Jump to content

Talk:Hudson's Bay Company

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.139.86.180 (talk) at 07:49, 15 August 2014 (→Largest landowner in the world?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

untitled comments

After substantial research I conclude that HBC Inc has a good claim to being the direct successor to the Company of Gentlemen Adventurers. The TSX listing is shown as continuous back to 1963. Henry Troup 16:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Hudson Bay Company is one of the oldest corporations in North America, but it is definitely not the oldest, as the Harvard Corporation, also known as the President and Fellows of Harvard College, was given its charter on 9 June 1650 by the Great and General Court of Massachusetts.

The following text was removed from Hudson Bay Company and that page made a redirect to here:

The Hudson Bay Company may be the oldest company in North America. It was almost 200 years old when Canada formed in 1867.
It began as a fur-trading enterprise and evolved into a trading and exploration company that reached to the west coast of Canada and the United States, south to Oregon, north to the Arctic and east to Ungava Bay, with agents in Chile, Hawaii, California and Siberia.
Today it is one of Canada's largest retailer's and is now known as "The Bay".

The Bay stopped selling fur because animal rights groups campaigned on this issue, while few groups campaigned in favour of selling fur. In 1997 however, the Bay found that there was demand from the public for fur, so that it made sense for them to start selling fur once again. There are two points here. First, animal rights groups represent their membership and also their supporters, but they do not represent the whole public, so the opposers should be identified clearly. Second, there is a group of people who like wearing fur and that group is not negligible, and includes a large part of the middle class. Vfp15 02:38, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re the active campaigns, I was thinking active campaigns against fur in general, which started decades ago, rather than specifically against the Bay. But Rosemary's change is fine too. Vincent 08:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The controversy over selling fur all seems to be related to retail sails at HBC's department stores. Why the HBC got out of the fur wholesale buisness should be an important part of this article (there's a huge gap between "19th Century" and "Modern Operations"). I've started a little article on one sucessor company (North American Fur Auctions) but there's probably another based in London which was once known as "Hudson's Bay and Annings". Can't find anything more at the moment, though. Toiyabe 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is The Indian Trade?

The article refers to the Indian Trade. WTF is the Indian Trade? It turns out that The Indian Trade is an Americanism, and, as such, I would question whether it belongs in a discussion of Canadian history. The history of the rest of the World should not be dumbed down, for Americans. Discussions of history should not be restricted to American terms. Geo Swan 15:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well folks, it's an American owned company now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.160.229 (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an Americanism, and Gov Douglas used it all the time, among others; the HBC license to operate in the Columbia Department limited their trade activities to the Indian trade, though despite that both he and the Chief Factor at Fort Vancouver James McLoughlin broke that rule to supply whites with goods, which was contrary to their license; when the Mainland Colony was founded in 1858, Fort Yale and Fort Hope and Fort Langley, which had been founded for the Indian trade only, began supplying the mining population and hangers-on, a bit controversially as other retailers could not compete with them, and were not (at first) allowed to trade with the Indians. The lack of knowledge of BC history and suppositions about Canadianisms by other Canadians is often remarkable to me, as also the anti-American bias which in BC is contrary to our history, given the prominent role of many individual Americans in the colonial era and since.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point Blankets

I have removed the statments that state that point blankets related to the number of beaver pelts which were traded to obtain one blanket. This is a very long, protracted untruth about the fur trade - the points have to do with the manufacturing of the blanket and the number of pelts - beaver or otherwise - required for a blanket varied considerably throughout the years. I simply don't have time right now, but I will do a significant edit to the Hudson's Bay point blanket article sometime soon to clear this up. CWood 23:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Early years

JillandJack, if you are reading this, how were Radisson and Groseilliers victimized by the French aristocracy? Is that really any more informative than saying they defected? (I was the one who originally wrote that they defected but I admit that I don't know why they did so.) If you're going to write such a bombastic edit summary it might help to have more info first :) Adam Bishop 01:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, it appears to have been User:Decumanus that first said that they "defected"-- See his 9 Jul, 2004 edit "expansion of early history". As to the "defected"/"victimized" contention, both seem a tad POV. I am changing it to "felt victimized". Mwanner 14:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, okay, sorry for stealing people's credit :) Adam Bishop 16:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Radisson (and Groseilliers?) was a protestant (Hughenot?) and was discriminated against because of this. Vincent 01:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here Before...

Actually, it is "Here Before Christ", not "Here Before Canada." --Steven Fisher 02:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson's Bay Company removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Hudson's Bay Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because no references

Would anyone be adverse to updating the coat of arms/emblem to the new (2002) version that the company has adopted, versus the historical one presently listed in the article?


File:Hudsons Bay Company Coat of Arms-2002.jpg --Kmeister 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted

Now that Jerry Zucker's company has completed its purchase of the Hudson's Bay Company, the shares of HBC are no longer traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I have removed the TSX reference from this page and from its counterparts in other languages. TruthbringerToronto 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject: Retailing

Hello, a new WikiProject called Retailing has been created, and we invite anyone who is interested in joining to sign up. If you would like to join it, then list your name on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Retailing. TruthbringerToronto 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Retailing is now active. Happy editing, Tuxide 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I would suggest the Downtown Winnipeg Bay store be used as the photo and it is undoubtedly the largest and most architecturally attractive department store in the country.--207.161.43.149 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency issue

In the end of the fifth paragraph of the 19th century segment of the article, it refers to John McLoughlin having previously turned American settlers away as an HBC employee, and welcoming them later as an Oregon City businessman. While McLoughlin's job was to turn them away, much of his fame in Oregon history is due to him NOT doing so. He disobeyed orders and welcomed the Americans when he was specificly ordered to discourage American settlement of the region - as is mentioned in the wikipedia article on John McLoughlin. Even without going to outside sources, there's clearly a conflict here. I don't know if that sentance would serve any purpose once that error was corrected, so I'm not changing anything myself; but I'm hoping someone will find an appropriate way to correct that erroroneous statement. Nithos 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the whole 19th Century conpicuously passes over the history of the Columbia, New Caledonia and Athabaska (sp?) Fur Districts; I added some see also items that are relevant, but there's more (what's the Muscovy Company doing there if the Russian American Fur Company isn't? Also in the edit comments to one of my additions I suggested that there should be a List of Hudson's Bay Company employees, and also a List of Hudson's Bay Company trading posts, both of which would be quite extensive. As for McLoughlin, he's particularly infamous in British Columbia historiography for helping out the American annexationists, not just in material help (which no HBC employee would have refused them, no matter their political leanings) but also in actively assisting the political agenda of the new settlers; an "American sympathizer"; his bio page btw is heavily American-flavoured, as also are certain articles dealing with Pacific Northwest history, which downplay the HBC far too much IMO, but that's a longer story and it's time for lunch....Skookum1 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McLoughlin was discouraging American expansion along HBC lines until he clashed with James Douglas over the murder of his son at an HBC fort. After that happened McLoughlin developed his pro-American and antil British/HBC stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.75.160 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French?

Is there a reason the Company's name is given in French? As far as I know, the company was English, run by English, Scots, Irish and Anglo-Canadians. Why is the French name there .... just curious? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what it is called in Quebec. Adam Bishop 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In its retail era anyway; I'm pretty sure that prior to that, when Montreal was the largest English-speaking city in Canada, that the Company's incorporation never included a French name; it was after all chartered in London, not in Quebec. But given the retail entity's profile and name, it should still be here.Skookum1 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Bay.png

Image:The Bay.png 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North West Company

It is said that Radisson and Desgroseillers went back to New France to found the North West Company, but on the NWC site it is said that the company was founded in the late 18th century.--74.210.140.130 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HBC misspellings..

There are an enormous amount of articles that include the misspelling "Hudson Bay Company" (rather that Hudson's). Is there a way to get a box to fix these en masse? Thanks - TheMightyQuill 07:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone fixed this yet? I could do it with AWB... Katr67 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Fur trade?

or Working Group; HBC, NWC, RAC, PAC and mountain men and marine fur traders et al; the border-spanning (and continent-spanning) nature of the topic matter kinda of calls for a common discussion place, maybe, i.e. as working group spanning WP:Oreg, WP:AK, WPCan etc and linked in their templates or somehow in talkbanners...; But maybe a WikiProject or WP:Fur trade Working Group ain't the right place; just a thought anyway, in the course of editing/commenting on Fort Durham.Skookum1. (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB the marine fur trade area btw implies WP:China, though that's not HBC relevant.....WikiProject Hawaii theroetically appleis though...Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think a WP:Pacific Northwest history and indigenous peoples Working Group (or split that in two, but given the nature of history in the region it's pretty much unavoidable).Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The working group in question meant not for general local history, but articles whose topic/content/personages span teh border/region...intrinsically, at least in most 19th C. cases, they're heavily interlinked with native history (the non-indigenous bios not so much, depending on who....).Skookum1 (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Hbcr.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo issue

Other than the licensing issue in the previous section, I also feel that the historical logo/coat of arms should be used rather than the marketing branding currently on display (which is as i recall a Zeller's subsidiary - or whomever's). The big old-fashioned coat of arms is so much more associated with the company it sems de rigeur that it should be here instead; the old "The Bay" logo also would be more suitable, rather than teh current display which is "nearly advertising".Skookum1 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key factors missing from article

Why isn't Lord Selkirk's role with the HBC mentioned anywhere on this page? He is undoubtedly one of the most important individuals in the formation and early existence of the company. SweetNightmares (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article also makes no mention of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company. This should be included, as they were a subsidiary company of the HBC and existed to promote settlement to the BC area in order to retain control of Canada's stake in that area. Such a prominent role in the determination of borders between Canada and the US definitely merits mentioning, if the company doesn't receive its own section in the article. SweetNightmares (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one done it.--KenWalker | Talk 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cismontane nature of the HBC and NWC articles is an ongoing problem, lots of transmontane fur company history is glossed over in all Canadian history pages; Central Canadian myopia is part of the problem, but also lack of interest by (other) BC editors; in fact many of the PacNW bits have been contributed by Americans. As for the PSAC being created to promote settlement, this is a fallacy and was anything but the PSAC's purpose, despite what its public prospectus might have said in London; the HBC was famously anti-settlement throughout its domains; the PSAC was created for the purpose of supply the Russian American Company posts farther north, partly because the HBC itself did not have a commercial mandate to produce food crops for sale, nor did it have a licence to trade with any but the Indian peoples; the PSAC was the solution. What it definitely wasn't was a tool for settlement; any reading of local history quickly demonstrates that (if it was designed to promote settlement, where were the settlers?? The complexities of HBC history in the Columbia District are, yes, barely mentioned in this and many other articles (British colonization of the Americas for starters, and any number of Canadian history articles)Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! Go find some sources and let's find a way to fit this into the article, then. And what the hell does "cismontane" mean? SweetNightmares (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"cismontane" means "this side of the mountains", whereas "transmontane" means "beyond the mountains", the latter referring to the "Pacific Slope", which in HBC terms was the Columbia Department and New Caledonia....as for augmenting this article, I've done lots of work, as have others, on articles about HBC operations in this area - Columbia District and Oregon Country will get you started, I'm not in the mood nor have the time for a major expansion of this article, or other Canadian history articles where BC/Pacifric history is poorly covered; all I'm doing is noting the absence of such information and pointing interesting expansion-editors towards the material....Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Zellers is defunct as of March 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.108.11 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Tod (fur trader) issues

I just spent a while making Jean Baptiste Lolo and accompanying mountain articles, also Mount Tod aka Tod Mountain (now Sun Peaks) and was about to set on making a bio article for John Tod (nb US congressman John Tod already exists, hence the dab). On "Tod Inlet". BC Geographical Names. the Akriggs are quoted as saying he joined the Hudson's Bay Company in 1813....so I gather this means he wasn 't NWC as I thought....just wanted to check this before starting his article; someone else here may be more familiar with his story and maybe could start it instead (I need a break); I'll take the NWC reference off Lolo's article as presumably he was with Tod throughout his career, by the sound of it. Noting also there's no Chief Trader article, though maybe that could just be forwarded to Factor (fur trade) - or not? All this in prep for a long, long-overdue Fort Kamloops article. From little molehills do too many mountains grow....in passing anyone know why Mount Lolo (Quadra Island) would be named for Jean Baptiste Lolo, as the Akriggs claim? To my knowledge, he never got to those parts, unless he accompanied Tod on a voyage to the northern coastal forts?Skookum1 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look through books at hand doesn't provide much, except that he was "of Kamloops", in 1843 at least. Did he do coast trading? Nothing about Lolo in the Mackie book. I'll look up more later. Pfly (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And further research fails to turn up much! Any chance Mount Lolo on Quadra Island was named for John Tod's wife, Sophia Lolo?--probably the daughter of Jean Baptiste Lolo and Tod's 4th and last wife--who retired with him to Vancouver Island and was apparently fairly well known. I found no evidence of John Tod voyaging up the coast for the HBC (HBC service info: John Tod, HBC Archives, Biographical Sheet), but after retiring to Victoria he "served in Legislative Council of Vancouver Island 1851-1858". Perhaps during this part of his life he (and his wife Sophia Lolo?) traveled north, perhaps to the Quadra Island area? Also, there is a book about Tod: John Tod, Rebel in the Ranks, by Robert C. Belyk, 1995. Limited preview at Google Books. Page 142 mentions his "country marriage" to Sophia Lolo, in Kamloops, 1843. Later, in Victoria, the marriage was made official and legal. Page 157 has a photo of Jean Baptiste St. Paul Lolo and his family at Kamloops, 1869.
While on the topic of HBC Chief Factors in the PNW, John Work has a page, but it is short and could be greatly expanded/improved. Some sources and info offhand: Work, John (1792–1861) (fl. 1814–1861), HBC Archives, Biographical Sheet (via HBC Archives Biographical Sheets index, which looks like a useful resource for info on HBC employees) lists positions and posts by year. Work had many. In Columbia District alone: Clerk at Spokane House, Flathead post, Fort Colvile, and Flathead post, plus trip to Puget Sound and Fraser River, and horse trading trip to Nez Perces and to Flathead and Kootenay. Then Chief Trader in charge of Snake Country Expedition, and trapping expedition to Bonaventura Valley (not sure where that is), and "trading excursion from Fort Vancouver to Umpqua". Then "in charge of coasting trade, Fort Simpson" (1834-1846). Then Chief Factor in charge of coasting trade, Fort Simpson. Then District Manager at Fort Simpson. There are a couple books on him that look useful: The Journal of John Work: A Chief-Trader of the Hudson's Bay Co. During His Expedition from Vancouver to the Flatheads and Blackfeet of the Pacific Northwest, by William Stanley Lewis and others, 2006. Snippet view only. Amazon has it for $45. According to its WorldCat entry, the Seattle Library has a copy, so perhaps I can take a look. Another book is The Snake Country expedition of 1830-1831: John Work's field journal, ed. by Francis D. Haines, Jr., University of Oklahoma Press, 1971. ..anyway, John Work seems to be one of the most important Chief Factors of the Columbia District, and his WP page is little more than a stub.
Finally, another book that might be useful, even interesting, is Undelivered Letters to Hudson's Bay Company Men on the Northwest Coast of America, 1830-57, UBC Press 2003. Appears to be hard to find in libraries, but amazon.com has it for $35. Google Books has a limited preview, I think. Pfly (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that one of those HBC links was from the University of Minnesota's HBC Archives, I didn't know there was such a thing. The one in Manitoba is at this site and I was going to look up my uncle anyway, who was Chief Factor for a long time mid-20th Century.Skookum1 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, he's not there, but maybe there's a cut-off date before the mid-20th Century. His son is in Montreal, if he has any of his papers was going to contact him anyway, as with the other cousins, about donating any family holdings to the Manitoba Archives if suitable (they were all born in Winnipeg, Grandpa's papers, those archived anyway, are in the National Archives in Ottawa....hm, he's supposed to be there, I'll have to ask my brother or cousins...a bunch of others with the same surname that I've never heard before, including someone from Queensland...hmmmmmmmm.Skookum1 (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson's Bay Company records?

I think an external link to the Hudson's Bay Company records (a primary source) would be appropriate for this article, but there are already a number of external links...thoughts on how to include the link? Hudson's Bay Company Records Archivist100 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are right. The article probably needs a lot of the external links converted into references, but IMHO that should not stop you from putting it in as EL if you wish as step one. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfortable with modern brand/company in same article as historical HBC

It's bothered me for a while, it just doesn't seem right, and confuses the history of a very important national institution with a latter-day buyout of what's left of it....mostly the brand and a few retail outlets in the North, it seems........so when the HBC was bought out by Zeller's, it didn't redirect there; but to me this is a new company, despite the same name; completely different ownership and role/history. Is it required that Company articles be merged into one title like this (in this case only one title, there are others where e.g. Cominco redirects to Teck, though both British Columbia Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway remain separate.....seems to me like there should be two Hudson's Bay Company articles, one about the historic entity prior to it selling its DBA name to Zeller's, and then the one since.Skookum1 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HBC bought Zellers, not the other way around. Ground Zero | t 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wrong separation point then....but I think you see my point about this being an article about a particular modern retailer with different ownership vs the Hudson's Bay Company (1670) no?Skookum1 (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the company has changed tremendously between 1670 and 2013, but the modern retailer operating up to 2002 has much more in common with the American-owned one operating since 2003, than it did with the Company of Adventurers that started in 1670. Is the article too long? Does it need to be broken up? Ground Zero | t 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that policies or guidelines dictate either way, so I think we should decide here. Either way is fine with me but I lean towards keeping them together mostly because it's hard to imagine how it could be split unless there one moment when they really changed. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganized the article a fair bit to try to make it flow better, and to highlight the shift in operations. I don't think a split in the article is necessary or advisable - I think it is very cool that it has been in continuous operation as a trading company for over 340 years even though the nature of trade has changed so much. Splitting the article would downplay that. Having said that, 1870 seems to be the most significant change for the company, i.e., when it gave up title to most of Canada. Ground Zero | t 18:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular reason to split the article up based on an arbitrary change of ownership, especially not a fictional one like "Zellers buying HBC". Nor should it be split because an American investor bought up the shares for himself and took it private (in 2006, not 2003). Companies change ownership structures all the time; being that it has gone public again and its shares are traded on the stock market it quite literally changes ownership every single day. Owners have come and gone over 343 years, and not just in the last ten or so. The Zuckers' brief ownership from 2006 to 2008 is but a mere footnote in HBC's long history. The fact that HBC is partly owned by an American investment corporation and headed by that other corporation's owner right now is notable, but not notable enough to justify ripping this article apart to satisfy your desire to separate the modern-day operation of the company from what I can only assume you think of as "the real one". Its ownership is not the same as it once was but that does not mean the company is any less the same company as it was before. It's not like they stopped doing business as a department store retailer. And even if they did, so what? General Electric was founded as an amalgamation of companies building electric motors, dynamos, light bulbs and sockets. Today it builds wind turbines, jet engines, refrigerators and magnetic resonance imagers. That doesn't make it any less the same General Electric Company. Companies diversify into new businesses and wind down operations in others; it just happens. Times change. HBC was founded as a fur trading company and diversified into all sorts of other things, including retail stores. Now the only business unit left is retail stores because they wound down the fur trading, oil & gas, and all the others. That doesn't mean it isn't the same company. If, eventually, there is enough content added to the article that it becomes unmanageably large then we can talk about splitting this up. Until then it should be added to, not ripped apart. CplDHicks (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saks purchase

I can't find any evidence that the Saks purchase has closed yet.Ground Zero | t 11:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Some Basic Facts

This article claims, in the lead, that HBC is, "the oldest commercial corporation in North America." Yet the article titled, "List of oldest companies in the United States" doesn't include it. For all I know there might be some highly specific meaning of, "commercial corporation" and "company" being employed here, but common sense would suggest that it either is the oldest company and should be on the list article or it isn't and the lead needs to be edited. One of these two articles has to be wrong. Cottonshirtτ 05:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Cottonshirt. The reason HBC is not found in List of oldest companies in the United States is because it is a Canadian company. North America also includes Canada.pear 06:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pear285 (talk • contribs)

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(moved my reply to current section end) Pfly (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not nasty, just very tired of endless inanity.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(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, [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What European states?

This caught my eye:

and functioned as the de facto government in parts of North America before European states and later the United States laid claim to some of those territories

I almost changed that by deleting "before European states and later.." but wondered if that's a reference to territorial overlap with the claims of France? If it's in reference to the NW Coast, Spain gave up its claims before the HBC began operating in the area (1821) and the HBC tenure there was only a license to trade, not ownership of territory as was the case in Rupert's Land (worth noting that the US claim to the Oregon Country was based in the Florida Treaty of 1819 though, i.e. based on acquisition of the Spanish claim, though the British viewed that to have lapsed as of the Nootka Conventions). Russia gave up claims south of 54-40 and east of the current Alaska boundary in 1824-25, though from 1839-67 the HBC did lease territory from the Russian America Company. Is the use of "European states" somehow meant to refer to temporarily-Spanish Louisiana? The bit about de facto government applies only to the imposition of the laws of the Colony of Canada on HBC employees and is a highly dubious statement if it's meant to say that the HBC actually governed the Prairies or what is now British Columbia ("and parts of the United States")..... this is probably in the source given and is a gloss, as is much of what I'm reading in this passage, including the dicey politics of the HBC starting to sell goods to non-natives (which they weren't supposed to be doing). Anyways, what European states are meant by that? Norway? Scotland? The bit following that bit also says "English and later British" which seems an unnecessary technicality; but seems like it's from the hbcheritage.ca cite....Skookum1 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1821 was a forced merger

I was a bit stunned to go from the end of the 18th Century section, jumping past the list of ships (why is that were it is?) to the start of the 19th Century, where it just says, tersely, that the NWC and HBC were merged in 1821. Nothing about the effective war between the two, and that this was a forced merger ordered by Britain. Wasn't there something about this here before? Seems, like so much else in this article, a bit of a gloss.Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I amended it accordingly, based on only the CG cite given....this whole episode could really warrant its own section.Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

flag/date

Given the emphasis about this being originally an English, and not a British company, I remarked on the flag as I went by it, as the Union Jack was not in use in 1670; so this cannot have been the flag.

- on the file's description is original version says "as originally used in the 1800s", then on updates that was changed to "as originally used in 1682"..... This is indeed the best-known HBC flag, but not the original one; either a re-captioning is called for, and an amendment to the image's description page, or the original-original one be found. Would it have just the St George's Cross or ??Skookum1 (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the file's talkpage an IP user commented on this in 2010, about the flag shown including the St. Patrick saltire.Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hudson%27s_Bay_Company&oldid=621320361"