Talk:Walmart/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Sexism

I love criticising the beast. So anyway I've worked at two Wal-marts, and I've seen some things that bother me. At both stores there are a lack of male CSMs (Customer service managers, the people wearing bright red vests), a low level wage management position (one having none until recently, stores tend to have at least 5 or so CSMs). Most stores have few to no female cart pushers (and it has little to do with applications as I know of several incidents where people were given the position despite what was on thier application). I have heard numerous pages on the PA asking for male associates to offer customer assistance (with lifting heavy items), granted men tend to be more muscular but the same end could have been achieved by paging for a stocker. Anyway this complaint might be a bit frivilous, but if there is anything more substantial or even evidence of this kind of thing being more widespread it should definitly be included in teh article.Eno-Etile 07:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

...what? You can say that with just about any discount retailer. Tuxide 08:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And? doesn't make a controversy non-existent, nor does it make it insignificant. 209.169.111.193 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reclaimdemocracy.org & Wal-Mart Inc. PR site links

Debate on the issue of whether otherwise useful external links should be eliminated from the main article if the sponsoring entity has opinions on the Wal-Mart Corporation.

Obviously there are two different groups of editors on the issue of having this link in the article. Quite frankly I find it to be extremely POV and uneccesary to have in the article, and if we must have it linked from an article it should be the criticism article. So I remove it tell people where they can put it (the criticism article) but it is reverted, even though other editiors remove it and its gone for weeks at a time. DOn't be fooled this link is POV and SPAM and adds nothing to this article and needs to be removed and kept off the page. EnsRedShirt 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, has anyone noticed that the bulk of articles on the linked page are from sources like Business Week, Wall St. Journal, and NYT -- hardly anti Wal-Mart rantings. This clearly belongs on the main page, especially because they seem to be the only source for WSJ articles that I find especially thorough.

The bigger concern for me is that people feel POVs that are hidden are more acceptable than those stated forthrightly, as Reclaim Democracy's page on Wal-Mart does. Every site other than a public wiki has POV. I don't think Wikipedia pages should be biased against sources that admit this. Am I wrong?

I concur. The link to Reclaimdemocracy.org should go to ReclaimDemocracy.org, not here. Adding a link to it on Wal-Mart is like adding afa.net to Target Corporation and Wal-Mart, or like adding wikipedia-watch.org to Wikipedia. Also another thing is that nowhere in this article is the Wal-Mart critical organization ReclaimDemocracy.org mentioned, and it probably should be. Regards, Tuxide 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am among those who have replaced this link since people first started deleting it. This page has an abundance of useful articles pro, con and neutral. Does the site have a point of view unfavorable toward chains? Yes. It's also the only site I know (and I've looked a lot) that has studies archived that are both pro and con. For anyone who is seriously investigating WM, this is a key resource hiding it on criticism page and lumping with the WM bashing sites is a disservice to all users.

Look, immediately above this link is the WalMart PR site--not even remotely encyclopedic, yet Tuxide and Reshirt think it;s fine to have Wal-Mart's spin. Get serious and stop pretending that erasing this is NPOV, it's not, and it harms the article. Eross8 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was fine to leave a link to walmartfacts.com on the Wal-Mart article. Regards, Tuxide 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with a link to a website run by the company the article is about being linked from the article. It is clearly marked as Public Relations site, and is more valid than a third party pushing their own POV of selling POV merchandise. EnsRedShirt 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would contest this. The very purpose of walmartfacts.com is to counter Wal-Mart's critics; Wal-Mart said it itself when the site was launched. I am removing both of them. Regards, Tuxide 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you guys are discussing about this, here's a revision of the article that has the links being discussed in this section: [1]. Specifically, this and this. Removal of these links sound like astroturfing to me. These obviously aren't Viagra / Cialis spams trying to sell you stuff. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states to look at subjects from multiple points of view. It doesn't state you should remove whatever points of view that doesn't fit your politics. —Tokek 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, nowhere in this article is the Wal-Mart critical organization ReclaimDemocracy.org mentioned, although it can probably be worked in the criticism section. After all, it is ReclaimDemocracy.org's url that is on the bumper sticker. It fails WP:EL#What_should_be_linked because a sentence can merely be added to state Wal-Mart critical groups (although as per the Wikipedia:Criticism essay I would put criticism that ReclaimDemocracy.org gives Wal-Mart on the ReclaimDemocracy.org article, not on the Wal-Mart one...just as long as the two articles are wikilinked to each other). Regards, Tuxide 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really have a huge problem with the reclaimdemocracy.org link, mainly because there's not really any linkspam in the article, but also because it's fine to have links to both pro & con websites in external links. Looking further at the site, and at it's alexa rating of 1,127,936, I'd probably lean more towards placing it in the non-notable category, and probably shouldn't even have a wikipedia article. As far as the criticism of wal-mart being referenced, there's a paragraph at the beginning of the article, a subsection called 'criticism', and a whole separate article dealing with Criticism of Wal-Mart. The criticism article currently mentions two notable organizations criticising the corporation (Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch), which are far more notable than reclaimdemocracy.org. Dr. Cash 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cash: I couldn't disagree more that Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch are notable simply because they have huge amounts of union cash to make them prominent. What a horrible way to assess credibility. That's not to say they don't have useful material -- they do, but I find the RD the most "notable," because it has a broader scope and archives plentt of material that does not bash WM.

Eross8 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the Alexa test is flawed. I wouldn't consider it a way to define notability because the ranking is entirely derived from Windows Internet Explorer users that choose to install Alexa's own spyware program. WP:N defines notability as being written from reliable sources independent of the subject itself, and I have no reason to challenge ReclaimDemocracy.org's notability for this particular reason. It could be mentioned in the Criticism section and linked to their article on Wikipedia, but I don't want it in the External links section. Regards, Tuxide 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the ReclaimDemocracy.org link yet again. If you're going to add it back in, then only do so with the use of the {{content}} template in the External link section if you really think its inclusion is warranted, for it's the only way to leave it on there without warring over it. Regards, Tuxide 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the ReclaimDemocracy.org again. It is currently linked under the external links section of the Criticism of Wal-Mart article, which is more appropriate since the website is critical of wal-mart. The only reason to add it additionally to the article about the company itself is to promote the website and give it more visibility, which is against Wikipedia's external links policies. Dr. Cash 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Launches Online Movie Download Service

LOS ANGELES — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is launching its long-awaited online movie download store, entering a market that has yet to catch on with consumers but is expected to grow rapidly. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250417,00.html Crocoite 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added mention of their new video download service to the 'subsidiaries' section, near where the walmart.com is mentioned. Someone earlier seems to have added this to the 'criticisms' section, with some rather weak sites (really, blog posts) mentioning some DRM & browser compatibility issues. Yes, there are issues with it. But considering that wal-mart considers this to still be in "beta", I think it's premature to automatically lump this in the ever-growing and expanding criticisms section. Dr. Cash 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fabric Section Closing

I my town the fabric section of WAL-MART is closing. Is this happening everywhere? - Patricknoddy 7:59am, January 14, 2007

• There would be a nationwide press release if that were true (look for that). It's probably just a local thing. Messatsu 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism merger

Seeing no opposition whatsoever to the longstanding call for the merger of Wal-Mart employee and labor relations with Criticism of Wal-Mart, I went ahead and merged the two articles, and organized the references better. There are still significant issues with content forking between this article and the Criticism of Wal-Mart, which should be able to be alleviated by better summarizing the criticism article in the criticism section of the main article. Dr. Cash 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the criticism section altogether has basicaly white-washed this article. It took me 10 minets to find it tucked away under the labor relations section. I am going to make a new section with the link. 199.89.199.82 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section was not removed, it was moved to a section with the corporate affairs section in response to issues raised during this article's featured article nomination. It should remain as-is, since criticism sections themselves are highly discouraged from articles. Instead, criticism should be worked into the article text itself, and not in specific criticism sections. Dr. Cash 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

then how are you going to find it? you white-wash the article by romoving it and the whole article suffers for it, and it raises seriouse questions in my mind about bias when they are removed in fact its blatantly biased. 199.89.199.82 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue. The article is supposed to be about the company Wal-mart as a whole. It shouldn't be too strongly on either the pro or the con side. Having a specific criticism section leans the information too strongly towards the con side, and also provides a very easy section for people to post things in an almost bulletin-board like fashion. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. For more information on wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding criticism sections, please review WP:Criticism.

And please, for the love of God, drop the whitewash accusations. Those are getting so old that it's just ridiculous now. Your accusations of whitewash are just proving that you have no clue whatsoever in how this article has evolved, nor do you care about creating a reliable encyclopedia. Dr. Cash 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I care about being able to find the criticisms sections from the main page and table. You have hiden them away. I have no idea how this article has evolved all I know is that criticism has been hiden from sight. which is basicaly the definition of white-wash. I came to this article for the criticisms part, it is hidden, what is sobody supposed to think? 199.89.199.82 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow Batman, you really have no idea (and I know this was over a year ago). I concur with Derek.Cashman, and his so-called whitewashing. People go to encyclopedia articles on companies to read about their history, not about how others criticize them. Tuxide 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You came to Wikipedia, which is supposed to be NPOV, just to find criticisms about a subject? Wow. Just Wow. Derek is right. 71.124.108.146 13:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had to look over the page a couple of times to finally find some criticism. This is surprising considering Wal Mart is probably the world's most reviled corporation.... Please create a proper section and expand criticisms. Thank you 65.93.121.149 01:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Shrug* I also came here to find Walmart criticism. Which, like the poster above me, I didn't find until I looked a second time. 134.153.99.144 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every other article in existence has a criticism section. Perhaps instead of a criticism section, how about we start a Controversy section, and state "Arguments for" and "Arguments against," or at least something similar to that. That to me sounds like an excellent way to provide a NPOV way of covering the controversy of wal mart, regardless of what side of the fence you are on. As the article stands, it is misleading and inaccurate. Especially to anyone who would like to learn more about the extensive media attention Wal Mart controversy's have received. Spudst3r 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, 'criticism' sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Some articles have them, but not, "nearly every other article." Secondly, you apparently haven't seen the entire Criticism of Wal-Mart article, which is quite extensive, well-sourced, has undergone a very thorough cleanup in the past year, and is currently listed as a Good Article on Wikipedia.

Your proposal is inappropriate because it's more like starting a debate about Wal-Mart, which goes seriously against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Currently, I am satisfied with the way this article seems to have been stabilizing recently, as it's come a long way from the huge flame war that we had about a year and a half ago. Dr. Cash 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this article contains so much "criticism" since the decision was made to make a separate article on "criticism of wal-mart." It seems like a duplication. I'll try to make some bold edits, no telling if they will be accepted, but please to correct/adjust anything that's "too bold." SecretaryNotSure 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main issue is that the criticism article is not easily found in the main article, but is tucked away in labour relations. It would probably be best if it was readily identifiable and might help reduce the amount of people who don't know it exists clamoring for the inclusion of criticism in the main article. 76.86.244.36 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page). Last issue: Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

Tuxide 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Wal-Mart

The 'criticism' section in this article has been reduced, basically to more accurately summarize the linked article, Criticism of Wal-Mart, where most of the information on the subject is. It's also necessary to reduce the content fork between the criticism section and its main article. To reiterate, my intentions are not to 'whitewash' this article, but rather to put everything related into one article.

I also see that the 'corporate affairs' section is becoming very long in this article. Perhaps some of this content can be moved into a separate, linked article, or maybe moved elsewhere. I've already removed the 'diversity' subsection, because it was almost entirely a copy of info that was in the other article. Dr. Cash 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that when Wal Mart first arrived in my hometown, there were dozens of stories on how they carried "Made in USA" items whenever possible. This policy was quietly killed at some point, and now you'll be lucky to find ANYTHING made in the U.S., much less a democratic country, at Wal Mart. Can anyone illuminate this fact in the article, and perhaps recount what led to their policy changes?

Link to maps

This link: Maps showing Wal-Mart store density and saturation in U.S. was added to the article by an editor who appears to be promoting his own work. Could independent users who regularly edit this page take a look and decide whether or not it is an appropriate external link for this article? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that link, although it's not really all that notable. All it really shows is that Wal-Mart's seem to be going up in patterns reflecting population density. Dr. Cash 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart grew rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s

GA Status on hold

I have reviewed the article and consider it well written and well referenced/sourced. I do however have a few (only a few) concerns and so have placed the review on hold. These should be quite easy to answer. Once these are addressed I would be happy to review again and promote to GA. The article meets WP:WIAGA on points 1, 4, 5, 6 and mostly 2. Given the nature of the subject I must commend the level to which the article reads as WP:NPOV, point 4. Furthermore, as explained in the request for GA, this article was the site for a major edit war - but the article appears to be relatively stable now (point 5), with the exception of some vandalism. However I do feel that the article is lacking on point 3A and 3B but only in a few places. Therefore I think the following needs to be addressed:

• History section - although there is a link to main article, the history section is summarised initially up to the 80s but not beyond - expand briefly the latter part, it currently reads "Wal-Mart grew rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s" a few more sentances would suffice to make the article broad enough on point 3A WP:WIAGA

Added more details to this section to fill the history in to present day. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Store section - "The first Wal-Mart store opened in 1962 in Rogers, Arkansas, and has since been remodeled and expanded, becoming a 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter" - dont need to repeat date of opening and dont need "and". It could read "The first Wal-Mart store in Rogers, Arkansas, has been remodeled and expanded, becoming a 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter".

Fixed sentence per your recommendations. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• International section - "On February 21, 2007 Wal-Mart Argentina opened Changomas in La Rioja, Argentina. Changomas is a discount format that will be positioned as the price leader in the market and measures nearly 70,000 square feet including 48,000 square feet of selling space" - perhaps a reference and a few wikilinks e.g. Argentina, La Rioja etc.

This info has been removed from the article. I am not sure who added it, but I am unable to find adequate sourcing for it. See the comment below on this talk page. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• The competition section seems a bit long and reads much like a list - 3B on WP:WIAGA - stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). For example the section on Canadian competition although interesting seems unneccessary - I think in regards to the competition its best only to incorporate information that deals with effects on Walmart itself e.g. the dollar mart "Pennies-n-Cents." issue.

I reduced this quite a bit, discussing Wal-Mart in 'north america' and combining the US & Canadian stuff. I removed the laundry lists of competitors, and just left a few of the major ones, as well as the dollar store info. I left the international competition info, as it is still relevant. Dr. Cash 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than those small points the article is just about there. LordHarris 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Changomas?

I have removed the following unsourced information from the international section of the article:

"On February 21, 2007 Wal-Mart Argentina opened Changomas in La Rioja, Argentina. Changomas is a discount format that will be positioned as the price leader in the market and measures nearly 70,000 square feet including 48,000 square feet of selling space."

I'm not sure who added it, but it was copied word-for-word from mventures.com. I have never heard of 'mventures.com', and don't know about their credibility. Most of the articles on the website are located behind a password. No information on 'Changomas' is available on either Wal-Mart Corporate's Argentina Operations Page or Wal-Mart's Argentina Website (in spanish). Google searches for this pretty much turn up blank, with no news or press releases on anything related to Wal-Mart regarding Changomas and Argentina. Dr. Cash 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA status confirmed

I believe the changes that I asked for have been dealt with and this article is now GA. I also think that this article would do well as a featured article candidate. Im afraid I cant really find any suggestions for improvement other than the actual wal-mart logo (info box) needs a fair use rationale. It currently has a fair use license but no rationale. I suggest adding one immediately. Good work on the article to all who contributed to improve. LordHarris 10:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Fair-use rationale has been added to the image description now. Dr. Cash 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding criticism section and others

It seem as my recent edits appear to be getting reverted by a couple of people (mainly anonymous editors: 153.90.171.122 (IP address assigned to Montana State University), 71.210.80.67 (IP address assigned to Qwest Comm. in Denver), as well as Eross8.

Most of the accusations seem to be calling my edits vandalism or whitewashing. In fact, the truth is quite a bit different than that. My recent edits are in response to comments by other wikipedians posted in response to this article's featured article nomination. During that process, it was suggested that the criticism section be renamed and integrated into other parts of the article. This is why the criticism subsection was renamed (not a word was actually deleted) to 'employee and labor relations' and placed in the 'corporate affairs' section. It was also suggested that info on the criticisms be placed into the LEAD section. If I was truly 'whitewashing' the article, why in the heck would I even put a paragraph highlighting Wal-Mart's criticisms in the LEAD?!?!

I also removed reference citations from various sentences in the LEAD, while at the same time adding this information to other sections of the article with reference citations. It was suggested in the FA nomination that references not be included in the LEAD section, and I happen to agree with that, as the LEAD is actually supposed to serve mainly as a summary of the article; references should be part of the main article text.

So before people go about with accusations of whitewashing and vandalism, I wanted to explain my actions here, plain and simple. As stated before, I don't work for Wal-Mart, or any of its subsidiaries. I have no stock in the company, nor any other interests in it. I don't live in Bentonville, or even the state of Arkansas (haven't even travelled there, either). My primary interests are working with the wikipedia community to bring this article to featured status. Dr. Cash 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your history on this page, FAC review and your use of comments make it easy to support your view. One point though, in the FAC you kept mentioning "the 'most famous' wiki war ever" and then you take advice from Jayron32 on the criticism section, which has now increased the reverts / destructive behavior (no longer "stabilized"?). You seem to know this article - criticism sections may be useful in certain circumstances. - Ctbolt 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. itself is doing the reversion, or ReclaimDemocracy.org? I don't really like either organization, but this wiki war Derek.cashman's referring to has received a shitload of attention from the media. Tuxide 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion. Removing an entire section on criticism is whitewash. If the section needs work, work on it. Abe Froman 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To correct you, the criticism section was not removed. It was moved to a subsection within 'corporate affairs' and renamed to 'employee and labor relations', based on comments received at WP:FAC. The current vandalism by 71.210.80.67 is copying the text of the criticism section and placing it right after the 'financial' section, while also keeping the exact same text in the other section at 'employee and labor relations' in the same section. WTF? Please get your facts straight before accusing people of whitewash. Dr. Cash 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Walmart itself reverting the entry???? NO - why would they do something as bad as that??? (FYI: that's called sarcasm, lol) Fact is, walfart will do anything - fair or foul - to keep people from learning their true nature. And yes - you would be abso-freaking-lutely AMAZED at how many stupid people there are out there in the world who actually believe walfart's lies.

Just call me the... Son of Liberty

US 11:49,30 july 2007 (cst)

Wal-Mart Greeter

This is a significant position within the organization and the position is held by a stereotype employee. There aught to be some coverage of this in the article. 70.129.243.150 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. +A.0u 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the 'corporate affairs' section. There is a statement regarding the Wal-Mart Greeter position there. Not sure how much more detail needs to be covered on it, though. I suppose if someone were to find information on how the position started, it might be worth adding to the history section, possibly, since Wal-Mart is pretty well known for having these positions and taking the lead among retailers in this area. Dr. Cash 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart's Competition

I removed the following statement from the article:

"However, in reality, their competition has only a margin of the market share, altogether."

The article's sources back up the fact that the company has 20% of the retail grocery business and 45% of the retail toy business. So their competition, altogether, should have more than a, "margin," contrary to what the statement suggests. Furthermore, it's going to be hard to prove a statement like that that doesn't differentiate between different segments of the business that Wal-Mart operates in, since they operate in so many areas. I don't think you're going to find any data for Wal-Mart's **overall** market share, since data is going to be collected in individual segments. Dr. Cash 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest Corporation?

Hi, I just wanted to ask, is Wal-Mart really the largest corporation? According to Fortune Global 500, ExxonMobil is now the largest global company, as of 2006. Am I missing a distinction or should this be edited? Ninja Joey 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This reference has Wal-Mart as the second largest corporation for 2006, but back at #1 for 2007. Of course, it is a listing of the largest companies in the US, as opposed to the aforementioned 'Fortune Global 500' (worldwide) list. However, the global list doesn't have 2007 yet, but the largest two are both american companies,. . . Dr. Cash 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

High Cost of Low Prices

Just out of curiosity, why was the link to Walmart - The High Cost of Low Prices removed? Here is the link: [2]

Wal-Mart Discount City

I have found proof Wal-Mart had used the "Discount City" name into the early 1980s in this commercial I found on YouTube if that helps. [3]

Further reading section issues

Perhaps I'm stoking the criticism debate here, but the further reading list seems to have gotten a bit out of hand. There are really two issues with it. First, it seems absurdly large - 20 books total. For comparison, I pulled up the Wikipedia entry for Wal-Mart's primary American competetion - Target - and found that there isn't even a section for further reading. I thought this might be an anomaly, so I searched for a topic I thought, given its importance to Americans and tendency towards controversy, would be certain to have a large section for further reading - the article on 9/11/01 - only to find that it listed a mere two books. As such, I really feel like the Wal-Mart further reading section is needlessly long. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, it should provide enough information to remove the need to read 20 more books in hopes of gaining a working knowledge of a topic.

Second, the further reading section seems to have become a dumping ground for references to criticisms of Wal-Mart. Of the 20 books listed on the list, 12 are either direct attacks of Wal-Mart, critiques of some portion of the company's business or how-to manuals for resistance against Wal-Mart in some capacity. This is, for an encyclopedia, ridiculous. After reading the talk page for the article, it became obvious that there was/is a disagreement over the best way to handle criticism of the company. Unfortunately, it appears that someone has decided to use the further reading list as a proxy for the reorganized criticism section. This is, in a word, unacceptable. Most of the books listed in the reading section appear to be little more than someone's attempt to further an anti-Wal-Mart agenda, and such activity has no place in an encyclopedia. I simply see no need for a double-digit list of critical books in any article, period.

All of the above being said, I'm wary of unilaterally removing the whole section; particularly given the already contentious nature of criticism in the article. I would rather attempt to hash the issue out on the talk page than create a reversion war. However, unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to retain the list as is, I fully intend to pare the list down significantly, if not remove it altogether. Before doing so, I hope to gain input from other Wikipedia editors. NihilisticMystic 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sat on this issue for nearly a month, and no one has responded. As such, I'm going to take the iniative and remove the section altogether. It simply doesn't belong, it's biased and no one seems to be too worried about it. If someone objects, I welcome a discussion. NihilisticMystic 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Largest Wal-mart?

Where is the largest Wal-mart? Or a list of the largest? This type of question seems to come up often. The article for the Square One Shopping Centre claims one of the largest at 220,000 sq ft, and a quick google search shows many others > 200,000 sq ft. How about a list? Jbradfor 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if it helps any, but my local Wal-Mart is the second largest in America in Wood River, IL. Illinois2011 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the Chinese Army

Could someone figure out which Chinese Army the intro is refering to. It seems that the current wikilink for this term leads to a disambiguation page. It would be useful to eliminate the need for readers to guess which army is being referred to. Does the intro of the Wal-Mart article refer to the People's Liberation Army or the Republic of China Army (of Taiwan)? Homologeo 09:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be removed, since it isn't cited anyways and I don't know where the contributor got that information from. Tuxide 09:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mascot?

On June 30, Rollback Guy added the following, unsourced information to this article (edit details):

The retailer's mascot is The Rollback Man, a smiley face character who appears in its ads.

It should also be pointed out the Rollback Guy is a sockpuppet of MascotGuy.

I don't exactly think this is really correct. While Wal-Mart has used such a character in it's advertisements, what evidence is there to show that this is actually a, "mascot," of the corporation. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this, though. I don't really think it belongs in the lead section, mainly because (a) it's not really a true mascot, and (b) it's not sourced anywhere else in the article, so it's not really part of the "summary" for the lead section. But, I think we could modify this and maybe incorporate the information into a section regarding Wal-Mart's advertising or something? Though something else should definitely be included there, as I don't think we should just add a whole new subsection or section with only one sentence. Dr. Cash 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"walmart" vs "Walmartsucks" webforum

At some point during the day of january 30th, 2006, a webform known as "walmart sucks" - which walmart had been trying to make go away for some time - mysteriously vanished. Walmart quickly swooped in and filed with W.I.P.O. to steal it, claiming it was a for profit sales site.

If you don't believe me that this happened, go over to http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/walmartsucks/ - in the files section is a PDF document titled "walmart vs walmartsucks" which details the event. You see, when the site owner informed myself and the other members what was going on, I managed to insert myself into the WIPO dispute, and therefore received EVERYTHING!

This is not the first time that walmart has gone to great lengths to silence any site which they do not like. There have been a number of sites since the late 1990's which have either documented walmart's true nature or provided a gathering place for customers and employees. In each case, Walmart has either whined to the courts to get them shut down, or strange attacks have been launched against those sites.

Walmart is not what it pretends to be - trust them at your own peril.

69.95.240.251 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The files section is a "members only" link, also I'm pretty sure that a forum isn't reliable (even if it's a PDF file), so if you really believe this is true then find an article on a reliable website, like BBC News Online, and one that is open for all of us to read. Best of luck, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So according to your logic, when walmart illegally takes a website or forum in such a manner, it didn't really happen because it's just a website/forum??? Does that mean if you said "walmart sucks" ON YOUR BLOG AND WALMART STOLE IT FROM YOU, IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN BECAUSE IT'S JUST A BLOG???

IF YOUR TOO SCARE TO JOIN, JUST ASK AND i'LL SEND IT TO YOU. OF COURSE, THAT'S JUST AN EXCUSE, ISN'T IT?

69.95.240.98 09:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Look my friend, it is a fact that what they did isn't illegal because if Wal-mart was doing something illegally it would be on a reliable news website (more accurately, there would be news reports about an investigation or court case, "state v. Wal-mart" or something like that). And the fact remains that I don't want to join Yahoo groups because I don't care for that. About e-mailing me the PDF file: it won't work because a) it's probably copyrighted so sending it would be illegal (something like a $50,000 fine) and b) I'm not about to give a stranger my e-mail address, sorry about that. Also you are prejudice because a neutral person would say something like:

I just read something interesting, see [4] and click on the files section on "walmart vs walmartsucks" (unfortunately you have to be a member to view it), it claims that Wal-mart illegally stole a website from a Wal-mart hate website.

I admit I'm sketchy on the details of the file since I didn't read it, but I know you would get this as a response:

Very interesting but it doesn't seem that reliable, see if you can find it on a more reliable website.

I don't want to be using Ad hominem against you (I already addressed the substance of your argument in the first sentence), all I wanted to do is to teach you how to properly show us your website without standing out as a trouble maker. Finally, please be more civilized, check your spelling and don't write in all capital letters because it's like you're yelling at me, thanks. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, forgive the caps - accidentally hit the caps button.

Second, your claiming the above incident is "made up" when you haven't even looked at the evidence (which DOES include actual emails from WIPO outlining the complaint walmart filed claiming it was a sales site) is the pathetic actions of a brainless individual.

ALSO, if you worthless pile of crap mods don't quit supporting the "official company line" links-wise while trying to stifle other links which provide the whole story on this company, you WILL start having problems in the RW - I don't put up with your kind of crap!

69.95.240.230 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I'm not brainless, in fact, last time I checked my IQ was in the range of 130-150 which is pretty good, and what I'm saying is that if this is really true (and not made up) then it should be available on a more reliable website (did you even try to find that information on a different website, well I did). Plus, e-mails can be forged, that is a fact. Finally, don't call me and others "worthless pile of crap mods" because I'm completely neutral and not only am I neutral but I pay attention that my edits are neutral in line with Wikipedia policy (you could say I'm a Vulcan). PS: Could you tell me what a WIPO is because I can't find that information anywhere. Be nice, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

World Intellectual Property Organization

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website

Psycho Samurai 01:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohio Walmarts

Can someone help me? Some people say the largest Wal-Mart in OH is Wauseon....???

Try asking at the reference desk and don't forget the four tildes (~~~~) to sign. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 03:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried and still couldn't find it, thank you for helping Nightrider & Tigger 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Walmart edits by employees (POV issue)

Although everyone editing this article and related articles have been aware of this for some time, conclusive 'evidence' shows IP addresses registered to Walmart have been used to edit both this article as well as other articles relating to the Walmart corporation. Have a look here for a list of edits made by IP addresses identified. Sfacets 02:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the history of Wal-Mart editing it's own article, but it should also be pointed it that a lot of that is pretty much ancient history now (at least in terms of the internet). Even the link that you provide shows that anonymous edits coming from Wal-Mart's own site have largely not been a problem for at least a year. Recently, there seems to be a bigger problem from vandals with an intense hatred against the company that wish to insert the opposite POV into the article, but even that has died down considerably. Dr. Cash 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, walmart doesn't NEED to do stuff like that nymore - not when they have users perfectly willing to do it for them.

69.95.242.2 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

minor edit

"A jury in Massachusetts Superior Court awarded nearly 2 millions dollars to an ex-Wal-Mart employee" to "A jury in Massachusetts Superior Court awarded nearly 2 *million* dollars to an ex-Wal-Mart employee". booyah/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.191.54.191 (talk) 05:28:40, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Accurate information about Sam's Club shopping priviledges

Sam's Club is open to people who possess annual memberships, daily memberships, and no memberships. Annual memberships allow purchasing at the sticker price, which has an extremely small markup meant to approximate operating costs only (with the membership fees approximating net profits). Daily members are allowed the same priviledge. Non-members may buy anything in the store by paying a fixed markup (about 3%). At the register, non-members may choose to purchase a membership rather than paying the markup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.210.129.227 (talk) 21:47, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Kind of weird

Is there a particular reason that the critism comments ("Wal-Mart has been the target of criticism from some community groups, women's rights groups, grassroots organizations, and labor unions.", etc.) are in the opening paragraph and not in a "Criticism and Controversy" section like every other article?

Also it seems strange that those comments don't have citations or "Citation Needed" marks like all the other articles.

I'm just pointing out that this article on a whole seems less professional/consistent in the standards department than other articles even involving high-profile companies. I mean Microsoft's article doesn't have "Microsoft has been the target of criticism ...".

Anyway, thanks for maintaining Wikipedia. I think the content standards and attempt to address consistency has really made Wikipedia a lot more professional than a year ago. 67.149.220.91 07:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It mostly stems from the fact that this article has become a bastion of ill-informed activism. Wal-Mart is a controversial topic, and, instead of attempting to create a useful encyclopedic topic, people are trying to use its Wikipedia article as a sounding board for their personal views.

Given the tendency of the anti-Wal-Mart camp to turn the article into a Wal-Mart bash-fest, I don't think this will ever be a top-quality article. It's unfortunate, really. I'm all for showing every side of a topic/issue, but the criticism in this article is a little over the top. Wal-Mart screws up quite often, but the way it has been addressed here is excessive. As it stands, the reader learns more about the various criticisms of Wal-Mart than about the company itself. Given the article is supposed to be about the company, this is completely unacceptable. Your point about the opening paragraph is just the tip of the iceberg. NihilisticMystic 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no 'criticism and controversy' section because such sections are strongly discouraged in articles. The specific concerns regarding criticisms are in the 'employee and labor relations' subsection of this article, and there is a whole separate article, Criticism of Wal-Mart, which discusses much of the criticisms ad nauseum. Even the criticisms mentioned in the lead section are mostly related to employee and labor issues, and it's summarizing information covered later in the article, so it really doesn't need any citations. I am opposed to adding a specific 'criticism and controversy' section back to the article, primarily for the reasons stated by NihilisticMystic above. Dr. Cash 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think it is a good article. I personally find negative information to be helpful on most articles so as to be more informed about the content of the article, I was mostly questioning the location of the information in the intro. Anyway, I now see the layout of the article and found the information I couldn't find. Nice job. 67.149.220.91 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there's something very strange about avoiding a "criticism and controversy" section but having a separate article by that name. After all, "POV forks" are also strongly discouraged. If there is resistance to merging the criticism article back into the main text, at least it should be presented in summary style as a criticism section. Filing it under "employee relations" is inappropriate, because most of the criticisms are not employee relations but all sorts of other issues. 70.15.116.59 02:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

confusing sentence - and seems illogical

This paragraph appears in the History section: "In 2002, Wal-Mart was listed for the first time on the Fortune 500 list of the world's largest corporations, with revenues of $219.8 billion and profits of $6.7 billion. The company was subsequently listed at #1 for every year after 2002 except for 2006.[2][13]" Am I to believe that the year 2002 was Wal-Mart's debut on the Fortune 500 list, and that the debut was at #1? It seems implausible, but if true then okay. I just wonder if 2002 was the first year that Wal-Mart attained the #1 ranking. Can someone verify?Patrekursson 03:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Section "Employee and labor relations". Still not NPOV???

I have looked at the edits of the section "Employee and labor relations" and they seem to be either biased for or against Wal-Mart. The current edit seems to be closest to a NPOV, but I still have some problems with the wording in the article.

The following sentences have wording biased against Wal-Mart critics:

"In 2005, labor unions created several web pages and front organizations to damage Wal-Mart's public image. ....."

"Critics also decry Wal-Mart's employee and workforce relations, ....."

I suggest an NPOV edit. For example, the following edits would seem to be more neutral in character.

"In 2005, labor unions created several web sites to state their position against Wal-Mart's public image. ....."

"Critics also site Wal-Mart's employee and workforce relations, ....."

Another suggestion is to take out this section completely.

Discuss, please.

Zildgulf 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Union Carbide page has about an inch and a half on the Bhopal incident. And that was something that actually occured that's verifiable history. By contrast, the criticisms of Wal-Mart are the subjective feelings of some group. How can an encyclopedia list all these things that start with "some critics say...." If that's the standard, there are "some critics say space aliens created the wikipedia."

I'll try to make some more bold edits. SecretaryNotSure 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Since there is already an article entitled "Criticisms of Wal-Mart", I think much of the content of the "Employee and Labor Relations section", as it currently reads, should either be moved to that article or removed entirely from this article since it is not verifiable history. The last sentences about the judgement against Wal-Mart, since it is a verifiable history, could stay in, but the rest has been biased writings for and against Wal-Mart since I've seen the editing history. This is something I feel violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Wiki principles. Zildgulf 10:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

"Qualifies to be nominated for a Nobel Prize"? Is there any objective standard by which this has been determined? Should an encyclopedia say that someone qualifies for the Nobel when he or she had not actually received it? And at the very head of its article? 76.173.17.102 15:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are any pictures that can be brought in of Wal-Mart's new design. What I mean is like the wide aisle one. ScottAHudson 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello! I've completed a copyedit of this article--please see hidden notes in the text labeled "COPYEDITOR'S NOTE" for questions/issues that I couldn't resolve. Also note that the most consistent edits were to punctuation and to change "their" (plural possessive) to "its" (singular possessive) when referring to Wal-Mart as a company. Thanks! Galena11 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WAL MART LONDON OHIO

I here the Super Wal-Mart in London Ohio is closing is this true if so when... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.135.30 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages do not exist for discussion related to store closings. Please limit discussion to the article itself. Dr. Cash 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart's Environmental Record

There wasn't any information on this page regarding Wal-Mart's environmental record or stance on the environment so I added this much needed category.

ReasonsBliss 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The information has been deleted. It was not properly "wikified", and far too detailed for an article of this nature. I believe it also skewed the facts towards a particular point of view, and as such, violated wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. If that would be added back, please pay attention to the manual of style, proper procedures for citing references (there is already a reference section in the article, so a separate section with its own references section is redundant and poor form), as well as wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Dr. Cash 04:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There was already a good start discussing some of Wal-Mart's environmental actions and initiatives in the history section, so I moved the content of the environmental section to history. I removed the information about Wal-Mart watch; it does not meet the neutrality policy, and Wal-Mart Watch itself is not a reliable source. Dr. Cash 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Business model

The section on the Wal-Mart business model seems like it could be fleshed out. Just based on personal observation as a customer, I think that low prices are only one factor this store has going for it. (and despite its size, the selection of any given type of product is really rather poor). I'd name several other major factors: a) 24-hour service; b) no "preferred shopper" cards to violate privacy; c) very generous return policy, even for items like computers; d) the "store" is actually a small shopping mall, with selected independent retailers such as banks and optometrists who have special licenses or brand recognition; e) consistent product arrangement between locations, so that travelers can quickly find items while out on the road; f) visible physical presence of security pickup trucks in the parking lot at night. I think that any one of these factors would give the company an overwhelming advantage for some people at some times. 70.15.116.59 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting observations. But with no sources, it cannot be added to the article. Dr. Cash 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

walmart discount stores

for what it's worth, the old non-supercenter, non-market walmart stores are called Wal-Mart Hometown stores unfortunately i don't have documentation. (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's debunk this "christmas controversy" right now, shall we?

Going into the holiday season, I'm sure everyone will probably want to try and deface -- I mean, vandalise -- this article with all the, "Wal-Mart hates Christmas" stuff. So to nip this in the bud from the start, here's the source that has Wal-Mart on the "nice list" this season. Thanks, and Merry Christmas! ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the "christmas controversy" and why would Wal-Mart "hate Christmas"? Don't they make like a gazillion buttloads of dollars? If I was Wal-Mart (and I don't claim to be), I would go with a decidedly pro-Christmas pro-selling-things strategy. Since, however, I am not Wal-Mart, I think I'm going to concentrate more on my New Years libations. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 25 Needs to Be Updated

The link for footnote 25 (Koenig, David. "Wal-Mart Targeting Upscale Shoppers." ABC News. March 22, 2006. Retrieved on July 25, 2006.) is a dead link. I believe the exact same article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11957536/ I would update it myself, but the Wal-Mart entry is semi-protected. Thanks all!

I've removed the link to the ABC News source, but kept the reference. Just because a link disappears, doesn't mean it isn't a valid reference. Also, the MSNBC article is already cited as well, with a link. A quick google search indicates that there's quite a few other sources covering this information, but we don't need to list every one of them. Dr. Cash 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Music Censoring?

It used to be Wal-Mart's policy to censor music CDs that were considered explicit, does anybody know if this is still the case? And shouldn't that be included at some point in this article? It's been a big issue in the past and seems relevant. 76.21.170.52 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Criticism of Wal-Mart#Product selection. Regards, Tuxide (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Website Address

The website address in the company summary box points to the company's eCommerce site (walmart.com), rather than the corporate website. Since the box contains corporate information, and not just the Wal-Mart division, the website link should point to http://walmartstores.com

Knubie (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we don't list both. at the bottom of the page under External Links it lists both. However if both is not an option I agree with Knubie the Corporate Website should be listed there.☻TheCookieMaker Talk! 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's the criticism section?

I know its under the labor section, but its hard to find and considering that the article contains criticism about other things unrelated to labor, it should have its own bullet point with a short paragraph linking it to the critisim article. Looks to me like Wal Mart is doing some wikipedia edits of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.229.176 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just arrived on this article after seeing a documentary. Considering Wal Mart is such a high-profile company with more than a fair deal of criticism, I find it VERY odd that there is only one (or perhaps a few, buried in all the useless info) link to a seperate page. Nothing on this page itself. It's true that there is a lot of criticism over there, but it should indeed be more visible on this page. Wouter de Groot (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- Criticism of Wal-Mart seems to be a hidden WP:POVFORK. Wal-Mart is notorious for the large amount of criticism it receives, and a summary of these controversies should be prominent on the main Wal-Mart page. Fireplace (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This subject is discussed in the 'Kind of Weird' subheading above, although I'm still not entirely convinced --SlopingFlange (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the corporation, Wal-Mart, and not a sounding board for everyone to post and share their dislikes about the company. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia article about the corporation. The criticism section was removed and pertinent info place into other aspects in accordance with the guidelines of WP:CRITICISM, which discourages 'criticism' sections in articles. Plus, there is already a pretty large, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written Criticism of Wal-Mart article, which discusses all of these details ad nauseum. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

First, no one is suggesting "a sounding board for everyone to post and share their dislikes about the company." There is a large body of critical material and controversies surrounding Wal-Mart that can be attributed to reliable sources. Second, WP:CRITICISM specifically says that "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork." Fireplace (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no one else is objecting, I suggest adding a summary of the Criticism of Wal-Mart article to this main article, linking to the criticism article with a {{main}} template. Fireplace (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean no one is objecting? This is a horrible idea! Criticism is already covered sufficiently by the article, and not in a criticism section explicitly, but rather within individual sections related to other topics on the corporation, as it should be. Wikipedia is NOT the place to vent your criticisms and dissatisfactions with a particular entity or corporation. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not assuming good faith, and no one is "vent"ing. I've argued above that the Criticism of Wal-Mart section is problematic because it is a POV fork. The coverage in the main Wal-Mart article of the criticism and controversies surrounding Wal-Mart is extremely cursory and misses a lot of the major issues. The easiest solution is to add a "Controversies" or "Reception" section that summarizes the content from the Criticism of Wal-Mart article. Fireplace (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You apparently have no idea about the definition of a POV fork. This is not the case. Wikipedia policy and guidelines discourage 'criticism' sections, and this is not an article for an exception to that. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Cash. In the controversy on the Richard Dawkins talk page a few months back, it was generally agreed that criticism sections are generally not to be part of articles, and such a precedent was then set by merging criticism sections out of the presidential candidate pages. A separate section for criticism of Wal-Mart is obviously fine. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't merge something *OUT*. Merging means "joining," not simply "moving." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a substantive response. I now agree that a "Criticism" or "Controversies" section isn't the best way of handling it. However -- the current Criticism of Wal-Mart article is a classic POV fork. The best way to handle this content is to incorporate it into the main article and, where the content grows too large, create sub-articles with titles like Labor relations at Wal-Mart (for example). I think that's consistent with what happened at Richard Dawkins. Fireplace (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand not wanting to create a criticism heading in this article, but there should be a link provided to the criticism article on wikipedia. Personally when i came to this article, that's what I was looking for and it seems to me that most of the information provided in the article is of less importance than the many criticisms Walmart has faced. Again, I'm not saying the article needs a criticism section, but a link to that article should atleast be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to Criticism of Wal-Mart. At least two of them: one in the lead section (last paragraph), and another under 'employee and labor relations'). Dr. Cash (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty difficult to find, how is the reader supposed to know that the word "criticism" is a link to the criticism of walmart article and not to the definition of criticism? Personally I think it should be included in the see also section, or maybe make the link to that article a little clearer in the opening paragraph. If links such to such articles as the walmart camel and people who've worked at walmart can be included, the link to criticism of wal mart should also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhh..... is it so difficult to to add a "See Also : Criticisms of Wal-Mart" rather than obscuring it in a blog-style link? I eventually found the links to the criticism sections. I had to click on words that were related to it. It seems like someone is afraid to CLEARLY link to the criticisms article. If you have a section branching to the history of wal-mart, list of assets, and brands (among other things) what is the big deal with not clearly linking to the criticisms article? You can argue that "Well, a reader should investigate and carefully read the entire article, and explore every link" but that kind of defeats readability. I can't be the only person who thinks that burying the link [[in|inside] keywords is a horrible way to hyperlink... and really does nothing more than obfuscate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.61.22 (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that the criticism fork needs higher visibility has been made once every three weeks since I started observing this article. Aside from the agreement that criticism should be on a separate article there has yet to be added a visible link to it. I believe Dr. Cash has been abusing his power, and ill interpreting WP:CRITICISM to remove an easily visible route to the separate criticisms article, despite the overwhelming majority of users who keep asking "wheres the criticism?" 67.127.175.36 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM is an essay, not a policy. I don't know why anyone is giving that essay any weight in this discussion.--Yourmanstan (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also by having "Advocacy Groups" in the table of contents and no "Criticism" it ruins the npov. after a quick glance this comes off as gleaming. I'm sure there are allot of groups out there who are anti wal-mart. I can't seem to come up with an explanation for why this would be since the editors seem so concerned with npov. Heck you could even stick it in Other and probable cut down on complaints of invisibility. 67.127.175.36 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I also came here specifically looking for criticism. In reality, many of the wiki pages do have criticism sections and I appreciate it. Furthermore, as stated above, if the criticism page is included in the main page I feel more assured that the criticism has been met with the required amount of skepticism and has been fully vetted. If the article is too long, then yes, I see why the FULL criticism section should be separate. But I think a summary at lesat would be desirable for the main page. No mention of the criticisms seems a bit extreme. --118.7.195.66 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. If you farking turkeys are that farking stupid that you can't find a Criticism link in a page, then fine. Have it your way. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Derek.Cashman, it seems weird that although you're so concerned that a criticism section will lead to trolling, your own conduct here is pretty agravating. Looks like most people here would appreciate a criticism section, esp. because most other controvertial topics have one and Wal-Mart is one of the most behaviorally questioned businesses in the U.S.. Furthermore, this article seems very one-sided in how it advertizes the community benefits and advocacy groups that support the corporation, and mentions little of the significant opposition to Walmart's corporate prectices by various consumer advocacy groups and labor unions. It seems weird that the very extensive article dedicated to criticism of Wall-Mart is only linked twice to the main one. Tell me, you're not working for Wall-Mart are you?? 199.245.32.210 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't work for Wal-Mart. Never have, either. But I do actually have the balls to edit with a user account and not anonymously. Please read WP:CRITICISM, which deals with discouraging criticism sections in cases like this. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM is an essay, not a policy. That essay has no bearing on this subject. As it stands, a brief criticism section with a link to the full article is certainly warranted and useful to the community.--Yourmanstan (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

pThis article does not need a critisisms section, which would be to combersome and ruin npov. What this article needs is more visability to the content fork, which has been helped by the adition to the other section. It may be nessasery to give the link it's own heading to reduce complaints, but even that could get out of hand with dozens of links to every anti-wal-mart group. Right now it seems fairly decent to me, and I am no fan of wal-mart. 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.182.125.65 (talk)

The Norwegian Pension Fund - Global (previously The Petroleum Fund), the 2nd largest in the world, has an ethics ban on investing in Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has unsuccessfully tried negotiating its way off the list. Something regarding this should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.11.60 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No need for a criticism section because critics of Walmart are losers anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.28.164 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that only Dr. Cash believes that there is no use for a criticism. This view is clearly not the view of the community and I propose the criticism section be put back in place. Criticism is informational just as any other section the section "history" "subsidiaries" or any other section is. the purpose of sections is to help users find information quickly and easily, if we are to not have a criticism section then we should also remove the "history", "subsidiaries", and "corporate affairs" sections, as each of these also have full separate articles.--Yourmanstan (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Wal-Mart articles

This article was originally started as Wal-Mart (disambiguation), although that was actually inappropriate (per WP:DISAMBIG), as none of the articles in the list could be confused with the corporation of Wal-Mart itself. The list is nothing more than a 'see also' list of articles that are somewhat related to Wal-Mart itself, and therefore I propose that this page be merged into the 'see also' section of the main Wal-Mart page itself. All of these articles are related to Wal-Mart, yes, but none of them will be confused with an article about the corporation. So listing them as 'see also' is the most appropriate course of action here. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that article is a See Also section that for some reason gained a life of its own; besides we shoulnt have lists of articles on mainspace unless the articles themselves are notable. I'm being bold and merging it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIP-Acer (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the defact deletion of Wal-Mart (disambiguation) without any discussion. (The page had a deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)) which resulted in no consensus. It was then moved to List of Wal-Mart articles, which was then redirect to Wal-Mart. This page was then deleted (it was only a redirect). It was then recreated by User:Shaliya waya who was criticized for doing so) This is especially troubling to me as it unfairly made a new user who was being bold into a some sorta criminal. It think it is important that we have a consensus now and more forward in an open manner. Jon513 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is clearly not a disambiguation page, per WP:DISAMBIG, and should not be listed. Only a slim minority of users actually wanted to keep the page as-is, and many were leaning towards moving the page instead of deletion (although there was still a majority in favor of deletion), so I have no idea why the 'no consensus' decision was upheld. Disambiguation pages only exist if there is a chance that an article's title might be confused with another article -- this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE HERE, as the links are just vaguely related articles that have something to do with the overall 'Wal-Mart' topic, but nobody in their right mind would ever get confused when searching. That's why it was moved to the 'see also' section, where it belongs. I tried to get some input on this at [5], but nobody seems really interested, except one person that deleted the redirects saying that somewhat agreed with me. This whole "argument" is just silly, but I am totally unconvinced that a disambiguation page is necessary, and in fact, it's totally inappropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

0:The impression I have had from early on is that a single user, Derek Cashman, is determined to kill a Wal-Mart disambiguation page, no matter what, perhaps out of a personal distaste for one, and is using any propaganda necessary to sway others, rather than letting others formulate their own point of view. In our vocabulary, "Wal-Mart" and "Walmart" have been prescribed other meanings, and there are multiple articles on those other meanings, thereby qualifying for a disambiguation page.Shaliya waya (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

0::No one here has done anything to indicate that they are interested in anything besides making a better encyclopedia. I ask that you please strike the first half of your remarks (by added a <s> before and a </s> after). Jon513 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the attempts by a single user (me, as I've been apparently accused), as my nomination of the List of Wal-Mart articles/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) page for merger into Wal-Mart was, in fact, merged by another user (see RIP-Acer's comments, above). Furthermore, if you actually take the time to read WP:DISAMBIG, specifically the section on 'set index articles', it's quite clear that what you're adding is clearly not a disambiguation page, by definition. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that the actual content in question (the list of links), was never really deleted (save one external link to urbandictionary that didn't belong), and in fact, added to the 'see also' section of the main Wal-Mart article. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p::Looks to me like there's no ambiguous word here that requires disambiguation. Bass could be a fish, an instrument, a type of singer, etc. so it's a dab page. Wal-Mart is a retailer, and nothing else. Most of the counter-arguments are either using Wal-Mart as an adjective or creating a gerund. The former might be better classified with the appropriate noun; the latter might, if well-referenced, make up a disambiguation page. I could support Wal-Marting (disambiguation) if there were appropriate sources. (The current Walmarting is a bit of a portmanteau of a dab page and 3 definitions.) List of Wal-Mart articles doesn't seem like a terrible idea, or it could redirect to Wal-Mart#See also, but simply redirecting to the top of the Wal-Mart page makes it look as if there's only one element of the list, and that it's the Wal-Mart page. Even if we have a redirect for now, we ought to allow the possibility of a genuine list in future. I suggest taking the disputed dab page back to AfD and modifying the redirect of the List of ... page, but I'm going to wait a while in the hope that a consensus might emerge here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Being the person who did the merger I should probably give my 2 cents here: Like I said in my post above, a list of articles is not appropriate. Lists on mainspace must deal with encyclopedic subjects, lists of Wikipedia articles are metadata and as such they don’t belong on mainspace. For instance a List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is acceptable while a list of Wikipedia articles related to Wal-Mart is not. This is crystal clear to me and that’s why I merged the list with the main article. I placed a redirect to this article since it’s the suggestion given at the merge page but frankly I think it should be deleted. Nobody’s ever gona get to this page by searching for List of Wal-Mart articles. As for the desambig page I'm with Cash on this. Its by definition not a desambig page and the info has already been placed on the main article where its more visible. As it stands that page is completely unnecessary as is the link to it that keeps being added to the top of this page. Cheers! RIP-Acer (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have listed Wal-Mart (disambiguation) for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (2nd nomination). Jon513 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC failure

This article failed FAC. I think that one reason was that its length allowed lots of opportunities for irritating little minds (such as my own) to make irritating little points. Without quite bringing myself to apologize for my part in its downfall, I do regret that it failed. And I'd like to encourage Derek to keep plugging away at it. -- Morenoodles (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Maybe we should give this another go in the new year at some point? I dunno. I'd still like to see this as an FA, but I'm getting a little fatigued and disappointed with WP:FAC right now. It seems like there's too much nitpicking over there for minor copyediting changes (despite the article having at least two members of the League of Copyeditors going through it), and no one is really interested in addressing the FAC changes but myself. Perhaps if we had some more support for actually improving the article based on the comments by the past two FACs (instead of people trying to insert their own POV into the article), maybe it would have a better chance at passing. I'd also personally like to see some of the folks at FAC that keep complaining about 'minor copyediting', just fix it instead of listing the problems. Anyway, if folks want to make a good, concerted effort at making this an FA, I'd help out. But I don't want to just go solo on this again,... Dr. Cash (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to make such a commitment. However, I can promise to try to do a bit before any FAC, in my sporadic way. Morenoodles (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article now has a grand total of 0 VAGUE/DUBIOUS flags. It looks like a pretty good FAC to me. No, it looks like a FA to me. Morenoodles (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ASDA Section

Under the details of the UK division of Walmart ASDA the following line:

At the end of 2007, ASDA had 340 stores, primarily ASDA Wal-Mart Supercenters, as well as ASDA Supermarkets, ASDA Living, George High Street and ASDA Essentials stores.

Is incorrect, as a UK resident I can corrobarate the infomation in the main Asda article that the ASDA Supermarket is the primary store format in the UK, with the ASDA Wal-Mart Supercentre being a comparatively minor format.

Also please note that as this refers to the UK division of Wal-Mart, Supercenter is the incorrect spelling it should be Supercenter as can be seen here

Thanks Liquid D (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Cough) I think you mean "Supercentre"! But thank you for your input. -- Morenoodles (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that in every other controversial subject page Criticism is listed as a subheading?

But not this one? A lot of times the entire subsection is just a link to the criticism page. Considering how much criticism there is for this company (which is covered quite expertly and clearly on its own page) I think there should be some obvious note of it here that a cursory glance would reveal. As it is now I've got to dig through paragraphs to find it. I'm not a reading man, I'm a glancing man, and just about every other page on wikipedia caters to that fact except this one. 74.227.205.42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic has actually been discussed before. Please read WP:CRITICISM; 'criticism' sections are actually discouraged in the article, as they tend to be "troll magnets", and it's much better to integrate criticism about a subject into other areas of the article than in an explicit criticism section. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Defamation?

From the article: "In 2005, labor unions created several websites and front organizations defaming Wal-Mart's public image." The primary definition of defame is to "to harm the reputation of by libel or slander" (Merriam Webster). This wording shows a clear bias. Also, calling these websites front groups makes them sound nasty. While they are by no means grassroots organizations, saying that these websites were set up by or backed by the unions would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.189.146 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have rewritten accordingly. Morenoodles (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A new Wal-Mart Supercenter photo is needed for the articel. Most of the supercenters look very different from the one in the article.68DANNY2 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Also, a well-known characteristic of Walmarts is full parking lots (a fact Sam was very proud of). A picture should be used that does not show an almost empty parking lot (or the caption should explain the discrepancy, such as a closed store caw.

I took a picture of mine Orangeburg, South Carolina. It's one of the first ones built before Supercenters started to spread, but it's been renovated and painted with the brown scheme. When I get a chance I"m going to do the one in Columbia. It's one of the newest.--Attitude2000 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move April 2008

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Article is correctly named.

Wal-Mart → Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. covers all subsidaries, not just the Wal-Mart store —68DANNY2 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

walmart rocks!

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Discussion closed. I am closing this discussion now since the manual of style addresses this issue perfectly; please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Companies. The Wikipedia convention used is such that the legal status of the corporation (Inc., LLC, Ltd., etc) is not used when naming the corporation, deferring to the the simple name of the company (e.g. Microsoft, not "Microsoft, Inc."; Google, not "Google, Inc."). The legal status may be used in the event that a corporation's name might be shared with another corporation or common name, such as Apple Inc. (e.g. disambiguation). That is not the case here.

Exceptions and/or changes to the naming conventions can be discussed here. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

(see below for second requested move)

Wal-Mart Canada Information incorrect

WRONG DATA:

Wal-Mart has operated in Canada since its acquisition of the Woolco division of Woolworth Canada, Inc.[40] In 2007, it operates at 278 locations, employing 70,000 Canadians, with a local home office in Mississauga, Ontario. On November 8, 2006, Wal-Mart Canada's first three Supercenters opened in Ancaster, London, and Aurora, Ontario. As of January 31, 2007, there were six Wal-Mart Supercenters in Canada.[34] As of November 30, 2006, there were six Sam's Clubs in Ontario, in London, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Cambridge, Pickering, and Toronto).[34] In December 2006, conversion of a Wal-Mart Discount Store into a Wal-Mart Supercenter began in Lethbridge, Alberta, making it the seventh in Canada and the first in western Canada.

CORRECT DATA:

Wal-Mart has operated in Canada since its acquisition of the Woolco division of Woolworth Canada, Inc.[40] In 2007, it operates at 316 locations, employing over 75,000 Canadians, with a local home office in Mississauga, Ontario. On November 8, 2006, Wal-Mart Canada's first three Supercenters opened in Ancaster, London, and Stouffville, Ontario. As of January 31, 2007, there were seven Wal-Mart Supercenters in Canada and six Sam's Clubs in Ontario. The Sam's Clubs are located in London, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Cambridge, Pickering, and Etobicoke.[34] In December 2006, conversion of a Wal-Mart Discount Store into a Wal-Mart Supercenter began in Lethbridge, Alberta, making it the seventh in Canada and the first in western Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk • contribs)

Please provide a citation for these changes. Thanks. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Financial formula wrong

The formula given for most profitable corporation (ratio of profits over revenues) is incorrect. Under that formula, stores like Walmart and Costco that have low markups would not be as high as 67 (or even 10,000) on the list (whereas a vitamin supplement dealer with a 90% markup would be higher despite the total absolute revenues or profit). This definition as is just makes the article silly, and it should be corrected. (Probably the correct definition involves size and not just profit ratio) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.224.32 (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"this kind of crap"

User:Unregistered.coward removed a large section of the description of WM customers, calling it "crap".

This "crap" is well sourced and significant. Indeed, I see no reason to call it "crap". Unregistered.coward is welcome to explain here how it is "crap". Morenoodles (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not enough criticism in this article

It seems to me that someone involved with the Wal Mart corporation watches over this article and prevents much mention of wal mart controversy in the section. SInce there is tons of criticism of this corporation, it seems very UNECYCLOPEDIC to only lightly brush upon it. I mean, there are large communities protesting to keep Wal Marts out of their areas. Where are these mentions? Surely someone with a background can edit this page with well cited cases of wal mart criticisms. This page reads like a Wal Mart public relations site. Let's please fix this! --98percenthuman (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem,... I point you in the direction of this article. Lots of criticism over there,... The criticism article should also now be well-linked from the main article, too, so if you can't find it, I don't know what to say,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I didn't see any criticism or link in the article...so I added the header from the criticism page and linked it.--Xris0 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Logo

The "Save Money. Live Better." logo featured at the top of the page is not the corporate logo for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. "Save Money. Live Better." is the tagline for the Wal-Mart Stores, USA Division. The corporate logo for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is simply the Wal-Mart title. In addition, the rendering of the "Save Money. Live Better." logo currently occupying the company logo space is incorrect. The actual logo can be obtained by at the Wal-Mart Stores corporate website or brand center. Jsridge0084 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The logo at the top of this page is identical to the logo at the top of www.walmart.com. Please provide an actual link to a different logo and/or citation for your claim. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The logo at the top of the page is admittendly a rendering by the artist. The Company has published brand guidlines at the Wal-Mart Brand Center which outline the correct lockup of the logo (and also has artwork to download). But simply comparing the correct logo and the current one, you can see the differences. The font and kerning in the rendering is incorrect. Also, because Wal-Mart's subsidiaries (other than Wal-Mart Stores, USA Division) do not use the tagline, "Save Money. Live Better." it should not be included in the corporate logo. Jsridge0084 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Walmart.com is the US site. Walmartstores.com is the corporate site. Also, they just announced a new (odd) logo. Paullloydjohnson (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This new logo is for Wal-Mart Stores, USA, per the article at Walmartstores.com. The corporate logo, which has not changed at the corporate website, is still the traditional Wal*Mart. I don't know what is so difficult about this to understand, folks. Pardon me for having a bit of a soap box about this, but the logo was perfectly fine a few edits ago. Jsridge0084 (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam's Choice quickly became popular, and by 1993 was the third beverage brand in the United States.[48]

Sam's Choice quickly became popular, and by 1993 was the third beverage brand in the United States.[48]

Do you mean third largest??? Does anybody proof read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.11.69 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

???

It said on the news: It's logo is about to change. So let's be ready 4 it! --22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PROFIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.231.75 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles

I think the Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market articles should be merged in to the Walmart Article because it would provide easy access to all who come to the article looking for Sam's Club or Neighborhood articles and never find them. The "See Also" concept would not be seen by the average Wikipedia visitor and only by experienced Wikipedia user because the text size is fairly too small. --ZippyGoogle (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The neighborhood market article is largely redundant, and could be merged quite easily. There's not a lot of content there currently, so a merger might make sense. There's a bit more content in the Sam's Club article, mostly history. It might make better sense to merge that into the History of Wal-Mart article than this one. I have no idea what you're referring to with your "see also concept" comment. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Walmart article is too long as it is. Remember when article size was recommended to be 32kb? its 66 without the entire Sams Club article dumped into it. All the old Sams Club logo's are irrelevant to this page. If people want to read about Sams Club, they can click on Main Article: Sam's Club in the Sams club section.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly oppose the merge with Sam's Club - it's a fully-fledged article on a operation distinct from the main Wal-Mart stores. This is perfectly in agreement with Wikipedia:Summary style. Pretty neutral on the Neighborhood Market article - there's not a lot to it and it could be slimmed down even further if all the individual store info was taken out. Gr1st (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ZippyGoogle.--166.217.3.12 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I get what the opposition means with dumping, but it would not be good for someine with a laptop or dial-up having to go to several articles to get what they are looking for. This would not be good for a laptop CPU either, with it having limited storage. I am using a laptop and I can edit it just fine, with having Windows 95 at school and can edit the article easily also. I strongly support this cause and it should be done in my veririable opinion. Zachemc2 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a laptop user, I oppose the compression of these three articles into one. Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market are individually notable outside of Wal-Mart; if they were merged into this article it would become insanely huge and crash most browsers. Please see WP:SIZE, and for God's sake, do not merge the info until a consensus has formed. This means you, 166.217.3.12. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Existing Store Logos

Since Walmart has changed their U.S. logo, will the new logo replace the logo on existing stores' exteriors, or will the logo only appear on newer stores? This should be mentioned in the article. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've heard that they'll be replacing it in all stores. I'm already seeing it on interior signage at my local Walmart [sic]. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Where have you heard that? By the way, is there a way that you can post a question on Walmart's corporate website? If there is, I will post my question there to see what will be done with those stores. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think you can. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, but where did you here that the Walmart logo is being changed on the outside of all stores? 24.151.137.19 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Go to Wal-Mart's corporate website, or Google it. Jonathan 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I saw a picture of their first store with the new logo online, but it was horrible quality. Could omeone find a picture of that store (Store #1) for the article? Thanks! 24.151.137.221 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)