Talk:Fitzhenry & Whiteside

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Text and/or other creative content from Fifth House was copied or moved into Fitzhenry & Whiteside with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Writer Beware allegations

The Authors Beware section seems to be a dump from the timeline posted by one of the parties involved in the dispute and is totally one-sided. You can find the author's original article here: http://www.doranna.net/wordplay/index.php/2011/10/15/writer-beware-fitzhenry-whiteside/

Noted sci-fi author Robert J Sawyer refutes the allegations here: http://sfwriter.com/blog/?p=3034#comments

I'm not saying that either party is right in the situation, simply that if that section is kept at all, it should be presented in a more neutral fashion. NegaScout (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NegaScout.

Thank you for noticing Fitzhenry & Whiteside article. I agree that the current composition of the article is one-sided. Unfortunately at the time I updated the article, I couldn't find anyone publishing a viewpoint that disputed Author Durgin's. I would like to see this article evened up to a neutral balance. I've fallen ill ( a cluster of joint and bone issues ), and can't do it so I'd like to ask you to take a look at Robert Sawyer's veiws and add the alternate viewpoint to the article. Please note that the central issue appears to be different definitions of what the phrase "normal trade channels" means to each of the contractual parties. Since the legal definition of a contract is "A meeting of minds" and the two parties here do not agree about what the phrase "normal trade channels" means, a court's view of the case would be "there is no contract". But both parties have already acted in substantial financial reliance upon the contract so how a court would address the damages to both parties isn't clear. There is also the potential breach of contract issue by F&W who did not provide the promotion campaign they had promised for the book. (Unknown: does any language about the promotional campaign exist in the contract? does the language about the promotion campaign in the claimed, but not shown, emails (see durgins blog for this new info) merit inclusion as addenda to the contract terms? A court might have to decide. )

As usual, when a business contract falls apart, its because each party had their own idea of what something in the contract meant, and the contract failed to define exactly what the term meant. Some industries have actually defined specific terminology to be used in contracts or pevious case law have established how some terms are defined, but this case doesn't seem to have either of those to rely on and further with Internet based commerce changing how all commerce works, do any existing legal cases or definitions even apply anymore?

You, ( or whomever adds updates to this issue in the article), may want include some of these issues in the article.

(some of the above text was created using Dragon Naturally Speaking, be ware of mis-recognized text) Jjk (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the section to a single sentence which I think is neutral enough. Details could be added if and when there is an actual court case and decision.--184.147.128.151 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality has been more than restored.

I am removing the notice.

I will rearrange slightly.

Varlaam (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Varlaam (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fitzhenry & Whiteside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304184248/http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca:80/resources/archival_&_special_collections/the_collections/digital_collections/culinary/cuisine_canada/2002/winners.htm to http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/resources/archival_&_special_collections/the_collections/digital_collections/culinary/cuisine_canada/2002/winners.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fitzhenry & Whiteside. 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) 19:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]