Talk:Criticism of Walmart/Archive 2

New article
This article was split from Debates over Wal-Mart. Any history prior to March 26, 2006 can be found in that article, and some material was previously split from the main Wal-Mart article. -- MisterHand 21:36, 26 March 2006 (

State Legislature Actions
The Wisconsin legislature paragraph is almost entirely a wal-mart response. What was trying to be passed and how would it have affected Wal-Mart and other employers?


 * 1) Shouldn't these paragaphs mention something about what the law was attempting to accomplish, regardless of if it passed or failed.
 * 2) I believe a link to the appropriate piece of legislation on the states web site would be helpful if possible
 * 3) Dates should include years, not just Month / Date.

List of criticisms of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
I have proposed a major change involving this article, see Talk:Criticism of Wal-Mart for rationale. Tuxide 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitsection
As per Talk:Wal-Mart workforce diversity. Tuxide 19:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep as it is. A court finding has direct application to the question raised in the prior section. It is on topic and on point.--Lepeu1999 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My main concern is POV. Since this is one of the many articles on the criticism of Wal-Mart, and since such lawsuits are more events than criticism (and the one in question is class action), I'd hate to represent such lawsuits as if they are criticism instead.  Tuxide 03:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Merges and splits
I am proposing the merges and splits on this article. Content about class action suits should get their own whatever v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. articles and have links provided from whatever is considered to be the main Wal-Mart article in this situation. Also, I strongly disagree that this article should exist. Tuxide 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have marked two of these sections as copyedit since both sections were lifted directly from . Splitting them as they are would be copyvio.  Tuxide 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. Once the lawsuit info is put into their own articles, then I would recommend taking the remaining content in this article, cleaning it up a bit, and merging it into Wal-Mart employee and labor relations. Dr. Cash 18:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Am marking this article as inuse to do the edits I proposed above and per Derek.cashman. If it's still there in a couple hours, then remove it for I have gone to work.  Tuxide 19:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done the copyediting and the splitsection that I proposed earlier; however I haven't merged this article yet. I've just added the templates here, and I'll let it float around a while longer. Tuxide 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wal-Mart workforce diversity article has now been merged into this article. Dr. Cash 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Local community impacts, rewrite
This article is becoming very big and a lot of its content is too specific. I have attempted to summarize the first three subsections of Criticism of Wal-Mart into the following: User:Tuxide/Wikiproject_Retailing/Wal-Mart/Local_community_impacts. My argument is that making a list of all controversial store openings is like making a list of all Wal-Mart stores that ever existed. If there are no objections within the next ten days, I will replace sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of this article with what is on my draft page. Tuxide 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your rewrite doesn't really address predatory pricing at all, which is one of the most commonly cited criticisms of Wal-Mart and has been the subject of much litigation against the company. Maybe that should be moved out into its own section. Kaldari 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, predatory pricing should probably be addressed in more detail elsewhere. I read the whole Criticism of Wal-Mart section as if it has to do with store openings, and Criticism of Wal-Mart reads as if it does not.  Tuxide 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced most of the content in Criticism of Wal-Mart with my rewritten version. I have also moved out the Criticism of Wal-Mart section from here since it has nothing to do with store openings. One thing that I will point out is that I removed a lot of the individual instances from here, since this content is available in the sources that were used and since attempting to list every controversial store opening on this page would be the equivalent of attempting to list every Wal-Mart that ever existed. I chose to focus on the Aztec pyramid instance due to its news coverage. The result of what I did is a trimmer version of the original with citations, in case the user wants to read further.

I also removed the Bizarro image, since I didn't believe it added much value to the section it was used in. It probably would do better in Wal-Mart though. Feel free to change its wording, since it's not the best in the world. Bring up whatever issue that you see with the new content here before making substantial changes to it, or reverting. Thanks. Tuxide 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [Edit: context by Tuxide]

I have also renamed the section from "Local community impacts" to "tore opening controversy" to better represent its contents. Also, I've noticed that Wal-Mart uses the word "impact" to describe itself in a positive pov, so I prefer to avoid using it for NPOV reasons. Tuxide 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Prosecution and predatory pricing
Cut text:


 * Wal-Mart has been prosecuted several times for predatory pricing behavior, which is defined as the practice of temporarily lowering prices in order to drive competitors out of business so that prices may be raised afterwards in a competition-free environment (a monopoly).

The phrase has been prosecuted several times gives the misleading impression that (1) Wal-mart has been found guilty of this, and (2) that despite being punished by the government did it again, over and over

Yet the bullet points below showed acquittal on appeal, settled, dismissed; and Mexico favored Wal-Mart.

Only 1 out of 5 "prosecutions" looks bad here.

Looks like a case of a 'contributor' trying to put his own words in Wikipedia's mouth. It would be better to say something like:


 * Wal-Mart critics accuse it of using "below-cost pricing" to drive competition out of business (see predatory pricing)

Also, isn't there such a concept as "anti-competitive acts", i.e., actions which (like a foul in basketball) are considered unfair ways of crushing competition rather than actually "competing" with them? This should be discussed, but with names of advocates and with the evidence (or arguments) they present. --Uncle Ed 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article:


 * While the lower prices are good in the near-term, in the long term it can cause many at competing local stores to lose their job because the store cannot compete with Wal-Mart's pricing.

This, I believe, is the main criticism. I've never seen it worded better.

People oppose Wal-Mart's policies and practices because its success leads to the failures of others. Many people believe that small-business owners have a right to remain in business; that they should be immune to competition from larger businesses.

Another objection is that the wages are "too low to live on", i.e., "Living wage" advocacy. Apparently there's a certain standard of living in the West that all employers should be required to uphold or even guarantee. Inner-city teens working at their first job should be paid enough to get their own apartment, buy food and clothes, etc.

We need a fair description of living wage advocates' ideas, along with upward mobility advocates' ideas. Like, what if someone is satisfied to work for "poverty level" wages? No one's holding a gun to their head and stopping them from taking a second job or going to night school to prepare for a higher paying one.

Note: I am not saying we should replace anti-WM slant with pro-WM slant. Just that the article should describe anti-WM and pro-WM points of view fairly: just report that X said Y about Z, while A said B about it. --Uncle Ed 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bit hard to be NPOV on a criticism page.Eno-Etile 06:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Editorial
Modifed (as marked):
 * One such editorial (Nordlinger's, paraphrased below) speculates that critics are anti-capitalist and anti-success, and another (Bandow's) demonstrates ad hominem tu quoque by implying implies that critics are hypocrites if they don't object to all businesses that achieved success in the way that the author asserts Wal-Mart did.

I don't see how this is an ad hominem argument. I think it's a rebuttal of the point itself, i.e., that the ARGUMENT is inconsistent. (If they heaped some abuse on the maker of the point, like "shame on you for making such a one-sided argument", that's regrettable but that doesn't invalidate the argument; it juts means the critic has bad manners.

Contrariwise, the spurious accusation of ad hominem is itself a common debating tactic. So, let's not debate this amongst ourselves but just describe each side's POV fairly. --Uncle Ed 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal, Wal-Mart
In my opinion, the section Wal-Mart should be merged into this article, because its rationale better backs up the content on this article instead. Also, I view Wal-Mart as an article about Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as a company, and should therefore have a document structure that is recommended for company articles. The section needs to be cleaned up anyways; as the section is now, just throwing it into Wal-Mart would mess with its flow because its content is very specific. Tuxide 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The section also needs to be completely rewritten as it is. The way I read it, it's not really written as part of an encyclopedia article; instead, it's really just a list of a bunch of articles and papers that people wrote about the economics of wal-mart and doesn't really say much about the actual topic. It looks to me like it's more a promotion of the economics papers listed than actual discussion about the topic. But I would also seem to favor merging it into this section as well, as many of the references in the section can be used to back up various claims here also. Dr. Cash 06:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

List of criticisms of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In order to resolve the NPOV disputes caused by having this article around, I believe this article should be turned into a list of criticisms. As it is, this article is a stand-alone article on the criticisms of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and there are five such articles on the criticism of Wal-Mart (Criticism of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart employee and labor relations, Imports and globalization of Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart workforce diversity, and Wal-Mart product controversy). Instead, there should be a one-level list of criticisms with detailed rationale, supporting the content in the main Wal-Mart article.

I have created a draft page on User:Tuxide/Wikiproject Retailing/List of criticisms of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to help out on this. You can see what I have done so far, I have also suggested merging general content back into the main article after cleaning it up. If there are no disputes on this move, then I will mark the five articles in question as. If you support this, then feel free to work on the draft article instead of this one, else point out your dispute here. Tuxide 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

wtf?
I removed the following paragraph from the article:

''The structure housing Wlam-Mart's are often constructed by individual local developers. These developers can be persuaded to become involved in the community. For example, Atlantic Developmenet in Quincy, Massachusetts was convinced after some negotiation to support a variety of local causes. The director of the economic development agency Quincy 2000, Charles D'Aprix negotiated a significant development "linkage program," for the downtown with the developer of a Wal-Mart(Patriot Ledger 1994/1995) property. D'Aprix, now of the Downtown Entrepreneurship Project, downtownproject.com, was able to get concessions for the rehabilitation of a downtown building as well as other monies for downtown projects--including a donwtown incubator and a downtown entrepreneurhsip program. Further information can be found at economicvisions.com''

I can count at least three spelling errors, and the text is written in such a way that I can't seem to make out exactly what they're talking about. It was originally added to the top section, and moved to 'economic impact', though it didn't seem to fit the flow of the text in that section. There doesn't seem to be any clear references where this came from (no links to news articles, only a vague reference to the Patriot Ledger in 1994/1995? with no page numbers). The mention of 'economicvisions.com' at the end is bordering on linkspam, too. Dr. Cash 21:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

merger (imports and globalization, product selection)
It seems like a lot of the info in Imports and globalization of Wal-Mart can be condensed to fit into this article, specifically under the 'supplier relations' area which currently has a 'see also' link. Wal-Mart product controversy can probably be put back into a subsection within this article as well. This would help to reduce the vast number of 'criticisms' articles pertaining to wal-mart into eventually fewer articles. Dr. Cash 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge For the time being I would support this merger until a better solution can be implemented. This is because Wal-Mart already has too many friggin' criticism articles.  (One is bad enough, but seriously, five?)  Tuxide 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Another thing I should point out is that there is a proposed guideline on Criticism, because the guideline would obviously be disputed here. It suggests that there shouldn't even be a single article on the criticism of Wal-Mart, or even a Criticism section in Wal-Mart.  If I'm interpreting it correctly, it suggests that general criticism should be written in the other sections of the text (such as Wal-Mart, and extreme criticism would be more appropriate in articles about Wal-Mart-critical groups and concepts (like Wake Up Wal-Mart), instead of the Wal-Mart article.  Anyways, if you dispute the proposal, then don't dispute it here; it would be better to bring such disputes on Wikipedia talk:Criticism instead so they can be considered.  Tuxide 00:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merged the Imports and globalization of Wal-Mart article with this one. If other major changes are made to this article, at least we have one less criticism article to deal with. Dr. Cash 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The product selection controversy article seems long enough to stand on its own (except for the caveat above about criticism articles or sections). Is there a way the product selection article could be generalized? Lots and lots of businesses can be criticized for the products or services they offer. Lisamh 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Forking, irrelevant content
First off, congratulations, we have just reached a new all-time low: There are now four articles about the criticism of Wal-Mart. Second, for a criticism article, I've noticed that a lot of this content isn't criticism, but business practices. (for example, "Wal-Mart does not carry music albums marked with RIAA's Parental Advisory Label. The store does carry edited versions of those albums..." etc. I don't see the criticism in any of that paragraph.)

Content that is obviously non-criticism like this should go in a "Business model" section on the Wal-Mart page instead. If there are no issues against me doing so by the end of June, I am going to start removing such irrelevant content from this article. Tuxide 06:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the content on magazines and music from this article, since it details business practices and has nothing to do with the criticism of Wal-Mart. I will attempt to move its contents into the Wal-Mart article under a "Business practices" section. Tuxide 00:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your move to business practices resulted in it being moved to Criticisms at which point I moved it back here.. Uh, sorry about that.  I did the move (from Criticisms->here, not main page->Criticism) before I saw your note.  In any case, I'm fairly certain the critique is that Wal-Mart is imposing its will on products - requiring modifications of content, etc.  If you dig a bit, I'm sure you can find articles which express this critique.Jvandyke 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made some attempts at reflecting the critique.Jvandyke 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I still think this should be noted in the "Business model" section. Saying Wal-Mart does not sell explicit CDs is like saying Target does not sell tobacco and firearms:  It is a business practice that the retailer uses to help consumers differentiate itself from its competitors.  Tuxide 02:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Pulling Maurice Bessinger’s famous barbecue sauce off the sheleves
Wal-Mart stopped selling BBQ sauce because there's a Confederate flag on it. Small details here: http://www.mises.org/story/713 207.233.120.2 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problems
I still firmly believe that this article violates the provisions of WP:NPOV. In particular, the provisions on POV forks and undue weight apply:


 * The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.


 * IMHO, this and any other "Criticism of" articles are in blatent violation of this clause.


 * ...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...


 * Per this, I think we are giving too much weight to the criticisms, given that this article is at least as large as the main article. I'm not saying that Wal-Mart doesn't engage in unethical practices, that seems to be firmly established, I'm just saying that we shouldn't have more coverage of those practices than general information about the company. Summarize the allegations and move on.

Obviously, the community consensus was that deleting the article wasn't the solution, so the question now is what else can we do? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not npov. I'm working on some bold edits. I hope most won't think I'm just trying to make wal-mart look better by removing or reorganizing. Consider, how many times does this article mention "bad treatment of employees" and "low pay" ... about a dozen times or more. How many times do we have to repeat / relist the same criticism? We get it. The article needs to be re-organized. SecretaryNotSure 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Magazines
Where's the part of WalMart ceasing to sell certain magazines while moving others to a stand where they can't be seen? Why has that been deleted? In fact, many parts of the product selection area seem to have been deleted. In fact, the whole criticism of WalMart page seems to have been substantially reduced. Even much of the discussion page is missing. --Maxl 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The magazines are still there, in Criticism of Wal-Mart. Much of the talk page has been archived, and will be again once it gets long enough.  Tuxide 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you guys might want to check out.
Group of Wal-Mart workers walk out: URL:http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061017_601244.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story

Howard Robinson(Kg4gsn)-10/20/06 9:40pm

Reality check
Nobody is forced to work at Wal-Mart! Whatever criticisms there are of Wal-Mart they still haven't broken the law (I know that is shocking to some liberals). Their employees were never held at gunpoint, dragged inside, locked in, and then forced to work. Wal-Mart is a perfectly ethical company. Whirling Sands 22:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a conservative and my conservative principles tell me that shopping at Wal-Mart is ill advised.


 * Tuxide 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Forced np, not exactly but Wal-mart has a liberal hiring policy, and alot of locations aswell as little competetion. So unskilled labor tends to gravitate towards it. As for liberal opinion conservatives are generally opposed to monopolies and OSHA violations.Eno-Etile 06:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unions
I don't know if this belongs, and I don't really think I could find an online source to refer to, but I used to work at a Sam's Club, and during training, new hires actually watch a video on how bad it is to unionize and why Wal-Mart employees don't need to belong to a union or even talk to a union rep of any kind. For example, the video would mention that a union rep could come up to you and talk about unionization and ask you to sign a petition or give your name or address for more info, etc, and then you'd find out later that you were supporting the plumber's union or some other totally unrelated union. They'd also talk about how unions only think about the higher-ups in their organizations and don't actually have the worker's needs in mind. And of course, Wal-Mart already offers a great health insurance plan, as well as annual raises and bonus performance-based raises. (their views; not necessarily mine) I was amazed at what lengths they went through to convince employees that unionizing was bad. Keep in mind, though, that this was all on a corporate video. I never heard anything about unions, good or bad, from any of my supervisors. Even the video was just refered to as "Another video for you to watch, this one's about unions." Just yet another in a series of several training videos, thrown in there between the We Card video and Saftey First video.

Just something I'm throwing out as another possible section or brief mention. Like I said, I doubt I could find any "official" documentation on the video. It's just what I remember seeing during my training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.121.189 (talk • contribs)


 * Wal-Mart's anti-union stance is already covered in reasonably good detail, both in this article, as well as in Wal-Mart & Wal-Mart employee and labor relations. As far as employee training videos are concerned, they are corporate materials produced for internal corporate reasons. Wikipedia is not the place for providing information on internal corporate materials. Dr. Cash 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Health insurance my ass. But as for official documentation i still have my trainee packet from wal-mart bet it has some anti-union propoganda (packrat ftw) Eno-Etile 06:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may, the fact that they have videos and show them to new employees is a fact. What's not a fact is "is this bad?" Some opinion would say it's bad, because unions are "good for workers," others would say Wal-Mart is good to do this because unions are "bad for workers." SecretaryNotSure 00:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination?
After reading through the article from start to finish, it appears to be a very well written, balanced oppinion, NPOV article. Whoever is the article's principle author might be interested in nominating it for featured article status. IT appears to fulfill the qualifications. Justinmeister 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Noticed that you nominated this for Featured Article status. The quality has greatly improved recently, and I guess we'll let the community decide how well it is. IMHO, two key things that still remain here are: (a) reducing the number of external links (mainly the ones listed under 'news articles' -- these should ideally be matched up with text in the article and moved over to the references section. (b) The sub-article on Wal-Mart employee and labor relations really needs to be cleaned up, though this is really a separate article. It might even be worth merging that article with this one ultimately. Either way, I think we're really close to Featured status here. Dr. Cash 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a crime section
Why is there no section about Wal-Mart's unique ability to attract and encourage crime? As well as Wal-Mart's accessment that they could significantly decrease crime in their parking lots, but that it would not contribute to their bottom line, and was not worth the cost. These are well documented and established facts, is there a reason for their omission? Jerimee 23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can find verifiable sources that support that statement, it would be great if you could contribute that. But don't just add it without verification. Justinmeister 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Philanthropy section
This section reads poorly, has no real meaning (it shows an increase in philanthropy over recent years) and is a very poor representation of a criticism. Indeed it is questionable whether this section even deserves to exist at all. I have removed it until such a time that somebody can re-organise the donation details into a readable format. I also think that if it is re-added later it should be done so with more focus on what the point of this criticism is.

It is entirely POV to have criticism about donating (or increasing its donations) to political groups since there is no reason to believe this is a negative action. One can only assume this is a criticism in the sense that it wants to make out that the groups are being 'bought' or 'cosied up to' but without any evidence we cannot make such claims. ny156uk 16:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources
When citing a source, please use the cite web, cite news, etc. templates. Doing this improves consistency across Wikipedia. Thanks! ---Remember the dot 06:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with providing full source information for all citations, I personally do not like the cite web, cite news templates, etc. I feel that they are cumbersome to use and sort of a pain in the a** to remember all of the variable names. The date formats for the 'retrieved on' dates are also not in a very useful or user friendly format, and should be changed (the format they use is too "techie.") Furthermore, it should be pointed out that using such templates is only a suggestion, and it is not a requirement for the formatting of reference citations. Dr. Cash 08:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no official/required citation style for the English Wikipedia. The cite templates are a pain in the ass because they take up too much text when used in conjunction with &lt;ref&gt; cite extension.  If &lt;ref&gt; alone had the same parameters, then I would use them.  Tuxide 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Remember the dot's reference cleanup changes. While using the cite web template is ok, there are issues. This template does not conform to standard APA (or any other print publication) reference guidelines. The date fields, specifically, are in a weird format and not the standard 'December 7, 2006' format (07-12-2006 format does not look right, and is NOT how print publications format references). Furthermore, the main reason for my reversion is that most of these are news articles on actual news websites (newspapers). But Remember the dot failed to incorporate the full citation information here; only an access date for the URL is there, which is not nearly as important as the actual date the article was published. If you put reformat this back in, please put the FULL CITATION INFORMATION into the template field (or use 'cite news' instead of 'cite web'). Dr. Cash 04:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Seeing absolutely no comments or opposition to the contrary, I've merged the Wal-Mart employee and labor relations article into this one, to avoid the undesirable content forking that it caused. Dr. Cash 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias/POV?
Hey, just thought I would interject here amid all of the flagburning and fingerpointing which is going on in this article. Is this article non-POV or unbiased? Corporations are people too -they have feelings just like the rest of us. So what if Wal-Mart totally sucks and is the ugliest f'ing entity on the face of christ's forsaken earth. we should talk about the positive aspects of Wal-Mart as well... um, for example, they are America's number one gun dealer. See? now there is something we can all be proud of. Let these crackers kill themselves off. Afterall, if it weren't for world wars I and II, there would be an additional 100 million of us f'ing white scum of the earth prick sons of bitches. Go Bush! Down with Jean Girard and his french terrorist network trying to infiltrate nascar. -harry truman wanna-be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.169.137.85 (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yeah I also noticed some bias in the "Wages" sections I read, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. Here's what I found: "... in 2001, the average supermarket employee earned $10.35 per hour, versus an average of $8.23 per hour for stock clerks at Wal-Mart." Of course, stock clerks are probably lower paying jobs than the average employee would have. It's interesting to note that wal-mart paid and average of $10.11 in June of 2006 (thus before the 6% pay rase). I'm not going to put that up though, because it's still 5 years after the first statistic However, I don't think the pay increased by 23% in five years.JLAF 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
This article is mostly pretty good, it's well-referenced and covers a very touchy topic in an NPOV manner. I am concerned though there are still a couple missing references tagged with, and that the "Product selection" section is tagged as possibly POV (though personally I don't see any POV problems myself). If the missing references are added and a consensus is reached on the supposed POV section before the 7-day on-hold deadline, I'll pass this article. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor who added the POV tag didn't give a reason for doing so, so it could probably be removed if nobody objects. Tuxide 06:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the POV tag since (a) it was added by an anonymous editor and (b) the anon editor left no explanation for their actions. I left a note on the anon IP user talk page, explaining why I removed their tag, and asking them to explain their actions on the talk page if they add the POV tag back. But looking at the section, I agree that the section contains no POV.


 * I also removed the unsourced quotation regarding the wal-mart pyramids location, since I am unable to find a reference for that (after several months of looking). The other unreferenced statement now has a reference. Dr. Cash 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, looks pretty good, looks like everything's sourced now, and looking at the article history it seems pretty stable except for occasional minor vandalism. Congratulations! Krimpet (talk/review) 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal
Tuxide 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Diversity
I believe the Criticism of Wal-Mart section should be moved into a subsection of Wal-Mart instead of here, and then refactored/cleaned up. It fits in better as a sibling section of Wal-Mart rather than being clustered along with the rest of the criticism, since this section is about the diversity of Wal-Mart's work force and the other is about the diversity of Wal-Mart's customer base (or possibly lack of, but this is more like a demographics section). Anyone else have an opinion on this? Tuxide 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I moved it out of that section because it didn't really have anything to do with how the corporation functioned. It was more of a criticism. The 'corporate affairs' section should deal directly with things that pertain to how wal-mart does business, and diversity issues are more complaints by certain minorities on the company, or criticisms, and very distantly, if really, related to how wal-mart does business. Dr. Cash 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Criticism of Wal-Mart does not entirely contain criticism, which is why I personally don't believe it belongs here. I believe a diversity section more defines Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a company instead of how people view it.  Target Corporation has its own diversity section; and although it receives criticism from the NAACP, that's not a reason to add it to the article's criticism section.  I'm more likely going to throw it into a corporate affairs section anyways.  Tuxide 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I do see you have a point. I could see it in either article, but as long as the information is in one OR the other article, and not duplicated in both, as has been. Perhaps it is best to move it back to the main Wal-Mart article, as the criticism article is a bit long,... Dr. Cash 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in emergency contraceptive paragraph
The paragraph regarding Wal-Mart's earlier refusal to stock emergency contraceptives, although factual, is not fair in tone. Although everything in that paragraph is backed by published sources, it is written as though the position of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts lawsuit is the only one that is morally defensible. Furthermore, the sentence mentioning that Wal-Mart still maintains its conscientious objection policy is written in a tone that seems to suggest that the conscientious objection policy has little or no support from outside of Wal-Mart management (when in fact the contrary is true), or that this policy is socially irresponsible (without due weight to opposing or alternative viewpoints). 69.140.164.142 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the POV in that particular section, but I think it can be cleaned up a bit, so the tone has been changed a little to reflect that. If you still have a problem with the section, I would recommend that you be bold and make changes to it yourself, rather than adding the NPOV tag again. I personally find it a sign of serious laziness by others that simply tag things as POV while not making a good attempt to fix it themselves, or providing very few details on how to fix it. Remember, this is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. If you have ideas on fixing things, then please do so.


 * I would also strongly encourage you to edit under a username as opposed to editing anonymously. In my experience, I find that 99.9% of all anonymous editors are troublesome, either inserting corporate linkspam, or vandalizing articles in other ways. I really don't take anonymous editors very seriously as a result, and most of the time will automatically revert them with little or no explanation. I am particularly confused at editors such as yourself, who apparently have enough knowledge about some of the practices on Wikipedia to be able to insert tags into articles for various reasons, but are doing so (at least initially) with no explanation for their actions. If you don't provide any explanations for why your doing something (edit summary), I will just assume that you're just trying to screw with the system and revert you. Dr. Cash 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it may be generally better to fix articles one's self instead of just tagging them; however, in this article specifically, the reason for flagging the article for a instead of fixing the POV myself is that the topic is controversial and if I were to fix it myself, what fixes I choose to make might be perceived as disruptive.


 * At this point I see that the toned-down version of the paragraph is less POV than before, but is it neutral now? I doubt it; however, I still am not sure how I would go about fixing it completely, so I have re-flagged with a less obtrusive template, in 2 spots.  (The "controversy" section of the article "Emergency contraception" may be a useful starting point for fixing the paragraph permanently.)


 * 69.140.164.142 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the dispute is, but Target Corporation also has a mention of its conscience clause in its Criticism section, if it's anyhow relevant to this discussion. [rm irrelevant remark]  Regards, Tuxide 10:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC) — this was in response to an earlier version of my comments above.  69.140.164.142 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, sorry, but I totally don't buy your arguments now and think you're just full of crap. You need to be FAR MORE SPECIFIC on the TALK PAGE of this article in backing yourself up. Dr. Cash 06:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the earlier version of the paragraph in question, the sentence about the Massachusetts lawsuit was blatantly POV – so much so that I don't see how anybody could have missed it. Thank you for fixing that.  At this point, it is merely the overall tone, rather than any specific assertion, that may still be POV. 69.140.164.142 07:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "May still be POV" is not a good enough reason to add the POV tag to an entire section. Sorry. Dr. Cash 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I still can't tell what the dispute is. This is a wiki:  If you think it's non-neutral, then please try to fix it yourself.  That way, we can see what it is, and someone can improve on top of your edits and we'll no longer feel like we're being picked on.  There should be user warning templates for not being bold enough.  Regards,  Tuxide 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart's surveillance of employees &mdash; real, or POV?
Fellow editor Derek.cashman has removed a link to content about Wal-Mart conducting surveillance on employees. It concerns content consisting of a book excerpt, and brief excerpts from an AP news article.

The title of the AP article is: Wal-Mart gets gag order against ex-security worker. (In spite of what some may wish, Wikipedia is not included in the gag order.)

Derek.cashman's comment is,

''rv part about 'spying on workers'; insufficient references. The article linked to reeks of POV.)''

In fact, the linked text referring to Wal-Mart is fully referenced: one source is a book written about Wal-Mart by Al Norman, the other contains excerpts from an AP news article about Wal-Mart which has been reprinted by the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and more than ninety other newspapers.

Both statements about Wal-Mart are referenced; how can Mr. Derek Cashman say the link is insufficiently referenced?

Mr. Derek Cashman states that the linked article "reeks of POV;" in fact, the entire article is carefully researched as well and contains more than 100 citations, most of them from books written by historians.

Please check out this information about Wal-Mart's recent activities for yourself; it is immediate, it is in the news on your TV set and in your daily newspaper, it is an authentic account of what is happening this week concerning Wal-Mart's surveillance activities. Should this news be suppressed on Wikipedia, so that there's no criticism of Wal-Mart's surveillance policies allowed in an article entitled Criticism of Wal-Mart?

Seems strange to me.

Your comments invited.

Labor_spies

Richard Myers 05:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um,... no issues here anymore. You added it back with better referencing, and I see no problem with it now. The first edit you made was a bit sketchy, though. Dr. Cash 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ASDA Logistics
It is a fact widely accepted by both the British Public and ASDA Staff that ASDA's logistics are worse than they were before Walmart took over, and that you're more likely to find a product out of stock now. I'd be interested in how this might be reliably sourced, though.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.36.199 (talk • contribs)

This page is a joke
Obviously wal-mart hacks have been working on this page so it just tempers all criticism of wal-mart. more supervision of this page is required —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.231.91 (talk • contribs)

The nature of NPOV
I just made a few edits to correct obvious defacement by Wal-Mart hacks, but I'd like to point out something important about the nature of how NPOV applies here. The very title of this article "Criticism of..." implies that the article isn't NPOV. It simply can't be, it's a CRITICAL article.

Technically speaking, "Criticism of..." pages clearly violate NPOV. If you've concerned about NPOV, you should NOT be arguing that the article should be made "balanced", but that the entire text of the article should be added to the main Wal-Mart page along with a "company line" section discussing the positives of Wal-Mart. Basically, NPOV requires all articles about controversial topics to be single-page and very, very, long.

So those are are choices: Have an actual CRITICAL "Criticism of..." page, or move everything to the main article. Personally, I vote for the latter. The current Wal-Mart article is pretty short, and criticism of Wal Mart's business practices is obviously a major media topic and a major issue for the company. Main company articles are not intended to be PR fluff for the company anyway.

And for those of you who are "pro-Wal-Mart", try to add some positive comments rather than deleting criticism. 24.6.250.67 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC) -- (Note: this "anonymous" contributor is a Comcast Cable customer in the San Francisco Bay Area, based on IP address lookup at arin.net)


 * This article is very long (currently stands at 67 Kb). Adding it to the main Wal-Mart article is a poor choice. I don't see significant NPOV issues with the article, either. Plus, it did recently achieve Good article status, and one of the criteria for such status is being NPOV. Dr. Cash 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of a criticism article like this is not (or at least, should not) intended to be a source of criticism, but to document the criticisms that have been made. While it's POV t simply post up any criticism of Wal-Mart, it's also POV to whitewash the various issues that critics have brought up. The NPOV way would be for serious, significant criticisms to be stated and sourced, and any official response to be likewise stated and sourced. For many corporations, a criticism section could be merged into the main article. For whatever reason, Wal-Mart has attracted way too many serious, significant criticism to squeeze it all into the main article. (I need to find a synonym for "criticism", apparently.)--ChandlerH 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam
Anonymous editor 76.105.104.235 edited the following information to the text of the article, in 'use of illegal immigrants' section:


 * In August of 2006, Wal-Mart instituted a program under which it requires all of its General Contractors building or renovating stores to have a plan for verifying employment eligibility of their workers, including I-9 form verification, and implmenting photo id-badges for auditors use in verifying workers on site are the same workers whose paperwork was inspected. The company requires that contractors use 3rd party auditors, such as Laurion Consulting, LLC., to stay in compliance with their program, and provide regular reports or else fines may accrue.

This text has been removed as it has been identified as linkspam and advertising, per WP:EL and WP:NOT. The IP address 76.105.104.235 belongs to a Comcast Cable subscriber in the Atlanta, Georgia area, based on whois lookup. Laurion Consulting is also based in Marietta, Georgia, also in the Atlanta area, and I believe that it is highly likely that the individual works for the company in question. Dr. Cash 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Product Selection Info
Firstly, am I supposed to put a new topic at the top or the bottom of the talk page? All this time I've been doing it at the bottom, but looking at these dates seems to indicate the other way around.

Anyhoo. I would like to see the article drop its paragraph size. It is incredibly hard to parse those hulking monsters if you're in a hurry. I don't think it benefits the article to be written in such a manner. Yes, we're an encyclopedia, but we are online... and we needn't support the traditional view (well, that I at least picked up in childhood) that encyclopedias are filled with tedious blocks of text that one only resorts to reading if one is really desperate for information. (And this opinion is coming from an avid reader.)

Also, the section on product selection, to me, reads like a slam against Wal-Mart's right to choose its own products. The tiny note at the bottom (roughly, some people acknowledge that Wal-Mart can sell whatever the heck it wants to, and is not required by any sense of the free market to sell things it does not want to sell) seems... well, not enough. I would like to see it worked into the first paragraph or two, thus discussing both sides of the debate, before getting into the specifics. And I would prefer to see the specifics as a list of some sort, or at least with shorter paragraphs, so it's easier to scan.

I cannot believe the courts forced Wal-Mart to start stocking pills it didn't want to carry on the reasoning that in some towns people couldn't find the pills anywhere else.... Kilyle (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

criticism
This "criticism" of Wal-Mart is ridiculously watered down. The way it is now it should be renamed "refutation of criticism of wal-mart".

With all due respect, this article is an abomination for an encyclopedia. I don't even know where to start. It's a diatribe against this company SecretaryNotSure 00:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, yeah, whatever,... you should've seen this article (or rather, I should say articles -- there were about 5 strongly anti-wal-mart articles), containing a mumbo jumbo of all sorts of useless and useful information intermingled, much of it completely unsourced whatsoever. This article is leaps and bounds better than what we had! Dr. Cash 05:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And? If it's still a bad article, than it's still a bad article, who cares what if it was worse in the past.Father Time89 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Additions
A few additions you might want to look into: Wal-Mart (and other "big box" stores) contributing to the homogenization of culture, the aesthetic consequences of building a Wal-Mart (which, in turn, lowers property value,) and Wal-Mart hiring employees to edit Wikipedia entries in order to portray the corporation in a more positive light. (Which reminds me: Hello, Wal-Mart employees!)

Also, looking through the article, it would be a lot more convenient to separate the criticism from the counter-criticism. "When it comes to jobs, study by Global Insight commissioned by Wal-Mart found that its stores' presence saves working families more than $2,500 per year, while creating more than 210,000 jobs in the US." - This doesn't exactly match the title of the article! Not to mention, the study was commissioned by Wal-Mart - that's not exactly a reliable source. This IS an encyclopedia, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.7.167 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's not a bad idea to have the criticisms and the refutations in an organized form. It would resemble the "moon hoax" page where they list each claim they make followed by the reasons why it's not true. But I'm not sure we need to go that far. After a while, after dozens of criticisms and refutations, the article will start to read like bad newspaper where it says things like "Some say Wal-Mart is terrible" and "but other say Wal-Mart is great... " and so on and so on. Or, "expert A says Wal-Mart hurts the community, however expert B says Wal-Mart helps the community." That sort of thing doesn't actually tell the reader anything, it's a waste of bandwidth and wast of time for the reader.

Yes, this IS an encyclopedia, it's not a list of one sided comments. The idea is for someone who's heard bad things about Wal-Mart, and opens this page to find out the closest we can come to the truth of the matter. Like, say there was a rumor Wal-Mart kills babies in the back room and sells their organs to rich people. Should we list that? Maybe! If people were saying that. But should we just list it even if we know it's not true? Shouldn't the reader be told if something that people are saying "is true or not?" Maybe that's an extreme example. But people are saying things like Wal-Mart's parking lots are scary and have high crime. Well what if it turns out, after researching it, that's not really true? Shouldn't we tell people if some claim is "true" or not? That's why people read the encyclopedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretaryNotSure (talk • contribs)

You didn't really address the homogenization of culture or the aesthetics & property value. What PR firm do you work for, by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.7.167 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with the latest changes. The first paragraph is changing the direct statements with "weasle words" like "Many people say" "some groups" etc. It would be better if you think it's too + toward wal-mart, to just list "Wal-mart is bad for the following reasons:" and list them. Instead of "many people don't like wal-mart because..."

Also, you just removed the part about the funding from labor unions. That's just not accurate, it's indisputable that the labor unions -- in fact, two particular labor unions -- are funding the "pester wal-mart movement." And, leading the protests by providing written material, having their members hand out buttons at city council meetings, and countless evidence. Not that there's anything wrong or illegal about that. Maybe they have a right to fund anything they feel like, but we don't just cut that fact from the encyclopedia. ps. I have no affiliation with wal-martSecretaryNotSure 00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with quoting what "Penn and Teller" said. The show was about Wal-Mart criticism and vetted by the producers, fact checked, etc. Of course that doesn't mean it's suddenly the last word, but it is a legitimate work presenting a side of the issue. It's not just a case of "they aren't reputable" ... And if we're going to apply that standard think about all the people "quoted" in criticism. What makes them "reputable?"

The reason for the Penn and Teller reference is because it's important to the theory of what causes people to be so adamant about wal-mart above all other similar companies. SecretaryNotSure 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's much evidence of a campaign of "viral marketing." Or, if there is, how it relates, how is that a criticism, how is it different than others, etc. SecretaryNotSure 01:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

taxes etc.
I'll try to rewrite with more encyclopedic language. Let me point some very "un-encyclopedic" terms -- the term "loophole" is a loaded word. The tax law is "the tax law." People who don't like a certain law call it a "technicality" or "loophole." There's no such thing as "a loophole" in a strict sense. That's why I removed tax loophole and replaced with "tax law."

The part about the "dead peasants insurance" is just what the critics call it. They don't like it. That's their right. But think about the opposite -- that Wal-Mart doesn't lose money if an employee dies. They have to hire and train a new employee, that costs money. The critics can say "it's not much money" compared to say the president of the company -- but it does cost something. That's what that change is about.

I removed that sentence about "tax arbitrage" because it's meaningless and the article is long already. SecretaryNotSure 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You say the article is too long, but you added a sentence to clarify that Criticism of Wal-Mart is different from general criticism in that it's Wal-Mart that's being criticized and not other companies. Is that really necessary for an article that's already too long? That said, this version is balanced. Perhaps we should go back to that and tweak it. Recent edits have skewed the NPOV of this article.  Lara Love  12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I "personally" don't care how long the article is... heheh but it's something I hear from "wikipedia" that they don't like long articles. I think you're right, start taking out some sentences... there's a lot of duplication in there. SecretaryNotSure 13:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look over WP:MOS. There are standards one must follow when writing articles. Certain things that must be done. Title sentences, for example, in where the title of the article, in some form, is included and emboldened in the first sentence. Additionally, this article is listed as a good article, because editors have spent much time and effort to write it to a higher quality. So changes should be discussed on the talk page before being made to the article. The stability of the article is being shot to Hell because you're making changes outside of policy and style guidelines, and the end result could be the article being delisted from WP:GA, which would be unfortunate, not just for the editors who worked hard to get it there, but for the encyclopedia.  Lara Love  13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I think you're right, I most certainly have shifted the "POV" a bit away from the way it was. Technically, that is toward "positive."  But, keep in mind where it "was" --- seriously --- the article was "Here are dozens of reasons why Wal-Mart is the most evil company on earth."  So, anything that gives the other side (toward "neutral") would be moving toward "positive" ... in other words, I'm trying to move the POV from "triple negative" ... don't fear bold edits!  Tell the story as you see it, if it's wrong, someone will correct it... I have a feeling.SecretaryNotSure 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Read my previous post. Then read the style guide. You're going to cause a lot of unnecessary work for others and cause the article to lose it's Good article status. Discuss the changes first.  Lara Love  13:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll be sure to give more talk/discussion for changes/suggestions. But look beyond making a "good" article, I want to make something much better than "good." We can make a stellar article. Check out WP:TPA, specifically, these parts could be improved: SecretaryNotSure 14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints.
 * reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles.
 * is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.
 * is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.


 * Well, the recent changes aren't heading in that direction.  Lara Love  14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all ears. Where have I gone wrong or gone "too far" in the neutralization effort, the "expert knowledge" effort... any "vague generalities?"  I've also tried to add some engaging language, to jazz things up a little.  But if I've gone off the deep end, let me know, anything specific?SecretaryNotSure 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Dr.Cash pretty much took care of it.  Lara Love  03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

edits, etc
Under government funds, what I'm balancing is the claim that it's wal-marts fault that governments pay them. Wal-Mart doesn't that power to "make" elected leaders pay them. Many companies get this "corporate welfare" -- but only wal mart is singled out. I choose the word "blame" because it's the most accurate. The critics "blame" Wal-Mart, the critics don't "blame" the government. And that's what that last part is about, that's the what "anti-Wal-martism" is about.


 * By this argument, it doesn't seem like the whole 'corporate welfare' thing is a very significant criticism at all, and could probably just be removed. The whole section is very short anyway, so it's hardly notable. I'd prefer the section's removal rather than adding, "Wal-Mart criticism is distinguished from general criticism of corporate welfare in that it singles out Wal-Mart and not other companies or the governments for offering the incentives." to the end of it. Dr. Cash 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

--

Under the part "predatory pricing" ... the references do support at that Mexico did investigate claims against wal-mart, but didn't find anything wrong.

With regard to the German court, they did go back and forth with decisions. And wal mart did lose, win, lose. That's all fact. I added the part that they left Germany. I guess you could quibble with that, but I think there's a connection... it's very hard to actually find someone from the company who will "say" exactly why they do things.

--- From the crtics point of view, what is the purpose of listing how Wal-Mart employess "revolted" for at a store? And just leave it at that? Doesn't that create the inaccurate impression that the workers revolted, and well, then nothing happened. So, a reader might conclude that nothing will happen to change until "more workers revolt?" or "until something else happens." But the reference given talks about how Wal-Mart quickly addressed the workers. The reference uses the word "quickly."

--- The passage about the claim that Wal-Mart workers were locked in the stores at night, prevented from leaving ... the changes I made are directly from the reference. Including the part about the fire officials and the fire exits being available. It mentions that the employees were "afraid to use the exits" in the reference, but I don't know or think it's vital to the meaning of the charge against Wal-Mart.

All of those changes are well supported by fact. In fact, I kinda like those parts ... but please edit and improve them. SecretaryNotSure 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

- I'm looking at the Health Insurance section, the part about the "memo" isn't really a balanced view of anything Wal-Mart did. It's just a list saying "here's all the dumb things someone at Wal-Mart said." It doesn't tell the full story of what the "memo" was, from whom, for what purpose. What the recipients think of the idea? Were any of the dumb ideas actually implimented? Are there statements in there taken out of context to try to make the writer seem "backward" in thinking?. Not to mention if we should get into how this memo was obtained by the UFCW union, how the UFCW then widely circulated parts of the memo to influence public opinion ... SecretaryNotSure 04:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I put that sentence in about the kraft complaints. It's not intended at "OR" it's intended as WP:TPA "reflects depth of knowlege" of the subject. An encyclopedia is more than just a scrapbook of clippings from somewhere. The sentence is about the complaint from kraft foods because it's balances an obvious nonsense. What it should really say is "The manager from Kraft is lying, the cost of production went up because of labor union demands, not because milk prices went up" But that wouldn't be NPOV (although it could be since it's true) so I just ask the reader to consider if what the guy is saying is possible. Is it possible for there to be two cheese makers, and the prices of one of them goes up, and they say it's "because milk prices went up" -- well, if milk prices went up, then why didn't the price go up at the other cheese maker? SecretaryNotSure 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is starting to get ridiculous. That whole section is going to have to go. It's journalistic, not encyclopedic, especially what you've just reverted. It's unclear to whom? There's a claim that "most experts" that is not backed by a reference. The reference does not include all the necessary information. Then there's an unreferenced quote. The next reference is "I think [whoever] said that." WHAT?! You can't reference anything like that. That is the most inappropriate thing I've ever seen in a reference. Please read Wikipedia policy. These edits do not reflect depth of knowledge.  Lara  ❤  Love  04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. This isn't a one-man article, this is a collaborative encyclopedia. If you don't like what I've written or don't like my reference then find a better reference or edit it.SecretaryNotSure 05:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done a copy-edit on about 1/2 of the article. That's all I can do tonight. Please don't revert my edits. They are all to policy and follow style guidelines as well. If you disagree with anything, discuss it here first.  Lara  ❤  Love  06:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I went back and found citations for most of the 'citation needed's added. The only one that I really just disagree with is that a citation really isn't needed for the mention of the two labor union organizations in the lead -- since both of these have wikipedia articles themselves, and those articles link to the websites of the organizations, the information can easily be verified right there, so a separate citation really isn't needed. I'd really just call that "common knowledge" almost. Dr. Cash 07:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Political activity section

 * In August 2006, the company sent a letter to its 18,000 Iowa associates (employees) about elected leaders and candidates for office meeting to attack the company at union-funded publicity events in the state. In another letter, the company invited candidates to tour stores and meet associates to learn the truth about Wal-Mart.  They also plan to send similar letters to associates in other key states, including South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada.


 * In 2005 and 2006, in a move that critics say was an attempt to look charitable while still acting in self interest, CEO Lee Scott has called on Congress to increase the federal minimum wage, arguing that many of its customers are low-income families that would benefit from increased wages because they struggle month-to-month. 

I removed the 'political activity' section. First, it's largely incomplete, as I am certain that there is far more information on Wal-Mart's political activities than just these two events. Furthermore, these two events are isolated and unrelated to each other, and the section appears to have just been created as a placeholder section for various items being moved around.

I don't think the company letter bit is really all that notable, as it's not really much of a criticism in itself. Lee Scott's calls for increasing the minimum wage could be added to the 'wages' section of the article, but I'm not really sure if that's appropriate since the reason he's calling for an increase in minimum wage is more for the benefit of the customers -- the company's wages are all generally higher than the federal minimum, so they would not be affected much by any increase in that. Dr. Cash 22:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, I've never heard that issue raised by critics and it's a vague accusation -- it didn't say why sending letters to people was "wrong" somehow. The part about the min wage is interesting but not really a criticism I've ever heard raised and it had that editorial opinion part about "in a move to look charitable...." SecretaryNotSure 03:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The second seems significant considering presidential campaigning is starting up. The second just seems stupid. If W-M wanted to raise their employees pay, they could just do it. It's the minimum wage. Morons.  Lara Love  03:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The company letter being stated was done in august 2006, which was a year ago, so it probably wasn't related to the US Presidential campaign. Dr. Cash 06:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

now I forget what I was saying, there was some kind of "edit conflict" when I tried to save the page.

Oh yea, I'm not too sure about removing the part about gov't subsidies. I have heard that claim raised. It's a really "dumb" criticism but if we removed every "dumb criticicm" then the page would be almost blank ...


 * Well, the corporate welfare section has been in the article for quite a long time, with very little content, and it wasn't developing into anything substantial. It was mainly referencing some corporate welfare argument by Ralph Nader, and I haven't seen much else in the media about it directly pertaining to Wal-Mart. There are local, state, and federal government subsidies and tax breaks available for all sorts of corporations in the US -- Wal-Mart was only singled out here because it's the largest and obviously taking a bigger piece of the pie just due to its size. I still don't consider it a major criticism here. Dr. Cash 06:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And pt 2 ... the part about how many people are lining up to get jobs at wal-mart is a well documented refutation of one of a particular criticism. I agree that the wording was too strident and it was in the wrong place. I'll try to find a better place for it and better, more neutral yet engaging wording SecretaryNotSure 03:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem with some of your edits is that you seem to be trying a little too hard on the "brilliant prose" aspect; trying to use some fairly big words and putting some real flowery language into the article; as can be seen in the 'attacks with zeal' edit. This isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's best just to focus on writing a good, clear, and concise article using just good, simple, plain english. The "brilliant prose" takes time to develop, and it's not something that can be just added with a couple of random edits. Dr. Cash 06:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the chance of this article making FA anytime soon is about the same as Britney Spears successfully reviving her career.  Lara  ❤  Love  04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave up long ago with this article making FA -- I'd just be happy for it to keep its GA status,... Dr. Cash 06:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcastic use of quotes?
Why are so many terms that aren't directly quoting anyone being put in quotation marks? Examples:

- ...charge that Wal-Mart must be doing something "unethical" in order to offer lower prices. - ...leading some to charge Wal-Mart is "spinning" their image on Wikipedia. - ...Wal-Mart's lower prices draw customers away from more deserving businesses, "hurting the community."

From my point of view, this sets a sarcastic tone that, in addition to coming off as un-encyclopedic and conversational, undermines these legitimate statements. See, watch, I'll turn the meaning of that last sentence completely around: I feel like the use of sarcastic quotation marks undermines these "legitimate" statements. See what I mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.7.167 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, I think you're rightSecretaryNotSure 03:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it sets a sarcastic tone, I think it adds emphasis, but I don't think it's appropriate. I actually have seen this in many articles and it bugs the hell out of me. I won't pass a GA with prose like that. It should be removed if it's not a quote. In some cases, however, it may be quoting the attached source. Rather than whole sentences, just certain terms. So check that before removing them... for whoever removes them, which may be me... I'm not bossing anyone around here, lol.  Lara  ❤  Love  04:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're both right, the quotes can be useful, I removed one of them that I put there because it didn't "add much" to the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretaryNotSure (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wages
This section has two problems. First, it doesn't reflect "expert knowledge" -- it's not based on logical principles and secondly, is not " free of vague generalities and half-truths "

It quotes some "study" by some political group that says how Wal-Mart workers "earn less" than others at what they call "other retail stores." Well, how is this logically possible? If one store pays a lot more than the other one, then why do workers choose to work at the "lower paying" Wal-Mart store? The answer to the logical problem there is because that statement is a half truth. It's true that on average the lower level workers at Wal-Mart do "earn less" than someone somewhere else. Wal-Mart workers earn less than bank managers and airline pilots too ... The half truth is that they aren't being compared to "the same" kind of jobs. That's WHY the wal-mart worker can't simply choose to work at the other place. The other place (where we are told the workers "earn more") will not hire them. They don't have the skills needed. Wal-Mart will hire them because Wal-Mart has a system of training and management (automation, supervision, simplified tasks, it's not important what) that permits these low or no skilled workers to do productive work, albeit at a lower level of productivity. It's because these workers produce less, that's why they earn less. Workers, all workers everywhere, are generally paid based on their marginal productivity, that is an un-changeable principle of economics. Consequently, it's a half truth to simply throw out the statement, in the encyclopedia, that "Wal-Mart workers earn less." That implies something else, which is a mythical economic model anyway, it implies that Wal-Mart is "bad" because it's "so miserly" or something like that... at least, that's how I read it. This is not a scholarly view of the matter.

Not to mention the undue weight being given to the statements of some group of activists in Los Angeles. What's the "new economy?" Obviously, this group has some POV to push.

I had an explaination of this in the article, it said something about how wal mart workers earn about the same as other retail workers when you adjust for productivity -- that's why I had that in there, because that's the "non half truth" version of the "wage complaints" SecretaryNotSure 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see someone put that sentence back in there about it being related to their skills/productivity. great. I'm still a little concerned about the undue weight given to "the alliance for a new economy" SecretaryNotSure 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, which is original research and needs to be removed. I worked at Wal-Mart for four years. Target paid more, and while I applied, I was never interviewed because they weren't hiring at the times my application was active. Also, my work at Wal-Mart required more skill than what I would have been doing at Target. So that argument is flawed. You can't claim that Wal-Mart employees don't work elsewhere because they're too unskilled to get hired. That's ludicrous. You can't claim it a matter of skill and productivity. Wal-Mart stores are notoriously understaffed, which puts extra burden on the associates. They're pressured to complete their tasks and the tasks of others without getting overtime, because to do so risks their job. So productivity is certainly not a factor.  Lara  ❤  Love  16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the "original research" you shared supports the theory, in every way. Your own experience is a textbook example that practically proves what I'm saying. (that's not some kind of personal dig -- I'm using these words in their scientifc sense -- for example, I am completely unskilled in retail, my productivity is very low in that industry because I have no experience etc etc) But so far as the article goes, it's a half-truth to simply say list "they pay less" and leave it at that. Why? How? Is this good? Is this bad? And if it's bad, why? The critics are making this claim -- which seems to contradict basic economics -- so it's up to the critics to support it. Does Wal-Marts pay structure hurt anyone? Does it help anyone? Who does it help and who does it hurt and why?

If you check that reference given for that "study" by the hippies for a new economy, it's not really tracable ... it's a pro/con debate article and one side mentions "this study" ... so we can't go back and actually look at this study. Obviously its wrong, because this has been studied over and over.SecretaryNotSure 12:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the study that showed that Wal-Mart paid females associates less than male associates country-wide? Do we have that one?  Lara  ❤  Love  15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I found that "wage study" here. It's a huge pdf. As you can see the group is linked to or is funded by the UCFW union and wakeupwalmart.com. Not that that disqualifies anything, but it's just something to bear in mind.

Here's what it says, as best I can copy/paste it:

In 2006, Wal-Mart reports that full time hourly associates received, on average, $10.11 an hour. At 34 hours per week (which Wal-Mart considers full time), that comes to $17,874 a year—about 20 percent less than what the average retail worker earns,19 and over $10,000 less than what the average two-person family needs to meet its basic needs. and the note says:

19 “Economic Opportunity,” www.walmartfacts.com, accessed on October 12, 2006, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 2006. Employees who work 34 hours or more per year are considered fulltime employees. Which reveals where the trick comes in. They compared some government average figure for the whole industry with their own "calculated" figure. The "whole industry" is based on working 40 hrs/week or more, but they assumed Wal-Mart workers only work 34 hours a week, and used that. It's a simple trick if you think about it. If you wanted to say the workers at some place, say a bank, make less than everywhere else, you just say the average in the banking industry is x dollars, then you figure out the pay a worker at bank y makes if they only work 34 hrs. The result automatically turns out to be 15-20% less, always. depending on the exact average hours in the industry in question. Remember this math trick works even if bank y pays exactly the same wage, or even slightly more, than other places. The trick also doesn't count profit sharing plans, benefits, which is counted in the government "industry average" but we don't need to get into that.

Consequently, this is not a factual statement. So it has to be either removed from the article, or maybe put under a new classification of "things some critics say that turn out to be not true" or something like that.

The whole document is kind of interesting, and it makes me think of some improvements to the article. It has tips on how to argue to keep Wal-Mart from opening a store, it says to tell your elected officials things like you're concerned about this or that. (It gives you a list of what to say) and has handy tips like if you have an election, always have the question worded so the "no" vote favors your group, and never have it worded so the "yes" vote favors you... interesting stuff. But obviously -- a "POV" group.SecretaryNotSure 12:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side note, Wal-Mart does not allow for many of their workers to get a full 40 hours. Whether or not I can find that published, I don't know. But before I quit, I was scheduled 30 hours a week and was not allowed to go over that. It was the same for pretty much everybody. You couldn't work more hours whether you wanted to or not. So they limit your income in that way as well.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The number of hours the workers can get is a criticism, but a separate one. I'll point out that the critics say it's bad that Wal-Mart "considers 34 hours to be full time." But if that's bad or not is opinion because the other side of the coin is that it could be good for workers to be considered full time at only 34 hours. Presuming that being classified "full time" gives you some benefit or something. So if Wal-Mart raised that to say, "you have to work 39.5 hours/week to "be considered full time" that could actually be more harmful because then the worker who only got 38 hours would be thrown off the "full time" list and presumably not qualify for something. Not that we are the arbiters of what is good or bad, but the idea is to present the criticisms and let the reader evaluate if something is "good" or "bad."SecretaryNotSure 15:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see my first draft at fixing the wage issue is not as good at it could be. I'll try to rephrase that.

I notice there's very old wage date in there showing the average pay at $8.23/hr, certainly no one can argue that it's more accurate to list that and not list the current wages. I'm also disputing that "study." In fact, just calling it "a study" is a little misleading. Notice also that the businessweek article quotes the "alliance for a new economy" but sort of misquotes it and shades it a bit. Then we are quoting the mis-quoted version. Also, I don't see what's so "notable" about this group, they are a political group, an arm of "wakeupwalmart.com," so to just quote it like it's the gospel is not "NPOV." Although they do make a criticism, but if we have to quote it, we should make it clear exactly what they are saying -- they are saying a wal-mart worker makes 20% less in 34 hours than other workers make in 40 hours. Somehow we have to clarify that.

Also, there's nothing "un-notable" about walmartfacts.com, that's right from the company, and yes they have a POV, they are defending Wal-Mart, of course. Both the groups quoted there have "POV's" It's up to us to sort it out and come up with the best, most "fair" and neutral way to present the criticism.SecretaryNotSure 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, I forgot to mention that part about how the pay they figured out is "$10,000 less than what a family 'needs.'" Never mind how they figured out what someone "needs" and how that relates to anything. The implication I guess is that all companies are supposed to pay what this group says "they need." If you do that math, you find that "other retailers" they compare them to, you know, the ones making "20 % more," are still being paid $5,500 less than "what they need." In other words, according to them, everyone in the entire industry isn't being paid "what they need" and everyone is "in poverty."SecretaryNotSure 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro... ugh!
It's a little long, but whatever...

In the first paragraph, it uses the term "grassroots" organizations. I'm not so sure that is well supported ... it's got a "POV" because "grassroots" are groups are thought of as un-influenced by "big money" or "big something" -- they are just ordinary people getting together to fight some evil or promote something. Now, I don't know how we can prove that none of the groups are grassroots, I'm sure somewhere on earth there are some true "grassroots" groups that have sprung up. But I think everyone can agree, by and large, the overwhelming majority of groups that go before city councils, march, put up signs, actually "do things" are paid or get their supplies from or are organized by some big, larger forces. Not namming names or anything, because it's not important to the article at this point, but you can research this .... you'll see it in the minutes of city council meetings, you'll see material, usually all of it, came right from the two websites... paid for by the big labor unions. You can see the buttons and signs are printed by the same people. The same big group organizes the little local group that opposes Wal-mart in each community. ... I dont' think I need to go into it any more... it's just that it's misleading to say the opponents of Wal-Mart are these simple, down home folks, the "grassroots" organizations. If anything, the word "grassroots" should be changed to "astroturfed." SecretaryNotSure 07:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The other problem with the intro is that it doesn't set a npov "tone." There are two basic views of the "Wal-Mart criticism" movement. The first view is that Wal-Mart is the most evil company on planet earth, and so, that's why they are being criticized (of course!). It's all Wal-Mart's fault. The "critics," under this view are simply "responding" to the terrible evil that Wal-Mart does, they are "working to make a better world" etc...

The other view is that Wal-Mart is just an ordinary company of retail stores, one of the most successful. No different than retail stores that have existed for a long time. No more or less evil than any store. For whatever reasons, they are an unfair target of criticism from people or groups with "some defect" (i.e. it's the critics that are evil) or the critics are motivated by their own greed, they want to get Wal-Mart out of the way because they are a competitor... or various less than honorable reasons.

Those are the two views. Bear in mind that the 2nd view doesn't require Wal-Mart to be perfect or saintly or completely right or "never cheated anyone."

Now, as for the article... I am NOT suggesting that we pick view 1 or view 2 ... I have my own personal view of course (in fact, I'm a little hesitant to make bold edits because I have a pov). What I am suggesting is that both sides of the issue be presented, and let the reader of "Criticisms of Wal-Mart" decide. SecretaryNotSure 07:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

-

p.s. I liked the image with the wal-mart and the "no" symbol on it. It encapsulates the "Anti-Wal-Mart movement" in one glance. You should put it back!SecretaryNotSure 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made it, someone else removed it. Rather than just revert, I got the opinion of a trusted admin. He said he thought it inappropriate. It doesn't explain or illustrate the criticism.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but it really was kind of amateurish, and looked like it could've been done better by a high school sophomore,... Images are great, yes; but having an image just for the sake of having an image is not always a good idea. I have to agree with the admin on this one. Dr. Cash 17:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Derek. Don't sugarcoat it or anything. I mean, I spent days working tirelessly on that masterpiece, and I really don't appreciate your comment. Seriously.  Lara  ❤  Love  20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better image to put as a lead image would be a reasonably good quality image of some of the anti-wal-mart protesters, preferably with a wal-mart store behind them. We'd have to be fairly careful, as we don't want the image to be too POV; but it would convey the message across that there is considerable controversy by protesters and several groups against the store. Dr. Cash 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I made some edits and someone said not to "revert." I didn't revert anything, I added material, and removed some other things that in my view are not supported by evidence and/or wrong. This is not "reversion." This is editing.

Now, as for specifics:


 * About that law that Maryland passed that required businesses with over 10,000 employees to pay 8% or something or other to something or other.... The only change I made was: It's a law, not a bill.  After a bill is passed, it's a law.  I called it a new law, not a bill.  That's the correct name, not a "reversion" of anything.  Next, the text said wal-mart was the only retailer not meeting some requirement of "the new bill."  What requirements?  There were no "requirements" for any business to meet.  The point of that sentence is that Wal-Mart was the only business with more than 10,000 employees, therefore it's the only business affected by the new law.  In other words, the new law didn't affect any other business in Maryland, because all other businesses had fewer than 10,000 employees.  That's all the change was.


 * Where is the evidence that Wal-Mart is "the single largest customer" to "most of it's vendors?"  I didn't find that anywhere, if I'm mistaken, please point to the basis for this claim.


 * Where's the evidence for Wal-Mart's "bargaining power" or "openly using it's bargaining power?" What power is this?  Where did Wal-Mart get this power?  Yes, there's evidence from the sources that Wal-Mart negotiates and tries to get the lowest price.  But there's no support for "using power."


 * I added a balancing comment from the very same reference already being used, the article in fastcompany.com. That's what they said, so what's wrong with adding some depth to the issue.  The same guy who is quoted above also said the quote that I added to give it balance.


 * There's reference to the "buy American" ad campaign in the early '90's. And Wal-Mart no longer makes that claim in their ads.  That much we know, that's supported by evidence.  However, I removed the part about the program "was eventually cancelled."  When did this occur?  Where's the evidence for this cancellation?  Did Wal-Mart ever issue a press release saying "we're canceling the 'Buy American' ads?"   Not so far as I know, if I'm wrong please correct me.  That's why I changed that to simply what we know, that they used to say that but they no longer do, and I left in the statistics on how many of the goods are imported.


 * Where's the support for the vague statement that the mere presence of Wal-Mart has "a significant impact on their local communities?" By what standard?  Doesn't everything have a significant impact on everything?  What do those words mean?  Well, I'll tell you.  Nothing.  That's just pushing a POV.   The problem there is that it's suggesting that Wal-Mart is somehow special, and when a Wal-Mart builds a store, it has "significant impact" but by implication, other stores and other businesses don't have "significant impact."

Thanks for your other corrections, we're on our way to a "great" article! SecretaryNotSure 22:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot one more: Where's the evidence for the statement that Wal-Mart "requires that prices go down from year to year?" The "requires" is the part that's not really true. "Requires" sounds like it's something they have to do, something predicatable, expected, like there's some formula somewhere. Where's the support for this?SecretaryNotSure 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I said "reverting" but I should have said "removing". I'll have to do some research for some of these points. You're probably right about some of it, the first for instance. The second point, I'll have to look, but I know WM is the largest customer for many suppliers. I'll find a source. The third point, if I remember correctly, the ref uses the exact phrase "bargaining power". I'll look in to that later, as well. The fourth point may have been a confidential internal release for the discontinuance of that program, in which case we won't be able to find a source to back it up. For the last point, we just disagree. I don't think it's pushing a POV to considering stores being shut down by a WM as a "significant impact". What sort of impact would you call it? I mean, WM definitely makes an impact on the communities they inhabit. Both positive and negative. While significant may be a subjective term, I don't think it could be considered anything but in this case. But I suppose I could have a skewed view of it. For your added point, if you want to reword it, then go for it, but the reference makes it pretty clear that if suppliers don't keep competitive prices, they risk getting replaced.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitedust.net is down
The Whitedust.net article that we all know about, and made its way onto Slashdot's front page, is now indefinitely offline. The site admin took it off in August, and the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to help, since the article was written in mid-2006. That really sucks, people. Is there any other archive of this page floating around, or some other story covering Wal-Mart's lobbyists and their silly edit war resulting in the splitting of Wal-Mart and Criticism of Wal-Mart? I know Whitedust was a blog, but the article in question is a well-known one and I wouldn't mind reading it again. Tuxide (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The old URL for convenience. Tuxide (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * and Slashdot Tuxide (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)