Talk:Working Families for Wal-Mart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Factual error

This article should be edited to correct a factual error. The Herald Group does not manage Working Families for Wal-Mart. The organization is run out of the Washington DC office of Edelman. Edelman recently got in a lot of trouble for trying to hide the identity of the two bloggers on their Walmarting Across America blog, so their assocation with WFFWM is highly relevant. I met a young lady named Morra at the Georgia National Fair where fucked me and i had a large presence in my ass. She confirmed that she works for Edelman and that Edelman runs WFFWM. This article should be updated by someone who can find independent confirmation of this in the press.

[edit] POV Check

This is not a dispassionate article describing the organization from a neutral point of view. It needs to be addressed if not deleted. cmh 18:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As requested, more detail. There are several issues here, let me mention some of them:

  • I believe the article gets off to a shaky start when it characterises opposition to the article's subject as troops attacking Walmart.
  • The NPOV policy says "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." I realize that the goal is to have a page here about the organization and not about the Walmart issues, but the quotes selected for the article, and the fact that they overwhelm the organization's information, have the effect of carrying on the Walmart debate over here too. It may not be necessary, for example, to report Combs' motivations when we're discussing his organization.
  • Relating to the PR components, while the statements made may be true, the only reason they are not simple allegations is because they are not being related to the topic directly. Just making statements about Taylor Gross and his company is not relevant to the page... except that there is an implicit POV that he is negative and that therefore WFFWM are bad by association.

The article without these POV problems wouldn't have much left except for its name and the names of the leaders. At the end of the day, there isn't really much information about the organization here, just statements about people and quotes by them. Is this really adding to Wikipedia? Or is it a vehicle for a POV of Walmart and this organization? I make no claims about your personal motivations, but viewed dispassionately I see this as a questionable article. That is why I have nominated it for a POV review by others. cmh 19:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments. I understand your comment that what was available "overwhelm[ed] the organization's information". At the time I did my initial search on google, there was no official website for the group. There is now and I am abstracting the information. As to my motivations, they are curiousity, based on the AP story yesterday that Andrew Young was to be spokesperson for the group. I am neither an employee, nor a member of any group organized against Wal-Mart. As a journalist I have read both Wal-Mart's positions and the positions of its crtics.--Beth Wellington 20:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK to remove POV now?

Header says it all... Rich Farmbrough 10:48 2 March 2006 (UTC).

I think the article is much improved now, thanks to you and User:Beth Wellington. I am happy to take the warning off at this point. Good job! cmh 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "attagirl." (An American expression, not sure if it's used in Canada.) I'm the sole contributor to date. When I hadn't heard back from you, asked Rich, an admin I've worked with, to review it for NPOV problems. He made no changes, other than add to the talk page to ask if it was okay to remove the tag. I appreciate your doing so and the time you spent earlier in critiquing the article. If you have further suggestions or any information you want to add to the article, I'd be glad for the help.--Beth Wellington 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. (We do have attagirl too here!) cmh 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astroturfing

cmh deleted Astroturfing, which an anonymous poster added as a related link, citing the need for a reference. The Center for Media and Democracy, publishers of PR Watch has identified WFFWM as a front group here[1].

Will that source suffice? If not, I will consult Aacock, a fellow Canandian, teaches a course at University of Milwaukee, which is listed as an esternal link for the "Walmarting" artucke; he's more familiar with the literature. The other the web citations I've found come from blogs or anti-Wal-mart groups.

Or perhaps there could be a disclaimer, such as, "Wake-up Walmart has described WFFWM as a front group." (There's already a link to that item in the article.)

By the way, Astroturfing is defined as "In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, or similar entities by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals."

There is certainly a public relations firm which has acknowledge WFFW as a formal project, as cited in the news story referenced in our article. Astroturfing may be more of an issue in the US, where Senators of both parties passed disclosure requirements for astroturfing, which in the public relations world goes by the more neutral term of "grassroots lobbying."

Thanks,cmh, for your help with this article and your interest in maintaining its NPOV.--Beth Wellington 17:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Beth, putting the link in "see also" makes an implicit statement of fact about the group which is the point of view of (probably many) but not all (likely not the org. itself, for example). The statement should be attributed to someone and clarify that it is THEIR point of view, not an objective fact. For example, if WUW has said this, then it is appropriate within their section to link to the term I think. Or if the CMD has made that statement, then it should be set up within the article that CMD says it is (not that it is because CMD said so, if you see what I mean). -- cmh 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted assertion that WF for WM is an astroturfing group.
  • It meets the first half of the definition: formal public relations projects, but
  • Nothing in the article implies that it meets the second half: 'deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior.
We need a source which (1) demonstrates (or even alleges?) that they are trying to engineer an impression, or at least which (2) makes this claim without evidence. --Wing Nut 13:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)--Wing Nut 13:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged group slogan

My friend, who is involved in walmart watch, says that "Working Families for Walmart"'s official slogan is "Hey you whining, leftist losers. Go out and get jobs and let walmart conduct it's own business".

Can anyone verify this? TLAGT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.22.70 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)