESSEN, 1001 Burnside, behind the Sheraton-Mount Royal ... have to fix the article, because it intimates that the Mecalfe location was behind the Hotel Mont Royal

Once you've seen the error of your ways, and spelling, and renaming, and redirect, I'll clean up the mess you made.


OK ... "Bens Restaurant Deli" is the name on the sign outside the restaurant, I hope you have realized that its not the full name. I'm going to fix everything, including the rabbit warren of redirects you seem to have created.RCHussar 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story tag

[edit]

Since anonymous contributors removed it twice, I'll give some examples of story style: "at the height of its glory", "had a charm that matched its menu", "to mention only a few of the regulars", "One of the most popular and time honoured debates"; the next section is called "Hope for preservation...". All of this is an informal, non-neutral, overly poetic style. It does read like a story and not an encyclopedia entry, and thus needs to be rewritten/fixed.--Boffob 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've jumped back in and decided to fix that, it's more encyclopedic now (not quite done, but it's a good start).---Apple2gs 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, so far it's a definite improvement, though it's not finished yet. I refrained for doing such edits myself as, not being familiar with the subject, my changes would probably end up being too blunt.--Boffob 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boffob, why don't you try your hand at editing, because you couldn't be worse than Apple2gs, who writes like he is trying to talk with his foot in his mouth. Or, more to the point, badly.For instance, he supposedly "edits" to write: "It was often debated which, of Bens or Schwartz's (another world famous Deli in Montreal), had the most preferable hot smoked meat sandwich. " Sweet Lord and little baby Jesus. Tears come to my pained eyes. Try ... "Montrealers often debated whether Ben's or Schwartz's had the best smoked meat." Hmmm, just half the words, parsimonious, to the point. Dear Lord, wikipedia is refuge for the talentless.216.254.163.112 11:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a bit clumsy sounding (it looks fine to me) but it is neutral point of view, while "Most popular and time honoured debate" is not, and "Montrealers often debated..." is also dubious. Smoked meat is far from the most common subject of debates in Montreal, hence using "it was often debated" allows to contextualize the issue: that is, with respect to debates relating to Montreal smoked meat, Ben's vs Schwartz's was a common one.--Boffob 12:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up 216.254.163.112, I was just rewording someone else's paragraph to remove their opinionated statement while trying to keep intact what they had to contribute. Things need to be factual and neutral in these articles, which was my goal in that edit. And I never said I was finished (note I said "NOT quite done..." above), you or anyone else here are free to help rework things further; isn't that the idea behind Wikipedia? I don't claim this to be a master piece of writing, I just wanted to get the facts down and have some background on the restaurant--that was sorely lacking before I jumped in and rewrote pretty much the whole article from the ground up.
Looking at your IP address (216.254.xxx.xxx) I see you're the same guy who anonymously insulted me for using the official English (gasp, blasphemy in the "nation" of Quebec!) name for the Olympic Stadium (Montreal) (versus "Le Stade Olympic"), and so I can only guess your reaction is politically motivated. If you have something construct to say about an article, go ahead, but childish insults and flames (especially hiding anonymously behind them) have no place here. If you think I'm being too wordy, then by all means rework it to something more brief and matter of fact. If you don't like what I've written, you can always revert the article back into what it original was, a paragraph or two describing reasons for the dispute between Bens and its union workers--Apple2gs 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Politically motivated" HA! Pal, I'm as anal retentive anglo-Montrealer as they come. I miss my O'Keefe, got my degrees downtown, watched the Als, Habs and Expos, bought my 'ashish at Berri Metro, partied at Maz, the Snowdon, the Royal, the Peel, and places too many to forget. My problem with you isn't political. My problem is with the fact that you can't write worth a colis de tabernac. You stink. I have some advice, that served me well with my Master's thesis. Edit. Then edit again. Then again. And every time try to take out more words. Then read it. Remember, you are inflicting this on other people. And try to respect the Quebec culture and language. Or did you miss the last 50 years of Canadian politics?216.254.160.32 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I think a better summary of what you are is an insecure jerk who has to HIDE behind an ANONYMOUS account, and apparently has nothing better to do than hang around Wikipedia trying to be a troll. And yeah, you claim to be be anglo-Montreal telling me "try to respect the Quebec culture and language", yeah right, sure you are. I guess you believe in the injustices here, that one culture is superior to another, and other all cultures and languages in Quebec (particularly English) need to be made invisible. That is why you're on my case, because you think Quebec's xenophobic language "laws" should extend onto Wikipedia. I doubt you'd be hounding my writing style if not for that edit I made on the Olympic Stadium article. Sounds like you're an adult based on how far back you go, but if I didn't know any better I'd think you were a kid going by your level of maturity and lack of tact. Anyways, go on hiding under your anonymous account, I'll just keep on ignoring you for what you are...a troll looking to cause a stir for amusement because you've obviously nothing better to do. I wonder if you have the courage to post under your real account name...nah, then you couldn't troll.--Apple2gs 21:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I write much better than you do, and know more about the subjects than you do. That has to count for something ... wait, this is wikipedia, I forgot, where the truth doesn't matter. Merci.216.254.157.64 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you have some galling nerve ... OK, just what is your full name, given and proper, and where do you live, with full address. I'm waiting ... Right ... some "courage" 216.254.157.64 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You guys have definitely won the "Best Fight on a Deli Talk Page" Award —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.237.133 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Editing criticisms

[edit]

Your edits are ruining this article. Generally, one expects edits to REDUCE the word count. Yours tend to add useless adjectives (eg: Ben's, prolonged) or add unsupported assertions (eg: tobacco-confectionary) or obvious verbiage (eg: Ben Kravitz's grandson.) Additionally, you reorder the sequence of things poorly. Good editing takes time and consideration, so please think long and hard before you ruin this article. I dined and drank many a time at Ben's. It was a favourite pit stop of ours in my university days. A tear came to my eye when it closed. Don't ruin this article, as it ruins memories of this fine establishment.207.112.30.108 (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit more constructive than your last comments that were removed (as for tactful, well...that remains to be seen. I've changed your header to tone it down). Ruined the article? Don't quite agree. Ironically the great and wonderful article that you keep saying *I* ruined and should stay away from originated from and was written by *me*--go back to the beginning of the edit history, I rewrote the article from the ground up.
Sure, I can get overly wordy, and I'm not perfect, but why not just go rework so its more efficient. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Blindly wiping out ALL my edits just because you have a grudge against me isn't being very constructive or helpful. If you want to, you can revert back before I ever touched the article...you'll find it being nothing more than a long blurb about the union dispute. You might also want to log in with your Wikipedia account (I know you have one) rather than hiding anonymously. Though I'll take some consideration in what you say--you do have a point about reducing word count, the simpler, the better. Makes an easier read.
Incidentally, about the tobacco-confectinary, have a look here: http://www.montrealmirror.com/2007/011807/news1.html
(first I ever heard of it, but if its true, it should be added back in).Apple2gs (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I critique the critique itself? Edits make writing better, I say. While they generally reduce wordcount (are we being paid by the word? who cares?), they sometimes don't. This article isnt ridiculously long, and its interesting (at least, enough that people were protestitorially engaged)...er, wait. Ok, bottom line: you're being a little rude, here. Ruining the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.149 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little rude? Hah, he originally titled this section "Request for Apple2gs: please refain from editing and ruining this article" until I changed it to "Editing criticisms" to tone it down. I don't think he was concerned about my writing style, as much about so-called revenge and humiliation over the fact I dare challenge his ideals that English has no place in Quebec and, by extension, articles about Quebec on the Internet (see above, concerning the discussion section in the Montreal Olympic Stadium article and the dispute with him trying to replace its official English name with a French one). Once I discovered it was the same person, I just ignored his attempts at provoking me. That's done and over with however, it was a lot of wasted time and energy--Apple2gs (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still a huge stupid assh*le that can't write. Some things never change. 174.88.88.46 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you still have nothing better to do with your time than lurk around Wikipedia, trolling for attention in a discussion section that probably has a readership of 3 people. Ah yes, and you're eloquent as ever too. :) Apple2gs (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the only person whom I want attention from is you, being an audience of 1. Now that I have it, I will reiterate: you are an uber-crappy writer. Cease and desist. If you must communicate, talk, don't bother with writing, as you do your native tongue a great injustice. Is it so hard to shut up?174.88.88.46 (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! All this talk and insult from someone who has to hide behind an anonymous log in. I suppose any writing done in the English language offends you, doesn't it. No one cares about small minded and bigoted persons like yourself, we ignore them, which is what I will continue to do regardless of how much you continue to spew your noise and venom. You have a registered account, why not log in with that? No? Worried I'll see who you really are and what kind of reputation you have? You are a pathetic coward. Apple2gs (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your writing is far more dangerous; indeed, toxic. And we can add hypocrite to your list of sad faults. Pray tell, what is your name? I hope, by my application of my admittedly brutally harsh therapy, that you learn the errors of your way of writing. Your many, many errors. Or, as I'm sure Gene Mauch used to muse to himself during that wonderfully terrible 110 loss 1969 Expos season: "That is pretty crappy."174.88.88.46 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrite nothing. These postings are under my official Wikipedia account, which is registered to my real e-mail address and name. The administrators here know who I am, and that's fine. Now telling someone like YOU who am I is not; I certainly don't need a radical member of the Mouvement Montréal français stalking me (if you're not a member, I'm sure you soon will be). Yet here you are, continuing to post under an anonymous log in rather than your account. Who's the real hypocrite here? Post your inflammatory comments under your account or shut the hell up. You're like one of those protesting mob thugs that hides under a mask. Ah yes, and as for my writing... You know nothing about me or who I am, yet you've been in a rage ever since I made the change to the Olympic Stadium article (simply changing the name from "Stade Olympic" to Olympic Stadium, it's official name). More so when you challenged that edit and made to look like a fool when it was pointed out the official name of the installation--on the government of Quebec's own website is (gasp!): English. So, apparently the only way to take out your rage and frustration is to make some arbitrary claim my writing style is so horrendous, it's offensive. If it's a bad as you say it is, you would have wiped it clean it and and started fresh. Nope, you just made the tiniest of changes and kept it as is, which is to say you actually seem fine with my writing after all. Talk about more hypocrisy! You're like the food critic complaining bitterly about a dish, while making sure to eat up every last bit and licking the bowl too. Stop hiding behind excuses, and anonymous postings. And if you really mean what you say, then use your energy to rewrite the article instead of wasting it on childish rants.Apple2gs (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOD Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

[edit]

I noticed that there is a bit of an edit war going on here. Please discuss this here rather than reverting.

Articles that fall under WikiProject Canada use the Canadian Manual of Style, and are written in Canadian English. The policy on French names states that actual English usage be reflected in the article rather than the official French name. In this case, actual English usage is De Maisonneuve Boulevard West rather than Boulevard De Maisonneuve Ouest. --MTLskyline (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion comments under my user profile in regards to this anonymous editor. The poster from 70.26.45.111 is the very same person who once used 174.88.88.xx (see his/her venomous comments above), and an obvious Quebec language extremist/nut. This isn't about following Wikipedia guidelines and rules, its about harassing and driving out editors like myself, for daring to use English names in Quebec-based articles (FYI: the province of Quebec has undemocratic laws banning and restricting the use of English, and these zealots now believe the same rule should be applied to the Internet. It should also be noted these so-called Quebec laws, according to the United Nations, are in violation of breaking international covenant on civil and political rights).--Apple2gs (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove or keep section: debate over preservation of site and details of demolition

[edit]

Rather than start another edit war with the anonymous user at 70.26.45.111, I thought this should be discussed here. The user has suggested removing the entire section, "Debate over preservation of site" (and its sub-section "Demolition") and essential replace it one sentence:

"After over two years of conslutation, Bens was demolished in November of 2008..."

I feel there's some interesting facts and history there concerning Heritage Canada, as well as public views, and the ideas over preserving its (now lost) Art Deco features. Plus the brief details about when and how demolition took place. This wasn't just some random downtown building demolished, it had much history and a story behind it. It deserves more than just one line saying it was demolished. I've reverted it back to the original text meantime, please review it and feel free to review those sections and share opinions here. I have nothing against shorten article length, but I'm opposed to seeing interesting facts and bits of history removed in the process.--Apple2gs (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every building, everything, has history behind it, what you think is interesting and what it deserves doesn't matter. The facts included in the removed section were trivia that may have have served some usefulness when the issue was unresolved, but now are superfluous. Especially so since the notoriety of Bens isn't that it was demolished, but that it was a famous Montreal deli.
The removed portion did not fit with the general tone and writing style of the core of the article. It now reads much better and maintains the thematic whole.
See Wikipedia#Quality_of_writing
You have a valid point about it no longer being about a current event, but perhaps instead of just wiping out everything in those two paragraphs, some tweaking would be more appropriate. The fact about it being listed on the top 10 endangered heritage sites in Canada (according to Heritage Canada) is superfluous trivia? The two contrasting views on its historical worth from the Montreal Gazette and Art Deco Society of Montreal belong as supporting material to that.
Now the three lines of text detailing its demolition probably are superfluous, and debatable whether they belong or not, but you DID edit down that part significantly a number of years ago. That aside, it's so brief I don't see it detracting from the main article (I know you do, and maybe others agree, which is why I opened this discussion). It's also worth nothing there are other articles discussing long-gone landmark sites with detail their demolition, but again, let's see what others have to say. In the meantime, I'm restoring the text you deleted while this is discussed.
Here's one suggestion. Rename the "Debate over preservation of site" section to --> "Demolition" (removing the sub-section of course). Merge the two sections into one, while removing most of the text with dates and details of demolition. The only important fact is that it was finally demolished in November 2008.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you see the building is GONE, demolished! Its not endangered or on any list, as it is GONE. Obviously, the list proved of little value and did nothing to save the building. Who cares what opinions the Gazoo or Art Deco had ... please, what "historical worth " do these have, and what exactly is "supporting material"? You are making this shit up, right? Did you read the bit on poor writing on wikipedia. Its wikipedia's greatest shortcoming, and this article is evidence of the same. Wikipedia isn't a fact dump, where you can put trivial or useless information that you think is neat or cool. You have to learn to give it up, and control your impulse to put or save junk facts. Hey, if they are that important, people should be able to find them and learn more about the subject article (in perhaps annoying detail) by following the links in the article. But most importantly, you have to stop making subjective and personal judgments about what you think is important and should be included, and start thinking like someone who has wikipedia's best interests at heart. Perhaps that would improve ALL of your contributions.

Oh, and this is an article about the DELI ... not the building. As is clear from its fate, no one cared about it anyways and if the Gazette is to be believed it was a pile of crap anyways. Why does this matter? Seriously, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.45.111 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added the relevant links (including a new and better one) to the REFERENCE section, where they are accessible to anyone who is interested, will last as long as the net determines the news isn't stale, and, most importantly, fit in the article in the correct stylistic format (using a parsimony of words and space, and not disrupting the overall thematic writing style.) My bad, I should have used the footnotes earlier ... how could I have forgotten!

You know, there are ways of giving your opinions and thoughts without coming across as (as Kwamikagami put it [1]) a dick. There you go once again, with inflammatory remark like: "You are making this shit up, right?", commenting about my writing style yet again and less than constructive remarks like "if the Gazette is to be believed it was a pile of crap anyways". Some of what you're saying I actually agree with, but the way you're coming across saying it makes it hard to take you seriously (and especially when posted anonymously. What are you hiding from?).
Though about that... cutting out useless trivia and fluff is a good thing, turning descriptive and historically informative articles into just a stub article is not. How is the building not an important part of deli? I believe the building was as important, if not more so, than the actual food! No? Heritage Canada wanted the building preserved stating it was a landmark, there were public protests to save the building and even the Art Deco Society stepped in. Whether you or anyone else thought it was ugly or useless was beside the point, the point is it was an IMPORTANT part of its history and needs to be put back in the article. How about this: what if Schwartz's were demolished or burnt down, would the article only talk about the food and not about the building? Much of the appeal of Schwartz's IS THE BUILDING, people bitterly complain about the thought of franchising or touching so much as one brick inside that little hole in the wall restaurant. It's not much to look at any more than Ben's, but that building is huge part of its charm and character. I don't know why you think you, and you alone, get to decide what stays and what goes. I opened a debate for just that, and yet you continually keep reverting everyone's edits. You even just took out the bit in the opening paragraph about Ben's being a hang-out for celebrities, another important fact. If this article was just on the merits of the food served at Ben's, you may as well not have an article at all. Discussing things means opening a dialog, not a place to just say "I'm right - Your wrong. Shut up, while I revert everyone's edits". In any case, I still believe the building was an important part of its history. I've tweaked the section in dispute, restoring what I think is important and cutting out a lot of trivial details about the demolition. --Apple2gs (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In point form:

1. I don't care what you think of me. Nor do I think you are a dick. But I do believe you are a very bad writer.

2. I took the bit in the opening paragraph out because it is repeated, in detail, later in the article. This is a short entry and repetition is a sure sign of bad writing.

3. You can believe what you like, but you, without a doubt, push your argument to the ridiculous by suggesting that the building is actually more important than the FOOD that the Delicatessen was famous for. The Gazette made a particularly lucid point that the building was ugly junk (quite unusual for the Gazoo, which has been crap ever since the Star folded) and that the Art Deco thing was a tempest in a tea pot (what protests, name one!) Its like you are suggesting that Rocket Richard was primarily great and important to Québécois culture because of the different types of Habs uniforms he wore ...

4. Using Schwartz's as an argument is not particularly good form: Other stuff exists, but, again, to suggest that Schwartz's is important because of that hole in the wall on the Main, or that this has something to do with franchising, is a stretch that boggles the mind, and is ultra parochial.

5. The article isn't just about the merits of the food, its about the Delicatessen's place in Montreal's culinary history and Montreal's Jewish community's history. Don't be so utterly facile.

6. Again, I refer you to Wikipedia#Quality_of_writing and Wikipedia:Use plain English. The merits of these entries really seem to be lost on you.

7. Once again, what you believe is immaterial to wikipedia. What I am arguing for is a better written, stylistically correct, accessible and useful encyclopedia entry. I don't think I am mischaracterizing you by saying you seem to be addicted to trivia and you write very poorly. This is a toxic combination. I am not just reverting, I am making a considered decision, for which I am prepare to argue for and take a stand.

Honestly, I believe editors like you are ruining wikipedia by turning into your own little pet project, your little bit of the internet you seem to think you are entitled to, which makes a laughing stock of both you and wikipedia. Give it up, or grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.45.111 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop pretending this is about my writing style and how you are such an altruistic unsung hero for Wikipedia. In fact, if you want to discuss your worth here, you've shown nothing but disregard and disrespect for Wikipedia rules, guidelines and plain civility (see your user Talk page for examples of that). You've been far more mischievous, destructive and poisonous (towards editors like myself) than constructive and contributory. Let's call things what they are: This all started because of your dislike for English name descriptors within Montreal-based articles, and still continues to be judging by your recent little edit war ("de Maisonneuve Ouest" versus "De Maisonneuve Boulevard West" anyone?). THAT, and that alone, is why you started with and continue to harass me. I certainly don't claim my writing is flawless (yes, I am sometimes too verbose) but nor is yours for that matter. Yet you have this air of arrogance that your writing is, yes, flawless. Your ranting about how I write is so over the top it makes you look ridiculous. If you truly think there is an issue, then I welcome your edits...but not your venom.
I still believe the building was an important part of Ben's history. I'm not basing that on my own opinion, again Heritage Canada had it on their list of endangered buildings and sites within the country. Does that not say something? No public protests? What about THIS one? [2] And if the building and its insides were of no importance, why leave the section "Former restaurant site and interior" either?
Look. If you're serious about improving articles like this one, believe it or not, I welcome that and you have my attention and cooperation. I even welcome any constructive criticism about my writing! It's just hard to take you seriously when most of the time you're ranting and raving like an immature child, complete with juvenile insults. Even if on occasion you go on the flip side and talk with some civility and discuss things in an intelligible manner (like the above, for the most part).--Apple2gs (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me, nor is it about you. It is about wikipedia. You have to stop personalize everything. Tho it is nice to see that you can now admit you are a poor writer. Realization is the first step. I commend you.

Huh? This isn't personal or about me? You must have a really have a short term memory. Go re-read the personal attacks and vitriol you spewed at me in your User talk page. Or for that matter, just on this Talk page alone. I'm serious, GO RE-READ what you wrote and think long and hard about it. I wonder if that's what kind of person you are in real life, or just how you act behind a screen. I certainly feel badly for the people you interact with if the former. As for Wikipedia, you've not only shown you're uncivil time and time again, you think you can erase my edits out of pure spite (or rather under the false guise that it's all about my writing style). Either way that is not acceptable behavior and warrants your IP blocked. You think I'm a terrible writer, great, so be it, but I'm not falling for what is obvious bating here.
Back on this article, I think you're going a little overboard cutting out several sections. You're doing more than just trimming the fat, you're literally turning this back into a stub. It's likely myself and others may not agree with those changes, let's see if you continue to blank any edits you disagree with.--Apple2gs (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article. That is what wikipedia is about (your personal attacks don't bother me in the least, but if they make you feel better, by all means help yourself, tho I do feel sorry for you.) Your suggestion for removing even more about the interior was brilliant. Read the article! It is so much better for the editing. Lean, focused, gets right to the point. Sometimes you have to step back, pause, and maybe hear a suggestion from another quarter before it truly makes sense. I can not, for the life of me, see why you think the article is a stub. It sums Bens up perfectly, with parsimony and precision, but nonetheless has about as much referencing and footnotes as could be expected from the internet. I think the article is a masterpiece.

By the way, have you read the Wikipedia introduction page? Let me quote from it: Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits. If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified ... notice the order of examples? What are the first 3 things that are suggested? This ringing a bell? You know, the article has some excellent pictures, so why don't you let them tell the story of the Bens' appearance? A picture is worth a 1000 words, which in your case is more than a fair trade off. Personally, I don't think anyone on this planet cares much about the Bens article on wikipedia, excepting you and I. So why don't you give it a rest, call it a day, pack up and move on. I think you'll feel better for it.

You're being a WP:DICK again. I've reverted you. Learn how to cooperate with other editors. Perhaps you should start with the basics, which I just added to the top of your talk page. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you posted on the Bens page

[edit]

Dear Madame or Sir,

That picture you posted on the Bens page is simply fantastic, nay, beautiful. What amazing photography. MERCI BEAUCOUP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.45.111 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing vandalism and mischief by anonymous @ 70.26.45.111

[edit]

In May 2012 this article was temporary locked, specifically due to vandalism by this anonymous editor from IP: 70.26.45.111. The lock has now expired and he is back at it again. No better proof of his malicious intent is the recent cloning of my username (see the now-blocked account "Apple2gss"; note the extra "s"), with a stated purpose to berate and harass me. At the same time he's now attempting to pull me back into a senseless edit war to stir things up yet again.

About those edits...

1) I do not consider his edits in good faith, they're done out of maliciousness and mischief (registering an account might show otherwise!)
2) The information he keeps removing, dates and events, are relevant to the article
3) How is does 1908 to 2006 equate to 99 years? Even if theoretically it were January 1, 1908 to July 20, 2006, it is still 98.

That said, I'm restoring the text he's removed. --Apple2gs (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Bens De Luxe Delicatessen & Restaurant. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bens De Luxe Delicatessen & Restaurant. 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) 07:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Cohen filmed inside Ben's

[edit]

In the NFB film called Ladies and Gentlemen Mr Leonard Cohen (1965), you can watch Leonard Cohen speaking to the owner of Bens. Here is the link to the film on the NFB website https://www.nfb.ca/film/ladies_and_gentlemen_mr_leonard_cohen/

Go to 32 minutes and 42 seconds into the film - that's 32:42 and watch Leonard walk up to the entrance into the restuarant and watch the conversation that follows and the camera will pan around in the restaurant. The segment runs to 34:24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenPruner (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bens_De_Luxe_Delicatessen_%26_Restaurant&oldid=1199857797"