Talk:Rite Aid

Bias?
I almost reverted this to the edit by User:Duckboy because of the critical content added to the Recent Years section, but for now I prefer not to trigger a revert war...Ranma9617 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... doesn't appear to be biased. I don't see any spin toward pro-Rite Aid or anti-Rite Aid viewpoints, therefore I honestly think the tag should be removed. John D&#39;Adamo 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif
Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Fair use rationale for Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif
Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas Section
The Las Vegas section will date soon, or has already dated. I put a tag on it, but I really think the whole section should be re-written. It doesn't say why they are closing in Las Vegas, and it has terms such as "this week", etc. I don't really know anything about Rite Aid, I was just looking on Wiki to see why they were closing in Vegas. Chexmix53 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Labor Violations section=possible POV pushing
As someone who both works for the company and is under a UFCW collective bargaining agreement, I seriously believe that the "Labor Violations" section is clearly POV pushing at its worst. Additionally, the user behind this section has had very few edits outside articles pertaining to unionized labor. To at least partially rebut his assertions; not only does the company have CBA's with various UFCW locals in many jurisdictions where it operates, but also the company does assert that it is bargaining in good faith with the relevant unions mentioned in this rogue section... Ranma9617 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ranma9617, thanks for your concern about POV. I have listed third party sources for all of the facts I've included. It isn't a pretty picture, but it is accurate -- it reflects the fact that Rite Aid is becoming a poster child for union-busting since it's hired Oliver J Bell and Associates and is using classic techniques to intimidate workers. Congratulations, BTW, on your UFCW agreement. Several UFCW locals are supporting the ILWU workers by urging Rite Aid officals to stop the union-busting and sign a first agreement with the Lancaster workers. The company can edit this section to refute any information that they believe is inaccurate. But unless there's a good reason to leave that bog ugly box at the head of the section, I think the article should be untagged. WikiGolightly (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole section needs to go. It isn't notable. The sources all either link to op-ed blogs (mostly union blogs) or the article doesn't say what the source does. One union has a disagreement with conditions at one distribution center. That happens every day all over. It is not encyclopedic. 99.111.226.99 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. Lancaster was a big deal - just check the Google hits. Further, op-eds and blogs, pro-union or otherwise, are often used as Wiki sources. This is a clear case of one jackass purging a relevant section (and perhaps the most informative part of the article to date) and violating Wikipedia norms because of personal bias. I find little to recommend but that the information once again be made available and that the above user is flagged and future edits are followed to prevent future abuse. 208.118.163.99 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

thrifty ice cream
can their be a mention that this ice cream is only sold in their california stores —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.47.235 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John T. Standley


A tag has been placed on John T. Standley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://simplywall.st/NYSE:RAD/rite-aid. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is quite fine. I could really care less.Cindy Minard (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This took place last week, and the page was so speedily deleted that there was no time to contest the nomination. FYI only. I give up. Wikpedia has been overtaken by hostile forces who contribute nothing of value, and I do not seek to oppose them.Cindy Minard (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As an afterthought, go to the History page of this user, Diannaa, and see the truth - that all this person does is 'undo' or 'revert' entries in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I refer you to my original article on Albert Rudolph.Cindy Minard (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rite Aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921130257/http://eastpennsboro.net/_____Housing___Community___/zoning4-16-2008ai.pdf to http://www.eastpennsboro.net/_____Housing___Community___/zoning4-16-2008ai.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3007/is_199411/ai_n7706707
 * Added tag to http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20020624/ai_n10051153
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009060125/http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=RAD to http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=rad

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Rite Aid store picture
Why is there a picture of a Rite Aid store that’s about to become a Walgreens? Perhaps a go-forward Rite Aid store would be more appropriate? Amichels (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Westbrookriteaid.png

Martinez v. Rite Aid Corp
Should the Martinez v. Rite Aid Corp lawsuit be added to the litigation section? MisfitBlitz (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there something about that particular case that suggests it should be discussed in this article? Meters (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Rite Aid History
In the history of Rite Aid, can somebody please add where Genovese fits in. Thanks. 67.85.20.186 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

401 external links accepted?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I wanted to ask that is external links with 401 HTTP code (401 Unauthorized) are acceptable? since they won't be fully accesible by the normal user. Currently there are so many links with 401 status code in References. Should we remove them or not?

The Neel Patel (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)