Talk:Steinberg's (supermarket)/Archives/2013

Fair use rationale for Image:LogoSteinberg.jpg

Image:LogoSteinberg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Steinberg or Steinberg's?

The article states the supermarket chain was renamed "Steinberg" in 1961, dropping the apostrophe "'s" like many businesses in the province of Quebec over political pressure. Interestingly, I grew up years after this change supposedly occurred and always heard it referred to as "Steinberg's", regardless if that person was speaking English or French. In the media (past and present) and on the street, it has always simply been Steinberg's. In fact the first I heard of it referred to as "Steinberg" is in this article.

I know in Quebec companies like Eaton's were forced under pressure to remove their apostrophe and became "Eaton", though in the rest of Canada remained "Eaton's". Is Steinberg's a similar case here? Also worth pointing out, according to the article it was known officially as Steinberg's for close to 50 years, and less than 30 years as Steinberg. Considering it's a defunct store chain and just part of history, should the article refer to it by its original and more commonly known name? Wondering what other people's take on this are--Apple2gs (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking through old annual reports of the company. In various places it was Steinberg Inc. Steinberg Ltee. in the english literature, this going back to the 70s. They used the french abreviation for Limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyonsexpositifs (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly I wasn't born until a decade AFTER the name change, but growing up in the late 70's and 80's I always heard it referred to as "Steinberg's". Friends, family and more so, even within the media (i.e. newspapers, magazines, TV news reports) always referred to the store chain as Steinberg's. Just do a Google search of new archives and you'll see this fact backed up. I never even knew the apostrophe 's was officially taken out of the name until I read this Wikipedia article ("Steinberg" was simply the French spelling of the company name, nothing more). I feel it's much the same case as "Eaton" vs "Eaton's", the apostrophe was officially dropped in Quebec, yes, but everyone still referred to it as "Eaton's" (ditto for Steinberg's). I think at the very least it should be mentioned in the article "Steinberg's" was still the defecto used name. Apple2gs (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The apostrophe in Eaton's wasn't "officially dropped" in Quebec. They simply used Eaton on signage and in French-language literature. Flyers and ads in the Montreal Gazette and in other English-language media still referred to Eaton's.

Having said that, and having gotten distracted by Eaton's, the question is not what the official name of Steinberg was, but rather how was it commonly known in English? In other words, what an English speaker would most likely recognize as the usual name of the chain in actual usage. If it was typically called "Steinberg" in English, then that's the name that should be used in the English language encyclopedia. If it was typically referred to as "Steinberg's" in English, then that should be the article title (with the official name prominent in the lead paragraph). Remember too that the chain had stores right until the end in Ontario and New Brunswick, and at one point even had stores as far west as Toronto.

As an aside, my mom was in a Steinberg's television ad in the 1970s. For what it's worth, her line was "Steinberg's - it's the total that counts".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, on a bit of a tangent it's rather interesting to learn the "Eaton's" name was never officially changed (inside or outside Quebec). So the apostrophe was merely hidden and nothing more, all due to political pressure. That's quite useful information in regards to other Wikipedia articles, where French language zealots have been modifying it as such in and arguing "Eaton" is the official name (i.e. Cavendish Mall, Montreal Eaton Center, etc).

Now we have Steinberg's were the apostrophe was officially dropped, but never adopted by the English community or anywhere outside Quebec's borders in terms of usage of the name. Rightfully so, it doesn't sound grammatically correct to say, "I'm going to Steinberg to do my shopping", as opposed to "I'm going to Steinberg's to do my shopping". Indeed, the English TV ads I remember for Steinberg's called the chain Steinberg's (I distinctly remember a TV jingle ad that went "Steinberg's beef, beef, beef..." in the early 80's). It was, and continues to be known as Steinberg's among English speakers. It isn't recognizable as "Steinberg" within English context, and last I checked, Wikipedia was an English encyclopedia. Based on the Wikipedia criteria rules above, the article needs to be moved back to here: [[1]]--Apple2gs (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that they are zealots or anything. There are a lot of editors who assume, because we value accuracy here on Wikipedia, that the preference is always for an official name; usually they are simply unaware that Wikipedia guidelines will often favour a common name that differs from an official name.

By the way, the conventions for the use of French/English names in the Canadian context is at WP:CANSTYLE. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I like to leave politics out of Wikipedia, but unfortunately such language zealots do exist in Quebec and have been finding their way onto Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there are a large number of hate groups growing in the province (e.g. Mouvement Montréal Français, Réseau de Résistance Québécoise, or Jeunes Patriotes du Québec to name just some) whom have stated as their goal to remove all traces of English from the province, in order to "purify" Quebec. Alarmingly Quebec's own provincial government lives by that philosophy and mantra too, it's hardly isolated. I know that sounds far fetched and absurd, and I wish I were making that up, but it's a reality here. Well it has no place on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, but at least I can do something about it here. I do a fair bit of writing on Wikipedia and been followed and harassed by some of these language zealots, simply for restoring an article to its actual English name (for example, the Montreal Olympic Stadium article which got hijacked and renamed "Stade Olympique"). You can see some of the nastiness and personal attacks that followed me after that incident, here in the discussion area of another local article: [[2]]

I don't necessarily think in the case of Steinberg vs Steinberg's anyone is being a zealot however, it's more a case of debating accuracy. I was torn by it, on one hand "Steinberg" is the official name so I thought that should stick once I learned the name was officially changed in 1961. On the other hand, I've never heard it referred to as "Steinberg", ever; and by extension, I've never seen it written, spoken or referred to by any one else (joe average or the media) without the apostrophe 's. Those guidelines you linked to made it clear however which name the article should be labeled under.--Apple2gs (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

farine is disputing Steinberg's as a common name, and I quote: "Unless you can come up with a reliable source (eg: past logo, past article, past documentary ,etc) that prove that Steinberg's was the name, you can't decide that Steinberg's was the common name."

Very well, let's look at a Google newspaper archive of the Montreal Gazette, circa 1973 (12 years after the official name change). http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qJcuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m6EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1058,3988478&dq=steinberg%27s&hl=en

Here's more results from the Montreal Gazette for that decade, going as far as 1979 (18 years after the official name change): http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=Steinberg%27s&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=1970&as_user_hdate=2010&lr=&as_src=Montreal+Gazette&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a

If that wasn't enough, let's look internationally. Here's a New York times article published in 1988 (27 years after after the official name change!) http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/25/business/business-people-steinberg-s-chief-seen-as-suitor-if-it-is-sold.html

In each case, the chain is referred to by its original name of "Steinberg's" even decades after the change. The apostrophe 's still there, plain as day. So there you have it, this solidly backs up the claim and therefore, the common name rule must apply. Of course the fact that the apostrophe was dropped from the name in 1961 does need to be made prominent in the opening paragraph, as well as in the article's history section. That must not be overshadowed or left out.--Apple2gs (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)