Talk:Walmart/Archive 9

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Walmart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150705173918/http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/wal-mart-us-hourly-employees-13936-page-2.html to http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/wal-mart-us-hourly-employees-13936-page-2.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222170529/http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2009/06/Walmart_goes_tex-mex.php to http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2009/06/Walmart_goes_tex-mex.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130603121522/http://ccbn.10kwizard.com/xml/download.php?repo=tenk&ipage=4486902&format=PDF to http://ccbn.10kwizard.com/xml/download.php?repo=tenk&ipage=4486902&format=PDF
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140219162211/http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/23/Walmart-and-corruption-in-india-is-there-actually-any-way-to-avoid-it/ to http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/23/Walmart-and-corruption-in-india-is-there-actually-any-way-to-avoid-it/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140219165927/http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/11/15/probe-into-Walmart-bribery-past-mexico-to-brazil-china-and-india/ to http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/11/15/probe-into-Walmart-bribery-past-mexico-to-brazil-china-and-india/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222154655/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-05/india-government-agency-probes-Walmart-investments.html to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-05/india-government-agency-probes-Walmart-investments.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Replace some primary sources
Hello, I see Walmart's website is used as a source many times in this article. To help cut down on the article's reliance on those primary sources, I have prepared a list of new sources that could be used. I'm pinging Checkingfax, who has reviewed a previous request by me.

As I have noted before on this Talk page, I am one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia so I won't edit this article and am asking editors for help here. I am happy to answer any questions.

Infobox
 * Replace Reference No 3. (2.2 million employees worldwide and 1.4 million in the U.S.)

with

Walmart International
 * Replace reference No. 5

with

and

The full former reference used  needs to replace   in the footnotes portion of the infobox.

Corporate affairs
 * Replace reference No. 7

with

Introduction
 * Reference No. 8 is the exact same reference as No. 1.

History: Early years (1945–1969)
 * Replace reference No. 19

with

and

Walmart U.S.
 * Replace reference No. 76

with

Walmart Supercenter
 * Replace reference No. 81

with

Walmart International
 * Replace reference No. 96

with

Canada
 * Replace reference No. 100

with


 * Replace reference No. 101

with

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . In certain situations I think a primary source is safer than a secondary source. When it comes to revenues I think the official Annual Report is better than a regurgitation of that report in a secondary source. The secondary source can introduce errors into the figures. I shall await comments from others before inserting any such new sources. If the Annual Report is touting opinion then of course the opinion should be reviewed for accuracy and republished by a secondary source once it is deemed reliable. I will review the rest later. Cheers!  22:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Checkingfax. Thanks for agreeing to take a look. I understand what you're saying, and if you think certain primary sources are fine, that's fine with me. There are instances where third-party sources can be used, so feel free use those sources if you think it's necessary. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixing dead links
Hello, I went through this article and identified two dozen references with dead links. Being that it's important to have proper links when possible, I found either correct links to the stories referenced or different articles that can verify the information in this article. Please see the full list below. I am one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia so I won't edit this article and am asking editors for help here. I'm also pinging @Checkingfax, who has looked at previous requests I've made to this page. I'm happy to answer any questions on this.

Introdution
 * Replace reference No. 14

with


 * Replace reference No. 26

with

or


 * Replace reference No. 27

with

Retail rise to multinational status (1990–2005)
 * Replace reference No. 43

with


 * Replace reference No. 45

with

Initiatives (2005–2010)
 * Replace reference No. 58

with

Operating divisions:Walmart Discount Stores
 * Replace reference No. 81

NOT DONE: Includes 2 references. Please confirm.

with

Supermercado de Walmart
 * Delete No. 85

. It is a link to a list of adult clubs in Houston.


 * Replace reference No. 86

with

South America
 * Replace reference No. 104

with

and


 * Replace reference No. 105

with

Asia
 * Replace reference No. 117 a.


 * THERE WAS ANOTHER USE OF THIS OLD NAMED REFERENCE, SO I REPLACED THE OLD NAME WITH THE NEW NAME AT ITS 2ND USE. PLEASE CONFIRM. Cheers!  21:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

with


 * For reference No. 120, we can use a new source and update the article's outdated content.


 * Replace

with

Walmart took full ownership in July 2015.


 * For reference No. 122, we can rewrite the sentence and use a new source.
 * Replace

with

Walmart operates stores in India under the name Best Price Modern Wholesale.

Setbacks
 * Delete reference No. 117 b.

. There is another citation here to verify the Germany stores were sold to Metro.

Corruption charges
 * Replace reference No. 157

with


 * Replace reference No. 158

with


 * Replace reference No. 159

with

Corporate affairs:Customer base
 * Replace reference No. 204

with

Criticism:Labor relations
 * Replace reference No. 237

with

Gender and sexual orientation
 * Replace reference No. 242

with


 * Replace reference No. 246

with


 * Replace reference No. 247

with

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . OK, will check it out. Cheers!  20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . You mention replacing reference #81 but then request that 2 references be replaced (a named one, and a full one). Please clarify. Cheers!  21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . OK, I see the clarification lower in the request, but I had already implemented a workaround by the time I got that far down the page. Feel free to remove the extra named reference if you feel it is redundant. Cheers!  21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I tagged and/or archived additional dead links. Check it out [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walmart&diff=708143364&oldid=708140250 here]. Cheers!  22:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Checkingfax. Thank you for going through and fixing the dead links I outlined above. To respond to the questions you had on two of them:
 * The named reference  did not belong accompanying reference No. 82 (which was reference No. 81 in my original note last week) in the section about Bud's Discount City. It appears you already cleaned this up, so no more action is required.
 * As for the discussion of reference No. 118b (which was reference No. 117b in my original note), it's OK to keep it where it is now. No further action is required there.


 * With both those points taken care of, I say we mark that request as done.


 * You did point out three more dead links. I found new links for two of those references.


 * Current developments (2011–present)
 * Replace reference No. 63


 * with




 * Africa
 * Replace reference No. 132


 * with




 * Private label brands
 * You also tagged  as containing a dead link. I could not find a source to verify that information in the article.


 * Thanks again for your help with this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . OK, all done. Per Citing sources we should wait until March 2018 to delete any citations marked dead in March 2016. In the meantime, look for an archived version, or a replacement version, or rewrite the section with a new citation. Cheers!  03:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Checkingfax. Thank you for all your work updating those references. I appreciate the link to the guideline on preventing and repairing dead links. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug McMillon article
Hello, Wikipedians! I want to note here that I recently posted an edit request on the Talk page for the article on Walmart CEO Doug McMillon. As you'll see on that request, the draft in my user space updates, fixes inaccuracies, better organizes and adds citations. My draft maintains most of what already appears in the live article, but it presents the information in a more organized, encyclopedic manner.

I am one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia, so I won't edit this article. Can any editors help? I am happy to answer any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Copy/paste moves are dicey. Fortunately, nobody else has edited the page in your user namespace. There are copyright considerations for copy/paste moves. Cheers!  05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization of content
Hello, Wikipedians! Let's talk about the structure of this article, particularly some of the information currently housed within the Criticism section. Right now, it begins with a short overview paragraph describing the criticisms that Walmart has faced, which seems straightforward and reasonable. That is followed by separate smaller sections on Economic impact, Big data analytics, Labor relations and Gender and sexual orientation.

Up front, I want to make clear I am not suggesting removing the Criticism section, but raise the question of whether it makes more sense for these subsections to be dealt with the way the article was structured prior to an edit on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walmart&diff=next&oldid=650456177 March 8, 2015], that moved these subsections to Criticism. Before that edit, Economic impact, Big data analytics, Labor relations and Gender and sexual orientation were listed in the Corporate affairs section. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walmart&diff=prev&oldid=650456177 Take a look]). I would recommend keeping the Criticism section and its opening paragraph as a summary of criticisms against Walmart. (This section includes a link to a 9,000-word article called Criticism of Walmart. That should obviously stay, too.) However, Economic impact, Big data analytics, Labor relations and Gender and sexual orientation are big, important, complex topics, not simple "criticisms". I feel to simply throw them under the header of Criticisms does a disservice to the overall discussion of these topics. Yes, at times some of these topics have been controversial and sparked debate, but they do not boil down to criticisms against Walmart.

Please keep this in mind when reviewing this request: Not everything under Criticism is critical. For example:


 * The article says Walmart "was praised for expanding its anti-discrimination policy protecting gay and lesbian employees, as well as for a new definition of 'family' that included same-sex partners". The article talks about the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index rating increasing over the last decade. In fact, in the 2016 Corporate Equality Index, Walmart scored 90 out of 100.
 * Under Labor relations, it talks about how Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States.
 * Also, Big data analytics talks about the company's use of data, but the privacy concerns mentioned in the last sentence are not something that is unique to Walmart's data collection.

Labeling all discussion of these topics as "criticisms" gives the impression that Walmart is bad in these regards, which seems like it could violate Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV.

To recap: My view is that it would work best if Economic impact, Big data analytics, Labor relations and Gender and sexual orientation were moved back into the Corporate affairs section, where they were originally, reflecting the multifaceted nature of each of these topics. The remaining content of the Criticism section is absolutely fine where it is.

These are my ideas and I would love to hear from others. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While I see your point (and I think it is a good one), I think that those sections are OK where they are: they are broadly critical, talking mainly about perceived negative sides of the topics mentioned, and the positive material seems to me to serve to provide some sort of balance to the criticism. Basically, I think the sections are too critical to justify moving them entirely under Corporate affairs, but moving only the positive information would leave the criticism section unbalanced, in my opinion. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please insert  when replying to ping me, so I know you've replied —  crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 21:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in on the question. Do you know a good forum where I might find other editors willing to join the discussion? I wonder what others think. I'm also pinging, who has reviewed previous requests of mine on this Talk page. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The WP:MOS has deprecated sections devoted to criticism, and therefore, criticism should be integrated with the germane prose within the body of the article. Having a ghettoized criticism section also violates WP:UNDUE. Cheers! (cc to and )   21:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Checkingfax. Upon looking at the present "Criticism" section, I think only that one short paragraph that follows the heading should stay, if at all. I'm actually surprised that there is an article entitled "Criticism of Walmart". Criticism is awfully one-sided. I think "Controversy regarding Walmart" would be better for that other article's title and just "Controversy" instead of "Criticism" as a section heading in this article. It does seem, though, that most of the information in the sections presently in the "Criticism" section is about issues in which Walmart has been criticized, so perhaps they should stay where they are. I would just argue against using "Criticism" as a section heading. I suggest either removing the section heading altogether and letting the sections stand on their own or changing the heading to "Controversy". – Corinne (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, , and . The old school was to have a devoted  section (as one melded section). This has been deprecated. Sorry I was not clear about the controversy part. They are both deprecated. Cheers!   04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oh. Thanks for the clarification. Would you, then, support simply removing the section heading "Criticism" and leaving those sections to stand on their own? – Corinne (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, (with ccs to  and ). Yes, I would support that, and hopefully somebody would then smooth them into the existing prose throughout the article so it flows. Cheers!   20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Anticipating a possible consensus to remove the section heading "Criticisms", I would:


 * 1) Put Big data analytics into the existing section Customer base, perhaps as a sub-section within it. After all, big data analytics is about analyzing customer spending.
 * 2) Leave Economic impact as a stand-alone section.
 * 3) Put all four paragraphs in Gender and sexual orientation in the existing section Walmart. Those are all labor relations issues, issues regarding the relationship between the corporation and its employees. We can discuss whether they should simply be the last four paragraphs in the Labor relations section or should have a sub-section heading (such as "Gender and sexual orientation").
 * 4) I think the one paragraph presently in the Criticism section should be included in a larger section. Perhaps it should be the last paragraph in Economic impact.

Well, those are my suggestions. I suppose we need to wait for consensus regarding getting rid of the "Criticism" section. – Corinne (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Corinne, Checkingfax and crh23. The approach outlined above by Corinne is a solid one that would properly integrate this text within the article. What do you all see as the next step here? Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . As, is among our most talented copy editors I would suggest that Corinne be bold and go ahead and do it since it is supported by guidelines and consensus. Cheers! (with cc to ). PS: The criticism of Walmart article is a hot mess with most data being over ten years old. That is an old tape.   19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How does it look now? Also, I wanted to ask about a hidden note to editors right at the beginning of the article. It says "DO not change "Wal-Mart"." Shouldn't this be "Do not change to Wal-mart"? – Corinne (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, (with cc to  and ). I changed the edit note to be: do not change to Wal-Mart. Walmart is the current correct namestyle.


 * I feel it looks much better now. Additionally, I was bold and took it all the way, moving one more section of content, and removing the section header title.


 * Jenny, do you have any documentation of when Wal-Mart became Walmart? Was it 2008? I know that is when the logo changed from Wal-Mart to Wal*Mart, but now the logo is Walmart*. Please advise, preferably with a citation to hang on it. Cheers!  03:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Corinne, Checkingfax and Crh23. Thank you all for weighing in here, especially Corinne and Checkingfax for taking the time to reorganize and integrate these topics throughout the article. I agree it’s much better now having these details discussed within the context of more relevant sections.


 * The one aspect that I did wonder about was removing the "Criticism" heading and link to the main Criticism of Walmart article altogether. If that's what editors think is best, then I won't fight on this, just wanted to raise this as I've seen that it's typical to include a brief summary section and link when there's a "child" article.


 * Relatedly, as Checkingfax mentioned, the “Criticism of Walmart” entry really needs some work, too, so I will be spending some time pulling together possible updates to it next. Stay tuned!


 * Regarding the change from Wal-Mart to Walmart in 2008, this source should help (see "2008 - present" under the Logo section). Or, for an independent source, see this Bloomberg article. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, (with cc to  and ). Once the C&C section was removed, I moved the link to the Criticism of Walmart article to the See also section where it belongs for now. Long term, I see the Walmart article being whittled down a bit, the Criticism of Walmart article pared to the bone, and then the Criticism bits would be properly integrated into the Walmart article. Right now, there is WP:undue weight on the criticism. The articles are the same size. Cheers!   17:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I agree, the article needs a lot more cleanup. I plan to work through the article one section at a time, preparing updates and new material to share with editors to review. I'll likely start with the "Operations divisions" section, unless there is a particular section you want to work on first? JLD at Walmart (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wal-Mart → Walmart
Wal-Mart Stores has been reintroduced to the lead and infobox. Cheers! 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

8 dead links
Hi, and any other editors: the article now has eight dead links that either need to be archived or replaced. WP:Checklinks is a semi-automated way to archive them using the Wayback link within each frame on the Checklinks results page. When you see a blue circle with a likely archive date, right click on and capture the URL and archive date and input it into the text box ini the frame then go up the page and save your changes. Cheers! 05:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing up these dead links. I would like to help, but I want to be sure I'm not editing this article directly. I abide by the bright line rule and prefer to keep my involvement on the Talk page. Would it help if I tried to find new links to replace the dead ones? Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . It is your call whether to find archived versions of the existing links or to find new links to replace them with. I did not bother looking for archived ones as I figured new ones might be available. Cheers!  19:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism sections are deprecated – II
As discussed in thread above, dedicated Controversy and criticism sections are deprecated; C&C should be integrated with the prose where it is germane; this is an encyclopedia.

There is a Criticism of Walmart article of 9500 words that contains this information already, but snippets of it can be weaved into the prose of this article.

In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walmart&diff=726366384&oldid=726365456 this] edit I removed such a section as it was undue weight especially by its placement as a leading section. The information was mostly dated, moot or redundant. Its inclusion was not discussed. Cheers! 18:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walmart&diff=prev&oldid=726339275 Here] is one big addition that I removed in the Diff above. Cheers! 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you're up to here please? You seem to be talking about at least two different reversions, but are linking to the same one.  There is no "addition" to the article, I simply moved the content from where it was already present into the C&C section.  If it's not to go there, I'll put it back where it came from.
 * I suppose it's correct to say that "Its inclusion was not discussed" - but that's because the "Corruption charges" section was originally added here on 29th December 2012. It's been moved around a bit since then, but it's been in the article a while now - and is still relevant to the company and article.  As per WP:BRD I've put the content back to how it was before I moved it - we can now discuss.
 * Given the nature of C&C sections - which I was not aware of - I'm happy for the Bribery section to stay where it was in the prose, and I've left out the Visa section as it was unsourced. If it's to go back in it needs sourcing.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Largest" company status
There appears to be some disagreement between this article and the one for Sinopec over which is the largest company in the world by revenue. Neither claim has an obvious source cited and I don't trust myself to fix this on my own. Wanted to bring it to someone's attention.

State Abbreviations
I'm not sure about else where, but under the Walmart Express section both Gentry and Prairie Grove are given the state postal abbreviation for Alaska (AK), not Arkansas (AR)

Corner Bakery Cafe
<>

This was posted under the Walmart Supercenter section. Is this true? I can't find this anywhere else, but on Wikipedia. I removed it. It shouldn't be posted as fact unless it can be sourced.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Walmart. 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/20060503192520/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050922_6448_db016.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050922_6448_db016.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080706161254/http://www.businessweek.com:80/innovate/content/jul2008/id2008072_324653.htm? to http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jul2008/id2008072_324653.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160307205619/http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091013_227022.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091013_227022.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080712173022/http://www.bloomberg.com:80/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a574eQ1zemuk&refer=top_world_news to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a574eQ1zemuk&refer=top_world_news
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120629083316/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/04_19/b3882086.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_19/b3882086.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060813111855/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/05_15/b3928086_mz054.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_15/b3928086_mz054.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829135641/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_40/b3852011_mz001.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_40/b3852011_mz001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:67.240.202.34
Hello,. I've noticed that you have already reverted 3 edits on this article. I'd like to remind you of our 3-revert rule. This could get you blocked.

Please work with the other editors here to reach a consensus on the changes you want to make. Please address the concerns that are raised, or explain yours. Don't edit war. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 20:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Planned acquisition of Jet.com
Here is Walmart's press release regarding the planned acquisition of Jet.com https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104169/000010416916000113/exhibit991-882016.htm

The text of the PR is quite clear: "The acquisition, which is subject to regulatory approval, has been approved by the Boards of Directors for both companies and is expected to close this calendar year."

As at 8 August, Walmart does not yet own Jet.com. Stockst (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Animal welfare questions
Hello, Wikipedians! I hope editors watching this page can help me with questions I have on a recent edit.

On Aug. 4, Sammy1339 created the Animal welfare section about Walmart's plans to sell completely cage-free eggs by 2025. As written, this seems very detailed, especially since some of the information is not directly about Walmart's plans but about cage-free chickens in general. What do editors think about the last three sentences and whether this should be included in this article? Perhaps it is better fitted for the poultry farming article?

Also, I have a question on this sentence: Walmart's cage-free eggs will not come from free range producers, but rather industrial-scale farms where the birds will be alotted between 1 and 1.5 square feet each, a stressful arrangement which causes cannibalism. The Modern Farmer story mentions cannibalism while discussing an industry process called beak trimming, which it calls "the practice of removing part of the top and bottom of a bird’s beak in order to prevent the animals from pecking each other in close quarters under stressful conditions—and in some cases cannibalizing each other". However, the source does not specifically say that the space allotted by Walmart's new guidelines leads to that behavior, as the sentence in this Wikipedia article claims. Can someone else read through the source and determine if they think it is accurately reflected here?

I would love to hear from others. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say I agree in essence that the last part of the section is not especially relevant to the article, so I've reqorded it to take that into account. And might I add how refreshing (and welcome) it is to have a COI editor using the correct process to query articles - although I hope that doesn't sound too patronising, as it isn't meant to be.
 * I haven't marked this as closed or answered, because others may have viewpoints as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the last section, and changed some of the wording - for example "taking a wait-and-see attitude to the news" - as quoted in the article - is not the same as expressing skepticism, and Badger's full quote was more directed at businesses in general, not specifically Walmart, so I've included the rest of his quote to show this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is entirely unreasonable to remove all substantive discussion of the type of systems Walmart's suppliers will be switching to. It's entirely relevant to have balanced discussion of the issues, which is well-sourced to articles about Walmart's decision, and to present all sides. Not to do this is a POV issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I must add that JLD's question about the cause of cannibalism being close quarters is absurdly disingenuous. It is not only plainly implied in the Modern Farmer article, which indicates that the purpose of beak trimming is "to prevent the animals from pecking each other in close quarters under stressful conditions—and in some cases cannibalizing each other" - it is also so well documented that it ought to go without saying. For a source for the well-known fact that cannibalism is caused by stress and overcrowding, see this document which specifically mentions that it may occur when birds have less than 1.5 square feet each. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is though that your claims have issues, even if they are sourced:
 * Whilst possibly accurate (as noted by both JLD and the source) comments about chicken cannibalism are not relevant to an article on Walmart. This is excessive detail for an article on a retailer, but may have a place (again as pointed out by the OP) in another article.  In other words - while your sources are good, they're not relevant to the main article, which is Walmart, not chicken living space or feeding habits.
 * The same is true for the mortality rate. It may have a place in an article on chicken farming, but not here.
 * Speaking of being disingenuous, you are just as guilty by clipping Badger's quote so that it appears to be directed at Walmart, when the entire quote shows that he is commenting on business in general. And also, as I pointed out, his comments are not noted as being skeptical, so you should not present them as being such.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My use of the quote indicated skepticism of Pacelle's claim that the policy would lead to an industry revolution. That's how it appeared in the source and that's how it appears here.
 * You seem to be suggesting that discussion of the implications of company policies do not belong in articles on the companies themselves, even when they appear in multiple media sources about those policies. This makes little sense to me, except as a way for corporations to censor negative attention. The shift was made ostensibly to protect the welfare of hens - what sense does it make to exclude well-sourced discussion of its impact on their welfare? Without this, we are presenting a one-sided story. You also removed mention of the environmental and worker health effects of the decision, for no reason I can discern. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed them because it's undue weight to an article that is about Walmart, not chicken farming. You are still only using a portion of a quote, and that changes the context from a global commentary to a single retailer.
 * Just you think I'm suggesting something, I think you're suggesting that I'm part of some global conspiracy to censor any negative commentary. That's not very good faith now is it?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously? How do you come to the conclusion that I think you are part of a conspiracy? I just think you made a bad edit, which violated NPOV by removing all substantive discussion of the topic and adding an extended quote by an industry representative. I'll post on WP:NPOVN and see if someone can help us resolve the issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You state that my edits are "a way for corporations to censor negative attention". That seems to make me a part of the global conspiracy, at least in your eyes.
 * And, I might add that really we're approaching this from the wrong angle. Your original edit was added on 4th August, which wasn't that long ago.  This really falls under WP:BRD - we should go back to the original status of the article without your addition.  You were bold in adding the detail, I reverted, (granted only after being made aware of it via an editor who by COI rules cannot intervene) and we should now discuss the issue - not re-add it and then discuss.  Technically you are edit warring and not following process here.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very confusing - since you didn't object to including the entire section initially, why would you do so now? My interpretation was that I was following BRD by reverting your change and then discussing it. If you feel there is a good reason why the whole section needs to go, feel free to go back to 4th August while we wait for other opinions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the section, I think it's very valid and worthy - I object to the level of detail within the section, hence my original edits to it. As I have stated multiple times, I think it's undue and unwieldy to discuss policies and practices that are not those of Walmart in the Walmart article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are misinformed then: please look at Walmart's Policies and Guidelines, specifically the cage-free egg supply position. The specific requirements placed on producers are the ones under discussion here, including the low space requirement of 1.0 square feet, which causes cannibalism. This is indeed Walmart's policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I was intuitively going to say that, although it's both encyclopedically valuable and necessary to NPOV to provide appropriate context about the substance of the policy changes, nonetheless the current material is over-detailed and should be trimmed to a slightly-less-detailed sentence or two. Something like The new policies do not address concerns about other production practices, such as debeaking, and they are likely to exacerbate environmental and occupational health problems as well as high hen mortality rates.


 * But then I looked through the available sources more carefully. MF gives most of its coverage to implementation concerns, Fortune and this Bloomberg blurb (both short articles) give almost none, and the NYT gives almost all. Overall, the weight of source material implies that it is appropriate to devote about half of the paragraph to questions about the value of this change, and that's close to the current balance. I'd say only a few details need trimming, maybe the square footage numbers (even if they are set by Walmart).


 * Conversely, I think the following sentence unrelated to implementation concerns would be worthy (inserted between the current 1st & 2nd): The decision was particularly important because of Walmart's large market share and influence on the rest of the industry. FourViolas (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FourViolas, feel free to add that sentence. I'd do it myself but I can't see what references you're talking about. I do think the square footage should stay because it's the most relevant aspect of Walmart's policy to these issues, and appears in both Fortune and Modern Farmer. But if there's anything else you think is superfluous, go ahead and take it out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * All right, I added that sentence. Trying to address all the above concerns and 's from the NPOVN, I made a few other changes
 * Following most sources, noted that many animal welfare groups (not just Pacelle) praised the decision
 * Paraphrased the "wait and see" comment, because the full quote was UNDUE and didn't really add much (except a vague sense of snark)
 * To the NYT sentence, added the NYT's caveat that this change is not (necessarily) all bad
 * To Permstrump's suggestion of WP:INTEXT attribution: that policy actually includes an example with the NYT, and another about the Lancet, which provide reasons not to use it. The NYT, WaPo, and Modern Farmer present it as fact that these concerns exist, and it's not appropriate for us to take a skeptical stance on these RS. Since they frame the concerns as fact, this would be awkward anyway: "The NYT, WaPo, and Modern Farmer ran stories citing a range of experts and a Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply report, and they reported that..." FourViolas (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the third point slightly, since I didn't find "may improve some hens' quality of life" supported in the article or any other RS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph: "Yet while industrial cage-free systems may improve the quality of life for some hens, research suggests that they can also introduce health and environmental problems." But the sixth has "A critical difference is that they can move around", and that's concrete information without the waffling of "may", so I'm happy with your change. FourViolas (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't know how I missed that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been clear that I think this section is over-detailed, but if it is to stay - as seems to be consensus - then I will also make a few changes, while preserving the section detail:
 * 1) Change "a stressful arrangement which causes cannibalism." to "a stressful arrangement which can cause cannibalism." - all the sources are very specific that this is only a possibility, not a certainty:  "in some cases cannibalizing each other", and "in some instances, becoming cannibalistic".
 * 2) Change "Unlike battery cages, the systems Walmart's suppliers will use allow the hens to move around, but have higher hen mortality rates and present distinct environmental and worker health problems." to read "The system Walmart's suppliers will use allows the hens to move around, but unlike battery cages has higher hen mortality rates, and presents distinct environmental and worker health problems." - apart from the minor grammar changes it's important to stress that the higher mortality rates are due to the change from battery to aviary - it seems paradoxical, as the layman would expect battery hens to have the worst mortality rate due to perceived cramped and poor conditions etc.
 * 3) Added the earliest date referenced - in this case April - as "2016" is a vague timeline.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 is a good point, and matches the professional literature: "Cannibalism...can cause serious mortality in some flocks., "outbreaks of cannibalism occur in some flocks but not others." 2 retains grammatical problems: "The system, unlike battery cages, has higher mortality rates." If you want to emphasize the difference, we could repeat ourselves: Unlike battery cages, the systems Walmart's suppliers will use allow the hens to move around, but relative to battery cages they have higher hen mortality rates and present distinct environmental and worker health problems. 3 is helpful. FourViolas (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Growing crime problem paragraph
On Aug. 17, 2016, an IP editor created the Growing crime problem subsection under History. To maintain balance, I hope Wikipedians watching this page can add the following, which quickly outlines Walmart’s efforts to curb thefts and cut down on crime, using two Bloomberg stories as references, including the report on which this Growing crime problem subsection is based:


 * Police reports from dozens of Walmart stores suggest the number of petty crimes committed on Walmart properties nationwide in 2016 will be in the hundreds of thousands. Additionally, more than 200 violent crimes, including attempted kidnappings and multiple stabbings, shootings, and murders, have occurred at the nation’s 4,500 Walmarts as of August 2016, or about one a day, according to an analysis of media reports. Since Doug McMillon began as CEO in 2014, Walmart instituted initiatives to decrease thefts and other crimes in its stores, including shifting employees to store exits and self-checkout areas; spot-checking receipts; installing security cameras in high-theft areas; using analytics; and hiring off-duty police. Walmart brought back greeters in 2016, in part as an effort to prevent shoplifting.

I have included markup below. Please note I have added a  to the original Bloomberg citation.

Police reports from dozens of Walmart stores suggest the number of petty crimes committed on Walmart properties nationwide in 2016 will be in the hundreds of thousands. Additionally, more than 200 violent crimes, including attempted kidnappings and multiple stabbings, shootings, and murders, have occurred at the nation’s 4,500 Walmarts as of August 2016, or about one a day, according to an analysis of media reports. Since Doug McMillon began as CEO in 2014, Walmart instituted initiatives to decrease thefts and other crimes in its stores, including shifting employees to store exits and self-checkout areas; spot-checking receipts; installing security cameras in high-theft areas; using analytics; and hiring off-duty police. Walmart brought back greeters in 2016, in part as an effort to prevent shoplifting.

Also, the title of the section should be in sentence case, not title case, as per Manual of Style.

As I have stated before, I am one of Walmart's representative on Wikipedia and I have a financial conflict of interest, so I am bringing this up here rather than edit the article itself. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This should be rejected as it whitewashes the first source's clear statements that the crime problem is a result of the corporation's policies, and that police are skeptical of the effectiveness of the measures Walmart has taken. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know that this material belongs in the History section, but I see no problem with the proposed changes. It's certainly not whitewashing to give a balanced version. The company is aware of the problem and is taking steps. How is that whitewashing? The new material even uses the same source as the original material, and a second article by the same author. Meters (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the first source? It's overwhelmingly negative, saying that blame for the problem falls on Walmart's policies, and questioning whether efforts to ameliorate the problem are effective. This is not reflected either in the current text or in this proposal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a more balanced coverage of the same source. We don't cherry pick just the negative parts. Meters (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's less balanced coverage. Nearly all the parts of that source are negative, and the more negative parts are not even reflected in the current text. The PR representative's suggestion cherry-picks ameliorating material, in a way that distorts what the source actually says. In fact, the current text would be improved by including more of that source's criticism of Walmart. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to exclude this material. Wikipedia does not pick what material to present from a source based on whether an editor wishes to leave a negative impression of the subject. The source in question has negative things to say about crime rates at Walmart, but it also discusses how Walmart is responding. There is no valid reason to include only one side while excluding the other. Meters (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added some more from that article, which accurately reflects what it says. Please recall that NPOV is about balancing sources, not presenting all sides equally, and the source does not have much to say in Walmart's favor. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Sammy1339 and Meters. Thank you both for weighing in. As we have hit a standstill here, I think more input is needed. I am posting a note on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see if we can get a few more editors to take a look. I appreciate the valuable discussion we're having. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"doing business as"
Why "doing business as Walmart" in the first paragraph of the article? Why not "marketed as Walmart"? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Growing crime problem recent addition
On September 26, 2016, an anonymous editor posted this sentence, dealing with a store associate in Georgia refusing to make a Blue Lives Matter cake, to the Growing crime problem section. I have a few issues with this edit that I'd like to bring up. First, this certainly does not belong in this section, which deals with a recent article on crimes reportedly occurring at Walmart stores. Second, this was a one-time incident at one of Walmart's 11,500 stores across the globe. It fails to rise to the level of importance to be included in an encyclopedic entry about the company as a whole. Third, this article fails to mention that Walmart had apologized for the incident, as was written about in independent, third-party sources, such as Fortune. Can another editor take a look at this edit and delete it if it is not appropriate? As I have stated before, I am one of Walmart's representative on Wikipedia and I have a financial conflict of interest, so I am bringing this up here rather than edit the article itself. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The claim is sourced and the source title mentions the apology "Walmart apologizes for refusing to make police officer’s cake". -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of page protection request
Hello, Wikipedians! I want editors who watch this page to be aware that I posted a request for page protection at Requests for page protection. Previous semi-protection expired on July 25, 2016. It is my hope that semi-protection will cut down on vandalism to this page. As I have noted on this page and others relating to Walmart, I am one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia and I have a financial conflict of interest. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Page protection is not placed pre-emptively, it's only to protect during disruptive editing. See Protection policy - Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 21:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Airplaneman and Mlpearc. Thanks for considering this request. Please note that I requested page protection due to the high volume of vandalism and disruptive edits to the article. JLD at Walmart (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hopefully the new settings help keep the page in better shape without totally disallowing editing from a new editors. For reference: the protection request. Airplaneman   ✈  21:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

2000s crime problem section
Hello, Wikipedians! This edit by Nightscream incorrectly refers to Walmart's former chief executive as "Leo Scott". His name is Lee Scott. Can someone fix it? As I have noted here and on related Wikipedia articles, I have a financial conflict of interest as one of Walmart's representatives on the site and I will not make changes to the article myself.

Can we also discuss the length of the section? While I do not argue against the inclusion of the topic on the page, is it overblown to repeat so much info from the Bloomberg report? Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The name is fixed. Thanks.


 * What version for the section would you suggest? Nightscream (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Walmart. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jul2008/id2008072_324653.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Govt-allows-FDI-in-multi-brand-retail-aviation/articleshow/16397960.cms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624152410/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n19_v32/ai_14495621 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n19_v32/ai_14495621
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbmproducts.com/press.aspx?ID=183
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060503002041/http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/media_ref_pages/TooManyChoices.html to http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/media_ref_pages/TooManyChoices.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021%2Charkavy%2C15052%2C5.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=24994&TEMPLATE=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Get_Informed2&Template=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=33909

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) 15:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)