Talk:The Beer Store

message: This section has been tagged for checking since December 2008, but it's very long, and each time I look at it I get daunted. Help would be appreciated in cutting it back, then  checking it, and seeing how much is worth keeping. SilkTork *YES! 16:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is indeed too long, but some parts of it are key to the article. Unless someone wants to attempt a rewrite, I'll go ahead and do a quick hack, leaving just the portions I see as notable, along with the corresponding refs. The rest, if needed, can become the basis of a new article, Criticism of The Beer Store, or perhaps Criticism of Ontario Alcohol Regulation. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my quick hack brought this down to a more reasonable size, but it is still written a bit clumsily. I don't get a sense of a bias in the remaining text, but would appreciate a second pair of eyes to go over it. If all agree, we should remove the POV notice at the top. And if someone can find another archive for the two expired references, that would be great. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contentious section

message: This article is an embarrassment and looks life it was drafted from a TBS corporate press release. --Ultra Megatron (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Roughly 40% of the article is criticism against the company. Not quite what TBS would have wanted on their press release. Owen× ☎ 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree. Please go ahead and rewrite that section based on existing sources. All the "However" sentences should probably be moved to a different section named "Response to criticism" or suchlike. Owen× ☎ 10:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure 

message: Two thirds of this section is about recycling/bottle returns. Shouldn't a company with nearly 100 years of operations have something more relevant (and less obviously flattering)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.19.37 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: For those that keep reintroducing the POV term "only" - the fact that the newspaper states "a mere 13%" does not give editors carte blanche to include it as fact. The word "only" is a leading term designed to induce readers to formulate a specific opinion. If the word is to be included, it must be done in such a way to identify the source of the POV. Wikipedia has clear rules about this. (See also Describing points of view.)Mindmatrix 20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a quote to the cite template. That gets it in without having POV in the article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mindmatrix , you are incorrect. The caption under The Star's article picture clearly says, "A recent poll by Angus Reid reveals only 13 per cent of Ontarians realize The Beer Store is controlled by foreign multinationals." The only POV I see here is your own, Mindmatrix. Kindly leave your views out of the article. We are not here to second-guess primary sources. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the POV of the Star. I added the quote to the citation to show that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: The relevant statistic is "13%", not "only 13%". No respectful statistician would ever present data by skewing it with such POV using leading terms. Presentation of statistics should be neutral, and any POV introduced by a reporter should be clearly stated as such. Nowhere did I say the source does not contain the word "only"; I'm stating that use is the reporter's POV, not an inherent property of the statistic. I am not "second-guess(ing) primary sources" - the relevant value of 13% was clearly presented. (Note that I was the one to add the original paragraph in this edit; the word "only" was added by an anon soon afterward.) Attributing to an individual a POV simply because one disagrees with that individual is a common tactic; please stop doing that, as it only diminishes your argument. Mindmatrix 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I had found it the day I added that paragraph, but apparently Ipsos Reid Canada deleted it from their website. Internet Archive last spidered the site on December 8 (see this), and archive.is hasn't spidered that section of the website at all (see this). I also tried the French website and archives, but no luck. Sometimes, I get the feeling companies still don't understand this "internet" thing; either that, or the research is now a premium access product. Sigh. Mindmatrix 21:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Only"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Beer Store. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131209065511/http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-study-ontarios-beer-retailing-123800709.html to http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-study-ontarios-beer-retailing-123800709.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am concerned that several recent edits by User:Idontbuythat and User:Beerresearcher, especially to the section on Ontario's recent changes to alcohol sales regulations, may have compromised the integrity of the article by incorporating original research, to the point that I think they may be the same user. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea who Beerresearcher is. Idontbuythat (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article compromised by recent OR edits