Talk:Wal-Mart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wal-Mart article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This is not a forum for general discussion of Wal-Mart.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Good article Wal-Mart has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Dr. Cash
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] In Fiction

Not sure if this is worthy of being in the article... In the Alien film series the multinational corporation which tries in the first 3 films to capture the alien for it's weapons program is said to have been bought out by Wal-Mart in the special edition of the 4th film.

Maybe there are some other notable mentions in fiction? Certainly there's the South Park episode, currently linked to under the 'Television' section of the article.

[edit] Where's the criticism section?

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

Just arrived on this article after seeing a documentary. Considering Wal Mart is such a high-profile company with more than a fair deal of criticism, I find it VERY odd that there is only one (or perhaps a few, buried in all the useless info) link to a seperate page. Nothing on this page itself. It's true that there is a lot of criticism over there, but it should indeed be more visible on this page. Wouter de Groot (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed -- Criticism of Wal-Mart seems to be a hidden WP:POVFORK. Wal-Mart is notorious for the large amount of criticism it receives, and a summary of these controversies should be prominent on the main Wal-Mart page. Fireplace (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This subject is discussed in the 'Kind of Weird' subheading above, although I'm still not entirely convinced --SlopingFlange (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

First, no one is suggesting "a sounding board for everyone to post and share their dislikes about the company." There is a large body of critical material and controversies surrounding Wal-Mart that can be attributed to reliable sources. Second, WP:CRITICISM specifically says that "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork." Fireplace (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one else is objecting, I suggest adding a summary of the Criticism of Wal-Mart article to this main article, linking to the criticism article with a {{main}} template. Fireplace (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean no one is objecting? This is a horrible idea! Criticism is already covered sufficiently by the article, and not in a criticism section explicitly, but rather within individual sections related to other topics on the corporation, as it should be. Wikipedia is NOT the place to vent your criticisms and dissatisfactions with a particular entity or corporation. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not assuming good faith, and no one is "vent"ing. I've argued above that the Criticism of Wal-Mart section is problematic because it is a POV fork. The coverage in the main Wal-Mart article of the criticism and controversies surrounding Wal-Mart is extremely cursory and misses a lot of the major issues. The easiest solution is to add a "Controversies" or "Reception" section that summarizes the content from the Criticism of Wal-Mart article. Fireplace (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You apparently have no idea about the definition of a POV fork. This is not the case. Wikipedia policy and guidelines discourage 'criticism' sections, and this is not an article for an exception to that. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dr. Cash. In the controversy on the Richard Dawkins talk page a few months back, it was generally agreed that criticism sections are generally not to be part of articles, and such a precedent was then set by merging criticism sections out of the presidential candidate pages. A separate section for criticism of Wal-Mart is obviously fine. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't merge something *OUT*. Merging means "joining," not simply "moving." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving a substantive response. I now agree that a "Criticism" or "Controversies" section isn't the best way of handling it. However -- the current Criticism of Wal-Mart article is a classic POV fork. The best way to handle this content is to incorporate it into the main article and, where the content grows too large, create sub-articles with titles like Labor relations at Wal-Mart (for example). I think that's consistent with what happened at Richard Dawkins. Fireplace (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

There is a link to Criticism of Wal-Mart. At least two of them: one in the lead section (last paragraph), and another under 'employee and labor relations'). Dr. Cash (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems pretty difficult to find, how is the reader supposed to know that the word "criticism" is a link to the criticism of walmart article and not to the definition of criticism? Personally I think it should be included in the see also section, or maybe make the link to that article a little clearer in the opening paragraph. If links such to such articles as the walmart camel and people who've worked at walmart can be included, the link to criticism of wal mart should also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ok, fine. If you farking turkeys are that farking stupid that you can't find a Criticism link in a page, then fine. Have it your way. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Derek.Cashman, it seems weird that although you're so concerned that a criticism section will lead to trolling, your own conduct here is pretty agravating. Looks like most people here would appreciate a criticism section, esp. because most other controvertial topics have one and Wal-Mart is one of the most behaviorally questioned businesses in the U.S.. Furthermore, this article seems very one-sided in how it advertizes the community benefits and advocacy groups that support the corporation, and mentions little of the significant opposition to Walmart's corporate prectices by various consumer advocacy groups and labor unions. It seems weird that the very extensive article dedicated to criticism of Wall-Mart is only linked twice to the main one. Tell me, you're not working for Wall-Mart are you?? 199.245.32.210 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't work for Wal-Mart. Never have, either. But I do actually have the balls to edit with a user account and not anonymously. Please read WP:CRITICISM, which deals with discouraging criticism sections in cases like this. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] List of Wal-Mart articles

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

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

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

The page is clearly not a disambiguation page, per WP:DISAMBIG, and should not be listed. Only a slim minority of users actually wanted to keep the page as-is, and many were leaning towards moving the page instead of deletion (although there was still a majority in favor of deletion), so I have no idea why the 'no consensus' decision was upheld. Disambiguation pages only exist if there is a chance that an article's title might be confused with another article -- this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE HERE, as the links are just vaguely related articles that have something to do with the overall 'Wal-Mart' topic, but nobody in their right mind would ever get confused when searching. That's why it was moved to the 'see also' section, where it belongs. I tried to get some input on this at [1], but nobody seems really interested, except one person that deleted the redirects saying that somewhat agreed with me. This whole "argument" is just silly, but I am totally unconvinced that a disambiguation page is necessary, and in fact, it's totally inappropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The impression I have had from early on is that a single user, Derek Cashman, is determined to kill a Wal-Mart disambiguation page, no matter what, perhaps out of a personal distaste for one, and is using any propaganda necessary to sway others, rather than letting others formulate their own point of view. In our vocabulary, "Wal-Mart" and "Walmart" have been prescribed other meanings, and there are multiple articles on those other meanings, thereby qualifying for a disambiguation page.Shaliya waya (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No one here has done anything to indicate that they are interested in anything besides making a better encyclopedia. I ask that you please strike the first half of your remarks (by added a <s> before and a </s> after). Jon513 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's the attempts by a single user (me, as I've been apparently accused), as my nomination of the List of Wal-Mart articles/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) page for merger into Wal-Mart was, in fact, merged by another user (see RIP-Acer's comments, above). Furthermore, if you actually take the time to read WP:DISAMBIG, specifically the section on 'set index articles', it's quite clear that what you're adding is clearly not a disambiguation page, by definition. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that the actual content in question (the list of links), was never really deleted (save one external link to urbandictionary that didn't belong), and in fact, added to the 'see also' section of the main Wal-Mart article. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks to me like there's no ambiguous word here that requires disambiguation. Bass could be a fish, an instrument, a type of singer, etc. so it's a dab page. Wal-Mart is a retailer, and nothing else. Most of the counter-arguments are either using Wal-Mart as an adjective or creating a gerund. The former might be better classified with the appropriate noun; the latter might, if well-referenced, make up a disambiguation page. I could support Wal-Marting (disambiguation) if there were appropriate sources. (The current Walmarting is a bit of a portmanteau of a dab page and 3 definitions.) List of Wal-Mart articles doesn't seem like a terrible idea, or it could redirect to Wal-Mart#See also, but simply redirecting to the top of the Wal-Mart page makes it look as if there's only one element of the list, and that it's the Wal-Mart page. Even if we have a redirect for now, we ought to allow the possibility of a genuine list in future. I suggest taking the disputed dab page back to AfD and modifying the redirect of the List of ... page, but I'm going to wait a while in the hope that a consensus might emerge here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Being the person who did the merger I should probably give my 2 cents here: Like I said in my post above, a list of articles is not appropriate. Lists on mainspace must deal with encyclopedic subjects, lists of Wikipedia articles are metadata and as such they don’t belong on mainspace. For instance a List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is acceptable while a list of Wikipedia articles related to Wal-Mart is not. This is crystal clear to me and that’s why I merged the list with the main article. I placed a redirect to this article since it’s the suggestion given at the merge page but frankly I think it should be deleted. Nobody’s ever gona get to this page by searching for List of Wal-Mart articles. As for the desambig page I'm with Cash on this. Its by definition not a desambig page and the info has already been placed on the main article where its more visible. As it stands that page is completely unnecessary as is the link to it that keeps being added to the top of this page. Cheers! RIP-Acer (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] FAC failure

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

Thanks for the comments. Maybe we should give this another go in the new year at some point? I dunno. I'd still like to see this as an FA, but I'm getting a little fatigued and disappointed with WP:FAC right now. It seems like there's too much nitpicking over there for minor copyediting changes (despite the article having at least two members of the League of Copyeditors going through it), and no one is really interested in addressing the FAC changes but myself. Perhaps if we had some more support for actually improving the article based on the comments by the past two FACs (instead of people trying to insert their own POV into the article), maybe it would have a better chance at passing. I'd also personally like to see some of the folks at FAC that keep complaining about 'minor copyediting', just fix it instead of listing the problems. Anyway, if folks want to make a good, concerted effort at making this an FA, I'd help out. But I don't want to just go solo on this again,... Dr. Cash (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to make such a commitment. However, I can promise to try to do a bit before any FAC, in my sporadic way. Morenoodles (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] ASDA Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Defamation?

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

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


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

[edit] Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was Article is correctly named.

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

[edit] Survey

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

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

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

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

[edit] Wal-Mart Canada Information incorrect

WRONG DATA:

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

CORRECT DATA:

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

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

[edit] Financial formula wrong

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

[edit] "this kind of crap"

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

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