Talk:Mountain Equipment Co-op

message: I've never read in any MEC literature that it was modelled after REI; the only reference I can find is to it being a store where MEC founders bought their climbing gear.
I'm going to revert this change untill someone can provide a source. Padraic 17:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:I've never heard of it either. --Spinboy 00:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally understood from reading the MEC history page that the co-op was basically inspired by the REI model, and I think it's clear that the two have more in common than otherwise.  But I don't have a better source, so I've just added a note that the two stores are "generally similar", if only to better describe MEC to US readers.  I'm not sure why the note about the share price was removed, so I've put that back, too. --Mvcorks 21:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: As a member of the Varsity outdoors club (VOC) at UBC, a few members did found the Coop after getting feed up of always traveling to REI in Seattle to get gear and the radder poor quality of gear selection in Vancouver. There's an article in the 1971 VOC Journal mentioning the founding of the Coop. It mentions that after a crappy trip to Mt. Baker(?), the participants decided that it was time  to have a proper Outdoors store with good prices in Vancouver. Apparently, the quality of gear was very questionable and the prices were expensive during that era. One of the founders is still coming on VOC related trips. We also have a copy of a MEC meeting from 1971 (not entirely sure about this, need to check...). REI did help in the beginning in setting up the distribution and various contacts within the industry for MEC. 154.20.57.153 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I had never even heard of REI until recently, and I've been buying outdoor gear at MEC for over a decade.  Why does an article about an entity in one country require a reference to a "comparable" entity in some other country?  Should an article about Walmart make reference to IKEA, because it was an earlier big-box store?  If the MEC article doesn't stand on its own, it should be fixed.  If there's a reference to be made, then make it; otherwise, the line about REI should be removed.  Similarly, the MEC reference should be removed from the REI page.  The next question would be ... do we need a category for "outdoor equipment retailers"?   ◉ ghoti 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously the 23 Jan 07 user has no idea what co-operatives are.  Newsflash: co-ops don't exist to make money.  By saying MEC is a 'rip-off' of REI because they're both co-ops is like saying Arby's/Burger-King/Harvey's/Wendy's is a 'rip-off' of McDonald's because they're both for profit and they both sell burgers.  Moreover, as someone who has been to both REI and MEC and looked closely at how both are run, I can assure you that both are very different in how they operate.  In my opinion, REI has lost its way as a good co-operative and seems way more like a for-profit business than MEC. LeoTrottier 20:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I just added a bunch of information to this article, please look it over to ensure it is adequately NPOV (full disclosure: I am member of MEC). I removed the part in the header about not advertising - I've seen MEC advertising in paddling and outdoors magazines. The list of initiatives can be expanded, obviously. There are a couple unsourced statements which may have to go if they can't be backed up. I don't really know what came of the Vancouver Sun article but it should be mentioned. Padraic · talk 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit 

message: This section says that after the September 11th terrorist attacks, sales stagnated and the company went through major restructuring. Why did terrorism in America have such a drastic effect on sales of outdoor recreational gear in Canada? To me the phrasing seems to indicate an alleged cause-and-effect, but there are no reasons given for why this happened, so the 9/11 reference seems totally gratuitous. Unless some elaboration is made on this point, the "post-9/11" text should be changed to "late 2001." -Steve
:I agree, 9/11 shouldn't be specifically mentioned as a date unless a direct correlation can be drawn, I think.  We just just as easily say that "lately, sales dropped so much that it went through major restructuring"Khono (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth section 

message: There is a UK firm called just "Mountain Equipment". Been around since the 60's selling quite high end mountaineering equipment. It's quite well known within the climbing/hiking industry and the wiki search just leads here which could be confusing considering the similar nature of the products.
http://www.mountain-equipment.co.uk/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.225.89 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Mountain equipment' mountaineering gear 

message: Article says "Operates a garment recycling program for polar fleece and polyester garments. This program has been discontinued as of January 2009 due to lack of use." I can't find anything online to use as a reference for this recyling bit. Reference used results in error page and is not at Internet Archive's waybackmachine.org. Reference used with addition of this recycling to article is also not available from waybackmachine.org. Closest I can find are Patagonia Clothing webpage and Patagonia® Fabrics webpage. --EarthFurst (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Found MEC pdf from 2007 saying "This year, we launched a Garment Recycling Program. Members can bring back used items with a 90% or greater polyester content. ...". Haven't found ref for the program being shut down. --EarthFurst (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  recycling? 

message: The article refers to many bike models that are no longer available or have changed. I have updated the bikes section to better reflect the changing nature of MEC's bike product offering. I have removed the specific names and instead referred to the number of products offered. Frankieclarke (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEC bikes 

message: The article states:
Is this really needed? This describes almost every retail company. Mindmatrix 18:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Operations

message: It has seemed to me for some time that this section's inclusion in this article is out of place. Israel and its politics are an important issue but this doesn't have too much to do with MEC. The only thing that happened here that had to do with MEC was that an organization, or perhaps some people in an organization, wanted MEC to boycott Israeli goods and MEC said "no". That's it. This wasn't anything for or against Israel, it's just MEC upholding their policy, as they stated it in the past, of dealing with specific companies and their track records rather than countries and their records. I believe this isn't relevant to MEC as an organization and isn't noteworthy enough to be included on this Wikipedia article and it should be removed.
Please voice your opinion for or against removing this section.
Air.light (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the motion to boycott Israeli goods 

message: This article reads like a puff piece drafted by MEC's marketing department to portray the company in the best light. In fact, a quick glance at the references shows the vast majority of the information presented is taken directly from MEC publications and websites. That guarantees this article is highly biased in favor of the company. I have added an NPOV tag to the article. User2346 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What changes would you suggest to remedy this? Air.light (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A series of edits currently underway here in September 2020 is actually making the NPOV and tone issues much worse right now. Once the currently flurry has subsided the article will have to be totally re-written. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with  "like a puff piece drafted by MEC's marketing department to portray the company in the best light" User2346. Hopefully the recent additions that are both substantial and with reputable and independent sources re-balance the article. The NPOV tag no longer applies. Magnovvig (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While your additions have introduced some good third party refs, they have also created some serous tone issues, using very non-encyclopedic and POV language (For instance with section titles like: A voice in the wilderness, Sclerosis of board membership, Salad days) I'll try to tackle that later on today, when I have a few hours to fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed the changes. I have to object to your attempt to reinstate the section heading titles including "A voice in the wilderness", "Sclerosis of board membership" and "Salad days". These are the sort of thing you would expect to see in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopedia. They are WP:CLICHE, not supported by the cited refs, are very much non-encyclopedic language and also fail WP:NPOV. Please do not reinstate them without gaining a consensus here on the talk page to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a marketing or promotional blurb (NPOV tag added) 

message: Hi, can you please elaborate on your thoughts regarding this company?  Nothing in the article indicates that the co-operative exists after selling to Kingswood on October 30, 2020.  Note that at https://www.1077holdingscooperative.ca/ the header reads "Formerly Mountain Equipment Co-Operative".  162 etc. (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You just proved the point. The still-currently-existing 1077 Holdings Coop is just MEC under a new name. The coop organization still exists, hence present tense. See MOS:TENSE. We don't refer to Air Canada in the past tense, even though it changed its name from Trans-Canada Airways, as it still exists. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 1077 is a shell with no members staff or board of directors  that exists only to conclude the legal proceedings related to the bankruptcy.  It is misleading to imply that Mountain Equipment Co-op still exists based on this.  I think a better example of a comparable might be something like theGlobe.com.  Despite still being a company on paper, its core business ended years ago, and the article rightly refers to it in the past tense.  162 etc. (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, even though it does no active business, all of us are still members of that coop, at least until it winds up business. - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've updated my comment above.  I'll move this discussion from User talk:Ahunt to the article's talk page to see if anyone else wants to chime in. 162 etc. (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, good idea. I was going to suggest the same move. This page has had quite a few editors watching it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the last sentence of the lede pretty much sums the facts of this whole issue:  Unless there are any other comments, I think we can close this out. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reiterate my displeasure with the current phrasing.  Unless you're planning on renaming the article to 1077 Holdings Co-operative, using the present tense doesn't make sense.  And, seeing that another edit attempt to fix this was just reverted, I am not the only one to find this confusing. 162 etc. (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all agree on the basic facts: that Mountain Equipment Co-op was renamed as 1077 Holdings Co-operative and that that organization still exists today and will do so, until business is wound up at some point in the future. We don't use past tense for something that still exists, so based on all that, please do suggest some better wording here for discussion. - Ahunt (talk)  13:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See here.  We refer to 1077 in the present tense, and Mountain Equipment Co-op in the past tense. 162 etc. (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Except they are one and the same legal entity. I have reworked the first para to be more clear on the status - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Past tense or not??

message: The infobox and text claim that the company was a co-op, but it does not meet the definition provided when a user click "cooperative".  It was chartered under an act *called* the Co-operative Associations Act, but you can call an act anything.  The proof it was not a co-op is the simple fact that it was sold without consulting the members -- who would be owners in a genuine co-op by the cited definition, but who were merely customers of the Co-op.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.120.110 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a legally-constituted coop under BC law and remains so today. The coop was not sold to anyone and still exists, it just sold all its assets. This is all explained in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a cooperative?