Talk:Walmart

Archives

Old Talk Archives: Archive 1 - topics include pre-2002 NPOV issues; size comparisons; length of intro; associate vs employee; praise; criticisms in the timeline; HyperMart and other Wal-Mart businesses; diversity measures; Feb 2005 NPOV issues; environmental impact; Sam Walton; greeters; Sam's Rules; product controversy; arrow graphics; non-family-friendly viewing; health benefits; Gundham Deathscythe; negative economic impact. Archive 2 - topics include content ideas; misc criticisms of Wal-Mart; employees working off the clock; GDP comparisons; inclusion of Wal-Mart officers/directors; renewable energy experiments; apparent bias of Benefits and Union opposition sections; "slotting" fees; 14% grocery price decline; misc bias cleanup attempts; Grand Theft Auto and music censorship. Archive 3 - Lots of stuff - around February 2006 Archive 4 - Up to June 2006

delete Germany

Wal-Mart sells all stores in Germany to the german Metro-Group, the competition on the german market with strong local discounters was too hard, the Wal-Mart concept didnt work.

More Tags Please

It's clear that the Wal-Mart page is starving for a little tag-nourishment. I think I should add a verifiability tag, an unencyclopedic tag, a controversial tag, an accuracy tag, and what the hell, why not throw in a stub tag at the bottom.

Missing references

No sure what to do about all this so I'll point to it in discussion. The union info link was 404'd (currently labeled as reference 17). http://www.walmartfacts.com/keytopics/unions.aspx Messatsu 00:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See Removed text from →Reaction to criticism section above to see what may have happened to the site. (I can't find the article on the site.) In other words, this looks like a clear-cut case of primary source removal by you-know-who. However, the Internet archive may have an archived copy of the text. --DavidHOzAu 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's still a copy in Google Cache. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:www.walmartfacts.com/keytopics/unions.aspx Can this be used? --Bpage 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wal MArt and Labour Unions

Can I request some one add a section about Wal Mart Stance on Labour Unions and What happens to stores that UnionizeDr sean chronic RSX 06:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Business practices section

I have added a "Business practices" section to this article, made of content from Wal-Mart product controversy that I believed was inappropriate for a criticism article, in an attempt to spur cleanup. This is an article about a company, there needs to be a single section outlying its "Business model". However, in its current state, all content detailing Wal-Mart's business model is scattered elsewhere here and needs to be grouped appropriately. Tuxide 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing information in Financial results section

The section Wal-Mart#Financial results is missing relevant information about its competition. For example, it says Wal-Mart does "20 percent of the retail toy business" and "It holds an 8.9 percent retail store market share" (in the United States), but it doesn't say how much market share Target Corporation or Sears Holdings Corporation has.

After going over it some more, I've realized that this section is just lazily written, using two sentence paragraphs and bullet format instead of proper, decent-sized paragraphs. I am considering just taking the contents in this section and moving it elsewhere. Portions of it would be more appropriate in "History" while others in "Business practices". Tuxide 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved part of this section and moved it towards the top of the article, above where Wal-Mart#Business used to be. This should probably be copyedited and renamed "History" too. Also, I have removed a good deal of the section because I believed it was either biased or common enough in the retailing industry that it didn't need to be mentioned. Some of this section could go into "Business practices" though. Tuxide 00:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually thinking of nuking the 'financial results' section anyway. Much of the info at the beginning of that section really fit better in the introduction, and other stuff is better for the history section. So alas, it is done.

On another note, I've also rewrote the History of Wal-Mart article, since there apparently was a copyright violation of some sort (text stolen blatantly from one of wal-mart's press release sites. If you want to see what the new rewrite looks like, go to Talk:History of Wal-Mart/Temp. Discussion on the history rewrite is here. Dr. Cash 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Television Network

The Wal-Mart Television Network is an in-store network showing commercials for products sold in the stores, concert clips and music videos for a recording artist's media sold in the stores, trailers for upcoming movie releases, and news. According to Wal-Mart and its advertising agency, it is seen by 130 million customers a month, which would make it the fifth largest network in America..

Why does the above content have an entire main section in the article dedicated to it? Is it really that notable? While the part about, "130 million customers per month," and being the, "fifth largest network in the U.S.," is referenced, this info comes from the ad agency that is hired by Wal-Mart to sell ads. I would also doubt that their so-called statistics are really valid, as this seems to be something coming from the mouth of wal-mart themselves to make money (by selling more ads). Comparing their in-store tv network to the major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox) is somewhat laughable anyway. I think this whole section can be summed up into a simple sentence or two dealing with wal-mart's business and description of stores, and should not be in it's own section. Dr. Cash 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am marking this section as {{unencyclopedic}} for the reason above...although this is probably not a good template to use for a section. Tuxide 01:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now rephrased this, toned it down so as to sound less like a press release for wal-mart, and moved it to the History of Wal-Mart article, which has also been rewritten. Dr. Cash 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unpopularity of Walmart

Except for its customers (and some of its employees), Walmart has suffered tremendous unpopularity. My guess is that any successful business that delivers goods or services at low prices and competes well in the marketplace would be a target for criticism from socialists - who oppose competition and profit as inherently evil. I've seen claims that because of Walmart (and its ilk), "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer", which is one of Marxism's three central claims. (And the most easily debunked one, as in free market democratic countries, the standard of living for "the poor" has been steadily rising since 1848, making the Marxist hypothesis the best-deproved economic theory ever.) --Uncle Ed 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Evils of Capitalism

The article says "There has been much criticism of Wal-Mart, particularly by socialists who see the corporation as a typifying the evils Capitalism [sic], such as using economies of scale to cut costs and provide consumer goods at competitive prices."

Uhh, would "using economies of scale to cut costs and provide consumer goods at competitive prices" be considered an "evil of Capitalism"? I think even the most hardened socialist would say there's nothing wrong with economies of scale and lower consumer prices; socialists would be more likely to complain about Wal-Mart's support of foreign sweatshop labor and strong anti-union tendencies, as well as the effect on local businesses unable to produce at Wal-Mart's scale (which is only a side effect of the lower consumer prices; which might in this case be called "anti-competetive" rather than "competetive").

I agree. Hillsboro 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've added the tag for this:

There has been much criticism of Wal-Mart, particularly by socialists who see the corporation as typifying the evils of Capitalism, such as using economies of scale to cut costs and provide consumer goods at competitive prices. Other critics include union organizers and environmentalists.

If this is the lead, I can't imagine what the rest is like. - FrancisTyers · 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is by far the most biased on Wikipedia, I have ever read

Whitedust

The Whitedust article[1] detailed in Wal-Mart#Reaction to criticism strikes me as extremely weak. The author states: "My first reaction was to think that Wal-mart.. has lobbyists progressing the Wikipedia page into propaganda. Trying to be wary, I took some time to gather information and discuss the theory with others, and found nothing contrary to my original impression, and only evidence supporting it." Whatever you might think of Wal-Mart, a line of reasoning that assumes a conspiracy unless finding evidence to the contrary is extremely weak. I tried to edit the statements to be NPOV, but frankly I think the commentary is an embaraassing line of reasoning to have present in an encyclopedia. I suppose my only path is to find an author willing to comment on the weaknesses of this argument..Jvandyke 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I dug around and added the followup.. really weak.Jvandyke 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Incredible Shrinking Article

This article shrinks by the day. I saw the Criticism and Benefits sections had been either removed or changed beyond recognition. Is this official policy by the admin's, or one cowboy's crusade? Abe Froman 23:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to think we have a whitewashing problem in this article. The recent edits are focused on removing citations and anchored claims. Abe Froman 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say what is going on. My interest is in getting a good encyclopedia entry by attempting to set aside my own biases. A continuous journey, I suppose.Jvandyke 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., as a company. Therefore, in my opinion its page structure should appear like User:Tuxide/Wikiproject Retailing#Company page structure. Also, another thing I don't like about the Wal-Mart articles on Wikipedia is how many content/pov forks there are. For example, there are four articles about the criticism of Wal-Mart? A lot of this should be synopsized and thrown into here, if it hasn't already. Tuxide 02:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you (as in everyone) are going to find that difficult to distill the critiques to the single Wal-Mart entry. The chief problem (in my opinion) is that both Wal-Mart and its critics are constantly evolving their "political style" campaign against each other"Wal-Mart, Critics Slam Each Other on Web" - and the result is insertions of the latest, greatest critique/defense unto the Wal-Mart page - overwhelming other previous criticisms/defenses that were previously the 'it' critique. As an example, the unionization of Wal-Mart was previously a key topic. But - probably a result of a decision by union advocacy groups to shift tactics A Stepped-Up Assault on Wal-Mart - the focus shifted to Wal-Mart's business model - including efforts to pass the "Fair Share" law. I suspect that the overturn of "Fair Share" will result in the critics finding a new issue to focus attention. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is maneuvering as well - with the latest being a big environmental agenda as evidenced by the cover story in Fortune magazineOrganic for everyone, the Wal-Mart way The attacks/defenses are interesting - but expecting that the Wal-Mart entry will be able to distill this constantly evolving battle (and the resulting hot air blowing around) into something concise is (in my opinion) beyond optimistic. Honestly, I think your best bet is *major* distillation of the overarching issues with *no* specifics and simply pointers to articles with the details. But I'm sure such an approach would be completely unacceptable to everyone.Jvandyke 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My idea was to synopsize the content in such forks in the main article, and to have detailed rationale in the forked ones. I didn't mean getting rid of the forks entirely, there are list articles too on Wikipedia. Tuxide 05:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More like a two cowboy crusade, though I would rather assume good faith than get personal. Although I appreciate the energy they are putting in here, it would make much more sense to rearrange the article's existing content and refactor it than to move such content out entirely, unless that really is what they are doing. Tuxide 05:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added the {{content}} template to the top of the article for the reasons mentioned on this talk page. Tuxide 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

availability of perscription contraceptives

I felt the following was too vague: "availability of prescription contraceptives at Wal-Mart pharmacy counters". I think this intends to reference Wal-Mart's decision (now reversed) to not carry emergency pharmaceuticals as detailed at Wal-Mart product controversy. But perhaps it is a reference to Wal-Mart's conscientious objection policy? I couldn't tell, so I moved the sentence fragment here.Jvandyke 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is vague about it? It identifies the category of product some Wal Mart pharmacists refuse to sell. The passage should be replaced. Abe Froman 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A clear description would object to Wal-Mart's conscientious objection policy where individual pharamacists can choose to not dispense perscription contraceptives. I recognize that is a mouthful, so I welcome attempts to distill.Jvandyke 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I find the issue of perscription contraceptives to be rather specific. It would seem to me that the more general concern about Wal-Mart's product policies would be a better generic description with the ability for one to read Criticisms of Wal-Mart or even Wal-Mart product controversy if one wants to understand details. I propose (and I'm sure you are going to dislike this): "product selection". An alternative would be "right-wing product selection" but I would consider that to be rather strong worded for the summary.Jvandyke 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(decried as "corporate welfare")

I removed "(decried as "corporate welfare")" from the summary paragraph on criticism in the opening section of the article. It struck me as being POV - especially for a summary.Jvandyke 23:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Public subsidies used for operating costs is the definition of corporate welfare. The passage should be replaced because it fits. Abe Froman 00:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry of corporate welfare reads in part: "is a pejorative term, first coined by Ralph Nader in 1956". I fail to see how the use of the term can be consider NPOV.Jvandyke 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about Ralph Nader. The term fits because Wal Mart benefits from tax breaks, free government health care for some of its employees, and other policies designed to benefit the company. Abe Froman 03:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

moved Benefits to Criticism

I moved the Benefits section text to Criticism. I did this for several reasons: 1) It was previously in an odd spot: a peer to "Employee and labor relations" and a child of "Business Model". 2) It is clearly a criticism. I can think of several alternatives, but this seemed the least objectionable.Jvandyke 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that passage did not belong in the PR piece the article is slowly but surely morphing into. Abe Froman 03:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It *is* all uppercase SAM'S CLUB

It is listed that way in Wal-Mart's SEC filings and on http://www.samsclub.com/ under about us.Jvandyke 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

religious organizations as critics

Please provide some citations that religious organization are *major* critics of Wal-Mart on par with the other groups listed. I've read a large chunk of the criticisms in this and associated articles and I've yet to see any religous organization quoted.Jvandyke 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Then fact tag it. An editor will follow up, if I do not get there first. Abe Froman 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have to fact tag while others - including you - can make wholesale changes to the paragraph? I'm confused.Jvandyke 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Common practice is to fact tag a claim before removing it. You did bring it up on Talk, so I'm not claiming you did anything wrong. The passage has been there for months, removing is extreme. Not that Wikipedia has any sort of stare decisis. I am more concerned about the PR treatment this article has been getting. Abe Froman 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree fact tagging is an important tool. But bold edits are also appropriate at times. In this particular case, I was simply removing an addition (the phrase "religous organizations") made a mere 5 days ago on June 25th by you (Abe Froman).Jvandyke 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations added. Thanks for helping imrpove the article. Abe Froman 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my question/concern: Are religious organizations *major* critics of Wal-Mart on par with the other groups listed? I'm not asking if *any* religous organization critizes Wal-Mart, but whether they are major critics. The articles you cite are about gender discrimination (should we list women as major critics?), the local opposition to a Chicago-based Wal-Mart (should we list the Chicago area as a major critic?) and the showing of a Wal-Mart film (should we list universities projectionist societies as major critics - as many undoubtedly showed the film?). My point is that the articles don't demonstrate that religious organizations are major critics - and I fear that your inclusion of them will simply encourage a listing of every possible critical organization in the opening summary paragraph about Wal-Mart. Silly. If you truly believe that religous organizations are major critics, then I would encourage you (in addition to adding the phrase) write a paragraph or two detailing the religious criticism - either here, in the article, Criticism of Wal-Mart or whereever you feel appropriate.Jvandyke 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to sit down and debate the merits of whether objective reality exists or not. But not today. The passage in question has reliable cites, and is backed up. The matter is closed. Abe Froman 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashers and the Criticism paragraph

The criticism paragraph in the intro paragraph has been attacked reliably by two editors of this page, recently. Anchored alone by spurious claims of WP:RS, I believe there may be a PR effort underway to clean this page, again. Look at how it has shrunk in the past 2 weeks. The separate criticism articles have been decimated as well. Editors should be aware of this whitewashing threat to the page, and act accordingly. Abe Froman 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the accusations of 'whitewashing'. This particular section dealing with criticisms was/is very POV, and I am toning it down a bit. There is already a section on 'criticisms' in the article, with a link to it from the table of contents. This section has a link to the Criticisms of Wal-Mart article. I also feel quite strongly that the link references to the wakeupwalmart.com and walmartwatch.com sites are completely unacceptable as references. These sites are not media quality or journalism sites that treat information in a fair and unbiased manner; they are sites with criticisms of wal-mart and are highly negative in their treatment of the company. As they were linked by Abe Froman, they do not even following the guidelines for references in WP:REF, and are really just external links embedded in the text. Even as references, all they represent are distant secondary resources that might very weakly and vaguely back up the sentences that they are associated with in the text, which is pretty 'weasely',... But I am not advocating complete removal of these sites, as I did place these two sites as 'external links' in the article, which is acceptable, as it does point out a different point of view. But having them that close to the top of the article is, IMHO, completely unacceptable.

The article, Wal-Mart, needs to be about the Wal-Mart corporation, written neither by the corporation itself, nor a bunch of conspiracy theorists that want to use Wikipedia as their own personal blog making sure that people are "informed" of every single negative issue about the company. Dr. Cash 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is the result of months of back and forth. It succinctly puts the meat of the argument in one paragraph, and lets readers follow the wikilink to the criticism article if they choose. The editors who are removing it (and who are removing much else of the Wal Mart articles) are not doing anyone favors. I believe it borders on, if not is, whitewashing. The passages are not being updated with better citations by the whitewashing editors, but dumbed down, or completely removed. Abe Froman 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's complete and utter horsesh**! This article should be about wal-mart. Yes, the criticisms are part of it, but there's a difference between valid criticisms done well, and utter crap written by conspiracy theorists. As far as the whitewashing goes, I am aware that there were issues but was also not a part of it. I don't work for Wal-Mart, never have, probably never will, nor do I own stock in the company. I don't care about past arguments about whitewashing, I am only trying to make the article better, fair, and unbiased; and the particular section that you keep editing is not going in that direction. Dr. Cash 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note, please explain why you want to promote an article with a wiki-link at the top of one page (Criticisms of Wal-Mart) that has a tag stating that the article is in need of a complete rewrite due to numerous issues. Such poor quality probably should be linked near the bottom of the article, if at all. Dr. Cash 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've now found better, legitimate references for the information on wal-mart concerns, instead of the direct links to two pretty biased sites that are, at best, secondary (or even tertiary) citations. Links to wakeupwalmart.com and walmartwatch.com are still available from the 'external links' section, which is appropriate. I still remain strongly opposed to directly linking to the Criticisms of Wal-Mart article from the introduction. There is a link from the table of contents at the top to the 'criticisms' section of this article, which contains a link to the separate article; there is also a link to the criticisms article from the 'see also' section as well. Dr. Cash 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The road to featured article status

I am interested in making a list of things that need to be done in order for this article to be considered a featured article. In my opinion, this article is about Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a company, not neccessarily about the individual stores (although they are a major part of the company's business). My first thoughts are that this article does not include anything on the corporate governance (current or past), nor does it mention any philantropic efforts or major sports or events that Wal-Mart sponsors (see User:Tuxide/Wikiproject Retailing#Company page structure for more ideas too). There is plenty more, I just wanted to get a better opinion from those more familiar with this article.

I am adding the boilerplate to my proposed WikiProject Retailing to the top of this talk page, which includes the collapsable todo list for the entire WikiProject. This is to centralize rationale on this topic, and to encourage enough people to express interest in my WikiProject so I can launch it. Feel free to expand the todo list as this discussion progresses. Tuxide 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am marking Wal-Mart#History as {{essay-entry}} because in its current form it has serious tone problems (for example Wal-Mart grew rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s). This section should be marking major milestones within the company, such as revenue reaches $5 billion on this day, IPO day was such and such, Wal-Mart International was founded on this day, etc. Also, the history of its business model should go in Wal-Mart#Business model, not in Wal-Mart#History. Tuxide 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely and have removed this tag. The text looks fine and if you call that an 'essay', you'd probably have to add the same tag to every other article on wikipedia! The main point of this section is primarily as a link to further details in History of Wal-Mart, anyway, so we really want it to be a summary leading to more info. Dr. Cash 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument isn't to expand this section, my argument is to tone it down and move some content elsewhere. Tuxide 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still don't really think the tag is necessary, but I'll leave it for now. I guess the section could be modified a bit to be more of an effective lead in to the History of Wal-Mart article. Dr. Cash 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This aritcle now has a 'Corporate governance section. Don't know when it was typed, but thanks. Tuxide 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Business model debate

Several well-documented and referenced parts of the 'business model' section keeps getting reverted and replaced with text, which is poorly referenced, largely POV, and even a wiki-link is replaced with a red wiki-link.

Wal-Mart's business model is based on selling large volumes of (mostly) low-end merchandise at below average markups while keeping its labor costs well below the retail industry average per dollar of sales.

The problem I have with this is it's purely POV ("(mostly) low-end merchandise" is POV and really contains weasely language).

All Wal-Mart stores in the United States and Canada have employees referred to as, "people greeters," charged with welcoming shoppers.

The text that this replaced is actually a better description of the 'people greeter' position, as it also describes their loss prevention roles.

Unlike some other large discount chains, Wal-Mart does not charge slotting fees in order for a product to appear on the shelves of the store.

The link to 'slotting fees' does not adequately link to the actual article, and was inserted as a red-link. I think more needs to be said about this because it's a major part of their business model. Text regarding this appeared in the Criticisms of Wal-Mart article, and I moved it here because I felt it wasn't necessarily a 'criticism' of wal-mart (in fact, it's more of a criticism of other grocery retailers, but that's another story). Though the text that I placed in wasn't necessarily overly positive and, "wal-mart PR," ... specifically, I don't think the part about wal-mart managers pressuring suppliers of not-so-popular products is something that wal-mart's PR department would want to highlight, but I think it's notable to be mentioned in the article, as it is part of their business practices.

I also don't appreciate the accusations I seem to be getting that I appear to 'whitewashing' the article. This is just plain horsecrap, pure and simple. I don't work for wal-mart, don't own stock in them. I am trying to improve the article by cleaning it up a bit (and by this, I mean improving the language and prose, not removing the negative stuff). If I was on a PR whitewashing campaign for wal-mart, I'd probably just delete the whole Criticism of Wal-Mart article, and other sections dealing with the criticisms, but you don't see me doing that now, do you? Dr. Cash 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And to put another spin on things, I actually questioned why there is a reference to the servant leader thing in here, because I didn't really associate wal-mart with the term. But if you do a google search for 'wal-mart' and 'servant leadership', you'll find quite a few references, articles, and links pertaining to the topic, so I think a brief mention of it is notable in terms of an encyclopedia. Of course, I can see why the 'vast left-wing conspiracy' conspiring upon this article would want to remove this (blackwashing?). Dr. Cash 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Further looking into this, most of the google references for servant leadership and wal-mart are pretty weak. There's one slightly notable reference from a retailing magazine, but it's weak. The servant leadership wiki page makes no mention of wal-mart whatsoever, and other companies that have been cited by reputable sources as practicing servant leadership (Southwest Airlines & Starbucks Coffee), have no reference to it on their wiki-pages either. So I've removed this and placed it in the category of, "somewhat interesting but probably largely non-notable, and probably could be seen as a positive PR move." (yes, I'll admit that; but if you look at the history, I'm not the one that put this in the article in the first place, either). I've also reorganized some of the other text here, trying to tone it down a bit and adding a better reference for the security role for people greeters. Plus, I've added some more detailed info on the corporate governance and board of directors. Dr. Cash 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cash I am a walmart assocate and I do feel there is a link between Walmart managment and servant leadership, and here is why. The managers are not in charge of the store, the hourly associates are, they take orders directly from the customers. The customers are consitered under walmarts policies to be the boss, the hourly assocates are next in that order and so on. This is a backwards model that was set fourth by Sam Walton himself and is maintained by the current board. Grassroots survays are conducted every 3mos to a year, this survey is a rating of each manager, and is then reviewed by the district and Regional VP, then changes are made. Each level of management must answer to the hourly assocates, and so it is kinda a push/pull managment system. Take my own situation for an example. heres what happend, one night I am short of assocates in the deli(which is where I work) Temp logs did not get done, of course this is a major mistake, I was "written up" for this. However I did not feel this was fair, so I wrote an email to our district manager explaining the situation, he then forwarded the matter to our regional VP. Our VP came to our store, flew in from bentonville mind you. To deal with the situation, he met with me for about an hour and also met with some other deli assocates. After a week he calls me and tells me that he can not get rid of the Written warning, however that all of the managers that had been informed that we where short, would be on probation for the next six months. I was satisfied with the outcome Because, While I was not fault free in the situation, management however was informed that I did not have enough people to help customers and deal with the food safty logs, and they failed to act accordingly and I was not happy with it, so in the end I punished them for their poor perfomance. So you can kinda see why they consiter it a servant leadership.

Also Cash I hate the way you term 'vast left-wing conspiracy' I am myself a liberal and we liberals are not part of that conspiracy ideal, that would be your union leaders and right-wing large business owners, that are anti-walmart, As much as you would like to identify us liberals with the unions we are in no way assocated with them, infact most of us liberals dislike the unions just as much if not more then you right-wingers. Because the general public tends to identify unions with the democratic party and this is because most union voters, vote on the liberal side, this does not mean that they are liberals, just that they play the politics game. True liberals hate the unions and feel that they are just as bad or worse then a currupt big business. With a currupt big business atleast you know what they are and they make no bones about it, with a union they want to be your friend and then screw you. lol.

On the part about this entry being POV it is very much so POV however I have given up tring to balance it out myself the Anti-Walmart people always revert your edit and then threaten to get you banned for the three revert rule when you attempt to make any edits, its a freaking joke the way they act. However I have just taken on the Idea that they will destroy the entry to the point where people look at it and just shake their heads and how full of BS it is.The Ace! 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned Wal-Mart Image

An abandoned Wal-Mart in Bathurst, New Brunswick. Wal-Mart frequently closes older stores in favor of newer and larger locations nearby.

This image keeps getting added to the article, and I fail to see what is significant about it. First, it is very poor quality. Second, it does not add anything to the 'business model' section, and does not go with any of the text mentioned. Dr. Cash 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this picture - it's not that poor quality, and it looks like some sort of post-apocalyptic town photo. Your previous reason for removal ("um. no, sorry") wasn't really a reason, which is why the image was re-added. You're right about it not really relating to the text it's in, which is why I've re-added it to the "Criticism" section. I've also brightened and sharpened the image a little bit. Ouuplas 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see the justification in having this image in here. How does this relate to any of the text in the "criticism" section? Plus, it is quite an unremarkable image, adding it as it is to Wal-Mart is like featuring [2] on the top of Cat. Regards, Tuxide 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe saying it is 'poor quality' is going a bit far and might be a bit mean. But I still think that it just doesn't fit with the section, or anything else in the article. If there was a section dealing with how wal-mart has the tendency to abandon buildings on a large scale, it might be notable there. But even then, there's nothing about this picture that directly connects it with wal-mart; I mean, the picture could be any large big box store, not just wal-mart. True, locals in Bathurst probably know that it is an abandoned wal-mart, but to somebody from southern California for Texas or Washington State, or even Vancouver, British Columbia, it could be any abandoned big box store. Dr. Cash 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't directly relate to any text in the criticism section, but the store been criticized in the past for this practice (it has also happened in my city). The picture just complements the caption I guess. I give up, though. Ouuplas 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It clearly looks like it used to say "Wal-Mart" on the front of the building. Also, I take back one of my previous comments, for I understand that the uploader is writing a paragraph on it currently. In the future, we'll have to see if this image really does add value to the paragraph. A couple things I wanted to point out here is:

1. Target Corporation is also criticized for a similar business practice. Since their primary audience is younger people, they tend to close stores that are surrounded by "empty nest" populations. I don't know if "Wal-Mart does this more frequently that its competitors" is a valid argument since Wal-Mart has more stores than for example Target Corporation does.
2. While we're talking about images, I would challenge use of the bumper sticker, since I don't think featuring it adds any value to the criticism section. The bumper sticker only illustrates that Wal-Mart is criticized a lot, but it doesn't add any rationale than what is already included in the text.

Regards, Tuxide 04:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hace to agree that this picture currently, has no connection to this article, other than the fact that it used to be a Wal-Mart. Perhaps some one could write up a subarticle about Wal-Mart leaving buildings vacant to build other, better stores nearby. I think the picture would be better if the faded Wal Mart sign could be seen without having to click on the thumb for a bigger size. Decimal10 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Targhetto oh wow :P

Just saw this image on Wikipedia, don't know if it's relevant to the discussion. I suppose what's notable is the context that it is used in Richway Department Stores. Tuxide 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Largest private employer in Canada"

I find this kind of hard to believe - where does it say this in the source? Ouuplas 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove this either, but I wouldn't find it that hard to beilive. Wal Mart is the largest department store chain in Canada. Decimal10 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I contest. I thought Zellers was the largest department store chain in Canada. Tuxide 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done a lot of google searches and I can turn up no evidence that Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in Canada.Jvandyke 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I did find from Wal-Mart: "Wal-Mart employs 1.8 million associates worldwide and more than 1.3 million in the United States, making us not only the largest private employer in the U.S., but the largest in Mexico and one of the largest private employers in Canada as well."[3] Seems pretty straightforward to me - I'll remove 'Canada' from the list.Jvandyke 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

rv POV statements

Wal-Mart's business model is based on selling groceries and low-end merchandise at high volume while cutting product and payroll costs to a degree unmatched by most competitors.

I reverted the above text that was recently added to the article by Eross8, as it is clearly POV. Referring to Wal-Mart's merchandise as 'low-end', is the POV of some people, and there are others (and not wal-mart propogandists) that would refer to their merchandise in other ways (still not 'high-end', but I'd probably put it as decent). The part about 'cutting product and payroll costs to a degree unmatched by most competitors' is also merely POV cruft that sounds like it was clearly written by some labor union supporter as well. I reverted, then replaced this with, "Wal-Mart's business model is based on providing a wide variety of general merchandise at low prices," which IMHO, is NPOV, which neither slams wal-mart's product quality nor promotes their products to something above reality, and doesn't bring the labor issues into play either (which is discussed elsewhere in the article and need not be mentioned here. Dr. Cash 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the statement above and Eross8's statement are POV. It would be better to just include and refactor both of them, as long as the individual POVs are not represented in the article as being universally accepted. Tuxide 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a picture of Wal-Mart headquarters?

Apparently no one in northwest Arkansas has a digital camera and contributes to Wikipedia. It seems funny to me that for such a well-known retailer, we don't have a photo of their headquarters. Note that we already have photos of the headquarters of the second and third largest supermarket chains, Kroger and Safeway. I took the Safeway picture. Can someone in Arkansas take a picture for WP the next time they're in Bentonville?--Coolcaesar 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request for this on the requested photos page. Dr. Cash 21:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Customer base

Moved:Polling Data reported by John Zogby suggests there is a correlation between how often consumers shop at Walmart and how conservative they are. In the 2004 US Presidential election 76% of voters who shopped at Walmart once a week voted for George W. Bush while only 23% voted for John Kerry. By contrast 80% of voters who never shopped there voted for Kerry with 18% voting for Bush. African American and Hispanic voters who shop there are described as "significantly more conservative" than their non Walmart shopping peers. When measured against other similar retailers Walmart frequent shoppers were rated the most conservative. I moved the prior as I don't see how this is particularly relevant and encyclopediac. My possible suggestions 1) move this to criticisms of Wal-Mart where therer is a discussion about Wal-Mart's ideology as it relates to products and/or the contributions 2) Expand the prior by going into *much* more detail about the demographics of the Wal-Mart customer base.Jvandyke 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion, The section is sourced, written in NPOV and not critical. The customer base of walmart is relevant. Walmart itself ties its own financial results to the economic outlook of its customers. I agree the section should be expanded. --Paul E. Ester 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW here are some factoids I left out, polling puts Macy's, Neimans and bloomingdales frequent shoppers, "firmly on the left". Targets customers are "a hair to the left" of center. and center right are sears and JC Penny. The article says "But none are as strong a predictor. "Wal-Marts pattern is just incredible"" . This suggested to me that there is an obvious trend here that is unique to walmart and worth capturing. --Paul E. Ester 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This article already lacks information about demographics and its relation to the customer base anyways. Of course it goes in Business model, but I don't think it should get its own section. See the second paragraph of Target Corporation#Differentiation for a good example, and a comment of mine in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart statistics for ideas. Tuxide 23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tuxide, That seems a nice approach to looking at the customer demographic, I would support a similar approach section for this article. --Paul E. Ester 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone find a (recent) source with stuff like median age and household income on it? For example the Target one comes directly from Target Corporation, but it is reliable since it is based off of information gathered in transaction records as well as phone surveys from third party companies. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. also does this, and this stuff is probably on their corporate page or on Walmartfacts. The problem with the current source used in the paragraph in question is that since there's no way we can read it freely, it's hard to verify. Tuxide 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link online to the article I quoted, unfortunately it looks like it's for subscribers only.--Paul E. Ester 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The correlation likely is meaningless. Wal-Mart dominates in the South, Midwest, small towns and suburbs. It is weak in more progressive localities. Unless proven otherwise, we should assume the political slant simply follows politcal geography. Eross8 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone pulled the pink Wal-Mart

Does anyone know of any other Wal-Marts that aren't big-blue boxes? And I have a roommate that's an employee 6 years with Wal-Mart: she refuses to step foot in the pink one. Cwolfsheep 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not real surprising that the store is in Florida,... Ha! Ha! Dr. Cash 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Market share reference

The market share figure in the lead really needs a citation, if nobody can find one, then it should say:

In the United States, Wal-Mart is estimated as having an 8.9% retail store market share.

If someone can find a source, then it doesn't have to be changed. I had a quick look around the Internet and could only find articles about Wal-Mart's hopes to get 30% in grocery market share. — Wackymacs 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I too have tried to find a source for this, with no luck. If a source cannot be found, it really needs to be removed, instead of rewritten. Saying that it is an estimate would actually be a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Dr. Cash 23:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)