Talk:Walmart/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Featured article candidate

This article includes Wikipedia's work at its best in that it includes informative and accurate information, and appropriate visuals for a detailed Wikipedian description of the world's largest company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.68 (talk • contribs) . I completely disagree. The fact that "renewable energy" and "experimental" are both halfway down the page while "price fixing" and "aggressive import and labor violations" aren't on it at all mean that this particular article has very little reliability.

Aparently a massive whitewashing effort from many walmart PR apologists. Shameful really.

Bangladesh Taki should be Bangladesh Taka

I agree, this is an excellent article, clearly listing both pros and cons. Please sign your posts.Travb 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is a mess. There are allegations Wal-Mart's PR team is whitewashing it. [1]. Wikipedia should not hold this up as a featured article until the editors resolves the article's problems. Abe Froman 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. In fact, this article's been mentioned on Slashdot. Come to think of it, isn't there a Slashdot template that could be used to signify that it's been linked to and/or mentioned on Slashdot? Brian Ryans 17:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. Yes, there was, and despite my reverting vandals who kept removing it, consensus was reached that it was time to retire the Slashdot banner. You can read more on that below. Kamikaze Highlander 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Praises of Wal-Mart

To make this article more NPOV, since the Criticism seciton is so big, maybe there should be a section called "Praises" to offset it. RJII 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wal*Mart is a very good store. The reasons why people dislike it so much are purely political in nature. Just compare Target to Wal*Mart and see what you find different about the two.71.72.206.166 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Nate Bell

I have to partially agree with both of you, but rather than offsetting the "controversy" it needs to be moved off this page ENTIRELY - the whole mess is a footnote as far as your average reader is concerned. The main page starts out with one summary paragraph ("founded by Sam Walton" etc.) and then the second paragraph is all about Walmart controversy ("hotly debated") and actually takes more space than the summary paragraph. Walmart is NOT a controversy, it is a store. So the second paragraph doesn't belong there. Nor is walmart "hotly debated." Newsflash! Apart from shopping there, MOST PEOPLE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT WALMART! I go to Wikipedia to find FACTS, and the controversy is not really essential to this. I'm all for labor statistics, the way they're organized, where they're located, how they manage inventory, but I don't care how any of these make you FEEL. This is an encyclopedia. 66.142.137.153 14:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC) An average reader 2006.05.05 @ 0928

I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that summaries are supposed to summarise? Why then would it be a bad thing for the summary to be shorter than some other part of the article? Gleemonex 08:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, average reader, that this is an encyclopedia. It is not adspace. Encyclopedias give the histories of the entities they cover, including those thingsthat are the mark of controversy. Those angry little feelings you're lambasting the editor for expressing on the page aren't just his little feelings, but are representative of a very large constituent that doesn't like Walmart on political grounds. That's part of its history. A more average reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.115.132 (talk • contribs)

• There is no moral argument in favour of Wal Mart. It would be easier to write a "praise" section on Charles Manson. If anything this article is too positive to be considered neutral by any reasonable person (in other words, anyone who's not a Wal Mart shareholder).

Moved criticism and response to separate article

This article is bloated, and quite frankly...a mess. There was an existing "Criticism of Wal-Mart" article and it's crazy to try to dual-maintain. I've boldly merged the content to that other article, and left introductory stubs here. Should we decide to merge that content back here, we can do it wholesale rather than trying to maintain the same content across two articles.

I think this has made the main Wal-Mart article a lot more manageable and easy to read, but there is work left to be done. There's enough information and content to make this a featured article if folks stop grinding axes and start working to make this thing useful. -- MisterHand 17:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good move. I was just about to create a section called "Praise of Wal-Mart" to offset the huge criticism section but that may not be necessary now. RJII 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved RJII's "Economic Impact" to Criticisms because: 1) There is already a lot of economic studies (both pro and con) in that the Criticisms section 2) Referencing Criticisms for controversial topics seems like a good 'policy' to avoid another round of POV exchanges. Jvandyke 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose deleting that from the article. First of all, it's not a criticism. Secondly, it's not even a response to a criticism. It's simply a study on the economic impact of Wal-mart by the the world's largest economics organization, Global Insight. Surely, the economic impact of Wal-mart should be made known in the Wal-mart article. RJII 06:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I added back the all the other economic studies that were in the Criticisms section. Also, we should add all the studies pulled together by Global Insight as described in the following BusinessWeek article. Especially since the results were mixed - don't you think? [2] Jvandyke 06:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Let's just not add anything other than hard facts. No POV spin. RJII 06:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The now deleted claim that Wal-Mart is ironically profitable because it passes off healthcare costs to the state is a result of an economically fallacious line of reasoning. Labor is paid for the value they add via their poductivity and skills, not because they have kids or need healthcare. If a government offers healthcare then 1. it is their responsibility to pay via their law. 2. be thankful these people are working and not taking more taxpayer resources because there was no job requiring their low skilled labor, 3. realize that there are many companies that have low wage employees while also realizing that no wal-mart associate makes minimum wage while there are many jobs elsewhere that pay minimum wage. 4. realize that people are free to choose healthcare coverage if they want. 5. realize that much of the cost of healthcare, results from the unintended consequences of government over regulation. (Gibby 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Sure, other companies do, like wal-mart, offer health insurance to only some employees. But, due to Wal-Mart's size, Wal-Mart happens to be the largest single corporate beneficiary of state funded health care in 12 states. [3] Thanks to the taxpayer, Wal-Mart saves on health care costs. Abe Froman 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What upsets me about the Wal-Mart page is that there is less fact and more arguement. I'm all for the criticisms section as long as there is a balace to everything. It is my opinion that there should be a section regarding Wal-Marts Good Works Foundation. Also, there is a whole website out there that contains actual facts from Wal Mart, and the Links section didn't even have it listed under the offical websites section. Like I said there should be a more balaced article there. Walmart has some bad and some good, but the good it does is just completely ignored, simply because the article is edited over and over by the very vocal minority of people against Wal-Mart. That doesn't mean we need more "pro walmart" we just need a more neutral view of it. Another small bit that irks me is that there isn't a section for the history of Wal-Mart. A chronilogical outline wouldn't be a bad thing.

It is not acceptable to move ALL criticism to the sub-article. As several editing guidelines state, articles should be able to stand on their own, i.e. there should be a reasonable summary of the criticism sub-article within this article. It needn't maintain an extensive duplication of content, but it should provide a comprehensive summary of the sub-article. Kaldari 15:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cutting article down to size

The "Wal-Mart in popular culture" section is simply an embarrassment-it's irrelevant to understanding Wal-mart. The "Corporate governance" may be relevant to a few, but that's what a company's corporate site (linked more than once on the page)is for. No one looking for that info should take it second-hand rather than going to the source. The section should be deleted. Eross8 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)ERoss8

• While the "Pop Culture" section can certainly be trimmed I wouldn't remove it completely. I think these references help demonstrate how ingrained Wal*Mart is in American culture, but we certainly don't need every mention of Wal*Mart that's ever been made listed. -- MisterHand 23:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• There have been thoudsands of articles written about Wal-Mart. Linking a handful is neccessarily subjective and somewhat arbitrary. I suggest this page should simply link to the few sites that provide deep archives, likee ReclaimDemocracy.org/walmart, AgainsttheWal.com. Simlarly, there are at least several dozen studies on Wal-Mart, ten from ne conference alone: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/2005_conference_studies_links.php. Would it make more sense to link indexes within sites like HometownAdvantage.org and ReclaimDemocracy.org?
  • Wikipedians have editorial control of link collections here. We have no control over such collections on external sites. How do we defend NPOV in linking on external link collections? The same goes for collections of research studies. Feco 06:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• The Reclaim Democracy site is decidedly anti Wal-Mart, although the site owners attempts to claim that it represents a balance between pro and anti Wal-Mart views. This claim is in fact entirely disingenuous. Reference to the site was moved to "Websites Critical of Wal-Mart". Harriman 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Express?

I heard that a "Wal-Mart Express" has opened on the Gulf Coast in response to Hurricane Katrina. Does anyone have any images and information about it/them? Alexzero77 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Wal-Mart Express" in Waveland, MS, is actually a store-within-a-store. The 57,000 new setup was enclosed inside the 200,000+ sq.ft. structure, and was setup more like a SAM'S Club, with pallets of merchandise instead of traditional fixtures. More info can be found at http://www.walmartfacts.com/community/article.aspx?id=1509. Prospero11 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Debates over Wal-Mart

Why is the Jay Nordlinger passage from the right-wing National Review included in the Debates Over Wal-Mart section? Isn't the Debate section a place where another point of view can be expressed? The Nordlinger passage's only purpose seems to be to tendentiously tar any Wal-Mart debate as closet Socialism, before the reader has even visited the Debates over Wal-Mart page. I think it should be removed and added to the Debates over Wal-Mart page as a rebuttal. Abe Froman 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The above passage is already present in the Debates Over Wal-Mart article, in the "Reasons for Criticism" section. I removed it from the main Wal-Mart article. Abe Froman 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced an NPOV tag that had been removed, because I think it is a good idea and I feel that readers might not otherwise be able to find information about the criticisms of wal-mart. If there are any other articles for or against wal-mart, they should be highlighted to give researchers easier access, and to improve the neutrality of the article. Kamikaze Highlander 20:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean. Can you elaborate, specifically, on what you think needs to happen to make this article more neutral? -- MisterHand 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is pretty reliable, using verifiable sources and not really biased for wal-mart, but the problem is that researchers need to be made aware that there are criticisms, so I've made it easier for them to find the article about them. The article, in my opinion, hides them by only putting a little reference in the middle, and only dedicated researchers would put out the effort to find them. The criticisms of wal-mart aren't common knowledge beyond the fact that most people know there are some criticisms, so a truly neutral article needs to show that there are two sides to the subject. Kamikaze Highlander 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag isn't designed to fix an article, but to make editors aware of the problem so it can be fixed. But I understand what your getting at, so I'll attempt an improvement. -- MisterHand 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the blurb to the top of the article. Hopefully that alleviates your concerns. -- MisterHand 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes it a lot more encyclopedic, in my opinion. This is definitely a much better article thanks to that. Kamikaze Highlander 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any other sub-articles which are mentioned in italics above the actual article.. linking to Debates over Wal-Mart should be handled like all other sub-articles: There should be a "Debates over Wal-Mart" section in this article with a one-paragraph summary of the controversy, and a {{main}} link. The only time we use italic links above the article are for disambiguation. Rhobite 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

disagree. The Debates over Wal-Mart section of this page was removed, so the link ended up at the top of the Page. Since Wal-Mart is a contested issue I feel it is useful to have disambiguation at the top of the page, rather than fishing through the article for it. vote replace. Abe Froman 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was the section ever removed? Having a summary section is our standard practice for any article with sub-articles. This article should not have a disambiguation link - disambiguation is used to differentiate between two separate topics with the same name. Like Paul O'Neill the baseball player and Paul O'Neill the former treasury secretary. Rhobite 22:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Debates passage was hard to keep alive, take a look at the history of it. I suspect that is why the debates link ended up at the top of the article. Abe Froman 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the main Wal-Mart article does not contain the information in the Debates over Wal-Mart article, so in fact it is a sort of disambiguation. Most people who look up an article on a subject of debate expect to find information for and against the sides of the debate, and would not expect that they would have to look for another article to find information left out of an article with the name of the subject. Think of an article about World War II that had a separate article on World War II in the Pacific. If any information is left out of an article that could influence a reader's opinion on a subject, it belongs at the top so that they know what they're getting into. Kamikaze Highlander 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe an actual diambugation page should be considered if the suggestion for a "In Defence of Wal*Mart page goes up. Marrow Chiller 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypermarts converted to Supercenters.

Hypermarts were converted to Wal*Mart Supercenters. Was there ever an official Super Wal*Mart? What's the difference between a supercenter and a hypermart? They took out the independent stores but lately they have put some in.--Gbleem 05:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't fiscal information be within the article (not on top)?

Shouldn't the fiscal information at the top of the article be moved into the article? It doesn't seem to fit an introduction, as it's too specific to be general information about Wal-Mart. It's not exactly vital information, and it's not the type of information that's usually included in an introduction in an article (perhaps at the top but at the side, such as a table or graph), so it should be moved with all other business information below the intro. Kamikaze Highlander 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the fiscal info useful because it helps put the size and operations of Wal-Mart in context. Abe Froman 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very common for company finantial info mto be front-and-center in this type of article on many many websites. It seems very appropriate for a general over-view of a company. Jake b 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the fiscal information to the financial section, since articles on other stores do not display this information in their introductions. Kamikaze Highlander 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Added link

I added the link from the slashdot story. I'm not adding an article section unless someone actually proves the claim... though it should be very interesting to see if anyone removes the link and if so, who it is.--Isotope23 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To Wal-Mart ad agencies

dear retards -- please stop removing negative facts about your company from this article.

• And so begins the /. inspired trolling...--Isotope23 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary and offensive. nvalley 18:23, 29 April 2006

Sorry, you're right, that was too offensive. However, when dealing with large corporations such as Walmart, whose first priority above all else is profits, and who have a financial interest in putting people last, I believe the principle "guilty until proven innocent" applies. They must actively demonstrate that they are ethical. Jawed 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

North Korea

In the section listing the number of stores in each country, why is North Korea listed with 0 stores, even though many other countries with 0 stores are not listed?

UMM?!?

Umm... can someone please explain what is going on? What is Slashdot.org, and why did nobody feel it was necessary to explain why they put it there? And the NPOV warning is not meant to improve an article, but to let moderators know there is a problem. The article was not written by Wal-Mart exclusively, either.

Anyone who wishes to explain these recent edits should feel free. Perhaps we need to lock this from edits by new or unregistered users? Anyway, I'm removing everything above the introduction until someone explains themselves. Kamikaze Highlander 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[P.S. Someone mentioned there's a story by Slashdot.org? Anyway, explain what that is, rather than that it's simply there.]

The high traffic tag is supposed to indicate that this article likely has more traffic than it normally would, because it has been linked to from a high traffic internet site, just like the tag says. What explanation is required?

Why did you remove the NPOV tag? Are you saying that it's clear that there isn't an NPOV issue here? That has NOTHING to do with the Slashdot story at all, why did you remove it? Jake b 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot.org is a "News for Nerds" (their words, not mine) site which is heavily read by technical people in many vocations, especially computer-related ones. The warning is due to the fact that the Slashdot effect exists, and when they link to a page somewhere, all the attention of Slashdotters is typically focused on that one page for a while. In other words, our traffic shoots through the roof, Wikipedia slows down, and Jimbo has to stand by the server rack with a fire extinguisher in hand to try to catch the machines before they turn into little charred cinders. ~Kylu (u|t) 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, of course. And you can expect there to be a huge nubmer of knee-jerk edits as well. Goes without saying when something hits the FP of Slashdot. I do think that the NPOV and Slashdot are seperate, though, and even if the article had not made Slashdot, there is reason to still have the NPOV tag... 2 cents... Jake b 16:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In the future, please discuss these changes in the talk-page. It gets frustrating when one doesn't know whether there's a good reason for changes or if someone simply put it there for fun.

The Slashdot.org banner looks like an advertisement saying that they wrote an article and to boost their traffic. The banner does not indicate that this article will see increased traffic, but that Slashdot is a high-traffic site.

And don't put NPOV warnings without a reason. I'd suggest using the NPOV tag where you write a reason in it. Kamikaze Highlander 16:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's not advertising... it's fairly common practice to tag a wikipedia article after a site like slashdot links an article pertaining to wikipedia. This is done because Slashdot is a high traffic site and this article will see increased traffic and vandalism as a result (per Slashdot effect as Kylu mentioned above. It's basically a warning to editors to be on the lookout for spurious edits and vandals. Tag could be better presented though. With as many people as go to slashdot they don't need to advertise on wikipedia.--Isotope23 16:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

When there is a "high traffic" tag (and I think it is appropriate here), does it go on the article page or the discussion (talk) page? Both? Seems to have been removed from the article page... Jake b 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It goes on the talk page as pointed out in User:Cyde's edits.--Isotope23 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all KH, I didn't do anything at all to the Slashdot banner, neither add nor subtract. Second, you are one to talk about making changes without discussion. Anyway, your assertion about the meaning of the Slashdot tag is asinine. It's a use that is long-standing, having been used many times in simular situations where a Wikipedia article has been featured at Slashdot. Jake b 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm... who are you and what do you want? Unless you added either the Slashdot banner or the NPOV tag, why did you even get involved in this discussion? And why do you keep vandalizing my talk page? Using a sockpuppet (131.30.121.23) is frowned upon, and making personal attacks are not allowed. Kamikaze Highlander 22:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is a private party? And how is asking you a question on your "talk" page vandalism? Of course it's not. Now you have a polite request on you "talk" page, but that was NOT the case when I added comments (no, as you say "vandalized"). 67.42.94.9 00:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, when I got on here this morning, there was a new NPOV tag, a tag that said this article was discussed on a high-traffic website, and there was also a sentence above both tags that said something like Wal-Mart has been widely criticized, etc. (which was removed before I went to remove the two tags).

First of all, the Slashdot tag looked like an ad, and since all sorts of unregistered users had been posting I thought it was simple vandalism, along with the NPOV tag. Nobody had made any comment on the talk page about why these tags were added, and so I removed them after saying that I was going to remove them until someone gave an explanation. Anyone adding a tag should always give an explanation on the talk page, and any time a tag is added without explanation it should be removed.

I've since been attacked for removing the tags for no reason...

"Why did you remove the high-traffic template from the Wal-Mart article? It's both factually accurate and a worthwhile warning both for Wikipedians and Slashdotters." — ciphergoth 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it looked like an ad and it was added with no explanation on the talk page.

"Why did you remove the NPOV tag? Are you saying that it's clear that there isn't an NPOV issue here?" Jake b 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying any tag added with no explanation should always be removed. It's not like nobody can go to the history, see changes and decide it should be replaced, and it's not like nobody can then go to the talk page and give a reason for doing so.

"You work for Wal-Mart, correct?" Jake b

Seeing as how I've never added to the article, except when I placed an POV-Because tag since the only talk of any criticisms was in a tiny section buried in the middle. This resulted in the paragraph you now see in the introduction being added.

Anyway, the Slashdot has been removed from the article while being kept in the talk page, which is what should have happened. And now that there has been consensus that the article isn't NPOV, I placed the POV-Because tag you now see.

Am I upset about being criticized? No, since my only critic has made no useful contributions to this article. In fact, Jake b has twice vandalized this article, first by removing my POV-Because tag, replacing it with a blanket NPOV tag while both giving no reason and claiming to be removing vandalism, and second by removing my replaced POV-Because tag, this time replacing it with a Disputed tag, which says that the factual accuracy of the article is disputed, while again claiming to be removing vandalism. (I didn't remove this tag, though, and instead asked for the opinion of others, who decided to remove the Disputed tag.)

I wrote this so that people who haven't been following the situation can see why this article has been locked, and what the deal is with the Slashdot banner, but also to explain my own edits to the article. I hope this sets the record straight. Kamikaze Highlander 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

OK, let's talk about the NPOV issue. As I see it, the most glaring problem with the POV of this article is that the entire criticism section has been moved to a sub-article without providing a summary in this article. Every article in Wikipedia should be able to stand on its own. It is standard practice when creating a subarticle to include a summary of the sub-article within the main article. Here all we have is one sentence that says that criticism of Wal-Mart exists. This is certainly not an adequate summary. Also keep in mind that NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints have to be presented equally. It means that the article needs to be presented from a neutral point of view. This means that if criticism of a company is widespread we should report that in proportion to the amount of criticism. If praise of a company is widespread, we should report that in proportion of the priase. Right now, however, we have 1 sentence for criticism about a company that is probably among the most widely criticised in the world. Kaldari 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

agreed . Practically, it was difficult and proved impossible to maintain a criticisms section of the page, because it was either whitewashed or removed in minutes. Take a look at the history of the passage. If an admin or collection of astute editors are willing to babysit a resurrected criticisms section, it can work. Abe Froman 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious (really), what form do similar summaries take? It seems to me it should be no more than a few paragraphs. Otherwise we might as well bring the section back to the main article? Of course maybe I have no clue... Jake b 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also troubled by how the "Contributions" section is so prominent in the article, suggesting that Walmart contributes back to local communities in so many ways: this is pure PR (both the mention here and the actual "contributions") and should be mentioned as such. And it's really kind of ridiculous considering how much more substantial criticism is of Walmart's effect on communities.--130.58.194.190 16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no easy answers. At one point, we had a summary paragraph pointing to the the "Criticisms" article, but somebody tagged that as NPOV because it wasn't in the main intro. We need some sort of balance, but we can't bring the whole article back here (it would more than double the size of this article, which is too large already). -- MisterHand 16:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• So criticism was forked because it was contentious or because the article was too long? If it was the former I'd say it would be a candidate to merge back in because forking for POV is never acceptable.--Isotope23 16:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It was forked for size. That it was contentious was not an issue. The edit wars have slowed down considerably since the fork, which demonstrates that the criticisms are now a lot less visable (and this is NOT a good thing). If we could get the criticisms down a much smaller size (much much smaller), and perhaps move some other material to a new fork, I would very much like to see it brought back into this article in full. -- MisterHand 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the blanket NPOV tag with a POV-Because tag. Feel free to comment. Kamikaze Highlander 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

i'm concerned with the order of the subjects in the article. (but.. then again, i've just happened across this article after a Slashback post about this page...i haven't even READ the whole damn thing) it would seem to me that the article should be ordered in importance, such as Business / Employees / Unionization / Walmart Benefits / Financial Results / Econonmic Impact / Criticism / Statistics / Experiments. Experiments seems VERY out of place where it is right now. but that may just be my anti-big-business-editing-Wikipedia-slant that slashdot/other blog put on my mind. but still. anyone else? Plonk420 09:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'd like to see comments from more people on this issue before anyone tries to do anything about it, but the order does need to be changed significantly. Kamikaze Highlander 18:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jihad Cowboy edit

That actually happened at Sam's Club and yes I know that the Walton's own both stores, but this content should be added to Sam's Club, not Wal-Mart.--Isotope23 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Later in the article, it states that this had occured at other Wal-Marts and [Sam's Club]s. While the crushed foot incident was at a Sam's Club (is changed on the newest submission), the lock-in problems is a fact that belongs on the Wal-Mart page. --Jihad_cowboy

In which case you should probably just summarize that employee's have been locked in and that it created problems... they way you wrote it is a bit misleading. Also, link it to [[4] the New York Times article as that is a better source than some guy's blog where he reprints articles.--Isotope23 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You should probably just put it in the Criticisms page, because even if it is rewritten it probably won't stay here for long. And, in the future, don't replace something that was deleted over and over again. That's not kosher! Kamikaze Highlander 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Version now is better - and be aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which you have technically already broken.--Isotope23 17:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The newest link is to a chicago legal watch site, as NY times requires registration and limits access to the archives. And I apologize for the constant reedits, but as the article is under debate for being worked over by employees of the company, I assumed it was one of them making the edits, not a "real" user. Finally, criticisms belong in the article, as keeping all the negatives on one page and positives on another violates NPOV. In my humble opinion of course. --[Jihad_cowboy]

Yep, that's why I didn't report the 3RR: Assume Good Faith. Personally I'd like to see the criticism section merged back in.--Isotope23 17:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that I agree a summary of criticisms would be useful. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"See Also"

Should the "See Also" section include the Criticism of Wal-Mart page? 130.58.235.228 17:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)David C.

• Only if it's not linked to elsewhere in the article. -- MisterHand
  • Hmm, the Sam's Club page and Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market page have separate links. Is that wrong, or is there a difference? 130.58.235.228 17:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)David C.
    • Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed them. -- MisterHand 18:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Tag

I don't know that the factual accuracy tag is a good idea. The user left no reasons for putting it, and at the same time they removed the POV-Because tag without replacing it with any npov tag, again without a reason. Does anyone feel the factual accuracy tag should be kept? Kamikaze Highlander 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I removed it since the originator never explained the reasoning behind it on this page.--Isotope23 18:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Quote from FastCompany

I removed this quote from the article

In the December 2003 issue of FastCompany Charles Fishman, in an attempt to help understand the breadth of the company, describes Wal-Mart this way: "Wal-Mart is not just the world's largest retailer. It's the world's largest company--bigger than ExxonMobil, General Motors, and General Electric... Wal-Mart sold $244.5 billion worth of goods last year. It sells in three months what number-two retailer Home Depot sells in a year. And in its own category of general merchandise and groceries, Wal-Mart no longer has any real rivals. It does more business than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, Safeway, and Kroger combined. 'Clearly,' says Edward Fox, head of Southern Methodist University's J.C. Penney Center for Retailing Excellence, 'Wal-Mart is more powerful than any retailer has ever been.' It is, in fact, so big and so furtively powerful as to have become an entirely different order of corporate being."

I'm placing this here, instead of the article, so that everyone can decide what to do with it. Kamikaze Highlander 19:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too bad to me - Charles Fishman is a senior editor at Fast Company, and has written a book about Wal-Mart call "The Wal-Mart Effect" which, having not read it myself, does appear to be fairly balanced and neutral. So what we have here is a quote describing the enormity of the subject of the article from a person who has done serious, in-depth research about said corporation. I don't see any problem with it staying in where it is. BigDaddyJ 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tumbleweed Passes By, Wikipedians Take Note

Silence. I guess now would be a good time for some cleanup? Kamikaze Highlander 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I would suggest changing the "Debates Over Wal-Mart" link to avoid the redirect - so pointing straight to "Criticism of Wal-Mart" - whether the link is piped or not is a question - I would say no - "Debates Over Wal-Mart" sounds like weasel words - the separate article is criticism - so that is what it should be called. SFC9394 19:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made the change. Kamikaze Highlander 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article with a fine-toothed comb...it sounds like it's spun very much in Wal-Mart's favor, as the /. story asserts. There's little-to-no information available aobut the criticisms and debates over Wal-Mart. I would like to see the articles merged if possible, or all the separate subsections plus the debates/criticisms made shorter members of a category, to which Wal-Mart would be an index page of sorts. There's a LOT of information there. DolphinCompSci 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Just my $0.02

Perhaps a separate Pro Wal-Mart article, such as Support of Wal-Mart, or Praise, or Benefits of a world with Wal-Mart, separating all information for and against Wal-Mart out of the main article? I'd like to see some more comments on this. Kamikaze Highlander 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's sort-of what got us in this mess in the first place. People attempted to create a balanced article (where every criticism had a counterpoint, and vice-versa) vs. an npov article (where criticisms and praises were appropriately weighted). There have been too many instances where POV-pushers have come in and made sure they had "their say" in every paragraph of the article, rather than taking a step back and asking "Is this an encyclopedia article or an editorial in the local paper?" -- MisterHand 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, NPOV doesn't mean point, counterpoint. Best case would be to format this with an overview (currently done), History, Business/Financials, Employees (which could cover official benefits numbers), and Criticism. IMO, criticisms are peppered all over and the whole article is haphazard. Fact is that lots of people like Walmart & lots of people hate Walmart. It should be possible to create a factual article with verified info - including criticisms. Then it's just a matter of protecting it from the POV pushers. Also the links section is ridiculously bloated...--Isotope23 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree again. NPOV has nothing to do at all with reaching any sort of balance. For an article to be NPOV simply means to list all verifiable and notable information without resorting to sensationalism. If there's more "bad" than "good," well, so be it. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

agreed, however, look at the history of this article. Any cited criticisms have been hard to keep alive inside the main article. If an admin or a bevy of committed editors is willing to maintain vigilance, the ideas expressed above will work. I am hopeful a balance can be reached. Abe Froman 02:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are describing, the idea of a separate "Pro Wal-Mart" article, is essentially the definition of a POV fork, and is not acceptable on Wikipedia for that reason. --Saforrest 07:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was here

I hope the NPOV problem will be solved soon on this article, the article MUST mention every critic in detail.

Archived

If I moved anything on-going feel free to move it back. Kotepho 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are Wikified dates really necessary?

Someone Wikified a few dates. Is it really necessary? They aren't really significant, I mean, what else happened in like 2005? Kamikaze Highlander 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, wikified dates are not necessary and excessive wikilinking is distracting, a user can type a year into the search box should that rare need arise. Hollow are the Ori 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Contributions Section

I believe that the "Contributions" section should be removed. The articles for Microsoft, IBM, and CostCo do not have sections detailing their contributions to various social causes. On the basis of the absence of a contributions section in the articles on other companies, I believe that the presence of a contributions section for Wal-Mart is therefore NPOV propaganda. Any objections to its removal before I do so? --soto 19:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The articles for Microsoft, IBM, and CostCo do not have sections detailing their contributions to various social causes. — Well, perhaps they should! NPOV propaganda — what? I personally object to its removal. r3m0t ^talk 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you object? Give reasons please, not merely an objection. The "NPOV propaganda" part comes because the presence of a "Wow! Wal-Mart gives money to causes!" section here, in light of the absence of similar sections for other companies, seems to me to be self-evident proof that the section is fluff written for the sole purpose of making Wal-Mart look good.

Wikipedia does not exist to spread anti-Wal-Mart propaganda, but neither does it exist to spread pro-Wal-Mart propaganda. Wikipedia exists to present facts as close to objectively as possible. It is self evident that the general Wikipedia policy is not to include mention of corporate giveing in its articles about corporations, and by making Wal-Mart the exception it demonstrates a pro-Wal-Mart bias. --soto 15:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... Obviously when I said "NPOV" I meant "POV". Stupid of me. --soto 23:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the solution is to add such sections to other articles of large companies. There's no reason we should filter out this part of their finances. It is not pro-Wal-Mart propaganda unless, say, they were actually donating to themselves (or something like that). r3m0t ^talk 11:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How convenient. To remove the obvious and blatient bias from this article you recommend making changes to hundreds of other articles. All corporate "giving" is propaganda, they "give" specifically because they believe it will get them good press, or distract hostile groups. A corporation's sole purpose is to make money, and any activity that contradicts that purpose could result in a minority shareholder lawsuit. Thus, since no minority shareholder lawsuits of such a nature have been filed, it can be assumed that all corporate "giving" is nothing but an attempt to buy good press, and by including a fluff section about Wal-Mart's supposed generosity we are participating in propaganda, not information distribution.

Anyone else have a *real* objection? If not I'm cutting the section. R3m0t, I'll save it just for you so that after you update a large number of other corporate articles to include a section on their wonderful generosity we can re-instate the Wal-Mart fluff piece too. Acceptable? --soto 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)

Since no one else has offered objections, and R3m0t hasn't replied I just removed the section. I copied it to a text file on my system though, so that when R3m0t adds a similar fluff section to enough corporate articles it can be easily reinstated without having to dig through the history. --soto 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

R3m0t hasn't replied Yes, I didn't reply... in 36 hours of Wikipedia inactivity! I have a real life, you know! All corporate "giving" is propaganda, they "give" specifically because they believe it will get them good press. And even supposing that they aren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, what's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that since all Wal-Mart want to do is make money, we shouldn't document them at all? since no minority shareholder lawsuits of such a nature have been filed, it can be assumed that all corporate "giving" is nothing but an attempt to buy good press - and as I said before, there is nothing wrong with that. I copied it to a text file on my system though, so that when R3m0t adds a similar fluff section to enough corporate articles it can be easily reinstated without having to dig through the history. - If you're still around. Besides, the date of this discussion is enough.

All that said, I though I would take the time to read the actual section. Assuming that all figures include the employees and customers along with Wal-Mart's "central office", these numbers are indeed meaningless, and should be removed. That said, there is nothing wrong with documenting some real corporate charity in their relevant articles. It would have been nice if you had taken me up on the quote "It is not pro-Wal-Mart propaganda unless, say, they were actually donating to themselves (or something like that)" and pointed out that they are essentially taking credit for other people's giving. But it's removed now, so never mind. r3m0t ^talk 15:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your definition of propaganda is messed up R3m0t. Information does not have to be false to be propaganda. All it takes to be propaganda is that the information is conveyed in a manner designed to influence people's opinions rather than in the most neutral possible manner. Sometimes simply stating information is propaganda. Example: "Bob Smith, CEO of company X loves his family." We can stipulate that this information is utterly factually correct, but since it is assumed that most people love their families (which may not be correct, but is the common assumption) simply stating that fact classes as propaganda. Why? Because it implies that there is something special or noteworthy about Bob Smith's love for his family, thus it is attempting to change your opinion about Bob Smith, not to convey information.

The same applies to Wal-Mart. All big companies "donate" to various causes, this is a well known fact. Therefore specifically discussing Wal-Mart's giving, especially in light of the absence of similar sections for other companies gives the impression that there is something special, or noteworthy, about Wal-Mart's giving as opposed to, say IBM's giving. There isn't, and thus the section is propaganda.

Now, having said that, if you still feel bent out of shape over my deletion, revert. I won't get into a revert war with you, I'll simply continue arguing until you give in. But please, don't go all passive aggressive on me; I'd vastly prefer it if you were active aggressive. --soto 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going ot have to agree that keeping that section seems like its promoting propaganda. Perhaps a mentioning somewhere in the article that they donate X ammount yearly on average and list perhaps 3 of the top places they do donate to. Giving it its own section however seems a bit over the top. Just to clarify I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a similar entry in Microsoft's wiki if its not already there, but say a company has donated to over 100 other groups, are we really going to list them all? Seems a bit over the top, perhaps a quick mention is all that is needed. --Zer0faults 12:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that keeping the section is basically regurgitating pro-Wal-Mart propoganda. Yes, they contribute to the community, but so do all other big companies (or at least they should). It's not especially encyclopedic information. Kaldari 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

this does read like a propraganda sheet

what if walmart is writing this themselves?

I work for walmart the best employer they treat us like family we have daily meetings. profit sharing stock options the list is too long --

-- How much do you make a year? Do you really believe you are getting as much money as you deserve? [class struggle]

First sentence

For fear of upsetting people, I'll suggest this here rather than changing it. Most wikipedia articles begin with a definition (eg. Tom Smith is a famous labour politician). This article begins:

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. was founded by Sam Walton in 1962. It is the largest retailer in the world and was the largest corporation in the world based on revenue as ranked by the Fortune Global 500 in 2005.

I'd recommend changing it to this or something similar:

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the largest retailer in the world and was the largest corporation in the world based on revenue as ranked by the Fortune Global 500 in 2005. It was founded by Sam Walton in 1962.

--Ludraman 11:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That does look better. --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Solicitors?

Re the photo about unwanted solicitors. I take it this means beggars, and not lawyers? --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it refers to protesters, people handing out political fliers, etc. The photo caption should probably be changed as it is unclear. --soto 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Need box for multiple articles

It's understandable that the article should be split into subsections, considering the importance and size of the company, and the controversies surrounding it. However, I believe it's essential that this structure should be made clear at the beginning of the article. Perhaps an introductory note or box, mentioning that this is a general article, with Criticism of Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Employee and Labor Relations covering those issues in greater depth (and add other issues, if I've missed any). --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Slashdot banner be removed?

I've replaced the Slashdot banner, since consensus was reached that it should be posted, and the user left no comment on the talk page, but has said twice that Slashdot has "never" linked to this page. My question to everyone is whether the Slashdot banner should remain, and, for that matter, whether the Digg banner should remain, or if there are any sites that should or shouldn't be posted in tags. Kamikaze Highlander 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This must have come up before; surely there is some more-or-less standard time after the news posting in which such banners are left, then removed. A week, maybe two strikes me as a reasonable time.

In any case, your comment suggests you doubt that Slashdot even linked here. The relevant Slashdot post is here. Though it does not link to Wikipedia directly, the article linked from Slashdot does, and many of the comments in the Slashdot article do. As well, the issue was mentioned again on Slashdot on May 4, which presumably might serve as an argument for keeping the banner around for a little longer. --Saforrest 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never doubted that Slashdot linked here. My concern the day I came on and found it was that someone was simply advertising their own website or a website they like. I removed it and wrote why I removed it in the talk page, since nobody felt it was necessary to explain why they posted it. It was then replaced, then put on the talk page.

Then, all of a sudden an anonymous user said Slashdot had "never" linked here, so I replaced it, then they again removed it without commenting on the talk page, so I replaced it again, and asked whether anyone else felt it should be removed, since consensus agreed it should remain, against the wishes of a certain anonymous user. And now, I do believe it is time to have this and other banners removed, since everyone pretty much knows this article is receiving plenty of attention. Kamikaze Highlander 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Request for Sources from "Employees" Section=

"Specific assertions needing sources: the fact that WMT calls its employees associates and its managers servant leaders, the fact that they call for hourly meetings, and the fact that they have people greeters at every store with those duties"

These are common facts to any Wal-Mart employees and not critisism or controverial. I've added a few citations, but if you just enter a Wal-Mart you can see the greeters. That hardly needs an internet citation.

Bpage 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC) = bpage

Unionization reference deleted

A user deleted a reference to The Nation, as requiring registration. (actually that required a subscription; often free material requires a free registration) Often you can do a google search on the article title and find another URL that does not require payment, not only here but at the Wall Street Journal and other sources. I'm not sure a valid reference should be deleted anyway. Often a library has the item available.--Beth Wellington 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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. Tuxide 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Page structure

As part of my proposed WikiProject, I have started to define a page structure guideline that retailing company pages, such as this one, should go by. I have derived it from an already existing guideline. Feel free to check it out or make it look better on User:Tuxide/Wikiproject_Retailing#Company_page_structure and to provide feedback on its talk page. The idea here is to use such a guideline to resolve content disputes and to make articles about retailing companies appear consistent with each other as far as order of content goes. Ultimately, this WikiProject will attempt to copyedit this article and arrange its content to make its structure consistent with a guideline such as this. Tuxide 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues - Coca-Cola

Hi, I just wanted to bring to people's attention that the Wal-Mart NPOV issue is not isolated to just Wal-Mart. A similar wiki-war happened with the Coca-Cola article - except that Coca-Cola "proponents" won. I just wish more people could address this Wal-Mart NPOV thing more systemically, rather than looking at it one article at a time. Guppy 12:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Standardizing references

On as high a profile article as this, there's no excuse for the sloppy linking that's been going on here. I've tried to clean it up, but there are references here that have been dropped. Can anyone find better links for the following stories: [5] (An AP story from April 17, 2006)

[6] (gone from google cache) [7] (a 2004 Wal-Mart press release that now Wal-Mart's website redirects away from) [8] (AP story, January 31, 2006) [9] (CNN story, January 31, 2006)

I think everything else now has a correct link in the References section, although some haven't been converted to the citation templates.

Now back to your regularly scheduled NPOV edit war. Alba 16:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sobel Study, was www.be.wvu.edu/ec/Papers/Walmart.pdf now:

http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/WalMart/Walmart.pdf and as text:

http://search.wvu.edu/search?q=cache:KijOpN9HxL8J:www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/WalMart/Walmart.pdf+walmart&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&site=default_collection&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=UTF-8

And in place off the CNN story: Wal-Mart Former Vice Chairman Coughlin Admits Fraud (Update4)

-- Hope this helps. OnPatrol 22:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

I added a POV tag. I feel that anyone can add a POV tag if they do not agree with a statment and isn't this antiproductive. I think the we must stick to the fact, there is way to much anti and pro crap going on here. If walmart is good or bad the FACTS will tell the tale there is two side here in battle one is the Anti-Walmart Union types that is something looks good for walmart they are going to Screem POV the otherside is the Pro-Walmart PR people, and if something looks bad for wal-mart they are going to cry POV. So to resolve the POV issues lets stick to proven facts. Not Critism or Blessing, but Facts. If we look at facts only, know proven facts, we could remove a great deal from out walmart pages, many critisms and blessing could be purged. This would create a much more NPOV group of pages. As I have said before I am a walmart hourly Associate, I work in Store 3233, Bemidji Minnesota, I work In the Deli. So yes I do know the real story and I have been the target of critism from both sides for telling the reality, and that is that

1. The crisism of walmart is mostly garbage from the unions to wedge into walmart.

2. The areas that do need to be worked on with walmart are not areas that the public is previewed to, and due to the anti-copyright policies of wikipedia I have been unable to bring the true areas of problems forward.

3. The largest reason for problems at walmart has nothing walmart itself and more with the additude of customers. In my Center we see upto 12,000 customers a day, many of them have poor additudes and associates get tired of dealing with it.

4. Walmart is like a family, as far as the hourly associates are conserned, when you work with people day in and day out, in a stressing, and thank-less job you do form bonds with your fellow workers. Sometimes our bonds are strengthed by our hatered for some of our managers.

5. There are some just plain bad managers out there. I personally hate my Store Manager, he is a smug, prick, who thinks he is the god of all managers. However I do like alot of our lower level managers.

6. Most Problems can be handled from within the company, many of the lawsuits that are launched against walmart could be avoided from within if the person sueing had gone the next step. I have many times been screwed over by managers, and a quick call to district or the Ethics hotline has always solved the problems. Infact my contact with the ethics and district about one manager ended in her termination from walmart.

7. Walmart's pay is always scaled by the local labor market. For instance I started at 6.50/hr and now make over 8.50/hr due to a pay scale change and changes in the local market. And thats in less the 2 years. The starting wage is a dollar per hour higher then any other deli in the area.

Now as you can see I am not saying Walmart is evil nor am I saying that it is perfect. There are many many issues that need to be addressed however we are never going to get them addressed if the unions keep pushing non-issues. Now I am not going to even discuss the issue of benifits because, most of that is a matter of situation and opinion, the healthcare walmart offers works for some and not for others, but what healthcare plan does work for everyone. So I am pleading with everyone here to help get this page/s back to a cenral point and help sort the facts from the non-facts. The Ace!

First of Kamikaze, to be honest this entry has really gone down hill since the last time I left it. Your so called facts you cling too are mearly third party trash, much of which is little more than fantasy, some of it is such garbage you would have to be an idiot to belive it. If you going to rely on "documents" from third party sites do a little research on the documents, like if its a PDF save it and take a look at the publishers marks on the file, find out what you can. Then look at what a legit document looks like. I see legit Walmart Documents. And if you find that a fact is a fake is it not your job to get rid of it for the good of the entry? As far as the Quebec store I have the proof on my hard drive, had you not been so fast to revert, I was trying to find a way to post it since its copyrighted. But no you couldn't give me a few mins, now I can't post it without being banned. Now if we are going to bring this entry back to where it should be, we need to stop this arguing and back biteing. And work for the better, that means getting rid of double entrys, make it easier to read, and understand. Now we have to look for real fact, not some third party fact thats been messed with. An example is the way AFL-CIO figures the average walmart workers income they figured 9.68/hr time 40hr/week time 4 weeks/mo times 12. That would $18,585.60/yr however is only 48 weeks there is 52 weeks/yr isn't there that means they missed a 4 weeks of pay. Factor in those weeks and bing wow the pay is $20,140.40/yr thats a differance of $1548.80/yr. See what I mean about Twisting Facts.....The Ace!

Will you please stop engaging in personal attacks? It isn't a personal attack to ask you to learn to spell because misspelling will get your edits removed. In the future, don't put opinions without sighting your source, don't repeatedly revert edits, and why not try waiting to put your opinions up until after you have sources to back your claims? Kamikaze Highlander 09:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC) And don't move my comments so that people won't see them. Kamikaze Highlander 14:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Twisted Facts

1. Wal-Mart does not spend as much on insurance as other companies.

The fact. Yes Wal-Mart spends less per work for health.

The Twist. What they forget to say is that Wal-Mart does not buy insurance at all, it puts that money into a bank account, where it collects interest, it then contracts Blue Cross to admin the fund.

The reality. Wal-Mart gives better insurance than most other retailers. Want to see for yourself go to your local walmart and get an assocate guide.

2. Wal-Mart does not supply as many with healthcare.

The fact. Yes on a percentage base Wal-Mart only 47% are covered.

The Twist. What critics don't tell you is that Wal-Mart offers Star Bridge health from day one, and that wal-mart has 1.6 million Workers with a larger turn over rate, so this leads to a lower percentage of works covered.

3. Wal-Mart has a high turn over rate.

The Fact. Wal-Mart does have a high turn over rate.

The Twist. Critics Site Wal-Mart as the reason, however most of people that leave walmart site customer related stress. And the area of walmart that has the highest turn over is also the largest pool of workers, cashiers. Plain and simple the customers run the cashiers out. And who can blame them think of all the people in the world you could not stand, and they deal with them all everyday.

4. Wal-Mart has more workers on state healthcare than any other company.

The Fact. Yes wal-mart does have more works on state healthcare.

The Twist. Critics argue that due to the number of workers on state healthcare is single handedly causing problems for many state healthcare,however what they forget to say is that Walmart pays 70 Billion dollars in federal taxes and nearly that again in state taxes and also generate billions of dollars in sales tax for each state with sales tax,which far out does the money spend buy the state on healthcare for wal-mart assocates. And many of the assocates that quilify for state aided healthcare also would quailify for welfare if they did not work for walmart. And would most likely be on both if they worked for a smaller ma and pa shop, that could not afford to supply any benefits.

5. Wal-mart buys large quantities from china

The Fact Yes walmart buys a lot from china.

The Twist Critics argue that Walmart alone is the primary reason for US jobs being exported, however what they fail to say is that walmart is only 8% of the use Retail market, and 70% of walmarts income if from food sales and 90% of walmarts food supply comes from local and national suppliers, like con-agra. When broken down walmart sends a mear penny to china out of ever transaction. something much larger than walmart is helping china out.

Now these are just 5 of the biggest twisted facts, there are many more out there, both good and bad for walmart, walmart does its share of fact twisting too. However I have seen almost no hard research here on any of the facts being relied on. I have alot of hard proof of lots of these twisted facts but I can not be the only one out looking for the twistes in the facts. And I also am not going to post any of the proofs until others start, because I want everyone here to start doing some research and finding some real reliable facts that we can bring this entry back to a good standing. But we must work together to do that, not against eachother. The Ace!

If you can back your claims with sources, you can post whatever you want. Though, that doesn't mean it'll last long. Kamikaze Highlander 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll

I am adding two polls to find where we stand.The Ace!

Please select the number in each of the two polls you agree with. Thank you. Also please keep to the poll topic, please no responding to votes. Lets collect a true vote on how we are doing.

Also please keep to the poll topic, please no responding to votes.

Lets collect a true vote on how we are doing.

Poll A

1. I find this entry too critical of Wal-Mart.

2. I find this entry too positive of Wal-Mart.

3. I find this entry to be nither critical or positive of Wal-Mart.

Poll A results

1, I find that overall the entry is full of critical digs at Wal-Mart that are either not factual or are backed by facts that are in reality nothing more than fiction of the mind of an anti-walmart group. I feel we need better research on third party groups claiming to have facts on walmart prior to the facts being posted. The Ace!

Poll B

1. I find it easy to add and edit the content of this entry.

2. I find it diffcult to add and edit the content of this entry.

Poll B results

2, I find that there is a great deal of resistance to edits of this entry, even with minor edits. The Ace!

I wouldn't say there's resistance to sourced and referenced factual information, but certainly myself and others are keeping closer scrutiny on such a hotly debated topic. I'm not sure this sort of thing is what talk pages are for, though. But I'll let others decide. Kamikaze Highlander 07:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when is the discussion page for polling? Just be like everyone else and gather opinions by everyone else's commentary on the discussion page here... that's why it's called discussion. We discuss, we don't play these games. I'd almost suspect someone in Corporate came up with this... if you want to state your opinions, do it like everyone else instead of pretending to have some sort of poll that you went by. Kuroji

No Korjoi I am not a corp guy, I work for Walmart as an hourly deli Assocate at store 3233. And again a poll is to collect information that is to be discussed later, not at the moment, discussion at the moment only ends in hard feeling, because people are still voting and would be swayed by comments, or may not expess their opinion. The Ace! 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Retailing, Draft page for Wal-Mart

We in WikiProject Retailing are making an effort to copyedit the Wal-Mart article. We hope this will resolve the many content disputes that have been brought up here. I have started a draft for rewriting the Wal-Mart article based on the document structure that I have discussed above. This common document structure is not set in stone, so feel free to ask questions on the WikiProject's talk page.

Please, use the Wal-Mart draft page to finish this fresh redesign of this article. It seems that it is in the best interest of this article now. Our goals include copyediting articles such as this one so their document structures are consistent. If this WikiProject interests you, then consider listing your name on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Retailing as well. Thanks. Tuxide 06:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alba's standardizing of references is clearly well-intentioned and NPOV, but I find it makes the article more cumbersome and much prefer clicking an external link to view the source directly rather than having to go through two steps to see it (scrolling to endnotes, then to outlink). How about leaving outlinks in place if anyone feels the need for endnotes? Eross8 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate some more on it, please? I'm having some time trying to understand it..what I believe I want to say is that I prefer the two-step method (using the Cite extension) better than embedding outlinks in the article text because you can better describe what the source is by providing notes about it. For example, it could also be more cumbersome to launch Adobe Acrobat without a notice that the external link is going to. Also, using the Cite extension, you can use a single reference more than once. Tuxide 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, linking to pdfs generally shouldn't be done within an article, so in that case, an endnote would be preferable. Otherwise, I don't know what else to say -- I just find the 2-step process more cumbersome. And, yes, the same endnote could be used multiple times, but I doubt it will happen often. I know I'm unlikely to search the list. Eross8 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In your layout for the Wal-Mart draft, what about the economic impact Wal-Mart has had, in the U.S. and elsewhere? That isn't disputed between different povs. I'm guessing that would go with business model? And are we keeping the paragraph below the first that discusses how Wal-Mart is a controversial subject? We ran into a number of problems before that was placed, and I don't want to see them happen all over again. Kamikaze Highlander 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on the content itself. Wal-Mart#Economic impact studies in the United States looks more like a list of studies that criticize the company, so it might be more appropriate under Criticism. Another appropriate section (IMHO) could be History, but again it depends.

As far as the lead paragraph goes, let's expand that as the draft is being expanded, and decide it later. I'd hate to copy and paste everything, and the lead paragraph should be somehow based on the content of everything the article. We'll come back to this later. Tuxide 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be better to wait on the introduction until the article is finished. As for economic impact, there should be discussion of how large Wal-Mart has become. Possibly compared to other stores? Also, are we keeping all criticism to the criticism section? Well, let's wait until we come to that, and make a decision then. Kamikaze Highlander 01:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For Criticism, you might also be interested in reading the comments and posting on User talk:Tuxide/Wikiproject Retailing. Note that this discussion is about a common document structure for all retailing company pages and is not Wal-Mart specific. Also, after doing some research on the company, I noticed that the term "economic impact" itself is sort of Wal-Mart POV. They sure have a whole section about it on http://www.walmartfacts.com/. I am surprised this has not been brought up before. I don't have an opinion about it right now, and I would have to look into it some more before I can voice one. Tuxide 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm going to give it some thought before I comment on that talk page, though, but there definitely needs to be consideration before we go and give Wal-Mart POV unknowingly. Although, I'm sure we can do it from a neutral point of view, since it's economic impact certainly hasn't helped everyone. Hmm... Kamikaze Highlander 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

May Point out that what is economically good for one is always negitive to another, and yes the idea of the impact of walmart is always going to be a POV because each area of that whole idea is rooted in someones point of view. Now this is what I have been trying to point out for I don't know 2 years now off and on, you can not look at walmart and say all this critism and then look at target and say its ok for them to do it. that gives a pov right off. We can't just look at Walmart as alone, because its a branch of the retail it is not alone in most of its practices. And much of the referances here are based on facts put forth by people who stand to gain by walmart having a bad image. That could be Compeditors, Unions, Small Ma and Pa's. And some of the facts like I have pointed out are just outright frauds. We need this rebuild of this entry to purge some of this garbage info and get this entry back to where it should be.The Ace! 06:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted in respective practices that Target engages in them just as Wal-Mart does. For example, I don't know what percentage of Target stores does overnight lock-ins, but I do know that they engage in this practice and that none of their stores are continuously open. I wish I had a source to cite that from, too. Tuxide 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to restructure the Target Corporation article as well, for the sake of better understanding what the Wal-Mart one should appear as. Go check out what this draft for Target Corporation looks like if you're having a hard time visualizing what to do with the Wal-Mart draft, if you think an example of an article in this structure will help. Tuxide 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that daft very much, looks far better. I welcome this format to the walmart entry. Maybe with this Rebuild we can purge some of the POV that are very much built right into the entry after years of POV being inserted as facts.The Ace! 06:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made a few more modifications to the Wal-Mart draft. I cannot do this myself, there are a couple of problems that I am running into. First, I wish I could expand on sections such as History a bit more, but not enough content exists on the current article to do so. Second, I am not as familiar with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as most of you are. Go ahead and make improvements on the draft. Also, if/once this collaboration becomes more active, we should make use of the {{inusefor}} template to redirect edits to the draft instead of the article. If you support its use, feel free to improve the message below, else give reason not to.

I decided to dump the entire Criticism of Wal-Mart article into the draft's Criticism section to see how complicated it would be to copyedit it. It looks like the only way to solve its problems is with a complete rewrite and a merge into the main Wal-Mart article anyways. Tuxide 06:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely be part of the main article. Cutting it out means the article is seriously POV even if every section of both articles is neutral as a stand alone. Carina22 06:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to summarize sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of Criticism_of_Wal-Mart into a couple of paragraphs. I ended up taking out a lot of stuff and synopsizing most of it in the first paragraph, while focusing on the Pyramid of the Moon instance as an example. You can view them on User:Tuxide/Wikiproject_Retailing/Wal-Mart#Criticism, feel free to make further improvements to it. I could've done better, but let me know what you guys think, too. Tuxide 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

SOS Vandalism ??

As a response to this page. I think this may be a simple vandalism problem (a well done one). Here is what i have read on that page: "the biggest retailer in distribution payed a communication agency to work on the article in order to move critics into an article called "Criticism of Wal-Mart". The main article has as a result reflected better the interest of Wal-Mart." - a kind of vandalism

Anyway, my suggestion is to create proportional sections, and to have diferent articles for each one. Write the same number of words related to the impact of Wall-Mart in economy of all countries, as in ecology and other, and expand each part into an article. Never put only criticism in one page, this is not NPOV. Let the reader judge if environamental impacts are bad or good, just describe the facts in a NPOV manner, by category. And do not make too many chapters. I think you should folow the model of a country (history, economy, culture, social problems will be replaced with any anti-wall mart oppinions, etc...) Moa3333 22:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to develop the page or the pages in some other place first (personal page of someone not wanting to protect Wall Mart interests), then post it here after a wide vote when it is ready.

This is the first time i read the article, so i will just say what i think it should contain. Chapters in my oppinion:

• Presentation (Name, chronology)
• The organisation (gouvernance, internal organisation and the stuff)
• Economic power (over the production and the retailer industry)
• Geographical distribution (of superstores and of parteners)
• Enterprise culture (all they do to atract clients, and other not about retailer activity like television)
• Practical (for customers to know)

Or longer:

• Name and short chronology (link to long chronology if needed)
• Demographics and gouvernance - The Wall Mart stuff (were they work, for what salary, in witch country, what are the indirect creations or destructions of jobs?)
• Economic power (not impact studies!) related to Wall-Mart in retailer industry , over the production economy (without saying if this is good or bad - only that some think is bad and other think it is good) and compared to other old and new retailers (what have changed is the way we do business? How this has pushed out little old-style shops, etc... its partners, its enemies, etc)
• Geographical distribution of shops and of people producing the products they sell by country and region (number of superstores, largest superstores, maximum number of parteners for production, etc, eventually the evolution in time)
• Enterprise culture: promotion of the trade mark, use of the Media and Television, the campaigns, publicity slogans, renuable energy, etc...
• Practical (guides when you go shopping, etc...)

As you can see, no chapter about criticism! Articles present the facts, and say that some people think it is good or bad, all over the article when a fact is thinked to be bad or good by some people. Each of the capters above should have the same number of words, eventual more words should go into sub-chapters.

Moa3333 22:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See also section

I have added the link to Criticisms of Wal-Mart to the see also page, it seems very appropriate DRCarroll 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! The "See also" section is reserved for links to articles that aren't already mentioned within the text of the article. Since Criticisms of Wal-Mart is already linked (twice), I have removed it from the "See also" section. -- MisterHand 20:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Supercenter capitilization

It is spelled "Supercenter" with a lower-case c, see Wal-Mart website Kevin_b_er 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Should criticism be mentioned in the subject header?

There is an ongoing dispute as to whether the following paragraph should be in the introductory paragraph or in the business section:

There has been much criticism of Wal-Mart. Specific areas of controversy include the company's product origins, treatment of employees and suppliers, environmental policies, extraction of public subsidies (corporate welfare), availability of prescription contraceptives at Wal-Mart pharmacy counters, and store impacts on local communities and businesses.

Let's try to work this out here. -- MisterHand 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate if you think this paragraph should be in the intro, in the business section, or other

• Intro -- criticism of Wal-Mart is a major part of the company. Indeed, criticism articles are bigger than the main article. As has been previously discussed on this page, it needs to be a prominant part of this article. -- MisterHand 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• second that. Abe Froman 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes don't link to anything

What happened to the table of cited references? The footnotes don't point to anything anymore. RJII 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it. -- MisterHand 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Walmart intercom codes

A bit of merging related stuff from a couple of articles has yielded Walmart intercom codes. It's clearly trivia; whether it should be deleted, merged here (or elsewhere), or expanded is a matter I'd hope editors familiar with Walmart will decide upon (I'm just tidying; I've got no opinion). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed text from →Reaction to criticism section

Also of note is that off and on since the late 1990's, Walmart has aggresively sought out websites created to complain about them and invariably those sites disappear - either through threats of lawsuit or sudden "crashes". The most notably of these cases are the disappearance and subsequent buyup of "www.walmartsucks.com" in the late 90's and "www.forum.walmartsucks.com" in may/june of 2006. To date, walmart is the ONLY company that does this, as can be evidenced by the continued existance of complaint sites about other businesses.

The comments that I had hoped to appear here to be discussed by those with an interest in this article (mine is only mild and more to keeping NPOV) ended up on my user page. I have copied them below:

http://p208.ezboard.com/ftygersassylumfrm24.showMessage?topicID=2.topic

And if you SERIOUSLY drive a 68 GTO - MY GOD! I want pictures of it, especially if it's got a blower! (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.98.54 (talk • contribs) )

I will make some observations:

1. The source is a board with a ton of pop-ups, as far as I can tell you have to register. This is not a valid source for a citation
2. From my knowledge of Tld's, you don't just "buy up" a domain like it's David and Goliath. The owner of the domain is that - an owner; free to sell or turn down any sweet offer that comes his way. If the rest is accurate, as in forum.walmartsucks.com (same standard Tld), then it casts doubt on the whole thing. The forum. is a sub-domain (or child domain depending on your terminology) and would have gone with any sale of the standard Tld.
3. Are you trying to tell me that there are no other anti-Wal*Mart sites out there? Give me a dollar for every one I can find? :) This is by no means an uncommon business practice. Look at Microsoft - only they buy the whole company.

--Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 10:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

GENEB

1. The source is a board with a ton of pop-ups, as far as I can tell you have to register. This is not a valid source for a citation

G.T.

Actually, I was going to copy the stuff over to that board. HOWEVER, with an assist from someone else online, it is now in PDF format (minus the WIPO report, which is 8.5mb by itself).

The PDF file should be able to be viewed or downloaded from the following link: http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0K-kRPtljQfx56eMWVOxG1MWCn7Em4ZgtbJ2_-5k-338_yu-v4tr6ueu9hncfiWs0JUDY50MO9hVKXtsb2qTUX4WQAB0hrDvzTdroA/Walmart%20vs%20WalMartSucks%20forum~c.pdf

GENEB

1. From my knowledge of Tld's, you don't just "buy up" a domain like it's David and Goliath. The owner of the domain is that - an owner; free to sell or turn down any sweet offer that comes his way. If the rest is accurate, as in forum.walmartsucks.com (same standard Tld), then it casts doubt on the whole thing. The forum. is a sub-domain (or child domain depending on your terminology) and would have gone with any sale of the standard Tld.

G.T. Read em and weep Geneb

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/ColSamatoshi/walmart/wipo001.jpg 
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/ColSamatoshi/walmart/wipo002.jpg 
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/ColSamatoshi/walmart/wipo003.jpg 
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/ColSamatoshi/walmart/wipo004.jpg 
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/ColSamatoshi/walmart/wipo005.jpg 
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/ColSamatoshi/walmart/wipo006.jpg 
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a257/ColSamatoshi/walmart/wipo007.jpg 

this would have been a hell of alot easier if you had simply emailed me - then I could have sent it by email instead of f***ing around for 3 hours trying to upload it to the above site.

G.T. Samatoshi (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.98.86 (talk • contribs) )

GT, I was just looking for 1) NPOV and 2) cite. It appears that either you're dealing with incomplete information or I don't know how to read the WIPO table. It appears that the challenge has been terminated. I don't know exactly what that means, but look at the other decisions; Transfer, Denied, Active. There are also active links for the other ones. Here is what I think, the challenge was filed with ICANN (as you can see this is not unusual or limited to Wal*Mart) and the domain was let go (effectively terminating the action). I would bet that money changed hands. If you want to re-add it, fine, but do it NPOV and add a citation.

Please see my comments on 69.95.98.86 and 69.95.98.54. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 10:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again you miss the point by a mile - that walmart will go to extrodinary lengths to get it's way. But since you don't seem to want people to know more than simply that it was surrendered, why don't we just delete all negative items from the entry and turn it into another puppet? or better yet, just turn it over to walmart and let them worry about what it says. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.98.48 (talk • contribs) .

What can I say, G.T.? I have no connection to Wal*Mart, other than I shop there 'rarely'. I have stated that I think your edit is POV and have proposed an alternative that I think is NPOV and still coveys the facts that you put forth. The only thing that is really missing is the editorial comment that surrounds the facts. It is not easy to tell if you are a new editor based on your contrib's because you are now on your third IP in this discussion (which makes communication difficult at best).

Why don't you try making your points here on the discussion page and see if someone else is in support of your position? I rewrote the last entry because it did not conform to the style of the rest of the article. Let me break down my problems with the edit.

The text (your original edit that I feel is POV) contains some basic problems.

Also of note is that on occasion since the late 1990's, Walmart has aggresively sought out websites created to complain about them and invariably those sites disappear - either through threats of lawsuit or sudden "crashes" of the site in question.

"Also of note is that" and "on occasion" are unnecessary phrases. They don't reference anything, add nothing to your edit or the article. "on occasion" is vague (how often, how many times).

"Since the late 1990's" does not stand the verifiability test in anything you have presented. At least it does not apply to the walmartsucks.com.

"aggressively" and "invariably" likely constitute weasel words.

"threats of lawsuits" is not the same as an arbitration legitimately sought through WIPO.

"sudden crashes" – what exactly does this mean? The site crashes because of a DoS attack by Wal*Mart? I think it more likely that the domain registration expired, was surrendered, or was bought outright by Wal*Mart. If you do a whois on the domain, you will see that it is owned by Wal*Mart [10].

So the facts from this sentence boil down to "Wal*Mart sought out some websites created to complain about them and they are no longer online.

The most notable of these cases are the disappearance and subsequent buyup of "www.walmartsucks.com" in the late 90's and "www.forum.walmartsucks.com" in may/june of 2006.

"most notable" indicates there are others. Your point (predatory practices on the internet) would be more persuasive if other sites were listed.

"in the late 90's," "subsequent buyup" don't jive with the domain creation date of November 11, 2003. If something happened in the late 90's, please provide some verifiable information on what happened.

The forum.walmartsucks.com is just a sub-domain of the gTld and would go along with any purchase, as I have already addressed.

Pertinent facts in this sentence: None. Although, you could also add that Wal*Mart owns walmartsucks.com.

To date, walmart is the ONLY company that does this, as can be evidenced by the continued existance of complaint sites about other businesses.

Aside from structure and style problems, the sentence is a non sequitur. Moreover, following the link to the WIPO table for 2006 (just a small section of 2006) shows that many companies actively protect their tradename using the same process.

The remainder added to your most recent edit (before deleting everything but the citation) is just not fitting for inclusion in the article. I sent you a link on how to cite an article above, (Here is is again - citation). Putting seven links to JPG files in the middle of the section of the article is not the best way to cite your source.

G.T. these are the problems I have with the edit. I have been clear and direct. I made the assumption that you were new and was trying not to be overly critical. I don't think I have made any statements that you should take personally. Compare that with the remarks you make here on my actions. you miss the point by a mile, you don't want people to know, along with the general tone of your comments and edit summaries; here, on the article page, on my user and talk page (the jerk edit summary was particularly endearing). --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 09:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.