Talk:Walmart/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

How is there no criticism section?

Seriously, there is plenty of criticism of the company and the Criticisms of Wal-Mart page should be summarized here with a link to the main article. 24.177.125.175 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Read the talk page history and archives. Criticism sections are discouraged in Wikipedia articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Protests

These protests are so stupid.Wal-Mart is not Anti-women,Anti-Non-Chinese Trade,Anti-Wokers.So why do people hate it?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.67.121 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they destroy small towns, small businesses, American factories, and everything else that made America great.--66.32.103.44 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Correction

Walthon should be changed to Walton--DannyChoQQ (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Intercom

Is it perhaps notable as to how easy it is to access Wal-Mart's intercom system, and the many intercom pranks posted on the internet? RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Furthermore, this is a serious encyclopedia, not a collection of jokes and pranks. If you must add something like this, I might suggest Uncyclopedia's Wal-Mart page. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't see how it's noteable; any prank pulled in Wal-Mart could potentially be pulled in other locations. Lots42 (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assets Turnover are not Known

Assets Turnover are the most important figure to benchmark the management proformance of supermarket which is missing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.112.142 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart prescense in Central America

Add info on Wal-Mart prescense in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.46.143 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture under Employee and labor relations

The picture under Wal-Mart#Employee_and_labor_relations should look like this: [1] and not like this: [2], correct? How is it that the image currently there, shows the nice friendly image, yet points to (and describes) the unfriendly protest image? Honestly, I would fix it if it didn't baffle me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.184.220 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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 no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

• After this article is unprotected, I feel it should be moved to Walmart because the new logo does not include a hyphen. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The old logo didn't have a hyphen either, but anyway, is "Walmart" the legal name? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the old logo had a hyphen. Didn't you look at any of the buildings with the logos on them (although to be fair, some "updated" logos had a star as a hyphen). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest everyone:

1. Read Wikipedia:naming conventions (which is an official policy) and perhaps also Wikipedia:official names (which is a proposal to clarify one often-ignored aspect of the policy which seems particularly relevant here).
2. Decide whether the policy is relevant, and if so what we should do in terms of the policy, and if not, why not (and there are many guidelines which might provide reasons why not).
3. Propose and discuss names referring to relevant policies and guidelines.

The policies guidelines etc are there to save us time in not reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Um...what point are you trying to make? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Simply that the signs on the buildings and other evidence given above is not nearly as relevant as one might at first think, and that a quick read of the relevant policy would put us all on the right track. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Wal-Mart (with the hyphen) is the correct spelling. Check their official site, where all references to the store's name are written as "Wal-Mart", if you think otherwise. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

**Support Move. Some of the store commercials and signs within the store spell it as 'Walmart.' I don't see why not to move it. Besides, even if someone searches 'Wal-Mart' on Wikipedia, the page would redirect to 'Walmart.' 24.151.137.221 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Logos don't necessarily show the official spelling (for example, the United States Geological Survey's official logo says simply "USGS"). We really would need an official statement — either from the company or from the place where the company is incorporated (I'm assuming Arkansas) — that says that they changed their name. As for "Besides, even if someone searches 'Wal-Mart' on Wikipedia, the page would redirect to 'Walmart.'" we can say that if someone searches Walmart on Wikipedia, the page would redirect to Wal-Mart, so that really shouldn't be a factor. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This has been discussed before. The official, legal name of the corporation is "Wal-Mart", with the hyphen. The legal name and advertising logos and signs are two different things, and this article is about the corporation itself. Therefore, it should not be moved. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose like the previous users said, there is a difference between advertising names and company names. Take for example Reebok. They advertise as RBK, but they're still Reebok, right? Same case here. Not to mention that even the Wal-Mart website has it named as Wal-Mart. SAVIOR_SELF.777 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I support this move because on several Walmart comercials during the summer, 'Summer costs less at Walmart.' near the end, with the same spelling I used. Also, promotional signs are at the entrance of my local Walmart Supercenter promoting the new Martha Stewart line. It says 'Now at Walmart.' So, I don't see a problem with the move. 68DANNY2 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 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.

NPOV OF Wal-Mart

forward-this is a section for discussion of the neutrality of this article Wal-Mart. I have noticed over the years that this wal-mart artical goes in ant out of neutrality so what has been done and what is being done that protects the negitive and positve mixed neutral viewAntiedman (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)(UTC)Antiedman (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say? No offense, but this looks like something that Miss Teen USA South Carolina might have written. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008

"Once the original founder died, it went from all American to bumsville."

This comment is at the beginning of the history. I'd take it out, but the page is protected. 128.101.93.145 (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of page

Call me picky, but I believe that if their is any way to change the title of the article to just Walmart since the logo has changed and what-not. But since this is your article, do whatever, I was just making a suggestion. Brett Leavelle 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Has the actual name of the company changed? Or just the logo? Regardless, please do not attempt to rename the article by cutting and pasting it into Walmart. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming has been discussed before. The result was no consensus. While Wal-Mart has changed their logo to one with no hyphen, the company's official name, as listed on corporate documents and their official corporate website, remains, "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." Dr. Cash (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Save Money. Live Better"

Surprised that the latest "Black Friday" deaths at a Walmart store have not yet been added to the history section, or any other section. Perhaps the incongruence of the company motto with these events may have something to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrone (talk • contribs) 01:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart excluded from World's second largest pension fund

Why has the following information been deemed not notable? (I put it in the article, a few days later it was removed.) "In June 2006, Wal-Mart was excluded from the investment portfolio of The Government Pension Fund of Norway due to concern over alleged labor rights violations. The fund is the second largest of its kind in the world, and sold all its stocks in the company (worth around US$ 390 million) as a result of recommendations from the fund's ethical council." This fund is, as mentioned, the second largest in the world, and it's ethical investment policy is receiving attention worldwide. The exclusion of Wal-Mart was reported in CNN, NY Times, and every large news outlet in the English-speaking world - and caused diplomatic tensions between Norway and the US. More importantly, the exclusion documents provide documentation from a thourough investigation into the controversies surrounding the firm, as well as this article (see above)... Doesn't this indicate that the information and the reference that accompanied it is indeed notable? --Anderssl (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be added. -alex

No one has argued against this, so I'm putting the info back in. I shortened it down a little though. --Anderssl (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly, if even at all, notable, definitely violates WP:NPOV, and has been removed. Please refrain from adding it back in. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, please explain why you find this not notable, and in what way it violates NPOV. Currently three people have voiced their opinion on this, and you are the only one against the edit. Will anyone else care to weigh in? --Anderssl (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an argument being made here, so I've re-inserted the info once again. I'm guessing the NPOV point was about reporting Wal-Marts comment, so I put that in. If someone thinks this info shouldn't be in the article, please engage in the discussion rather than just reverting the edit with no clear argument.--Anderssl (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, not to mention a very, very minute issue (if you'd even call it that) with just one minor little country in the EU. It is not even notable. Edits that continue to add it will be reverted on account of WP:NPOV. Please stop adding it.

Look, the NPOV argument is not so clear to me, and I don't think it's just because I'm stupid. If it's such a clear violation of WP:NPOV, you should be able to point to why. Secondly, I don't see what the size or importance of Norway has to do with this. This is about one significant (not major) shareholder in Wal-Mart, which after a thourough investigation found the company as a whole in serious violation of labor rights. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the largest ethical investment scheme in the world, and the Wal-Mart blacklist is their second largest divestment ever. They have excluded 21 companies, and Wal-Mart is the only one to have been excluded for reasons relating to labor rights (the others have had to do with weapons trade (17) or environmental damage (3)). In other words, this is probably the second largest ethical investment blacklisting in the world, by one of the largest investment funds in the world, after a transparent and reliable investigation. Which is why most or all major news agencies in the English-speaking world has found this very noteworthy, why Harvard Business School has published a special report on the issue, etc. etc. I will keep adding this until a consensus has been established through a reasonable discussion, which involves explicit, clear arguments being made from both sides.--Anderssl (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart is a US company, and doing increasing business on the multi-national scale. Adding information on one minor little issue in one single country to an article about the whole company is basically the Wikipedia equivalent of making a mountain out of a mole hill. I also call that a violation of WP:NPOV because it's important to few people, and not the greater community (which is why it appears that you're the only one pushing this). The information ***might*** be worthy of a minor footnote in the Criticism of Wal-Mart article, added to the appropriate section, but certainly not a section of its own, and certainly not in this article. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. From a Google search on the topic, it looks like the Norwegians have a stick up their ass with a whole lot more companies than just Wal-Mart. Seems like the issue goes way beyond just Wal-Mart, so I'm still thinking that it's WP:NPOV to include it here. Like I said before, maybe a minor footnote in the appropriate section of Criticism of Wal-Mart,... but not here. Also interesting to point out that most of these articles are from 2006-07,... none are very current. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, this is probably the largest ethical investment programme in the world. And like your google search shows, the issue is quite controversial, but I don't quite understand how that makes it non-notable? The fund in question is not allowed to invest inside Norway (for reasons related to risk management), so it's ethical divestment decisions are not likely to be partial to nationalities - which speaks against your NPOV argument. By the way, I've just realized a possible misunderstanding here: We are not talking about an issue with Wal-Mart operations in Norway (there are none). We are talking about labor rights in Wal-Mart US and global operations. And while I am the only one pushing this, you are the only one deleting it... so as long as no-one else joins the discussion, we need to reach some kind of understanding. I agree that the info should be added to the criticism of Wal-Mart article as well, but I think it is so significant that it deserves mention in the main article also. I think the whole discussion around the Wal-Mart articles show that these issues are highly contested, and this info points to some of the most reliable, transparent and high-level investigations into the disputes.--Anderssl (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. The google search actually is contradictory to what you think. Most everything that comes up is like two years old. And the POINT is that this little investment fund is targeting a whole lot more companies than just Wal-Mart, so it's a greater issue than just with this company. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course most of the articles are from a couple of years back, that's when the blacklisting occurred. I don't think events from past years are excluded from Wikipedia. Besides it's not too hard to find newer sources, like this NY Times article from last year. And the other argument sounds like a simple fallacy. So if Wal-Mart was found guilty of violating labor laws in a US court, that would be non-NPOV because the court had sentenced other companies as well?--Anderssl (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to cease reverting the page and pushing your POV immediately. Consensus is not raised by forcing your issue on the page itself -- you need to gain consensus here first. POV-pushing is not to be tolerated at all. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Did they get rid of the Smiley face too?

Last time I made a quick stop there, I was surprised to see all the yellow happy smiley faces gone. Probably got rid of that too, not fitting with their new image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

guy trampled to death

12/12/2008

I question why no one has put on something, that talks about that guy on long island. Someone should put that on, and I can't, because I'm not a registered user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifanator (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the company Wal-Mart, as a whole. It's not a collection of random and isolated events that occur at various stores. Please also review WP:RECENT, which most certainly applies in this case. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but, this was a pretty big thing. Shouldn't there at least be an sentence or towo regarding the situation?24.151.137.221 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No you see in staying with wikipedia's coruptedness we've decided to back Walmart and hide that under the rug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.126.212 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Company Name and Logo Confusion

The first sentence states "(or Walmart as written in its new logo)". The coporate entity is still "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." The corporate logo is still "Wal-star-Mart".

Walmart and its logo, Walmart*, is specific to Wal-Mart division 1 stores (supercenter, neighborhood market and discount store).

This page should be renamed to "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc" and the corporate logo should be used. A new page should be created for division 1, Walmart.

- Knubie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knubie (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Growth of Wal Mart

Would it be possible to make a page chronicling the growth and expansion of Wal Mart? Wal Mart's growth was certainly phenomenal during the 1970's and 1980's, and is substantial even today. If there is a page about criticism, and about cultural impact of Wal Mart, why not one chronicling its growth? Wal Mart's unique business strategies and management techniques past and present have unquestionably contributed to their success and affected the rest of the retailing industry world wide.DrunkDriver (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the article History of Wal-Mart, which covers a lot of information on their growth over the course of its history. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Walmart Stores, Inc.

On a recent purchase of a picture frame, I noticed the "marketed by" was canged to Walmart Stores, Inc. instead of the hyphenated equivalent. I don't know if this has taken full effect, but here's the scan.

Should we move the page? 7OA Happy Holidays! 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the image you refer to is unverifiable, and cannot be trusted. If you look at the very bottom of www.walmart.com, the company prints, "© 2009 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." at the bottom of their primary e-commerce site. Their official corporate site also refers to the name of the company as, "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.", and continues to use the version of the logo with the star in place of the hyphen. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, would you like me to send you the sheet taken from a frame I bought by mail? Then it'd have to be verifiable. 7OA That's a letter in the middle, folks. 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a frakking rat's ass what it says on a god-damned picture frame! Go to www.walmart.com and look at the copyright statement at the very bottom of the frakking page, or take a look at www.walmartstores.com and see their official frakking company name! This debate is frakking over! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Government pension fund of Norway issue

I continue to remove the following information from the 'employee and labor relations' section of this article:

In June 2006, Wal-Mart was blacklisted from the investment portfolio of The Government Pension Fund of Norway, which held stock values of about US$ 430 million in the company, due to an investigation by the fund's ethical council into alleged labor rights violations. Although Wal-Mart did not respond to questions from the fund's investigators, the company later claimed the decision "don't appear to be based on complete information".

For starters, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'employee and labor relations' of Wal-Mart. While it is a "pension fund", it's the pension fund set up for oil revenues in Norway, not a pension fund for Wal-Mart employees.

It's also not very pertinent to Wal-Mart's operation of a business, and the company itself doesn't appear to be too concerned with it at the moment. While a google search does reveal several hits to articles, none of these are in the past year (the most recent are mid-2007). It should also be pointed out the this government pension fund has lots of companies (I think about 30-40?) on its blacklist, so singling out Wal-Mart is inappropriate. If you're going to add this to the article, you need to add it to the articles on every other company in the list.

It's important to keep in mind that this article is supposed to be about the corporation of Wal-Mart, and it's operation on the global scale. It should not focus on a minor little issue with one minor little country in Europe, that really isn't current anymore (see WP:RECENT). It also should not be used as a medium to "vent" your dissatisfaction with the company and how it operates (go get a blog on your own dime and write what you want about Wal-Mart there). This might be worthy of a minor mention in the Criticism of Wal-Mart article, probably in the 'imports and globalization' section. But not here, and definitely not in the 'employee and labor relations' section. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you're still not getting the point - you should probably try to study the issue a little bit before you voice such a strong opinion about it. You could start with the wikipedia page for The Government Pension Fund of Norway, where you'll find a list of all the blacklisted companies (26 at the moment). If you look at the articles about other blaclisted companies, you will mostly find the information added where appropriate, such as in Rio Tinto Group, Freeport-McMoRan and Grasberg mine. No-one has protested about the appropriateness of including the information in those articles. To my knowlede you are the only one so far voicing concerns about including this kind of information in a wikipedia article about a blacklisted company.

In the case of Wal-Mart, the blacklisting was done due to an investigation into alleged labor rights violations - in other words, a claim about Wal-Marts employee and labor relations, which this section is about. Secondly, this is not "a minor little issue with one minor little country in Europe", but an exceptional action taken by one significant shareholder (world's third largest SWF) divesting all its stock due to a thourough and transparent investigation into the company's policies - to my knowledge, the second largest such divestment in the history of ethical investment funds, and the largest done due to labor relations. In that respect, it is historic. (By the way, the Swedish Government Pension fund followed suit the next year, but they owned much less stock. [3]) Supposedly, several significant investment funds take their cue from the Norwegian fund, and Wal-Mart has tried, unsuccessfully, to lobby Norway to get back into the fund - mainly through the US ambassador, which raised the issue as a diplomatic dispute.

I don't know why you accuse me of "venting my dissatisfaction with the company". I have all the time been arguing to the point about one specific piece of information which I think should be included in this article because it is important, relevant and verifiable information. Please don't attribute attitudes or opinions to me other than those I am voicing here, and please assume good faith, as I am trying to do.

Finally though, I apologize for pushing the edit before consensus has been made. You are probably right that consensus should be built here before adding the paragraph. I tried to do so, but no-one replied as long as no edit was made in the article itself. I'm still new to the consensus-building process, and wasn't aware of the possibility of posting an RFC - which I will do now.--Anderssl (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The page has extensive discussion of criticism of Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart is also one of the most praised companies in the United States.[4][5][6] THF (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag that was added has been removed. The above statement makes little sense in justifying the addition of the tag. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not neutral, because it WP:COATRACKs much criticism without acknowledging that the vast amounts of praise that Wal-Mart gets. I gave multiple cites to notable reliable sources that are not even acknowledged in the article, even as self-interested anti-Wal-Mart sources, who target Wal-Mart because it refuses to hurt its customers by adopting inefficient unionization, are given prominence in the lead paragraph. Derek.cashman's response is out of Argument Clinic and does not justify removing the tag. THF (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, and have removed your NPOV tag again. The article is fair and well balanced. If you feel more praise should be added, then please be bold and add it, rather than slapping an NPOV tag on the article expecting others to fix it. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is an intermediate step; the page needs substantial work. I've indicated where that work should begin. That you disagree is evidence that there is a dispute over NPOV, so the tag should remain. Please stop edit-warring, and self-revert your improper removal of the tag. THF (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I will not self-revert. It is you that is wrong here. You have not provided sufficent "evidence" that the article fails to meet NPOV guidelines, and I don't buy your arguments at all. Like I said before, if you feel you have something to contribute to this article, then please, by all means, add what you want. But I have serious problems with idiots that think they can slap tags about an article saying that serious work is needed, when they really don't do a damn thing to improve the article at all, and just continue to slap tags around the wiki.

I also feel that adding a statement to the effect of "Wal-Mart is one of the most praised companies in the US." is NPOV in and of itself. This article needs to remain an encyclopedic, informational article about the company Wal-Mart itself. It should neither be used as a sounding board for people expressing their discontent with the company, nor as a public relations like page offering glowing praise about the company. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully agree with Dr. Cash in this. The fact that one individual feels this article should have more praise (or criticism, for that matter) is not evidence of a NPOV dispute. Please suggest a specific edit if there is something you think should be added or removed. --Anderssl (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok: the article is completely one-sided. It needs several hundred words detailing the economic studies of the benefits that Wal-Mart has brought American consumers, and I'm not going to waste time writing them when Derek reverts every edit I make. I have identified several notable reliable sources whose viewpoints are nowhere to be found in the article. Yet the lead of the article falsely implies that there is nothing but criticism of the company. THF (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits have consisted of adding a NPOV tag [[7]] [[8]] and correcting a a formatting error [[9]]. Sounds like you want to put in the NPOV tag because there is no praise of Walmart, but you do not want to put in the work so you just throw a NPOV tag in and offer no suggestions. The only NPOV thing I have seen is this edit by you on this discussion page [[10]]. I think you would have a hard time convincing people of the claim that "self-interested anti-Wal-Mart sources, who target Wal-Mart because it refuses to hurt its customers by adopting inefficient unionization." Emphasis mine. TWilliams9 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to elaborate these sources: [11][12][13] (stated at very beginning of this section, but provided again for clarity). None of those links back up your statement that Wal-Mart is "one of the most praised companies in the United States". So, when you made that statement (again, at the beginning of this section), and followed it with those three links, that's sounds like a huge stretch and, to use your love for Wikipedia policies, sounds like a violation of WP:NOR. Dr. Cash (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problems with the article

This is just off the top of my head.

• 1) Lead is one-sided, mentioning only criticism, without any praise. E.g., [14] [15] [16]

I've added a sentence to paragraph 3 of the lead to balance out the criticism statement. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• 2) No mention of notable economic studies showing that Wal-Mart has single-handedly substantially reduced inflation in the United States, proving hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits to consumers. E.g., [17] [18] [19] [20]

This is discussed in the Criticism of Wal-Mart article. But none of the sources cited here seem to be appropriate -- the Global Insight studies you cite were commissioned by Wal-Mart itself, which raises doubts as to their validity and appropriateness. The Seattle Times article is a reliable source, but doesn't back this up -- it only states that Wal-Mart COULD reduce inflation in the US, but not that it did. Plus, it's from 2006, so is already approaching three years old. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

However, since the economic impact of Wal-Mart is both positive and negative, and not entirely criticism, I've moved the 'economic impact' section from the Criticism article into this one, to help address these concerns. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• 3) No mention of notable criticism of Dukes v. Wal-Mart lawsuit: the article is one-sided in presenting only the plaintiffs' version of facts. E.g., [21] [22] [23] [24]

I've fixed this up. I'll note that (1) the previous version actively violated NPOV and misrepresented its sources by failing to include Wal-Mart's side of the story that was included in the cited sources; and (2) was factually inaccurate and over a year out of date in its recounting of the status of the case. I've also deleted mentions of two other lawsuits; one was dismissed over two years ago without any money changing hands (I've PROD'd the article), and the other doesn't appear notable, either. THF (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this was much more constructive. I've tagged one of the references as unreliable - when adding "praise" about Wal-Mart, you should try to find a reference that is not Wal-Mart itself. And I put back in the number of women potentially covered by the lawsuit, it seems relevant. --Anderssl (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• 4) Disproportionate coverage of Human Rights Campaign's coverage of Wal-Mart.

This has been rewritten and paraphrased. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• 5) "Employee and labor relations" section biased towards labor POV. Falsely characterizes Employee Free Choice Act in POV fashion.
• 6) Fails to mention Wal-Mart's generic pharmaceutical program that has substantially lowered drug prices. E.g., [25]

Added to the Wal-Mart Stores Division US section, which deals with other products and new programs. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• 7) No mention of Wal-Mart's effort to compete in the banking business, and unions' efforts to punish consumers by lobbying to block it.[26]
• 8) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that, given their level of skills and experience, and compared to other retail firms, Wal-Mart employees do well. E.g., [27] [28]
• 9) No acknowledgement of the studies that show that health-care coverage, retirement benefits, and other benfits are similar to those of other retail firms, and very few Wal-Mart workers go without health insurance. E.g., [29] [30]
• 10) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that communities with new Wal-Mart stores typically enjoy increased employment and incomes after the store opens. E.g., [31] [32]
• 11) No mention of Wal-Mart's notable success in providing goods to Hurricane Katrina victims long before FEMA got its act together. E.g., [33] [34] [35] [36]

Added information on this to the history section of the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For these eleven reasons, I am placing an {unbalanced} tag on the article. THF (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (updated 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) with additional links)

1. The article is NOT supposed to be a PR piece on wal-mart. You need to remember the history of this article -- 2-3 years ago, Wal-Mart's own employees added far too much "praise" here, sparking huge edit wars. Wikipedia is also not about "praising" companies. It's an informational encyclopedia. This is an article about the company. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for the article to be a press release piece on Wal-Mart. I asked for the article to adhere to NPOV and LEAD and include missing notable points of view. THF (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

5. I disagree strongly with this statement. I don't consider it biased at all. It accurately depicts the employee relations issues with the company. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

10. You might want to see the Criticism of Wal-Mart article here. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

11. Again, see Criticism of Wal-Mart. No reason to duplicate that in this article. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The Criticism of Wal-Mart article tells both sides of the story. This article only tells one side of the story and violates NPOV. THF (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, if any of the sources you request to have added to the article is connected to you in any of the ways mentioned in WP:COI, then please disclose this potential COI to the community. --Anderssl (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've written and spoken at events about Dukes v. Wal-Mart. There's no need to cite anything I wrote, because there's plenty of criticism of the suit by people who aren't me. Richard Vedder is a visiting scholar at my employer; I've never met the man, and my mention of him is no more a COI than a Ohio University professor mentioning a work by another Ohio University professor. My only financial relationship with Wal-Mart is that I owned 1000 shares of stock two or three years ago, and that I bought a winter coat and a bunch of other clothes there when I unexpectedly found myself in Alaska last fall. I'm going well beyond WP:COI requirements by restricting my comments to the talk-page (where they can be judged on their own merits) and not making substantive edits to the mainspace, since nothing in WP:COI prohibits me from editing the page. None of this is relevant, unless you're planning on commenting on the editor, rather than the edits. THF (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Richard Vedder book -- you've already stated that he is a visiting scholar at your employer. I notice on your talk page that you are an attorney in DC. Do you work for the American Enterprise Institute? This is a conservative "think tank". By suggesting the addition of content to this article and a citation from this book, I would think that's a huge conflict of interest right there. Sounds like you're trying to promote a book that your employer publishes to me. Dr. Cash (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and stop the personal attacks. I'm trying to make an unbalanced article neutral. I've identified many sources that have nothing to do with AEI. THF (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Give it a break. Quoting WP:NPA: "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not considered a personal attack". Frankly, that should be self-evident. --Anderssl (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting WP:COI: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." (Emphasis mine.) Presumably this is the reason you are not being bold and adding this yourself, but sticking to the talk page. But then you should also disclose your COI right away, as it obviously affects how other editors view your assessment of the material. Essentially, you are promoting one of your employer's publications, without coming clean about it. --Anderssl (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that multiple notable points of view are missing. The AEI Press book is mostly a compilation of existing research by other economists, and there is no reason that one could not include every argument from that book without once citing to Vedder's book.

Who are Cash's and Anders's "associates"? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've been forthcoming: I work for AEI; it's not relevant, as I am not adding any AEI material in mainspace. Can we stop talking about editors and start talking about edits? THF (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no conflict of interest to state. I have a Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences and work in academia for a major research institution. I have never worked for Wal-Mart, and have never owned any stock in the corporation. I don't have any connections to any labor unions that have been involved in the past editing this article, either.

Since you have disclosed that you do work for AEI, I do have a problem with your recommendation of adding Vedder's book as a citation -- it seems like you're clearly trying to promote the book and promote your employer, which, as far as I can tell, is a conservative think tank with a definite political agenda. Wikipedia is certainly not the place to promote your book, or your company's books. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting the book on the talk page does not "promote the book": rather, that's exactly what WP:COI asks one to do. For the third time, the article can be made neutral without citing to the book once (it's up to other editors whether a book that has gotten widespread attention[37][38] [39] [40] [41][42] should be cited) but that doesn't change the fact that notable points of view have been omitted. THF (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with what you said about suggesting a book on he talk page not being promotion, but you have offered some other sources that appear to be better, and I'll look at those. I still have serious issues with citing Vedder's book due to the fact that it's published by an entity with a clear political agenda. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that AEI is a 501(c)(3) that does not have a "political agenda," there are over a dozen cites in the article to materials published by an entity that do have a clear political agenda, as well as whole sections of the article given over to the point of view of entities that have a clear political agenda. THF (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI strongly encourages "COI" users to make suggestions on the talk page, which is what THF has done here. Independent editors can add it to the article as they see fit. This isn't WP:PROMO—in fact, this represents our best practices. Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, each of my comments on this page is signed, with a link to my user page, where you can find links to my employer and to my webpage, where you'll find my name, picture, academic publication and whatever else you might want to know. My research is funded by the university as well as one national and one international funding agency - and doesn't have anything to do with Wal-Mart, or anything discussed here. I don't have a problem with you requesting the material to be added to the article, and if it is notable it should - but I have a problem with you sneaking it in here without disclosing your affiliation with the publisher, as recommended in WP:COI. You actually explicitly denied having any COI here [43], and didn't disclose until I posed the question so directly you couldn't avoid coming clean.--Anderssl (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any actual conflict of interest by any reasonable reading of the policy, but it's distracting from the substantive issue to have people debating whether I have a conflict of interest, so I'm just going to avoid substantive edits in the mainspace. Wikipedia is a hobby, and I don't want to waste time on collateral issues. The problem here is the NPOV violation in the mainspace, not my employer, but some editors insist on arguing about me rather than discussing how to improve the article. THF (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding useless tags to this article. If you want to help actually improve things, I have already suggested being bold and adding what you wish to add. But I do not think very highly of anyone that merely spouts a bunch of useless tags around, saying that things need to be improved, and doesn't do a damn thing to actually improve them. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He can't really do that because you would claim it was WP:COI (which you did above, even though he has declined to edit the article and even though he has disclosed his connections). I think he is reluctant to take you up on your offer, because the last time someone suggested that THF edit the mainspace, THF was hauled to WP:COI/N once he actually did. Cool Hand Luke 14:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The tags are not useless. They indicate to the reader that the article has serious problems, and they are an intermediate step to solving the problems. Please review Wikipedia policy and stop edit-warring to inappropriately and abusively remove tags that I have every right to place as a Wikipedia editor who, in good faith, legitimately disputes the article's NPOV status.

Separately, I find it phenomenal that the WP:FORK Criticism of Wal-Mart has more praise and is more balanced than this article is. THF (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The more you keep spouting off various links to wikipedia policies without actually contributing anything actually useful, the more the point you're trying to make is weakened. The Criticism of Wal-Mart article is not a content fork -- if all that information was in this article, we'd have an article that's way too long and takes forever to load. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop telling me that the twelve problems I've identified with this article are "useless." "Length" does not give you a free pass from excluding notable points of view; if it did, then the discussion of the criticism should be deleted rather than being one-sided. Either way, the article is unbalanced. THF (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While I still strongly disagree with your methods in suggesting improvements to the article, some of your 11 points above are noteworthy, and probably should be added in, and I'll try and add them in. I also strongly disagree with your assertions of NPOV issues and 'unbalanced' accusations, but at this point, if I revert you again, all you'll do is revert back, so that's going to go nowhere. So there's a better solution here.

I am not sure if you're aware, but this article was the focus of a major edit war as recent as 2006. Representatives of labor unions and other groups were adding most of the criticism to the article, and there were numerous content forks to several other articles (not just Criticism of Wal-Mart), most of which have been merged into the main criticism article. Part of this edit war also involved employees from Wal-Mart itself that would remove criticism and turn the article into what appeared to be a promotional piece about the company, which would just inflame the more liberal, union-affiliated editors even more. Even quite recently, it was difficult to write anything even remotely positive in the article as it would quickly be removed by one of the critics who had watchlisted the article. The good news, is that most of this edit war appears to have died down. Yet, I am still concerned that if some comments of (for lack of a better word) "praise" are added, it could inflame the edit war once again.

I haven't really seen you editing this article until quite recently, so I am not sure if you're aware of this history -- it's been a very delicate situation, and it's been horrendously difficult trying to find the right balance between "praise" and "criticism". But since you've come in and suggested some citations and sources from somewhat conservative sources, and advocating adding more "praise" to the article, that's somewhat of a "red flag" for an increase in conflict here, based on the past editing history. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with those editors from three years ago, and don't know anyone who works at Wal-Mart. I'm coming to the article fresh because I noticed a very badly written Dukes v. Wal-Mart article when looking to see if it had been updated with the most recent court ruling, followed the backlinks here, and saw that the problem was even worse here. THF (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that you were part of the edit wars of the past; rather, I just wanted you to be aware of the edit history of this article and where we're coming from. For the most part, the edit wars have subsided by now (I think?), but I certainly don't want that shiat to surface again,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear that THF's sources and POVs should be included to the extent they are notable and relevant. But they should be checked well. Meanwhile, THF, there's nothing stopping you from suggesting concrete additions or rewritten paragraphs here on the talk page. It could help refocusing the discussion on the content of the article. For starters, you might want to rephrase point 7 above - unless you really think that is a neutral description of the unions' aims with their actions.--Anderssl (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out, with no concrete proposals for changes in the article (i.e. actual sentences or paragraphs that should be added or removed). Unless some proposal is made in the next few days, I suggest we remove the tags. Those who think changes should be made, have a responsibility to actually come up with some proposal for how to make them. --Anderssl (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I came here from WP:NPOV/N -- it seems that Cash is OK with THF trying some bold edits. THF, why don't you try some edits and see how they work? Then we can have some diffs to discuss. It seems that most of the editors here can't read your mind, and aren't really up for adding praise to the article, especially since the articles you've pointed out aren't literal praise, but rather arguments for Wal-Mart's beneficial effects. II | (t - c) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

All the editors arguing for the tags seem to have left this discussion, so I removed the tags. If they show up again they should be prepared to suggest some specific edits to improve the article, rather than just placing the tag and leaving. --Anderssl (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problems haven't gone away. Fix them before removing the tags. THF (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

THF, the problems will most likely not go away by themselves. And since you are the one who claims there is a problem, you are the best equipped to propose a solution. I don't work for you. By your editing pattern, you are in effect contributing only to discredit the content of the article, and not to improving it. So you will have to forgive me for concluding that that is exactly your goal. By your contributions list you obviously have plenty of time to spend on Wikipedia, so please do something constructive. And if you feel that your COI hinders you from editing this article, then don't edit it at all - including tagging like you do. --Anderssl (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have accused me of a conflict of interest. The best I can do then is to point out problems with the article, because I don't feel like dealing with the personal attacks if I try to edit it, seeing as how you make those same personal attacks when I appropriately tag the article per Wikipedia procedure. THF (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a clear COI regarding ONE of the 23 sources in ONE of the 11 points you listed above. No-one has been arguing that you can't make the other edits yourself - and even so, what is stopping you from proposing the edits here, on the talk page? And please don't be so sore about me gently pointing out that you are, in effect, gaming the system and wikilawyering. --Anderssl (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonuses

Just today, the company announced that they're paying $933.6 million in bonuses to every hourly employee -- just under $700 per person. This comes just after AIG gets hammered for paying out huge bonuses to executives with government bailout cheese,... Dr. Cash (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance of "in the wake of the AIG bonus payments controversy"? Did Wal-Mart say that it was offering bonuses because of AIG? Seems like WP:SYN otherwise. I'm not sure that "despite an economic recession" is the right phrase, either, given that Wal-Mart's business model is likely counter-cyclical. THF (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Wal-Mart didn't explicitly mention AIG in the announcement. But anyone that's been paying attention to the news lately knows about AIG's problems with bonuses -- I don't think it's WP:OR to put those two together, as it's just obvious common knowledge.

"Despite an economic recession" refers to the well publicized fact that while most retailers are posting huge losses, or going out of business like Circuit City and Linens n things, Wal-Mart is posting profits. Again, this should be obvious, but this is also mentioned in the WSJ article as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

AIG's bonus decision--and the controversy over it--is entirely unrelated to Wal-Mart's bonus decision, except chronologically and the word "bonus." One's contractual, one's gratis; one reflects a political lobbying effort, the other doesn't; one is for high-paid executives, the other for staff; one involves the relationship between money spent and taxpayer bailouts, the other isn't; one has caused a pitchfork brigade to appear, the other is uncontroversial. And the Wal-Mart bonus is six times larger. I don't think it should be mentioned.

Wrt recession, the issue I raise is the word "despite" as opposed to perhaps "because of." Unless the WSJ said "despite," it's OR to say that the Wal-Mart profits are "despite" the recession: a number of economists have suggested that Wal-Mart will perform better in a recession as consumers substitute towards cost-cutting. THF (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone can see the difference between the AIG bonuses and the Wal-Mart ones, but the connection between them is fairly obvious - except perhaps that the controversy is much bigger than just these two companies. The whole western world has been arguing over executive bonuses for months. In that context, Wal-Mart's bonuses look like a PR stunt, or "doing the right thing" if you want - either way, the context of wider debate over executive bonuses is obviously relevant.

As for recession, I don't really see how the use of the word "despite" contradicts the economical theories you are mentioning... The point there is that Wal-Marts model allows it to grow in spite of developments in the rest of the economy, no? But perhaps it could be rewritten as "While the economy at large was in an ongoing recession, Wal-Mart etc"? To avoid statements of causality. --Anderssl (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The "connection" is OR is my complaint. If they're connected, find a RS describing the connection; otherwise, there is no reason to link to the unrelated AIG controversy. Vis-a-vis recession, I agree, we need to avoid statements of causality which are OR or POV. THF (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The connection is that the AIG bonus scandal is part of the context in which the Wal-Mart bonuses are announced. That doesn't mean that there is any causality between the two events, but this is also not stated by the edit. That the broader context in public discourse is relevant to mention is common sense, not OR. --Anderssl (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why not "In the wake of a lukewarm reception for the Watchmen movie, Wal-Mart announced bonuses"? It's at least as likely that management was engaging in a socially-and-legally-acceptable instance of profit-smoothing--but my suspicion is original research, and thus doesn't go into the article. THF (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the word "despite" and rephrased it per Anderssl's suggestion. I've also rephrased the comparison to the AIG bonus controversy statement, and added a citation to a news article from MarketWatch to alleviate the WP:OR concerns. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of citing to the MarketWatch piece, which is very much one-sided opinion. Why do we need to search out the cranky columnist jumping on the bash-AIG-bonuses bandwagon instead of just relaying the facts? It's not encyclopedic and has nothing to do with Wal-Mart. THF (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The facts here are: Wal-Mart announces a bonus program likely to be popular with the public, the very same week that the top news story in the US is a controversial bonus program at AIG. Everyone reading about this at the current point in time will inevitably be interpreting these events in light of each other. That's how the human mind, and public relations, work. But someone reading about this in Wikipedia a year or two from now may need to be reminded of the relevant context.

Wall Street Journal connects the bonuses with Wal-Mart's efforts to resist the Employee Free Choice Act, and Wal-Mart Watch includes the Dukes vs Wal-Mart case. Not saying that all this should be brought up in the article, but relevance of the bonuses in a political/PR context is fairly obvious. --Anderssl (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that the AIG connection, given the timing of both, is relevant, and I think Anders agrees with me. So that's 2 vs. 1 presently. I'd like to see more input on this before any further decision is made to either keep this, or remove it. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Wal-Mart blacklisted from ethical investment funds

This dispute is about a paragraph added (by me) to the Wal-Mart article about the blacklisting of the company from one of the world's largest investment funds due to alleged labor rights violoations. It's been repeatedly reverted by another user, first claiming it was not notable, later also that it violates WP:NPOV. Both claims seem unjustified to me. Differences in political and/or geographical perspective may be underlying the dispute, which indicates need for more opinions.

Here's a copy of the paragraph we're discussing:

In June 2006, Wal-Mart was blacklisted from the investment portfolio of The Government Pension Fund of Norway, which held stock values of about US$ 430 million in the company, due to an investigation by the fund's ethical council into alleged labor rights violations. Although Wal-Mart did not respond to questions from the fund's investigators, the company later claimed the decision "don't appear to be based on complete information".

For anyone interested, here are links to the argument between me (User:Anderssl) and User:Derek.cashman so far:

• Talk:Wal-Mart#Wal-Mart excluded from World's second largest pension fund
• Talk:Wal-Mart#Government pension fund of Norway issue
• User_talk:Anderssl#Wal-Mart

I realize Dr.Cash is a dedicated editor and I recognize his effort in maintaining this article, especially in defending it's NPOV. Nonetheless, his point of view shouldn't be the only one governing which information should be included in the article - please give my arguments some consideration before making up your mind. --Anderssl (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a recent (two weeks old) article in Bloomberg discussing the blacklisting of Wal-Mart together with more recent blacklistings: Norway Excludes Textron, Barrick Gold From Oil Fund (Update5). --Anderssl (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The article in question doesn't even mention Wal-Mart until the thirteenth paragraph. It furthermore illustrates my point that there are 28 other companies being "blacklisted", making it a much greater issue than just a slam on Wal-Mart. If I was a lawyer, I'd say, "I rest my case, your honor." :-) Dr. Cash (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Still missing the point here... It is an undisputed fact that many companies have been blacklisted, the dispute is whether this has any bearing on the notability of the Wal-Mart blacklisting in the context of this article. I can't see that it does, just as I wouldn't dismiss information about a court verdict just because the court had passed many verdicts.--Anderssl (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please see the immediate preceding section for my comments. I still do not believe that this has any place in THIS article, but I can see it being mentioned in the appropriate section of Criticism of Wal-Mart. It does not, however, have anything to do with "employee and labor relations", which is the section that Anderssl keeps adding this to. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I came here via the Criticism of Wal-Mart article and noticed the request for comment. On the point on whether this should be in labour relations, I think it could go in that section, in that the divestment is a consequence of the company's labour relations. It could also go in the international section given this is part of the internationalisation of capital movement (viz. as Wal-Mart internationalises so is it increasingly affected by international forces). On the question of NPOV regarding the suggested text: I think the use of the word black-listed is too strong, it would seem to me to be better described as something like "The Government Pension Fund of Norway divested US$430 million in Wal-Mart shares following a social audit of the company's labour relations". The issue is noteworthy in my view and hence worth including in this article (and not the criticisms article) given that as AFAIK this is the first time a significant foreign investment fund divested from Wal-Mart because of social (ie non-financial) concerns. If this is neither a significant foreign fund (though at US$300billion it is certainly not small) nor the first such case of divestment, then I would say the text should go in the criticisms article. This reference might also be of use [44] as it details the reaction of the US Ambassador to Norway following the divestment and also the Swedish pension fund Second AP failing to convince Wal-Mart to change policies on labour relations. Hope this helps.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You may be right about the word 'blacklisted', let's rewrite it as you suggest. And obviously the 'social audit' concept is helpful here, thanks for the tip. As for the relative size of the fund it should be well established, see the articles Sovereign Wealth Fund and Pension fund (it is second in the world in both categories).--Anderssl (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

agree with Goldsztajn that it is notable to both international and employee relations sections. divested is certainly more neutral than blacklisted, unless multiple rs referred to it that way, and even then it should be attributed. untwirl (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I still totally disagree with adding this to the 'employee and labor relations' section -- it has absolutely nothing to do with Wal-Mart's employee and labor relations, and nothing to do with the current content of that section. I do agree with the statements about modifying this to remove the term "blacklisting", and such a modification could be added to the international section. But NOT BOTH sections -- that is totally inappropriate, unnecessary, and redundant. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point I was making; I should have used the word "or" not "also" ("Or it could also go in the international section...."). I was saying it could go in the labour relations section or the international section. I certainly didn't mean to imply it should go in both, which would obviously be superfluous...just in case another synonym is required. :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why this is relevant to the international section. That section seems to be about Wal-Mart operations in countries outside the US, whereas the divestment we're talking about was done due to labour relations in the US as well as other countries in North America, South America, Africa and Asia. In other words, it seems to be an issue related to labor relations in Wal-Mart operations all over the world, including the US. Isn't that exactly what the labor relations section is about? --Anderssl (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so there seems to be consensus around including this in the international section, rewritten to avoid the word "blacklisted" as suggested by Goldsztajn. Although I think the placement is a little unlogical, I don't want to obstruct consensus, so I'll add to that section. --Anderssl (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with Dr.Cash that the issue is not notable enough to be included within the main body of the article's "Employee and labor relations" section as it sounds more like a news item, I agree with Andressi in that I think that it would perhaps be more logical to place it that section rather than the "Wal-Mart International" section. The international section deals mainly with statistics about the company's growth and profits, and so such an item doesn't really fit in. It also could compromise the neutrality of the article as it is a negative point adding to the already substantial block of criticisms towards Wal-Mart. However this is a piece of information that could well be included in Criticism of Wal-Mart, or even be turned into an article of its own, (and then linked to his one).P.Marlow (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

busiest store in the world; Walmart insted of Wal-Mart

Listed at the end of Walmart Discount Stores is the fallowing: In 2006, the busiest in the world was one in Rapid City, South Dakota.[43] The store in question is actually a super center(and has been since 2001) should be moved under Walmart Supercenter (the store (store#1604) is still among the top five busiest stores) Also, ever since the logo change, they have dropped the hyphen, and there logo and spelling on all new signage, adds, ECT, is Walmart, as opposed to Wal-Mart. Some stores do not use the new spelling yet on their bags and signage, but many soon will as they become due for a remodel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.245.114 (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

~~ Why is there an entire paragraph dedicated to what Penn and Teller think about Walmart? Hardly a reliable source...but completely pointless too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.241.45 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

4th largest

This sentence: It is the largest private employer in the world and the fourth largest utility or commercial employer, trailing the British National Health Service, and the Indian Railways

Only two are mentioned. What is the third largest? Or is Walmart the third largest? Zithan (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I can provide a link for the "cite needed" statement that it is the world's largest private employer (I can't edit it due to the lock): "Fortune Global 500 2007: Biggest Employers". 72.244.201.233 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears the missing organization is the Chinese army: "Google Search". 72.244.201.233 (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of employees

I believe that internationally Walmart employs > 2 million staff; the British NHS is around 1.5 million. Is anyone able to verify either of these figures and if I'm right, correct the article's introductory para? --Lost tourist (Talk) 06:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The NHS employ around 1.3 million: [45] Smartse (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And "only the Chinese Army and the Indian State Railways are believed to employ more people — with 2.3 million and 1.5 million staff respectively" I'll change the sentence: "It is the largest private employer in the world and the third-largest utility or commercial employer, trailing the British National Health Service[citation needed], and the Indian Railways" Smartse (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A better reference is needed for this claim - the one cited is from 2004 and doesn't mention Wal-Mart. According to Wikipedia, The US Government employs more than 4 million people, so this all depends a little how you count, no? --Anderssl (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I guessed that this was the original article that the claim that was marked {fact} was made in. It's not written about very often. Is the US govt considered one organisation? I don't know at all but I suspect it might not be. Smartse (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The current source doesn't mention Walmart at all, but does show the "second largest" claim to be false. So it seems a citation is needed for "largest private employer" and the "second largest" worldwide claim must be removed. Any objection to removing the second claim for now, and replacing the "dubious" and cite with ta fact tag?YobMod 09:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. I removed this: " and the second-largest employer, trailing only the Chinese Army." as the source contradicts the claim, and added a fact tag for the largest private employer claim. The article contains this: "With 1.8 million employees worldwide, the company is the largest private employer in the US and Mexico, and one of the largest in Canada.[49]", so maybe the lead should simply be changed to say largest in America, then the tag can be removed?YobMod 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

sale of fabric not available in the Bracebridge Walmart Store

Hello - my name is Uta Bangay and I live in Bracebridge.

I am wondering why fabric is not sold in your Bracebridge Walmart. There is only one other fabric store in Bracebridge - Fabricland and not all fabrics are available there so people come to Walmart. There are other Walmarts in other town/cities that sell fabric. Could you please make it available here.

Yours truly - Uta Bangay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.43.12 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This website is not Wal-Mart's website. This is a discussion page for talking about improvements to Wikipedia's Wal-mart article. If you're trying to contact Wal-Mart corporation, go to www.walmart.com for their main e-commerce site, or www.walmartstores.com for their corporate site. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

thats too funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.s.n.R.N. (talk • contribs) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Remaining issues

In order to try and resolve the remaining issues with THF's tags on the article, I've relisted the 11 issues (mentioned earlier) again. Let's focus on resolving these issues (some of them, I think, have already been resolved):

• 1) Lead is one-sided, mentioning only criticism, without any praise. E.g., [46] [47] [48]

Resolved. See above. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - in my opinion the lead tag can be removed right away. --Anderssl (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2) No mention of notable economic studies showing that Wal-Mart has single-handedly substantially reduced inflation in the United States, proving hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits to consumers. E.g., [49] [50] [51] [52]

Moved the economic impact section from Criticism of Wal-mart into this article. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• 3) No mention of notable criticism of Dukes v. Wal-Mart lawsuit: the article is one-sided in presenting only the plaintiffs' version of facts. E.g., [53] [54] [55] [56]

Resolved. See above. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• 4) Disproportionate coverage of Human Rights Campaign's coverage of Wal-Mart.

Resolved. See above. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• 5) "Employee and labor relations" section biased towards labor POV. Falsely characterizes Employee Free Choice Act in POV fashion.

I have been trying to analyze the final paragraph of the employee and labor relations section to see how it can be improved here. I am still at a loss as to exactly how this section is POV. Please elaborate. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

THF rewrote the first sentence yesterday, but I have rewritten it again - his revision seemed both inaccurate (the EFCA would only remove the employer's right to demand a secret ballot, not that of the employees) and also to cloud the issue by presenting only the technical changes without making it clear why they are contentious (not that obvious for someone who's not an expert on US labour law). --Anderssl (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• 6) Fails to mention Wal-Mart's generic pharmaceutical program that has substantially lowered drug prices. E.g., [57]>

Resolved. See above. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• 7) No mention of Wal-Mart's effort to compete in the banking business, and unions' efforts to punish consumers by lobbying to block it.[58]

• 8) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that, given their level of skills and experience, and compared to other retail firms, Wal-Mart employees do well. E.g., [59] [60]

Both of the sources cited here appear to be commentary articles and not in neutral POV. I am still working on finding adequate sources here. Something could be added to either the economic impact or employee and labor relations section. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• 9) No acknowledgement of the studies that show that health-care coverage, retirement benefits, and other benfits are similar to those of other retail firms, and very few Wal-Mart workers go without health insurance. E.g., [61] [62]

• 10) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that communities with new Wal-Mart stores typically enjoy increased employment and incomes after the store opens. E.g., [63] [64]

This should be resolved by the transfer of the economic impact section from Criticism of Wal-Mart. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• 11) No mention of Wal-Mart's notable success in providing goods to Hurricane Katrina victims long before FEMA got its act together. E.g., [65] [66] [67] [68]

Resolved. See above. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Supercenter (new logo)

Wal-Mart Supercenters with the new Walmart* logo no longer uses the "Supercenter" tag. I'm surprised to see no mention of this. Night Tracks (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

As we know, Wal Mart has approximately 2.1 million employees. This is stated in the sidebar. However, the Wal-Mart International section says Wal Mart has 1.8 million employees. Am I misreading something in the section, or is this a conflict of information presented? More importantly, this will provide many internet users with the wrong amount. A google search of the Worlds Largest Employer, and any similar search keywords, provides a quote from the International section, saying Wal-Mart has 1.8 million employees. Thus, anyone looking for just a number and does not go to the article will be misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandinho14 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

Who owns Wal-Mart? Is the company still controlled by the Walton family? I cannot find this information in the article. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The public, it seems. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So it has no major shareholders whatsoever? Or is this information secret? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I bet the Walton family still owns a fair chunk of the stock. A Google search would probably turn up something, stock ownership of an NYSE company generally isn't kept secret. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Collectively, the Waltons control over 39% of the company, and are worth approximately $17.6 billion each, for a combined total of $75.5 billion (as of March 2009)." Walton family Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Probably worth inclusion here, somewhere, along with the citation. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was not moved. Consider relisting when/if the newly adopted usage becomes common. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Wal-Mart → Walmart — At the end of their second-quarter earnings release, the company stated that "Walmart" would be used in the future to match their new signs, not "Wal-Mart". Even though the company has not reincorporated and is still legally named "Wal-Mart Stores Inc.". Reference: Wal-Mart -- or is it Walmart? -- tries to shed its hyphen Jonesdr77 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed based on WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not opposed to the change itself, it simply shouldn't happen here until it actually happens out there (and by third party sources as well, not by their own material).
  — V = I * R (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed for now. Basically echoing Ohms above, they're remodeling most of their stores to the new Walmart* blue/yellow color scheme. If they do officially change the company name to Walmart (rather than just a cosmetic change for public image) then the article should be moved. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 12:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I downloaded the current Walmart earnings release and the company was spelled "Walmart". Whether people have personal feelings about it is irreleveant. The company wants to be called "Walmart". This is insanity the company is now Walmart, whether wiki users realize it or not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.39.79 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MOSTRADE. When the English speaking world, or even North America, adopts this new spelling, we should too - but not before then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose We go by the official, legal name of the corporation, not brief statements and not marketing campaigns and signs. The article should remain at "Wal-Mart" if and until they officially change their name. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  I'm no longer really opposing this move anymore. If you look at the company's official, corporate site: www.walmartstores.com, it's clear that the company is undergoing a transition with respect to their name. While their name remains "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." in the official legal terms and SEC filings and such, they are rebranding themselves as "Walmart", and referring to the name without the hyphen in most new publishings and stuff -- see the new news items they're posting in the investors section, for example. Plus, their domain name doesn't have the hyphen, either. My previous argument that the article should have the same name as the legal name of the corporation also doesn't hold weight, either, since the legal name is, "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." and the article is named Wal-Mart. So to match that, we should move it to add the "Stores, Inc." to the article name.

  At this point, I could go either way with this -- keep the status quo, or move to simply Walmart. Either way, the lead of the article and the infobox should still reflect that the official, legal name of the corporation is, "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.", until such a time as they change it. But the article name could be either,... Dr. Cash (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • How do you feel about splitting out the company and the stores? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Opposed to that. We need one article that covers the overall corporation. The individual divisions are part of the corporation. Splitting them is a very, very bad idea. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  The name of the main retailing division (as the article states) is called "Wal-Mart Stores U.S."; find out if this name of it is still the same or if it has changed first. Tuxide (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • • The "down the road" aspect of this is why I cited WP:CRYSTAL above. In a couple of months this move could be, and probably will be, a good idea. Right now however, it's not.
      — V = I * R (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

      I suspect that your assessment is correct that this will eventually be moved, which is primarily why I am just no longer opposing this. Whatever others feel, we'll let that determine consensus. So whether we move now or in six months or a year, doesn't matter to me. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the last 8-K and 10-K fillings which use Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Another way to approach this if the stores are now labeled as Walmart would be to split the store material out of the company article. Then both names would be correctly used. After all, we already have an article for Sam's Club, Walmart Neighborhood Market, Marketside and Walmex. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here because I've seen it in the news a while ago (I'm too lazy to find articles now) and on their newer units. But this is an article about the parent company and not the chain, and as Dr. Cash said, the legal name of the company has not changed. Considering that, I also agree that the article would be better off called Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; also we should find out if any of the division names have changed, such as Wal-Mart Stores U.S.. If so, then the redirect page Walmart should probably point to the section on the main (U.S.) division. Tuxide (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hey, if I'm wrong and "Walmart" has become the common use, that's cool, by all means we should then change the page title (or split into stores and corporation, as has been discusssed. That might be a good idea regardless.). Since they have a huge marketing department, I'm fairly sure that such will be the case eventually, regardless. It's just, if "Walmart" really has become common usage, then the references in the article should reflect that. Most importantly though, what they themselves do isn't terribly important to us. We're much more concerned with what everyone else uses.
  — V = I * R (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is questioning that the store is called Walmart, so splitting out the chain into a different article makes a lot of sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  That's disregarding my question, because if I recall the articles like Sam's Club are forked by subsidiary, not necessarily by chain. Tuxide (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  I still don't see a problem with having an article for the Walmart branded stores. If that means some other changes may be desirable, then we can make those. Reading Sam's Club sure convinces me it is about the branded stores with that name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  The ambiguity in Sam's Club lies with the infobox, which says it's a subsidiary. But I'm like you, I'd go through the lead and think it's about the chain, but then I get to the History section and they start talking about acquisitions. It lacks things that would make it a more well-rounded article about Sam's Club-the-subsidiary such as history of expansions and leadership. Tuxide (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  I think that this sounds a note of caution against splitting out the corporation from store\chain content. At the very least, such a split should occur more "naturally" anyway, by adding a section or sections to the article first, and if those sections then become large enough a split could take place. All of this is really beyond the whole movereq discussion, but since I'm here anyway... *shrug*.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Let's please dispense with this talk about splitting the article into corporation versus stores/chains. That's an absolutely, positively HORRIBLE idea. The stores/chains are part of the corporation, and should be covered in the main article. While it's acceptable to have secondary articles covering individual stores/chains, as we currently have, a split that you guys are talking about is nothing but a content fork, and will only serve to confuse things further. I will strongly oppose this approach, tooth and nail! And expect a "long term revert war" if it ever does actually happen. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  It is not a content fork and it would actually improve readability. Readers, who this is for, when entering Walmart probably want to know about the store and not the owning company. The size of the current article is clearly into the size range where splitting the article makes sense. Splitting out the material for the Walmart stores is a very logical collection of material that is notable and could stand alone as an article. The end result of a split would be better organized material with more focused articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)XC

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.