Talk:Telus

TELUS in all-caps

Yes, TELUS' internal style guide requires that the corporate name always be spelled in "all capital letters". (I am a retiree from TELUS.) --BCRCornet 23:14, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Should the title be in all caps? Telus is not an acronym. Perhaps the company's internal style guide demands it be in all caps (for marketing reasons), but the rest of the world should be free follow normal English practice and write it Telus.--Indefatigable 20:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To the anon editor particularly: I, for one, fail to see why the title should not be in all caps. We call the article what the company is called, and the company is called capital-T capital-E capital-L capital-U capital-S. We don't use normal English practice for names, do we? I don't see anybody suggesting the article on MySQL be renamed to Mysql, or that phpMyAdmin be renamed to Phpmyadmin, although I note that the limitations of Wikipedia appear to prevent articles from starting with lowercase letters (is this correct?). Nor do I see anybody suggesting that John A. MacDonald be renamed to John A. Macdonald. So why should TELUS be treated any different? That's how the company wants to be called -- I suggest we call it that way. TheProject 04:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "renamed to Macdonald"? That's how our first prime minister's name is spelled. "Sir John A. Macdonald". Steggall 13:33 20 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I evidently picked a horrible example, as I didn't realize it was spelled with a lowercase d. Consider McDonald's then, another company. We still spell that one with a capital D though. Again I ask -- why should TELUS be any different? TheProject 05:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, TheProject. You really are diligent upholding the standards you are appointed to uphold. It's reassuring to see that there are people who will fight tooth-and-nail for their beliefs like you do.

That being said, Telus is different here because of English. English mandates that capitalization be allowed only on distinct syllables of names. Individual letters do not need to be capitalized because they are not representative of syllables.

"TELUS" is really "Telus". It's only because Telus' internal docs mandate that Telus be spelled as "TELUS" that people started doing it here. English simply takes precedence over Telus internal policy.

I'm not really sure what I'm doing that's considered "fighting tooth-and-nail", but it would seem to me that if that's what the company calls itself, then we ought to call it that. I mean, k. d. lang doesn't exactly follow English rules for naming, but there's not much of a fuss about renaming that. :-) theProject 05:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you still doing here?!? Talk about sick!... ;)

And you're still wrong! Any database would have it as "K. D. Lang" no matter what her album covers say!

It is in the TELUS Constitution. Leave it be. Caps it is. Get over it already and move on with your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryrob1979 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Telus. It is known as TELUS, what is the point on having the information incorrect on a worldwide encyclopedia when it is WRONG. The company is branded that way. Telus is a non existant entity while TELUS is a corporation that was formed by a merger. To the constant editor of this page that is doing it wrong. No TELUS bill is spelled in lower case, no corporate or charity supported by TELUS refers to it in the lower case. It has nothing to do with the proper spelling of English Language. It has everything to do with the company having a unique name and the name is uppercase. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the future of all availiable knowledge it should be protrayed in a correct light, not because someone thinks it isn't spelt correctly in the English language. The English language is constantly evolving, if you are stuck with the rules of the past you are scared of the change that makes English the most evoloutionary language in the world. Make the right choice. Quit changing the edits people make, when what you are doing is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.59.163 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the issue has come up again, can there be some consensus as to how the name should be displayed, as opposed to simply changing the whole page and then reverting it? Instead of correcting someone's hard work to change every single TELUS to Telus, I thought I'd come here and see what the feeling is instead. In 2006, TheProject had a good point, consider CEvin_Key as a perfect example. The entire page is formatted the way the individual writes it. For that way as well, if the page is listed as cEvin_Key, is there any reason this page cannot be listed as TELUS? looks like Wikipedia naming conventions are going out the window... 204.191.77.209 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also a need to discuss this on the Wind Mobile page. Thinking about it in the "Telus should be all-caps" terms, though, Rogers Communications would also have to be all-caps for the "Rogers" part. Mobilicity, on the other hand, would have no capital letters. Facebook and (when it had its name in its logo) Twitter would also have no capital letters.

i believe that capital letters should only be used when it matters, such as making a distinction between words. For example, BarlowGirl or ZOEgirl use capital letters to separate a proper noun prefix from a common noun suffix. iPod, iPhone, iPad and other iDevices use capital letters to separate the pronoun "I" (stylized as "i") from a common noun. What about companies like Rogers, Telus, Mobilicity and Wind? No such distinction is made. Mainstream media like The Globe and Mail use standard capitalization (not all-caps or no caps) when reporting on these companies. The other examples (girl groups/bands and iDevices) are reported with their specific capitalization because it conveys the meaning. i hope this provides some context as to why i believe "Telus" should be written with only one capital letter. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"the future is friendly"?

Isn't "The future is friendly" a TELUS marketing tagline or slogan? Is it acceptable Wikipedia practice to post this? --BCRCornet 23:23, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I've put an explanation of "the future is firendly" in the Advertising section, I don't think it appears elsewhere in the article at this point, except in the logo image, the logo is increasingly including the slogan, and I don't think it is against Wikipedia practice to leave it there. Green1 05:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it looks like the slogan was borrowed from ClearNet (the cell mobility company TELUS bought out in 2000). I came across an old ClearNet TV ad from 1998 and it ends with slogan "the future is friendly"! (also interesting is the style used in the ads: the simple white backgrounds, small animals, flowers, etc is what you see in TELUS TV/ad marketing today). Guess it all originated from the company they bought out.Apple2gs (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The future is decidedly NOT FRIENDLY! TELUS is a monopoly which is illegal in Canada because monopolies support inequalities and illegal behaviors! TELUS does not allow information access, such as phone books and that is decidedly unfriendly! Bev Carter (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

the future is friendly and clearnet

the Brainiacs who started this page don't seem to realize why Telus became so huge, ...they got into the Ontario and eastern market by purchasing the extremely high preforming Clearnet communications that originated in Pickering and but moved to Scarborough ontario by 1997. All their marketing and branding were lifted from the Clearnet, which was and still is forward, and simple looking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.172.26 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Information was added as I have first hand information being an employeee of the company in the period before the Telus Merger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.172.26 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Labour dispute

Methinks there should be something in here about the current labour disputes. The bargaining unit employees have been working without contract for almost 5 years, and the company and the union representing the employees (TWU) have had an acrimonious relationship that has recently culminated in a strike/lock-out (depending on your point of view).

There have been multiple partial lock out measures taken by the company. Freedom to contract "non-core" activities (i.e. vehicle repair, janitorial services) is part of the offer presented by TELUS.

Part of the inability to come to an agreement stems from the company's desire to eliminate or contract out certain non-core positions versus the union's insistence that these jobs be retained as internal positions. So, a lot of quesitions come down to whether a job should be guaranteed.

While it's great to have all this info on labour disputes here, isn't it a little odd that so much of the focus is on that current situation, and so little is on the company's products and services? --216.198.159.38 18:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's because it seems to be a topic of interest right now. The phone line cuts did make some major news, and the company didn't really make major news until this dispute boiled over into a picketing situation. I'm sure there's lots to say about the products and services the company offers, but I'm not up to speed on that. TheProject 05:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

While the dispute did generate a lot of interest, especially now that it is over I would recommend abbreviating that section a bit (could still have something about it, but that section is currently as long as everything else put together) also the services section could use signifigant expansion (I'm also not sure if listing clients is appropriate...) Green1 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Picket lines

Now, I've been around wikipedia and I was unaware that comments on the discussion page could be considered vandalism. I think that personal comments should be allowable on the talk page. In keeping with my beliefs, I am putting my comment back on. Please don't delete it this time........

I have to say that any worker who crosses the picket line to back to work is a retard, lets face it. If those individuals can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning knowing that they have betrayed every union member on the face of the earth, then god help them. Those scabs are dispicable, considerably more dispicable then regular scabs, and an insult to the profession. The phone workers in atlantic canada fought for five months to get a fair contract and those jerks go back to work after a few days. To sum up, if those workers were any kind of people they'd support the union but I guess money is more important than honour these days. When the day comes that telus lays them off, I'll be laughing. --BoyoJonesJr 16:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I was wondering a bit about that revert as well, it seemed odd to me, but I'm new here. To respond to your point: something strikes me as odd about the union's position, which is that they're asking customers to *cancel* services with the company. Now, I understand the point is to hurt the company in the pocketbook, but if they start losing money, isn't it going to be the union members who lose their jobs? I just find it odd, considering your comment that "when ... Telus lays them off, I'll be laughing". If the union had its way, perhaps Telus might be laying their members off too. Then who will be laughing?

Just a thought -- I don't wish to start a flame war here, rhetoric on the article itself is already enough for me to handle. :-) TheProject 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"If the union had its way, perhaps Telus might be laying their members off too. Then who will be laughing? "

Yeah that's it. Nothing annoys me more than people who constantly say the unions are the bad people. These big companies lay off and exploit workers, screw over their customers, its all take take take, but somehow the unions are the bad ones. I just don't get it. --BoyoJonesJr 14:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I never said the union was the bad party here. I only question the logic of the union's strategy of asking customers to cancel services with the company, as it would seem that customers cancelling services would lead to the company losing money, and while I realize that is the union's intention here, it would, as a side effect, lead to the company laying off its (presumably unionized) employees. It seems like a minor flaw in the union's logic, and that's all I'm wondering about. TheProject 01:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anthrax and other events

There is a definite lack of sources for the events listed as associated with this strike. I have been unable to find any mention of an anthrax scare at a TELUS office, although there have been a few anthrax scares in B.C. Can anyone verify these events and add sources?

The was reported on several local newspapers as well as CKNW, a local radio station, but they all seem to have taken it off of their archives now (this did happen a couple months ago). I'll get you a link if I'm successful in searching it out. TheProject 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the above comment was me. So far, I've only been able to find a link to a blog that wrote about the event, but it also references one of the major newspapers here in Vancouver, which did write about it. Considering papers are archived by libraries in particular, this should not present a problem. TheProject 05:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Labour dispute, again

blocking access to websites: TheProject removed "illegally posted pictures", and in comments said that no injunction was issued, from my understanding a court injuction WAS issued... (it was quoted many times in relation to the dispute) and it would seem to me that the site was in violation of said injunction. Green1 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I looked up the order of events, the injunction did come after the site was blocked, but before the photographs were removed, clarified the post... once again though I'm seeing this section growing, when I feel that the labour dispute section should probably be shrinking again (the dispute is over, and while it's probably important to maintain some of this information, we may not need the level of detail we have here, another possibility is that the Union page may be a more appropriate place for it than the TELUS page?) Green1 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake then. I was under the impression that since there was no injunction, there was no determination of legality. Anyways, if you ask me, I think the information about the job action should remain (we do have a lot of timelines for different events) but perhaps a move to the union's page may be justified. TheProject 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no injunction issued towards Dave (the owner of Voices for Change), however there was some kind of out-of-court agreement between him and TELUS. I could ask him exact details for Wikipedia if need be? PFAK 23:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Up to you, but make sure any information is readily sourced, or else it may be construed as original research. Green1, do you have a copy of said injunction available? TheProject 07:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find the injunction anymore (I had copies during the dispute, but no longer) the injunction was not specifically against voices for change (although it was written as a direct result of that incident) instead the injunction barred anyone affiliated in any way with the union from posting photographs or other identifying information of people crossing the picket line on any website. (the injunction was written in such a way that the photographs could not simply be moved to a different site to get around the injunction)

As a result of the timing of the injunction, and the events that were unfolding at that time, I have to say that it was issued "towards Dave" even though he was not specifically mentioned in the injunction.

on an additional note, the out of court settlement required the owner of Voices For Change to not only take down all the photographs (and any other identifying information) but also to continually monitor the website forums to make sure no other ones were posted. Green1 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

either I'm just missing it or it should be added how Telus violated Net Neutrality principles when it blocked access to the site(s?) Deusfaux 11:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. If it's included, it needs to be done neutrally, and do keep in mind there's any official body that rules on net neutrality violations. (In fact, that last part may mean that including this information neutrally is impossible, as saying that "TELUS violated Net Neutrality" is a matter of opinion.) TheProject 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the term then - there is no matter of opinion regarding it. They blocked access to sites. Net neutrality is about providing free and unlimited access to all sites. Not blocking out ones that are voices of criticism. The incident is ON the wiki for net neutrality. Deusfaux 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The company contends that it was a matter of legality, not a matter of censorship. I'm not even sure if net neutrality is law in Canada. TheProject 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide reference or sources for this contention? I'd like to see on what grounds they could possibly think it was ok to do. Deusfaux 19:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The website was posting images of TELUS employees. It was an issue of privacy violation vs. censorship. I think I've figured out what the problem is -- seems the article's forgotten to explain the side of things accusing the company of censorship. I'll fix that in a moment. TheProject 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it was a legal issue in the vein of privacy - then that is a matter for the RCMP or police to handle - NOT telus - which is exactly the point of net neutrality. Telus as an ISP is supposed to be completely neutral, not take independant action against individual sites it does not like. Deusfaux 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So critics claim censorship. I've added this to the article. TheProject 04:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

it should be noted that "net neutrality" is a completely arbitrary term with no legal backing in Canada (or for that matter, any other country I am aware of) in fact there are laws that REQUIRE service providers to block certain sites under some circumstances, and the terms and conditions of every ISP I have ever seen (including TELUS) state that they can block whatever they want, whenever they want. I am not saying that this is necesarrilly "morally" correct, however it is almost unquestionably legally correct. Green1 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Second-largest

Is Telus still the second-largest mobile carrier in Canada? After Rogers bought Fido, Rogers is the largest and Bell is the second. HUNING 16:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says "the country's second-largest telecommunications carrier" not second largest mobile carrier, TELUS is still the second largest telecommunications carrier (counting both landline and cellular) Green1 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ohh. My misunderstanding! Thanks Green1. HUNING 06:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

TELUS Mobility

Is TELUS Mobility still a seperate company from TELUS, or is it just a division now? I remember it used to be called the TELE-MOBILE company on cellphone bills, but I also recall the company saying something about how it will fully merge into TELUS. 142.58.211.84 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just why did you edit the whole talk page? "Labour" is now "labor?" :: Colin Keigher 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

Anyone care to explain why the recent subsection "Public Response" was deleted from the Advertising section (as "pov") while the irrelevant discussion about the pigs was left untouched?

Perhaps someone else could suggest a better way to add a "Public Response" subsection so it will meet everyone's approval?

The part about the pigs, I think, is at best not necessary. I wouldn't be particularly concerned if it was deleted. theProject 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if it stays. I'm more concerned about how to add a "Public Response" section. Any thoughts?

Needs to be sourced. Unless it's sourced, it'll get taken out pronto. Something tells me we've been through this before. theProject 20:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We have been through this before. Apparently, you still don't see the double-standard at work here. The discussion about the pigs doesn't have a source, but it didn't get removed "pronto", did it? But that's okay. I'll get a source.

(Done. The "Public Response" section is now up to code. Thank you for NOT deleting it from now on!)

A blog that is started for the sake of sourcing a Wikipedia article is not a credible source. theProject 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A blog is a suitable source when the statement being made is "the ads have been criticized". I don't have to be a print journalist to have an opinion.

See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. You don't have to be a print journalist to have an opinion, but you've gotta have some proof that your opinion is notable. theProject 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You can't even cite your own rules properly. It's not my opinion that should be substantial/relevant, it's the content I add to the article (which references my opinion) that should be substantial. And it is. You just don't seem to agree with it, so you delete it instead of revising it.

I still haven't seen any source that suggests that the content of the opinion is substantial (represents a non-fringe view). theProject 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have an answer for everything. I'm a "fringe" view, am I? If so, then what's wrong with a "Fringe View" section on the Telus page? You just point out where I should put it, and then I'll fill it in.

The whole reason why I pointed out "undue weight" was that fringe views should not be given undue weight on Wikipedia. If there's evidence that said views aren't fringe, then I'm sure it would be welcomed. theProject 05:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Your obstinate adherence to policy is "fringe" behaviour. See what I wrote on your user talk page, because for every point of policy you raise, I have several counter-points owing to the fact that I actually believe in something.

(Let me qualify that by saying that I don't have to enforce what I believe with a "policy" either...)

Rest assured, that if you want to continue censoring me in the name of Wikipedia policy, you will win. I have never taken the time to learn how to report abuse in Wikipedia. If I did, my case would probably stand up now because - thanks to the diligent counter-efforts of Wikityrants such as yourself - I am dutifully aware of policy and have shaped my additions accordingly. I just don't want to waste my time. The fact that you "delete first, explain later" is your problem, not mine.

Do you know where subverting other peoples' views puts you on the totem pole of life? Not high.

I hope you realize I've taken a minimal revert approach to your edits to this page since you appeared on it. If you really wanted me to be a Wikityrant, I could do all sorts of other things (block, protect, etc.) instead. But I don't, so I'd ask you to be more considerate when you throw around a term like "Wikityrant". theProject 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A "minimal revert approach". How is that different from "delete first, explain later"? Please show me.

Err, it's the exact opposite. Minimally reverting means I revert (delete) your edits as little as possible. Like, right now, your edit shows up at the top of the article, but I'm not reverting it. theProject 05:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All I see are my edits going bye-bye. Am I supposed to be grateful?

All I'm saying is that I'm not the one reverting your edits. theProject 01:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're not the Wikityrant then. You're just their spokesperson. My mistake.  :)

Pornography

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/028243 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9c00061e-4aec-4410-9dc5-4d69a8274215&k=60979 Considering the general controversial nature of pornography, it's probably best to mention this at some point, in a "controversies" section like a lot of other wiki articles have. 128.61.38.107

The Telus move was a first among North American cell phone service providers and, as such, takes it beyond the general scope of a discussion of pornography. James Warner-Smith 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are probably 1000 facts about Telus, controversial or not, that are more worthy of mention than the fact that they once offered porn on their network and Catholics opposed it. Porn is available on every electronic medium ever invented, and the fact that Catholic archbishops oppose it goes without saying. It is a triviality that doesn't belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.200.238 (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is TELUS planning Caribbean/Barbados expansion?

Is TELUS planning an expansion into the English Speaking Caribbean??? I was looking over the Internet record for Barbados and it appears TELUS has a URL purchased in Barbados? Are they planning to expand into the Caribbean region???

The website in question: http://www.telus.bb/

If so. I hope they launch mobile phone services too. Currently there's only bmobile and Digicel (both are GSM providers) TELUS' MIKE services, and PCS offerings sure would shake up the Caribbean mobile market. CaribDigita 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dissolving of Stentor Alliance

I added the fact template to the statement that TELUS wishing to compete with Bell Canada caused the Stentor Alliance to dissolve. I do not beleive this to be accurate ( my sometimes shaky memory seems to remember Stentor disbanding in 1998 ). If I am mistaken and it is semi-accurate, it seems an overly broad statement to be making. nrw 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pornography vs. Adult Content

I reverted back to the reference to "pornography" as opposed to "adult content." in this article. Adult content can refer to language, violence, a type of "humour" and is, generally speaking, too vague for the purposes of this article. The content being distributed was specific. The downloads were representations of the human body for the purpose of sexual arousal, which is the Wikipedia definition of "Pornography."

James Warner-Smith 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Telus.gif

Image:Telus.gif 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 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point-of-View

I don't believe the line "The company is Canada’s premier corporate citizen." (used in the opening) adheres to a neutral point-of-view. It reads like something from a Telus public relations campaign. I think it should be removed. What is everyone's opinion on this?

Jan. '08 Major Clean-up of Article

I've done several recent edits on this article to clean up many problems with WP: Sources, WP: Weasel Words, WP: NPOV, general readability and "relevance of info" in the article.

For instance, is "advertising" indeed a valid section here, with play-by-plays of TV commercials? I don't think so. But as long as the section exists, then so should "advertising controversy"; if one insists on including "advertising" in the article, one opens the door to information about controversy regarding the described advertising.

Also, does the section "Health IT Services" belong here? It's an unsourced paragraph describing a stock deal that tells us nothing about the Telus company.

More to come. Discussion welcome.

Markbaker2 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken Links

Advertising:

• ...creating "Disco Duck" [3] in 2000 in response...

Neutrality

Excuse me, but this article looks like a TELUS adversiting brochure. What do other people think? Martinizing10 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb. 2008 Article Cleanup

I've done several recent edits on this article to clean up problems with WP:NPOV, WP:Sources, WP:WeaselWords, general readability and "relevance of info" in the article.

I would recommend please that future editors be knowledgeable about Wikipedia guidelines before making changes. It is not appropriate for this article to be a corporate puff-piece. Sources should be third-party and not affiliated with the company.

More cleanup to come, please post feedback at top of page here.

Markbaker2 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

History paragraph

I have removed, for the 2nd time, this unsourced paragraph. Simply adding it back with a "citation needed" tag is inappropriate. The most basic of Wiki policies is you must quote a valid source when adding information. Markbaker2 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It took me about 2 minutes to find sources. I suggest that in future instead of simply removing material (particularly important material such as an entire "history" section) it might be more productive to first run a simple google search and try to see if there are any readily available sources. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reggie, the onus of providing sources is on the editor who adds information, especially on an article about a corporation. Reggie - considering full disclosure policy - do you work for Telus? Markbaker2 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I NOT work for Telus I'm not even a customer (I also dislike their commericals), I use a Fido cell phone and Bell for my landline:) In any case, all I've done is work on the history section and convert references for the rest of the article. Do you work for one of Telus' competitors or are you a former Telus employee? The majority of your editing history seems to be focussed on this article and that of one of Telus' competitors. BTW, if you look at this article's history you'll see that neither Rawr or myself have written any of the "corporate puff" parts of the article so your accusations are out of line. As for the history section, please explain to me what wording within it is not neutral? Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No I don't work for Telus or Shaw, nor have I ever. But when researching them recently I found both their articles here to be cut & paste marketing promo material. In fact the Shaw article should be nominated for deletion, in my view; have you read it? My motivation here is that I despise seeing company marketing puff on Wikipedia. Many companies have already been 'busted' for conflict of interest, sockpuppeting etc.

Regarding the history section, all that info is on the Telus site; we should not mirror information here from a company homepage as it can indeed be perceived as COI and company puff. Only if there is something remarkable and notable about it, with decent mainstream 3P sources, should it be a section in this article. Markbaker2 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Reginald. Mark, I believe you're taking WP:Sources a bit too literally. If you find some 'facts' which are unsourced, then tagging them with {{fact}} is good enough for the time being. Other editors will notice these tags and add the references if you don't want to find them yourself. If a "citation needed" tag remains for a while, then it may be appropriate to remove the material. The only type of unsourced facts that warrant immediate removal are potentially libellous statements in the biography of a living person. (see WP:BLP) Rawr (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawr, I disagree with what you say about sources. This is an article about a corporation, so editors must be sensitive about WP: conflict of interest etc... Rawr, do you work for Telus? Markbaker2 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, and I don't see how it is relevant. I simply restored a history section. Do you have a problem with what is written in this section, besides that it doesn't have proper third party sources? Do you dispute any of the facts listed in this section? Reading over that paragraph, I see nothing controversial, and would find it hard to believe that a major corporation would be lying about their history on a website. I find it puzzling that you are so intent on taking out so much material from this one article. Looking at your edit history, I see that the only other article you are editing is that of one of Telus's competitor's, Shaw Communications. Perhaps you should be the one to declare any conflict of interest that you may have? Rawr (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Rawr, it is relevant if you work for Telus. According to Wiki policy, one must declare such affiliation. As for me, I was researching my local telecom companies and found that both major companies had totally self-serving wiki pages, so I'm endeavoring to change them to comply with Wiki policies. My motivation here is to stop corporations and their employees from posting masturbatory information about themselves on Wikipedia. I ask you, sir, what is your motivation to support this corporate puff-puff? Markbaker2 (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, a lot of the information you removed isn't "corporate puff-puff". Please tell me how a simple history section can be considered "puff"? I'd assume that as a researcher, you'd be interested in having a complete non-biased profile of Telus here. From your above comments above, it would appear that you are the one with a bias. Neutral point-of-view is a fundamental policy here. You are welcome to add the 'bad' stuff along with the 'fluff', provided it is properly sourced. The two stories (Telus Idol and cellphone porn) you suggest below are excellent examples, and the articles you point to are adequate sources. I will not oppose their addition, as long as they are written in a NPOV manner. I'm not the 'bad guy' here, and no fan of giant corporations. I just believe you've gone a bit too far in removing content in this article that took many editors months or even years to accumulate, and many visitors to wikipedia would find useful. Rawr (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Researchers can learn all about the rich and detailed company history and info at the Telus homepage. We shouldn't need to mirror it here. The whole idea of corporations having Wikipedia articles is flaky in the first place, I think. What I've done is shaped the article so it's based on noteworthy things about Telus that cannot be found on the Telus homepage. It just so happens a lot of these noteworthy things are controversial, even in the best possible NPOV reporting language. Markbaker2 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I took some time to look through the edit history of this article, and discovered that an ever larger History section, as well as details about the labour dispute and pornography on cellphones was lost due to vandalism on Dec. 23rd. The vandalism wasn't restored properly, and nobody caught it. There is enough negative content in here to more than balance any corporate 'fluff', and the history section has facts that aren't on Telus's website (although it definitely needs more sources). It appears that the removal of these sections wasn't a part of any corporate conspiracy... just simple vandalism. If anybody would like to take the time to properly incorporate this recovered material into the current article, I'd appreciate it. Rawr (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rawr, that history section is now wayyy too long and almost completely unsourced. I'm reverting your changes. Let's escalate this matter to Wikipedia authorities and see what they think. Please do not edit war until we can get a ruling from admins. Markbaker2 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found and read the Wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information and it seems none of us is completely correct here... I apologize for my initial attitude. Yes indeed a longer history section is warranted, but there still remains the problem of sources. I have no doubt all the lengthy history is correct, but citations are required and weasel words carefully screened out. Markbaker2 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with sources? There are third party sources included and there are no weasel words in the history section that I can find. Reggie Perrin (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know why you keep saying it's "lengthy", it's only a paragraph - barely 100 words. Reggie Perrin (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reggie, see my comments above. I found the 'original' longer history section that was lost due to vandalism on Dec. 23rd. I restored it last night, but Mark reverted it. He seems to now agree that a longer history section is ok, so if someone wants to go into the edit history (see here: [1]), and integrate the longer history section into what we have now, I'd appreciate it. Strangely, Mark also reverted the re-addition of the Labour dispute and Pornography Sales sections, definitely not "corporate puff". Mark, if you still feel some outside input is warranted, I suggest you start at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and follow the instructions there. I'd welcome any help they can provide. Rawr (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't realized there had been another history section. I've restored the sections on labour troubles and pornography sales. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to read this article to learn about this company, and really, it doesn't tell me much. The history section is not informative, as it does not tell a coherent sequential story. The doesn't seem to be a description of the comany's current circumstances, with info like, where are the employees (how many and what kind are offshore, how is the company divided into divisions and how are they related, who and how do they hire, and why did they win an award as a good employer? What is their reputation in relation to their competitors, as regards services, customer satisfaction, and working conditions? I was impelled to read this article and post this because of considerable frustration with the confusion between their different departments. However, maybe they are no worse than any other tech industry -- maybe its just the tech stuff is getting ahead of everybody! Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources Tag

I added this tag again because many refs/sources go to the Telus website. This is an article about a corporation, so editors should be careful about perceived NPOV/Company Puff information. Wikipedia is NOT a place for company puff information cited from the company website. More of this crap and I will register this article for WP:COI consideration. Markbaker2 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are not banned - there just need to be a sufficient number of third party sources and looking at the references section there are. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Telus Idol

I am considering adding a section about this, re [2] and [3]

Thoughts about this are welcome

Markbaker2 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cellphone Porn

I am considering adding a section about this, re [4] and [5]

Thoughts about this are welcome

Markbaker2 (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Formating

I tried to add a reference to the Christmas advertising campaign section and for some reason it completely messed up the formatting (I cant see any issues with the syntax???) maybe someone who;s better with wiki code can take a look and fix it. Sorry. Macutty (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding Pornography Controversy Section

This paragraph was removed without notes or justification. Markbaker2 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As written, it is way too long given the overall size of the article. Unless we are prepared to significantly expand the article, the text would have to be summarized in a line or to to keep it in perspective. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be correct, but instead of wholesale removal of the section, is not the onus on you to edit it? Markbaker2 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To a certain degree, yes. However, I did not have time earlier today to trim, and we also have to avoid leaving disproportionate amounts of negative (or positive) text intact. Either way, it is tightened up now. (Could use some more though, and I didn't have a chance to combine the duplicate references.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Incoming SMS charges

I think we should try to resolve the notability dispute over incoming SMS charges before it turns into an edit war. The Bell Mobility article mentions incoming SMS charges in its' controversy section. I have some evidence supporting notability. According to this article on itbusiness.ca, the decision was criticized by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and NPD leader Jack Layton. The NDP's petition against incoming SMS charges is currently mentioned on the front page of their website. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it - it's valid and seeing the outcry (large facebook group, NDP petition), MSM reports it's worthy of it's own section. I'll try and ensure the Telus and Bell sections are similar in style and length so they are at least somewhat balanced -- Tawker (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Major overhaul needed

The article needs a major overhaul to properly balance our coverage per WP:UNDUE. Right now, it is significantly unbalanced as it focuses on several relatively minor aspects of the company. I'm certainly not suggesting a puff piece, or that we parrot the marketing department's ad copy. However, Telus is a major Canadian telecommunications company, with a long history that includes the original Telus from Alberta as well as BC Tel. Despite this, Wikipedia's article on Telus currently gives the bulk of its coverage to a relatively ordinary labour dispute, a minor controversy over pornography, and several other minor issues. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree absolutely. We're suffering from recentism in the article, that and it's likely harder to dig sources up for more historical sections. If you have any ideas / time to update things it'd be great -- Tawker (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Should add something about their effective but unstated 5GB Usage Caps on the "Unlimited" Data Plan

Telus is actively canceling all the 'Connect 75 Unlimited' accounts. Quite the controversy.

216.198.139.38 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Telus TV

TELUS provides TV service in certain cities in Canada. As of right now, TELUS TV redirects to Telus; should a new article be made? Ginbot86 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Flag need

I can honestly say I've never come across a wiki page so one sided and obviousley intended to defame the company. There is a lead, and a paragraph on background and the entire rest of the article is full of mostly negative, un-notable, out of date POV material. The labour dispute was resovled half a decade ago and should no longer be included (manay many companies have endure strikes, they always get press, but non of them are mentioned on wiki in other articles). The porn issue was a very moinor news story as telus reacted immediately and pulled it, the hippo things is not even about telus, but rather the zoo but snuck in to the article to add more negative coverage. HOnestly, the entire article needs a re-write (which I see was suggested 2 years ago and since then not much has changed. Unless someone objects I'm going to remove some of the out of date, un-notable material and begin to add more relevant info on the company, its services, and it's people. Anyone else care to share their thoughts? 209.91.107.249 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems there are people with opinions on both sides. You seem to think this article is intended to defame... others have said that much of the article is written like an advertisement. I would concur that the article is pretty poor but I would submit to you that removing information that has been part of the article for several years is perhaps not the best way to improve the article.... perhaps you could contribute something instead. I'm going to restore some of the hard work you deleted. The history of the organization is factual and relevant. I believe that your perspective that this information may not make leave a favorable impression is secondary to accurate presentation of information. --I think therefore surelyiam 05:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are headquaters located?

This article says: Burnaby, BC but here it says that it is in Scarborough, Ontario? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

New CEO

As of May 8, 2014, Joe Natale will take over as President and CEO of TELUS. Darren Entwistle will then become the Executive Chair of TELUS. The “Key People” section of the page should be edited to reflect these changes and include both parties. COI disclosure: I am a TELUS employee. Source: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/31/telus-corp-ceo-darren-entwistle-steps-down-joe-natale-takes-helm/?__lsa=9fde-2c89, http://about.telus.com/community/english/news_centre/news_releases/blog/2014/03/31/telus-announces-leadership-progression

Joe Natale's current bio is located at: http://about.telus.com/community/english/investor_relations/corporate_team/executive_team/joseph_natale

Dixxy88 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Title Change

As of May 8, 2014, Darren Entwistle will no longer be President and CEO of TELUS. His new title is Executive Chair. The opening paragraph of the page should be edited to reflect this change. COI disclosure: I am a TELUS employee. Sources: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/31/telus-corp-ceo-darren-entwistle-steps-down-joe-natale-takes-helm/?__lsa=9fde-2c89, http://about.telus.com/community/english/news_centre/news_releases/blog/2014/03/31/telus-announces-leadership-progression

Darren Entwistle's official bio is located here: http://about.telus.com/community/english/investor_relations/corporate_team/executive_team/darren_entwistle

Dixxy88 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 04:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Telus → Telus Communications – I think with all the reorganization this article should be renamed Telus Communications, because that is what is it primarily about. The article Telus should become a disambiguation page for all the different Telus pages that now exist. Svgalbertian (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Svgalbertian, jumping the gun aren't you? Please allow the process already started here, which is more than just a page move, to evolve to a possible outcome, before requesting any changes. -- WILDSTAR^talk 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I figured this was inevitable once Telus Corporation (conglomerate) was created otherwise we would have duplicate articles. I do recommend renaming the article and trimming it, instead of creating a new one to preserve history. But I'll respect the discussion. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Telus Corporation was created entirely in good-faith about the publicly-traded company, but in actual fact, it a duplicative fork of Telus. The fact is, Telus' principal operating business is telecommunications, and it generates very little, if any, reliable, independent source press coverage that isn't also about its telecommunications and mobility businesses. The solution here is not to create myriad C-, start-, and stub-class articles about what is a publicly-traded telecommunications group, but rather, to rewrite the lede of Telus to acknowledge that it is about Telus Corporation and Telus Communications. Included within that lede and subsequent history section, we should note its corporate history and how it came to evolve the name of the parent company. More simply, though, unquestionably, the unambiguous common name of Telus refers to the telecommunications company, so Telus Communications is appropriately titled as Telus. If there's consensus for the separate articles, I guess that is fine, but as I say, Telus Corporation should then remain titled as Telus Corporation. Dmehus (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and per Dmehus. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ADT Inc. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Subsidiary error

In the Subsidiaries attribution of the Telus article, Alarmforce Canada is listed as a subsidiary. While Alarmforce apparently sold some Western-Canada customers to Telus, the company itself is owned by BCE Inc, not Telus.