Talk:Montgomery Ward
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Continuity of business
Could someone supply more information on the continuity (or discontinuity) of Montgomery Ward during the period after its demise and beginning of Internet sales business in 2004? It appears that someone bought the trade marks and misc. intellectual property and started business thereunder. (web domains had been on sale.)
I don't have any details, although I really wish there was more information about the new proprietor and their background. It's sad that such a large company with a long history that was such a big part of American culture is now run as a simple website with no history and no available information whatsoever. --Jkonrath 19:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- It does seem sad, I'll agree. I even remember the various intellectual properties that had been up for sale, to an extent. I seem to recall they included usage of the wards.com and montgomeryward.com domains, and department monikers such as Electric Ave. and Gold 'n Gems. Maybe Auto Express was included, too, but my memory — just as my recent web searches — fails me. — ArkansasTraveler 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] MW & labor
I noticed this in July 19
- 1945 - Montgomery Ward is seized by United States Army troops at the direction of Attorney General Francis Biddle because of its refusal to obey National War Labor Board orders. Montgomery Ward chairman Seward Avery is carried out of his office by troops
and this in Teamsters (about a strike)
- 1905 Montgomery Ward - over 100 days, took 21 lives, and cost about $1M
perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge could put in a few paragraphs about this aspect of the history? I should do it myself of course but my knowledge is limited to those two sentences so it wouldn't be either coherent or complete. Jobh 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Standard T Chemical
I'd like to find more information about Standard T Chemical, a subsidiary of Montgomery Ward. They manufactured all of the Wards brand housepaint at one point, and they also made cleaning chemicals and janitorial supplies that were used by the stores' custodial workers. Standard T may have been some offshoot of the Mobil years, but I'm not sure. All I can find on the internet is a bunch of toxic cleanup problems with the company.
I worked at Wards in the late 80s in the paint department, and remember that Wards was the only department store that made their own paint, instead of reselling other brands or having a third party make their own house brand. --Jkonrath 19:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Wards"
I think the whole logo should be used instead of the newer "Ward" one. Wards was hardly used on builing signage. 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Alexzero
We're using the "Montgomery Ward" logo and the "Wards" logo --Caldorwards4 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You all ought to check in. the logos have been deleted and it would be helpful to look at why. Seems like its fair use, but is there something i am missing BrandlandUSA 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Since there's a concern over lack of supporting citations, a good and brief source for the early history of Montgomery Ward's is Alfred Chandler's The Visible Hand, 230-233. JimmyTheSaint 18:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- What is the ISBN? Tuxide 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon says ISBN 0674940520. Powers T 14:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Logos and fair use
There has been some discussion that the logos for montgomery ward are somehow not fair use. If the deleted logos arent fair use, then where are they fair use? I get how Man in Black wants to keep copyright infringement off wikipedia, but the use of any logos or pictures of logos of a company to talk about a company is done all the time on wikipedia.BrandlandUSA 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion goes way beyond this page. See Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries and Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images for more. DHowell 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The upshot is that that one non-free image to identify the article is okay; all other non-free images need to be the subject of commentary or illustrate specific points in the text. DHowell is proposing a change to these rules, which I'm largely sympathetic with in principle (if not in practice, on some trivial points), but the fact remains that they violate our current fair-use policy, which is necessarily strict. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This is fascinating discussion, and am glad to have been sent to the page on the discussion of historical images. I will take a look at the criteria and see if it can be improved. The reality is that the image-logo changes were part of strategy changes over the decades, and thats why they are telling, but without any explanation, much of that is lost. I will take a look at it.BrandlandUSA 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)