Talk:Criticism of Walmart

Bias in product selection

I think this paragraph seems very out of place and very POV in the product selection section.

"While Wal-Mart's product selection may be seen by some as censorship, others view this from a free enterprise standpoint, that criticism of Wal-Mart's product selection is misguided because Wal-Mart is free to carry and sell whatever products it chooses and that customers are free to shop elsewhere, and would do so if they were in disagreement with its perceived moral values."

First off who are these 'others'? Is it Wal-Mart itself or not? This whole thing seems like an opinion piece whilst the rest of the section lists facts. In fact that section doesn't even mention censorship until this paragraph brings it up. I move to delete that section until we can get something better, like oh say an official stance from Wal-mart, (remember the rest of the section (for the most part) doesn't cite opinion until this one paragraph puts it in).Father Time89 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I just checked the source and not ONCE does it mention censorship or product placement so that means that the paragraph is unsourced and POV. I think I ahve reasonable grounds to delete it. If you disagree you can revert it and discuss it.Father Time89 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. I disagree, and it's not POV. Furthermore, this statement is needed because without it, the section IS POV. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm getting rid of the source, which while relevant to the article as a whole, has absolutely nothing to do with the section.

I still don't see how it makes it NPOV since it doesn't cite who these 'others' are and it very much seems like something thrown in to defend Wal-Mart by some random person.Father Time89 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems Biased

The way this paragraph is worded leaves the impression that wal-mart critics have less factual evidence than economists. Just a thought.

Economists suggest that Wal-Mart is a success because it sells products at low prices that people want to buy, satisfying customer's wants and needs. However, Wal-Mart critics argue at the same time Wal-Mart's lower prices draw customers away from other businesses, "hurting the community."[11][12] 68.116.106.252 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite biased--towards the truth. The fact of the matter is, there IS absolutely zero valid evidence supporting the claims of these Wal-Mart critics. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is biased and has hurt my feelings, Kmweber! --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a very POV statement which is itself backed up by 0 evidence.Father Time89 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very biased to claim that Walmart is "hurting the community" by taking away business from mom and pop stores. That would imply that the Mom and Pop stores, with their higher prices and lower selection are better for consumers (the majority of the community) than a lower priced alternative. Look at what the prices are like in a community before a Walmart is there, then look at what the prices are like after one comes to town. Or for an even better example, look at what happens to the price of an item when Walmart stops carrying it. They stopped carrying firearms in California a few years ago, and prices doubled at the other stores in a matter of months. Competition is GOOD for the community. It makes all of our dollars go farther. ~~GTM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun toting monkeyboy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wa-mart's competition ruins the community, because nobody can compete with Evil-Mart. Watch Wal-mart: The High Cost of Low Prices. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And in the end, Wal-mart takes people's jobs by f*&^ing up the town! --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Low prices at wal-mart are derived from its ability to act as a monopsy for its suppliers. A supplier cannot afford not to have its goods sold at Wal-mart stores because it makes up such a large percentage of the retail business. As a result, wal-mart can demand to buy products from its suppliers at whichever price it determines to be fair. This is a price that would not be equivalent and much less than one produced by a free market. In order to produce goods for these lower prices, suppliers must leave the US and move to countries with cheaper labor/weaker environmental regulations, etc. The fact that wal-mart presents American consumers with low prices that they want to buy is great, but its ultimate result is the continuing loss of American manufacturing jobs as wal-mart's market share increases and suppliers leave the country. This is especially devastating in the rural areas where manufacturing plants exist in the US and wal-mart stores ironically tend to be so popular.

Even though I higly agree with the article, it does seem biased. What I'm wondering is if we can unbias this article even though it is about an opinion. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Debbie Shank

Someone Add her story please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.132 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's CNN's write-up. CKCortez (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps—kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

censorship of willie nelson album

Sorry I don't know anything about etiquette on here, but I just felt like the wording of the sentence talking about Wal-mart's censorship of Willie Nelson's album cover is confusing as at first glance I thought it was saying Walmart's censorship was a pro-marijuana statement, and I almost edited it to say anti-marijuana before figuring out it was talking about the cover being pro-marijuana. - Some guy named Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.95.19 (talk • contribs)

Stacy Clay Driver

You should mention Stacy Clay Driver, the guy wal-mart loss prevention employees suffocated to death. You might want some whole section on loss prevention since wal-mart since they are viewed as rather hostile. He isn't the only one killed by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.55.64 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

wel fare promotion

Shouldn't we mention the portion of wal mart employees on welfare? I've found a source on this http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html YVNP (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Certain walmart in WI suing employees after they quit?

About a year ago, I'd been searching court records & came across a walmart in Wisconsin which had a high # of legal claims against people. In 1 year they'd hit over 50 people in the same way, which makes me wonder if they were former employees or something.

Anyone else read or hear things like that in theior area?

75.8.38.20 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources requiring subscriptions.... very bad choice, in my opinion

Source 72 for the section on illegals requires a subscription to wall street journal. I believe that when information could be gotten from a source that doesn't require a subscription(and there are other sources for this), that source usable by everyone instead of only a small minority of readers should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levgre (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia guidelines do encourage freely available and open sources over subscription sources, they are not explicitly banned. Sometimes, the only real source is something that requires a subscription. What's more important here is that sources be reliable. The Wall Street Journal certainly satisfies that requirement.

The article in question can also be verified for free as well. I'm reasonably certain that if you go to your local library (on foot) and walk in, you can find back issues of the WSJ that you can look at, for free. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart blacklisted by large investment fund

I would like to add the following paragraph to the end of the "Overseas labor concerns" section:

In June 2006, Wal-Mart was blacklisted from the investment portfolio of The Government Pension Fund of Norway, which held stock values of about US$ 430 million in the company, due to an investigation by the fund's ethical council into alleged labor rights violations in Wal-Mart operations in America, Africa and Asia. Although Wal-Mart did not respond to questions from the fund's investigators, the company later claimed the decision "don't appear to be based on complete information".

This information seems significant because it is the result of a rigorous and transparent semi-judicial investigation into some of the allegations put forward against Wal-Mart, and provides documentation of the claims. The fund is one of the largest investment funds in the world (see Sovereign Wealth Fund and Pension Fund), and the blaclisting received massive worldwide attention when it happened (google "Norway"+"Wal-Mart" for some examples).

I also believe some mention of this should be included in the main Wal-Mart article, but that is a different discussion - see that article's talk page if you're interested.--Anderssl (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections to this, so I've added the paragraph - but I rewrote it to avoid the word "blacklisted". --Anderssl (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Down Fall of the Quality of the Wal Marts Stores of Today

WE have shopped Wal Marts ever sinse it was first built in Arlington, Tex. We moved to Austin about five years ago and I went to my nearest Wal Mart store to purchase my grocery and everything I'd need for the new house, for the most part everything was the same as it had always been.

The store was a new super store and at the time live up to what I usually find in most of your stores, but lately we have trouble finding the most basic things that you have carried for years, Like Cheeros in the larger boxes NOT THE DOUBLE PACK it doesn't fit on the pantry shelves. I realise that products are going to change but it's not that they have changed it's that you just don't carry them any more. In food items the Hormel Pork Roast that you have carried for ever you no long ever have, we bought cole slaw that was already chop once are twice now it's no longer available, we are dietbetic we can have sponge cake but you changed the brand and it has to much sugar so we had to do without one of the few pleasures that we are allowed. Hair spray I've used Pantene maxamen hold and now there is never any on the shelves theres a hole but no hair spray,I changed to another brand I usually buy two bottles at a time but I thought I'd try the new one and see if it was any good before I bought something I couldn't use. The next time I went to get some they were out at least there was none on the shelve and the person that was stocking said she couldn't tell me if they would get any in in the future.

Clothing Is horrible! I'm a heavy set women. You did carry a line of cloths that I could wear and not feel like a clown. What happen to the White Stag Blouses and the Just My Size Jeans, the clothing you carry for the Woman 18 to 26 LOOK LIKE THEY BELONG ON STREET WALKERS. We may be large but we have pride in OUR appearance too. WE like to look in fashion but not like teenagers. The cloths you have in your stores right now are so thin that you can see right through them, what I mean they are cheap and made to look like something that you would find in a Good Will Store you know already worn out. I want to wear my cloth at lease a season not for an hour or two and throw them away. The people you have buying the WOMANS WEAR LARGER SIZES have no idea what there doing. WE ARE NOT COMPETEING for the FROMP OF THE YEAR we just want to be dressed nice without drawing attendion to our self. The patheric tight tops and horizental strips are for the younger group, when will people ever get it through their heads that most of us are trying to hide the width and roundness of our bodies. We use to be able to have a choose as to the type of cloths we wear. Now if we buy something from you all we look like we are trying to return to our teen years. Do you ever stop to think that bell bottoms on a SIXTY YEAR OLD is just a little bit REDUNDANT! I'm sure you've heard been there done that, well most people that wear WOMAN SIZES HAVE AND are over it! (71.145.178.223 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Product defects

This section should be rewritten or removed. It is currently not NPOV ("notorious"), and the two individual anecdotes should be replaced by some reliable, valid sources for the general claim about product defects in general. --Anderssl (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that a rewrite is needed. Not yet persuaded that removal is called for. Lets see if a rewrite can fix the problems. Richard Myers (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think i've fixed some of the problems. The first sentence could be considered original research if someone doesn't come up with a separate source, i didn't see such a conclusion explicitly stated in either of the sources listed. Richard Myers (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree... Although your rewrite does improve the stylistic problems, it doesn't change the fundamental problem of anecdotal evidence. The two episodes mentioned are news items, individual episodes which are not notable and worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedia, unless there can be found some source which supports the claim that this is a wider problem, i.e. that Walmart products are defect at a particularly high rate, or that they have a particularly customer-unfriendly return policy. As it stands now, the first sentence is OR rewritten with a weasel word. --Anderssl (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we get a third opinion on this. --Anderssl (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: I don't think it's out of line to have the section here, so long as it follows standard Wiki policies of reliable sources and verifiability. Currently the section starts with "Some criticize", which is definitely a weasel word. I'm concerned with the sources on the second two sentences, both of which pull from videogames.yahoo.com, which doesn't strike me as a reliable source. The last one is okay, I suppose, in that it was published in a secondary source. But beyond that, the section shouldn't just be relentless Wal-mart bashing - it needs to go somewhere. But since a bunch of editors want it there, they should at least have a chance to improve it before ditching the section entirely. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

people of wal-mart

this should be added DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.18.122 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)