Talk:Walmart/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Logo in Brazil

The caption for the old logo showed in the article says that Brazil still uses it. That is not true nowadays, as you can see in the official brazilian site

Source:,10811,walmart-do-brasil-estreia-nova-identidade-visual.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart or Walmart

The spelling should be made consistent throughout the article; switching between one and the other is confusing. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What the NPOV is going on here?

This puff piece of corporate propaganda, praise by faint damning, is outrageous. Examples include "Walmart stores outside NA are all unionized" with the implication Walmart have chosen this path. No mention of the Canadian incident or the fact that the law demands people have the right to unionise in most countries of the world.

This isn't an implication of the text, but an an inference of the you the reader. The passage doesn't suggest that Walmart's unionization has been voluntary. --Xiaphias (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


The Wal-mart article on here mentioned the negative public images the store's policies, status and customer base generates. "Redneck White Trash Hillbilly", "Ghetto Poor Black", "Mexican Hispanic Latino", etc. are synonymous with shopping, working in or hanging out at Wal-Mart. Does the associated stereotypes no matter how negative or exaggerated they may be are pointing out the mass public appeal Wal-Mart has of a variety of people...and it's a better representation of the middle-class, racial diversity and American pop culture than let's say Macy's and in comparison with Sears struggling in the last decade? Another stereotype of Wal-mart was it's "conservative Southern anti-union" polity to indicate it's a GOP-backed Republican big business, except former first lady Hillary Clinton who is a self-acclaimed social liberal Democrat was one of Wal-Mart corporate board executives when she was the then governor's wife in Arkansas back in the 1980s. I noticed the lack of Jewish stereotypes of Wal-Mart, historically there were high-end retail stores known for "Jews shop there" jokes and what about now Asian-Americans in 99 cent stores? + (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Great improvement on this article

Woah, it's been a few months (years?) since I'd read this article, and I was pleasantly surprised by how smoothly its material is presented. I kept anticipating the "Criticisms of Walmart" section: generally a cacophony of legitimate concerns mixed with tedious assertions and outlandish allegations. But there is none, since the relevant material is woven in throughout the article. Moreover, the article (as in the last paragraph of the introduction) outlays the central claims of both Walmart's detractors and its supporters in a manner which bears the tone of calm appraisal rather than back-and-forth shouting. That so contentious a subject can belay this evenhanded article is, I think, very encouraging.--Xiaphias (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely second Xiaphias's comments. I 'dropped in' a couple of days ago, and was delighted by what i read. The organisation and even-handedness was a very pleasant surprise. Rhyd. (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Walmart's rank - Opening section

Walmart is no longer listed as the worlds largest corporation by revenue. it is now ranked 3rd on the 2009 Fortune Global 500 annual ranking of the world's largest corporations [1]Wallyb132 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacks and Korea

What about adding coverage of their "rollbacks" as a marketing strategy? How it started etc.

Can Korea be added to Germany in the second paragraph as a country Walmart pulled out of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Problem in the in the incorporation and growth section

I just thought that I would point out the problem in the "Incorporation ans Growth" section where it says ". It began trading stock as a publicly held company on October 1, 1972, and was soon listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The first stock split occurred in May 1971 at a market price of $47. By this time, Wal-Mart was operating in five states: Arkansas, Kansas," if you'll notice that it says the company began trading stock as a publicly held company in 1972 .... and then it goes on to say that the first stock split was in 1971? If the company went public in 1972 then how did it split in 1971? Obviously this is a mistake or typo. I read here that they went as a public company in 1970, not 1972 and i have fixed the problem.


{{editsemiprotected}} Wal-Mart has been involved in at least two well known cases of Fake blog.

Not done. Please provide reliable sources. Tim Song (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt every company, I wouldnt doubt it but would still like to see sources Thanatos465 (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Associate's wage

Walmart claims that full-time associates earn an average of $10.78 an hour, but not necessarily every associate. Walmart have a pay level scale in which depending on the job classification is the level of pay you get. Also this pay levels have a starting pay, which is different for each store (depending on average sales, city area etc) for example in some stores in the countryside their starting pay level is mostly minimum wage, but for a store in a big city could reach a starting pay of $10 (in Pennsylvania a the starting pay for a Walmart store in Lancaster is $7.90 but in Philadelphia is $9.00) and then you get an additional $0.20 per level for a maximum level of 5. Cart pushers, maintenance are level 1, People Greeters are level 2, Cashiers, Stockers, Receiving are level 3, Sporting Goods and Electronics are level 4 and Tire and Lube service and Deli are level 5. Levels 6-7 are for department managers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


The archives seem to have been messed up and are missing significant chunks since late 2008 it seems...--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was able to find two missing archive pages and added them to the archive box at the top of the page. Hewinsj (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Some of the archives didn't exactly match up with the years, so I fixed that (e.g. archive 6 was 2007 through the first half or so of 2008, archive 7 wasn't just 2008, but also had some 2009 comments in it, and archive 8 was the latter half of 2009. 16:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at that. I was in a rush yesterday and only had time to post the links. Hewinsj (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


"At the same time that AIG was criticized for using government bailout funds to awards executives $165 million, Wal-Mart announced an expansion of its annual bonus program to employees.[36] On March 20, 2009, Wal-Mart announced that it is paying a combined $933.6 million in bonuses to every full and part time hourly worker of the company. An additional $788.8 million in profit sharing, 401(k) contributions, and hundreds of millions of dollars in merchandise discounts and contributions to the employees' stock purchase plan is also included in this plan. While the economy at large was in an ongoing recession, the largest retailer in the U.S. reported solid financial figures for the most recent fiscal year (ending January 31, 2009), with $401.2 billion in net sales, a gain of 7.2% from the prior year. Income from continuing operations increased 3% to $13.3 billion, and earnings per share rose 6% to $3.35."

I dont like Walmart but they didnt get a bailout from the US government so why is this even in here?? Thanatos465 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That can be removed. It looks like a violation of WP:NPOV. WTF? (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor changes

This article states that the Layaway program has been completely phased out of Walmart, but the Jewelry Department still maintains a Layaway program for "fine jewelry" in all Walmart Discount Stores (a.k.a. Division 1 stores) and Supercenters. Osbor jd (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source for it, then it can be added. But this recent article from November 2009 says nothing about Wal-Mart offering any sort of layaway program. WTF? (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wal-Mart 2009 Earnings

I am look at Wal-Mart's 2009 Report and the 2009 operating income is 22.8 billion as opposed to the 30 billion that is on the page. In fact, they haven't had that income in recent years. This includes Wal-Mart, Sam's, International and other, pg. 17 (19). The Net Income is a little off but accurate, I will change assets and equity. Any idea where the Operating Income number came from?--NortyNort (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brysonmoore, 13 April 2010


Please add: Sam Walton died in 1992. After Walton's death, Don Soderquist, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice Chairman, became known as the "Keeper of the Culture." (Source: Drug Store News, March 21, 2005).

Brysonmoore (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Added, to the 'governanace' part - you didn't say where to put it; I hope this is OK. I also found another source, for verification.  Chzz  ►  11:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for adding that. Sorry I didn't specify where. I'm new to Wikipedia. One more question, since it was added to the 'governance' part, would it be germane to add that Don Soderquist founded a non-profit organization to address ethical leadership issues within companies? The Soderquist Center - Brysonmoore (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

Originally posted to Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Architecture Tim Pierce (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Wal-Mart Headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. There's plenty of photos of discount stores and supercenters in the Wal-Mart article, but the article could use a good photo of the main corporate headquarters building/campus, specifically in the corporate governance section. Dr. Cash 21:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Television and Film: Walmart in the movie "Food Inc"

Walmart was referenced several times, including several direct representatives of Walmart related to organic products. I believe a link should be created in the Television and Film section pointing to this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symbology101 (talkcontribs) 10:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Saint Consulting Group

I deleted the following statement from the article:

Similarly, Wall-Mart's opponents have hired The Saint Consulting Group to support grass-roots campaigns against Wall-Mart.

First of all, "Wal-Mart" is spelled incorrectly, so when Nbauman reverted me back, he didn't even bother to correct the obvious spelling mistake. Secondly, the statement is horribly misleading and grossly inaccurate. The citation provided does not provide evidence that the Saint Consulting Group was hired by "Wal-Mart's opponents", which to me means that many opponents have hired this group in their efforts against the company. The WSJ article itself only states that a handful of grocery chains have hired the company, not a large collection of Wal-Mart's opponents, as it suggests.

The other huge issue with it is that adding it to the particular paragraph in which it was added, which deals mostly with issues that occured in 2005, is also misleading, since the WSJ article is from 2010. It's referring to two separate issues and connecting them is also just plain wrong. Would this classify as WP:SYNTH?

This article is media bias and violates WP:NPOV, which is why it was removed. Adding this back constitutes vandalism. WTF? (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The citation does provide evidence that Saint was hired by Wal-Mart's opponents (and discusses events back to 2005):
But in scores of cases, large supermarket chains including Supervalu Inc., Safeway Inc. and Ahold NV have retained Saint Consulting to block Wal-Mart, according to hundreds of pages of Saint documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with former employees.
But that's not the point. According to WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia editors don't decide whether a fact is true or false, they only decide whether it's WP:VERIFIABLE from a Reliable source. The WSJ is irrefutably a WP:RS. If you disagree with something the WSJ says, you're free to do so, but if you want to change a WP article, you have to find another WP:RS that disagrees with the WSJ and add it.
I don't see anything in WP:NPOV that is violated by this sentence. Nobody -- not even the Saint group when the WSJ contacted them -- has denied this. Can you cite the section of WP:NPOV that this violates?
As for alleged media bias, that's not a reason for removing something from WP. The WSJ is a WP:RS. For you to delete it because you decided on your own authority that their story is wrong would be WP:OR.
You are misusing the term WP:VANDALISM:
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
And you shouldn't revert it until we get this resolved. Take a look at WP:SIMPLE:
Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule.
You have to better learn Wikipedia rules, many of which you have violated here. Basically, you can't just delete something because you disagree with it.
There are pages that explain all these rules better than I can, but I'm not familiar enough with them to find them. Perhaps I could get an administrator to explain them. --Nbauman (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't lecture me on "wiki-policies" and spout out a bunch of wiki-guideline links when you obviously don't know what WP:SYNTH is. I've marked the statement with {{dubious}} for now. Remove it before this issue is resolved and you will be vandalizing. WTF? (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Calm down and don't make threats. Explain exactly why you think it's WP:SYNTH. --Nbauman (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider to move it under "competition" section? Now wiki (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. My initial assumptions were incorrect and I was wrong to oppose this. I made a few edits to clarify the statement and add additional necessary details, as well as cleaned up the citation using the {{cite news}} template. WTF? (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Economic controversy downplayed

The controversy over the overall economic effects of Wal-Mart are addressed in the body of the article, but the introduction part of the article only addresses the positive economic claims, which does not seem to be a neutral point of view. Shouldn't both sides of the economic question be addressed even in the introduction? (Concretely, because Wal-Mart is large, efficient, and highly competitive, it consistently out-competes many small stores and inevitably results in a local decline in the number of people working in retail establishments, so the net effect on employment is consistently negative.) Shanen (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Source? --Xiaphias (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
a pbs documentary "Is Wal-Mart Good for America" investigates some of the company's practices that definitely are not positive for local communities and their employment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Shanen, it's kind of obvious to anyone with eyes that this isn't an "encyclopedic article" with a npov. If you want to read why there is no mention I recommend (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, no mention of controversy at all. Biased much?

I wonder how much money the wikipedia foundation gets from walmart to keep this article squeaky clean? I wonder how much BP would need to donate to remove reference to the gulf oil spill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You may want to see the Criticism of Wal-Mart article. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't find it, maybe there should be a visible link, no? or should i just know that wikipedia hides criticism where it can't be seen? (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You can find the article by clicking on the link in my comment and also the link in the article under the Employee and labor relations section of the Wal-Mart article. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The link is only under employee and labor relations? So there aren't any other criticisms of walmart besides those relating to employee and labor relations. That's not very scholarly. I'd like to hear any kind of argument for why it should be there and not say, right under the corporate affairs section. I see no logical reason for it's position as such I can only assume bias. (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to be semi-protected, so either you can establish a Wikipedia account and edit it yourself or you can propose a specific change here on the talk page and other editors can change the article. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Wal-Mart's success is talked about extensively, but this is also one of the most controversial and criticized American corporations and it seems that this is only talked about in the "Employee and Labor Relations" section. I think the controversies should be more prominent due to how strong some of the opposition is and because Wal-Mart has undergone extensive litigation for alleged illegal business practices. Wikipediarules2221 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is already quite larges and there is a stand-alone article on Criticism of Wal-Mart. Maybe the section could be renamed and used to sum up the Criticism of Wal-Mart article? Renaming the stand-alone article to "Wal-Mart Controversies" may serve a better purpose in that sense. I don't think we should make the article longer.--NortyNort (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the article is so long. The article is so heavily padded with less than necessary information (how often do they need to mention Wal-Mart's unsuccessful attempt in Germany?) that any talk of controversy gets lost within the disorganized presentation. A lot of this information needs to be moved to the appropriate stand-alone articles so that the main page can be made a little less incoherent.
More importantly we should really have a section clearly labled Controversy (with link to Criticism of Wal-Mart) just like the Operating divisions section does. As a major part of Wal-Mart's notability, it deserves a respectable section rather than getting chopped up and shoved under the "Corporate affairs" section. AnkhAnanku 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe WalMart is still actively editing their own article? It was proven in the past that hey were in fact putting their own POV on the article while removing anything negative - maybe they just learned to be mor sly about it? (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My paranoia-sense is telling me this article has been purposefully rendered unintelligible so as to obscure the information without actually censoring it. AnkhAnanku 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently there is an article on the criticisms of walmart, and apparently you have to be psychic to find it; but it exists so wikipedia can't possible be biased. (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article contains a lot of anti-Walmart sentiments couched in just-barely-wiki-legal weasel language...this one, however, is so blatantly POV that it MUST be changed: "Wal-Mart has opposed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier for workers to unionize by removing the employer's ability to demand a secret ballot in union elections, and which would require mandatory arbitration of labor disputes.", in the "Criticism of Wal-Mart" section...the statement is clearly pro-card-check POV, and should be amended to "EFCA, which supporters say would make...unionize, but detractors say would enable unions to bully objecting employees into unionisation, by removing...". There should be no dispute whatsoever as to the obviously-biased nature of the statement as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wal-Mart has opposed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier for workers to unionize by removing the employer's ability to demand a secret ballot in union elections" - This sounds a bit biased to me. Any way someone can reword this. Personally, I'm also against the EFCA, for the same reason as listed here. It eliminates the secret ballot. That's a horrible idea, but this makes it sound like the big evil walmart is trying to protect your privacy in order to stick it to the unions. "easier for workers to unionize" Is really the part I have a problem with, but I'm afraid I'm not able to edit it with out just reversing the bias against the unions. Maybe change it to "easier for unions to form"?

Wal-Mart versus Walmart

I am fixing the article. References to the pre-2008 store and to the corporate entity should be Wal-Mart but contemporary references to the store is Walmart. BAMP (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is the title of the article still Wal-Mart as opposed to Walmart? Mkonikov (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Photos

This article seems to be suffering a bit from a case of too many photos, most of which really don't depict much but an image of a distant Wal-Mart store with a huge parking lot in the foreground. It doesn't really make for a good showing in the article, especially when you have so many lining up the side of the text. I'm thinking that we could ditch a few. What we really need, however, is a photo of the corporate headquarters in Arkansas. WTF? (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Wal-marts unsuccessful approach on the German market

Hi there, the references, as well as the information are taken out from the German wikipedia. They have already been verified. (Fenrisulfir (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

Removed again. Please do not re-add to the article. It's far too long and completely unnecessary and inappropriate to add a section on this to a main section. If anything, it belongs in the international section preceding it, but NOT as a main section. The title is also NOT wikified, and DOES NOT conform to the WP:MOS (for starters, the article title should not be used in subsection headings, and subsection headings should be short and concise. This one is anything but). The addition of this material, despite containing references, also DOES NOT meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines, since it gives far too much undue weight to an issue occurring in one nation, which also makes it a violation of WP:WORLDVIEW. To make it more compliant with that, a far, far shorter section would be appropriate as a single paragraph within the international section. But as written, this material is completely unacceptable, and, if some form of it stays in the article, English citations are necessary, since English readers themselves are unable to verify the content. WTF? (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Walmarts approach on the german market is a prime example to understand the international economical environment in which the retail business operates. The informations are objectively analysed and reserched and definitely NO POV. And of course it is focused on an issue occurring in one nation because it happened in one. For this reason there are no references in english because the english media did not report about it. But this does not mean that the informations are not important to understand walmarts international activities. By the way I think its quite questionable to exclude all non english media as a source for information, because they are just a POV! The fact that the references are considered as reliable in the German wikipedia already provides some kind of verification. Ok the title is may be not so perfect, but the text is objectively researched and gives important information about walmarts international activities within global markets. (Fenrisulfir (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC))
I have no problems if a very abbreviated version of what you wrote were added to the International section, but as you added it, a completely separate main section focusing on one nation's issues with the company is specifically what violates WP:WORLDVIEW, and IMHO, violates WP:NPOV as well, since it's adding undue weight to one issue in one nation, without considering the whole global picture. There's really no reason why what you're adding can't be summarized into a single paragraph and added to the international section. WTF? (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No Map?

Is there a map like the ones below to see where Wal-Mart operates?-- (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Aldi in Europe 2007.PNG
Lidl locations.svg

Significant Figures

It is standard practice, when performing conversions from one unit to another, to use the same amount of significant figures as the original measurement, instead of an exact conversion. So instead of "51,000 square feet (4,738.1 m²)", use "51,000 square feet (4,000 m²)". Could someone fix this in the article please? (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Drive-By GA Nomination Removed

I have removed the "drive-by GA nomination" by Allforjesus2 (talk · contribs). The user nominated the article on November 21, his/her first edit was on November 20, and he/she never edited this article before. Furthermore, there are some notable issues with the article. There's a tag in the gender & sexual orientation section stating that a paragraph recently underwent a major rewrite and that it should be checked for accuracy. There are also too many photos in the international section. With over 300 articles currently on the WP:GAN backlog, I think it would be much better if editors currently working on the article focused first on making it meet the GA criteria to the best of their ability, and then nominate it themselves, so that a reviewer would clearly have someone to work with throughout the GA review process. In the interests of time, many reviewers will be turned off by a nomination by a new user who has never edited the article before, because their review may or may not even be read. WTF? (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Article name change

I think since Wal-Mart is now branded as Walmart, the article name should change to Walmart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themichaeljones (talkcontribs) 22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but there should be a redirect so that anyone who types the old name still finds the new article, and so that existing links continue to work. (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the post 2008 references within the article also use the non-hyphenated Walmart too? There does seem to be some inconsistency there. Dawright12 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't changed for quite some time after the rebranding because the official name of the company, on their corporate site was still "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." However, a quick glance at the same site today shows that they seem to be adopting the non-hyphenated form of their name. The typical process here is to propose moving the article to Walmart, and then after consensus forms, the article will be moved. The actual move process will likely require an administrator, since the page is probably move protected. Mentions of the name in the article probably also should be changed, with the exception of possibly some instances in the history section, for historical reference. Most of this can be done with a simple search/replace, so it's trivial. WTF? (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected}}

In 1983, Miss Shafreaka Jane took the title of Miss Wal-Mart 1983. She still holds this title to this day.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A picture of the headquarters/Home Office

Walmart Home Office Bentonville, Arkansas.jpg

This if from flickr it was the only one with a free license. It's through a windshield but at the top of this talk page it says an image is wanted. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really usable with all the rain on the windshield and all. WTF? (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's usable (some rain is on the windshield, but not on the part where the Wal-Mart logo is displayed). However it's not the best photo. Until we get a better one, we have to use it.
To solve the situation, I posted a photo request asking for a warm weather sunny or cloud version of this photo. I posted the same request on the Commons.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Pleas change the following: "In 2005, two labor unions launched campaigns portraying Wal-Mart negatively. These included Wake Up Wal-Mart(United Food and Commercial Workers) and Wal-Mart Watch(Service Employees International Union).

It should read as follows: "In 2005, two campaigns were started portraying Wal-Mart negatively. The first Wake Up Wal-Mart, backed by United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The second, Wal-Mart Watch founded by the Center for Community and Corporate Ethics and Five Stones."

These are the true founders of these organizations according to both other wikipedia articles and also verified through the websites of the organizations. The article can make it seem as though there is a bias because these organizations are said to have started these campaigns. These unions donated capital, but are not the founders of these organizations. (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: The UFCW press release for Wake Up Wal-Mart, which can be read here, states that "The UFCW announced today it is launching a new grassroots, community-based campaign to wake up Wal-Mart." That press release, written by the UFCW itself, seems to contradict your statement. Wal-Mart Watch, on the other hand, appears to have been founded by The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics, so on that part you seem to be correct. I have modified the article to make the distinction clear; I also added references to verify the campaigns start point and founders. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

50 states?

Could have sworn that there still wasn't any walmarts in Vermont as they don't allow large stores over a certain size. Can someone check on that please? -- (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Walmart Store #2224 863 Harvest Ln Williston, VT 05495
Walmart Store #2682 282 Berlin Mall Rd Ste 1 Berlin, VT 05602
Walmart Store #2530 1 Rutland Shopping Plz Rutland, VT 05701
Cresix (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Walmart Express stores

Walmart is rolling out a new chain of downsized stores called Walmart Express. They are being deployed to enter two markets: the rural markets that may not have the economy needed to sustain a Neighborhood Market or full-sized store, and larger cities that have restrictions on the square footage of any one store. They are small low-overhead stores with minimal finish and about 10% the stock of a SuperCenter.

[1] (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wal-Mart vs. Walmart

Hell yah walmart is freaking old ass I know that this is getting so old as to almost classify as a perennial discussion, but I've noticed that both the e-commerce site at as well as the official corporate site at are now referring to the name of the company as Walmart and not Wal-Mart. Perhaps the time has come for us to move the article from Wal-Mart to Walmart as well, leaving a redirect at the current location to the new location? WTF? (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The two names both have just about equal usage on Google Books so I'd go with whatever the website says. Marcus Qwertyus 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jeffmartis, 28 March 2011

Need to change Supermercado de Walnart to Supermercado de Walmart Thanks.

Jeffmartis (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for noticing. Marcus Qwertyus 11:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no link to the criticism of walmart page on this article?

Seems like that would be a violation of NPOV. Scanned the article but couldn't find a link or mention of the criticisms on the page. I don't understand how this hasn't been corrected. Could someone please explain? (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You apparently haven't read the article yet. Go back and read it and you'll find the link. WTF? (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 29 April 2011

{{European Retail Round Table}} does not belong on this page; teh Walmart is not included in teh template ;) *remove* (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like advertisement

Various parts of the article are undoubtedly edited by Wal-Mart PR reps. When you look at the "criticisms" section (which is hidden under "corporate affairs") anyone with a discerning eye can see most claims are biased. It really does sound like an advertisement all over, as if the whole thing was gone over and written in a manor that favors the corporation.--Drdak (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Walmart Mexico and Central America

With the merger of Walmart Mexico and Walmart Central America into one entity, this information needs to be updated. I read that Walmex bought 100% of the central american operations, I'm not sure of the percentage of the new entity that Walmart actually owns, but we do know that is a majority, I seem to remember reading over 70% but I cannot find the article again. It is legitimate to include Central America under the North America category, because technically Canada all the way down to Panama is North America. Psion20 12:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that whole international section needs to be completely rewritten without all those damn subheadings anyway. On many browsers, it's very difficult telling the difference between a level 4 and 5 subheader, making it very hard to figure out the different categories under there. Plus, it's kind of silly to have so many subheadings with one or two sentences and nothing else. Whoever organized it that way ought to be shot to put them out of their misery,. . . WTF? (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF? is right about the international section needing a rewrite. I just realized that Argentina is not even listed and Walmart has been their since 1995. The purchase of 51% of Massmart Holding was recently completely according to , even though unions or government could still appeal the decision. I suppose you will wait until Walmart adds all the countries Massmart operates in to their international listing before they are added in here. Psion20

White washing of Walmart's china connections and supplier demands

What happened to all the information of walmarts shift from "buy american" to "buy whatever is cheapest" after sam walton died? What happened to all the info of walmart's relentless pressure on manufacturers to lower the cost of the products by cutting labor costs and outsourcing production to china? Walmart is now one of china's largest trading partners and it's move away from american manufacturers has had a huge impact on the economic history of the united states and china. It's really important and it's just been removed? (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to mention that Walmart led the change from the push model to the pull model when retailers deal with manufacturers. (talk)

Walmart Pioneering the Opening Price Point Strategy

It would be good to mention that Walmart pioneered the opening price point marketing strategy detailed by this study by Zenith Consulting. It is also detailed in the PBS Frontline Documentary "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" at the beginning of Chapter 3 including a reference to when it was first used. An former employee who managed multiple stores, in the same video during chapter 3, credits it as one of Wal-Mart's most important marketing strategies to date. (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2011

he was born in kingfisher oklahoma

Bryceman800 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

edit section on marketside to include info that all stores were closed in oct 2011 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • - On hold - please provide a WP:RS for edit requests such as this, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012

Arjones67 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) In the Walmart Express section, the location of the current stores is wrong. The Gentry and Prairie Grove stores are in Arkansas (AR), not Alaska (AK). The referenced article does say Arkansas. I am a Wal-mart employee and live within 20 miles of these stores. There is also a 4th location open now. It is located in Gravette, AR. A reference article link for the new location is

DoneBility (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested addition

I added the following to the Walmart International section in the paragraph about Asda. Someone undid this as an off subject tangent, I don't believe it is off subject because it represents a movement into new markets. I do realize now that I should have asked here in the talk section before I made the change, nonetheless here is the edit that I believe is needed.

In January 2012 Asda announced that it had agreed to terms with two franchise partners to open international George stores. Through the agreement with SandpiperCI, based in the Channel Islands, the company will be responsible for opening George franchises in both Jersey and Guernsey, and through the Azadea Group, headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon, the George franchise stores would open in the Middle East.[2][3] The opening of the first George stores in both regions are expected before the end of 2012. Psion20 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is much more directly related to Asda (where you had also added the same information). The info is much more appropriate there. The subsidiaries have their own articles for a reason, to contain the activities that are more directly related to those subsidiaries. There's no reason to repeat the information in multiple places; or to put it another way, there's no reason for this article to be a consolidation of all data from the articles of all the subsidiaries. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright I can buy that explanation. Psion20 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


In the English language, sentences require a verb. If you're going to lock a controversial page, please at least do a quick once-over for stuff like, "Inside the discount store the fast food outlets, usually Subway or McDonald's." (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the unsourced sentence fragment. 72Dino (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

50th Anniversary...

Since Walmart was founded in 1962, and this is 2012, shouldn't Walmart be celebrating its 50th Anniversary or something? ~~LDEJRuff~~ 4:02, 21 January, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are. WalMart has a website up at -- (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

As of January 2012, Walmart has 10,020 locations under 69 different banners in 28 counties.

GABORWORLD (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012

Walmart is basically phasing out the door greeter position, moving them to a sort of sales associate role. I'd edit it in, but I can't thinkf or the life of me how to word it.

Source can be found here: Source (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


It should be spelled "Ahmedabad" and "Gujarat". (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, although by removal of the entire line, not by spelling correction. The section of the article in question pertains to a general overview of Walmart's international business -- individual stores opening in one market is not really notable to this section. If they were opening an entire division in an entire new nation, yes, it would be notable. But two stores in two cities? No. WTF? (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fighting Hunger Together

Walmart is doing a charitable thing called "fighting hunger together". they have raised over 122 million dollars and got 594 million pounds in food... Just suggesting. Farfaraway269269 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

International Bribery Investigation

Walmart has been in the headlines a lot, especially internationally, due to a large-scale bribery investigation. The scandal involves Walmart's practices in Mexico, Brazil, China, and India. Walmart India executives have admitted to paying over $25 million in bribes.[4][5] [6]

Internationally, it could end up being bigger than the labor violations trial, and be politically / legally significant enough to warrant its own page. It would fit best under "Walmart International", but that would require breaking that into subsections. Alternatively, it could go in corporate affairs.

Comments and opinions about including the bribery investigation and the reaction to related events? Arttechlaw (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Walmart is a publicly-traded company. How can it logically have an "owner", it is public. The Walton family maybe the largest shareholder(s), but not the "Owner". Walmart is not a sole proprietorship. Please make edits to reflect the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walmart/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The following things are concerning me:

  • In 1945, he met Butler Brothers, a regional retailer. This sentence could be worded better.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On June 30, 2008, Walmart unveiled a new company logo, featuring the non-hyphenated name "Walmart" and in place of the star, a symbol that resembles a sunburst or flower. Not sure about the wording
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It lets customers find new foods for a fee of $7 a month from the comfort of the couch. Sounds like an advertisement?
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • While it's little known outside of the drug industry. Not sure about tone of that sentence
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The first Walmart store opened in Rogers, Arkansas in 1962. Does this belong in the "Walmart Discount Stores" section?
  • Alot of info in "Walmart Discount Stores" seems to be repeated in the following section
  • [citation needed] tags still present
  • [when?] tag still present
  • (spelled as in Canadian English) ?
  • Several reasons led to Wal-mart's failure in the German market. [citation needed]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Walmart International section could perhaps be split up?
  • Walmart is headquartered in the Wal-Mart Home Office complex in Bentonville, Arkansas. The company's business model is based on selling a wide variety of general merchandise at "always low prices."[9] They refer to their employees as "associates". All Wal-Mart stores in the US and Canada also have designated "greeters" at the store entrance, a practice pioneered by founder Sam Walton and later copied by other retailers. This just seems like a list of some features of walmart
  • Each week, about 100 million customers, nearly one-third of the U.S. population, visit Walmart's U.S. stores (200 million according to Walmart's website) Make up your mind?
 Done I removed it. One source was Walmart's website (for the 100 million claim) and another was a slideshow (for the 1/3rd of America). I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and that was more like infotainment news. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In June 2006, Walmart was excluded from the investment portfolio of The Government Pension Fund of Norway. Not sure this deserves a mention? Im sure other investors have excluded them too.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The entire Employee and labor relations section just seems to keep pushing the same points every paragraph: Walmart is BAD, they are ANTI-UNION, they are ANTI-EVERYTHING. I dont see how you could have a favourable view of walmart after reading that section. Please document some poitive reviews of Walmart also. It isnt helped that it is linked to an article critiscm of walmart.
 Done This is a big edit, so the original author may get mad at me, but I moved it to summary style, since the Criticisms of Walmart article is GA and has a good sub-section lead. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In response, WWU received a 'Dear Customer' letter from Wal-Mart. Elaborate?
 Done removed in move to summary style
  • I would recomend removing most of the employee and labour relations into the critiscm article, and leaving a more balanced viewpoint in the main article. The section is fartoo long and doesnt flow when reading.
 Done removed in move to summary style

Unfortunately i have to put your article on hold until some improvements are made. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article was failed. RetroLord 05:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Big Box - Low Price question

"Also Wal-mart's "Big Box – Low Price" Model, a price strategy that works well in the U.S., was not successful in Germany."

Nonsense. No connection to reality. Since there is no source, please remove this. -- (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The unsourced statement was removed. Also, for future reference, please try to keep subsection header titles to a shorter length, with most of the description of what you're actually trying to accomplish in the body of your subsection. It's easier to read that way and will make archiving things easier. WTF? (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Li & Fung Ltd's WSG and Walmart

In January 2010 billionaire brothers Victor and William Fung's giant global direct sourcing Li & Fung Ltd, a Hong Kong-based company, formed a new subsidiary company called WSG to act as a non-exclusive buying agent for Walmart, selling up to $2 billion worth of goods including WSG, home furnishings, apparel and other items, during the first year of the partnership. Li & Fung President Bruce Rockowitz, explained that direct sourcing is a huge, volume-driven, lower-margin business resulting in the lowest prices which is an advantage to Walmart. Since 2006 Li & Fung control extended deeper into the supply chain to include logistics, production and product design effectively replacing and consolidated the role of middlemen.[7]

Major Western brands and retailers met in Germany in April for talks regarding Bangladesh building and fire safety setting a May 15, 2013 deadline for a joint agreement. By May 14, 2013 European companies which Europe account for about 60 percent of Bangladesh's clothing exports: Benetton, Britain's Marks & Spencer, Sweden's H & M Hennes, Mauritz AB, Inditex SA, and one American company, PVH, which owns brands including Calvin Klein, had endorsed an accord.[8] but Wal-Mart Stores Inc and other companies affiliated with Li & Fung did not sign the endorsement. Following the April 2013 tragedy, Walmart's Rajan Kamalanathan, vice president of ethical sourcing for Walmart spoke with the press. Walmart hired "Bureau Veritas to inspect factories for structural, fire and electrical safety, including checking building designs and permits as part of an expanded inspection process" and is pressuring Bangladesh to close factories.[8]

Bruce Rockowitz, Li & Fung's group president and chief executive spoke to Li & Fung's group shareholders in Hong Kong on May 13, 2013 arguing Li & Fung Ltd should stay in Bangladesh, and "invest more and try to make safety better and work with the government on doing a better job on monitoring buildings.' [8] oceanflynn 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013

On the "Finance and governance" section there is a wrong link on the name of Marissa Mayer. The link goes to and not to as it should. Please, fix it. Henriquekoller (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! JguyTalkDone 13:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

The offshoot article, Criticism of Walmart, is large enough to warrant inclusion of a small intro section within this article. I've re-added it and removed the double linking. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section has been REMOVED from the article. This information is covered IN GREAT DEPTH in the article Criticism of Walmart, as well in subsequent sections, in this article. A specific section entitled 'criticism' is not only completely inappropriate, but also strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's policies, primarily because they become sounding boards for everyone that wants to flame away at companies. This goes against the very fabric of Wikipedia's existence, and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. The presence of the criticism section has been discussed at great lengths in the past, and consensus has established that it does not belong in this article. WTF? (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Wiki Walmart info

"One Walmart's Low Wages Could Cost Taxpayers $900,000 Per Year, House Dems Find" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend against using that article as a source here. It is biased and clearly not non-partisan, being a report commissioned and released by Congressional Democrats. Inclusion of said report would violate Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. However, I think there is still some merit to the argument. I would like to see a more non-biased, impartial study. WTF? (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the corporate Walmart website in the panel on the right-hand side needs to be fixed. It currently points to "" [sic] but should point to "".

Done: I'm not sure why this EL is in the infobox in the first place (though it's not entirely inappropriate) but the request as written is minor. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Trouble Lurking on Walmart’s Empty Shelves

[reference included in article:]

Walmart has cut employee hours so deeply that it doesn’t have enough associates on hand to get stuff from back-of-the-store staging areas to the shelves.

Seems to be widely reported by RS. Hcobb (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps 5 to 10% of stuff not put on shelves. But still a lot of potential profit left on the table. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[reference included in article:]
Customers Flee Wal-Mart Empty Shelves for Target, Costco, Bloomberg News, Renee Dudley, March 26, 2013.

' . . . In the past five years, the world’s largest retailer added 455 U.S. Wal-Mart stores, a 13 percent increase, according to filings and the company’s website. In the same period, its total U.S. workforce, which includes Sam’s Club employees, dropped by about 20,000, or 1.4 percent. . . '

' . . . Last month, Wal-Mart placed last among department and discount stores in the American Customer Satisfaction Index, the sixth year in a row the company had either tied or taken the last spot. . . '

' . . . When times were good and people were still shopping, the lack of excellence was OK,” said Zeynep Ton, a retail researcher and associate professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Their view has been that they have the lowest prices so customers keep coming anyway. You don’t see that so much anymore.” . . '

' . . . Wal-Mart is entangled in what Ton calls the “vicious cycle” of under-staffing. Too few workers leads to operational problems. Those problems lead to poor store sales, which lead to lower labor budgets.

'“It requires a wake-up call at a higher level,” she said of the decision to hire more workers. . . '

' . . . White, who has six children, said while long checkout lines irritated him, “the number-one reason we gave up on Wal-Mart was its prolonged, horrible, maddening inability to keep items in stock.” . . '

We should include some of this, certainly the American Customer Satisfaction Index and probably Ton's analysis of the "vicious cycle." I have added both of these to the "Criticism" section of our article. And in general, I want our entire article to be a mix of both generalities and specifics. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[reference included in article:]
Why "Good Jobs" Are Good for Retailers, Harvard Business Review, Zeynep Ton, Jan.-Feb. 2012.

" . . . Highly successful retail chains—such as Quik­Trip convenience stores, Mercadona and Trader Joe’s supermarkets, and Costco wholesale clubs—not only invest heavily in store employees but also have the lowest prices in their industries, solid financial performance, and better customer service than their competitors. . . "

" . . . In addition, many retailers see labor as a cost driver rather than a sales driver and therefore focus on minimizing its costs. Accordingly, they often evaluate store managers on whether they meet monthly (or weekly) targets for payroll as a percentage of sales. These managers don’t have much control over sales (they almost never make decisions on merchandise mix, layout, price, or promotions), but they do have a fair amount of control over payroll. So when sales decrease, they immediately reduce staffing levels. . . "

" . . . Research by Marshall Fisher, Serguei Netessine, and Jayanth Krishnan supports my findings: Their analysis of 17 months of data from a large retailer shows that for every $1 increase in payroll, a store could see a $4 to $28 increase in monthly sales.

"Of course the relationship between staffing levels and profitability is not linear: After a certain point, increasing the former will reduce the latter. . . "

Edit request, 19 November 2013

Walmart store count is available on the corporate webpage. New count: 11,047 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've just had to remove the criticism section, AGAIN, for the second time in a month. Such a section is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and should not be tolerated. It is nothing more than a lightning rod for flame wars and trolls adding poorly sourced information to the article. Legitimate criticism is, of course, perfectly acceptable, but should be worked into the article itself, such as in the employee and labor relations, or other appropriate sections, and NOT in a criticism section. Further re-additions of this section will be summarily deleted without explanation or prejudice. It is simply unacceptable, and Wikipedia's policies state that WP:NPOV material should be removed swiftly. WTF? (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in theory that it is better to integrate criticism into the main flow of the article. However . . . with a subject matter that is ongoing and changing, this may sometimes be easier said than done.
And I think one of the later GA Review items above recommended that the criticism in the article basically bogged down too much. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot(WTF), the criticism section is not a violation of WP:NPOV. It's a small section near the end of the article being used to introduce the main article, Criticism of Walmart. The Criticism of Walmart article is, as of today, 85,546 bytes; in other words, it's a substantial article that deserves representation. By removing this small subsection you are violating WP:NPOV by not respecting WP:Weight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I see where WTF? is coming from. A "Criticism" section becomes a kind of closet where everything is thrown. I think I'm going to include summaries from sources I've reviewed in a section entitled something like, "Problems with business operations." And maybe we can later have "Environmental controveries," etc. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That's not how these sections work. They need to be kept small and are used to introduce the main article, which in this case is Criticism of Walmart. If you have more criticism you want to add, you should add it to the main criticism article while keeping this general Walmart article more neutral. See this link[2] for the criticism section on the Target article, which is much larger. See this link[3] for the criticism section on the McDonald's article, and this link[4] for the criticism section of Whole Foods Market. You also have to remember that Walmart is somewhat unique due to the fact that it has garnered so much criticism. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm real crazy about whole approach of 'ABC' and 'Criticism of ABC.' Often both are two sides of the same coin, and the bad parts are precisely because of the good parts (although not always of course). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason I provided the links above was to show that criticism sections are not uncommon, including on the Target article[5], one of Walmart's main competitors. If you want to add more criticism I recommend that you add it to the main Criticism of Walmart article and not this one. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It may not be uncommon, but is often not a good idea to have one, as the essay WP:CRITS explains. It does talk about having a short summary that links to the dedicated criticism article, as is the case here, and I think that the current version is fair and adequately concise. However, I still believe it has the potential to easily become a coatrack, and we already have criticism spread around in this article, like Employee and labor relations section, which too links to the criticism article. Should that, et al, at least be consolidated into the criticism section here? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The small criticism section is useful as an introduction to readers, and the link within it directs readers to the main article, Criticism of Walmart, if they're interested in delving deeper. The key is to keep it small/neutral as it is now. Regarding the labor relations material, my opinion is that the link should be removed and some positive material added, such as the fact that Walmart is the largest employer in the U.S.[6] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The small criticism section seems almost to be a necessity. On one hand there is the substantial Criticism of Walmart article setting out factual material that puts Walmart in a less than favorable light. On the other hand is this Walmart article, which is almost totally lacking in the neutrality that should be in every Wikipedia article, reading almost as if it was written at Walmart corporate headquarters... GWFrog (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The criticism of this company is already covered in depth under Criticism of Walmart, and it is introduced in the corporate affairs sections under employee and labor relations and gender & sexual orientation. Therefore, a separate criticism section is unnecessary and inappropriate, as it introduces a content fork. Adding such a section would necessitate a complete reorganization of the material already in the article. WTF? (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
WTF?: Removing the criticism section is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. The small section (2k out of 110k!) was written in a neutral tone and linked to the main article Criticism of Walmart. In the moment there is no link to this article at all. I will restore the content. Further removal may be subject to WP:NPOVN.--Polmandc (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The very existence of this section is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. There is enough criticism elsewhere in the article, and in the Criticism of Walmart article, that adding a specific section adds undue weight to criticisms and incites a "sounding board", which goes against the purpose of a wikipedia article. WTF? (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored, as per the arguments that were previously used above. There's been no change in their validity. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Removed, per WP:CRITICISM. Please stop adding it. WTF? (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 1/24/14

  • It's not just McDonald's and Subway that are restaurants inside Walmart stores, Blimpie has a few restaurants inside some Walmart stores. Dunkin Donuts is very common up here in New England states such as Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Wendy's and Checkers also have a few restaurants inside Walmart at some stores. -- (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Family Ownership

There is a line the in the article "Walmart remains a family-owned business, as the company is controlled by the Walton family, who own over 50 percent of Walmart" which refers to the "Wal Mart 2013 Proxy statement". I checked the link, and couldn't find information that the family owns more than 50% there.. could someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walmart/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Note the following previous discussions:

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wal-Mart/1
Early years (1945–1969)
Incorporation and growth as a regional power (1969–1990)
Retail hegemony and rise to multinational status (1990-present)
  • The opening two paragraphs have a total of one WP:ICs from WP:RSs. I am troubled that I am unable to WP:V this intriguing content. I have added {{fact}} tags to the end of both paragraphs, which actually need ICs throughout them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Initiatives (2005–2010)
Current developments (2011-present)
Operating divisions
Walmart Supercenter
  • How current is the information about one-hour photo processing lab (also in Walmart Discount Stores section) and video rental stores?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Walmart Express
Sam's Club
Walmart International
  • Do those German or Brazilian stores have links?
  • "In the mid-1990s Walmart tried with a large financial investment to get a foothold in the German retail market." is ingrammatical. Try In the mid-1990s, Walmart tried to get a foothold in the German retail market with a large financial investment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The German market at this point (when?)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • FDI comes from no where.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Corporate affairs
  • "Unlike many other retailers, Wal-Mart does not charge a slotting fee to suppliers for their products to appear in the store.[148] Instead, it focuses on selling more popular products and provides incentives for store managers to drop unpopular products, as well as asking manufacturers to supply more popular products" I don't understand this. Walmart asks manufacturers to supply more popular products. However, Walmart seems to pay less for its inventory. If I have some new craze good (think Cabbage Patch dolls, Beanie babies, Tickle Me Elmo), and I know I will sell out of it wherever I ship it why would I send shipments to Walmart who is paying less than other stores if they are just asking me for supply. If we haven't committed to paying for shelf space, how does this work?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Finance and governance
  • "a net income of $15.4 billion (equivalent to $16.1 billion in 2014) on $422 billion (equivalent to $442 billion in 2014) of revenue with a 24.7 percent gross profit margin." ??? 15.4/422 <> 24.7%.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove (this is a different Tom Coughlin than the football coach).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Economic impact
Gender and sexual orientation
  • This should be reorganized so that Criticism is not so brief. Sections like "Gender and sexual orientation" and "Employee and labor relations" may fit better in this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
See also
  • I have completed my review. I am failing this nomination. If the nominator did not take the time to address the concerns of the prior reviews, I doubt that this extensive list would be addressed. I am not averse to evaluating attempted responses to the concerns above. I could be convinced to reopen the review, but I see little chance that things that have gone this many reviews without being addressed are going to be addressed now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

It is my opinion that History of Walmart should be merged into this, as History of Walmart is a small article, an extremely related topic, and would be small enough to fit in with the rest of the article. Tryme1029 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Per WP:TOOLONG, History of Walmart is an acceptable fork, as the main Walmart article is considerably long, and merging back would make the "History" section unduly long. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 10:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree! too long! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree the History of Walmart article would make the main Walmart article too long. Given the amount of coverage of the History of Walmart, I would argue that it is a topic notable in its own right as well. Zell Faze (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - merging a smallish, semi-redundant article into an already bloated article would make one morbidly obese one. This article could already use a slimming. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 05:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons above. The split seems reasonable and I can't see the benefit. The history article is not really that small that it wouldn't contribute to bloat. —Ost (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

More information on Strike

Old text: "In June 2014, Walmart employees went on strike.[66]" Suggested new text: "In June 2014, a number of Walmart employees from cities in Florida, Chicago, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and California, went on strike. In other cities, protests expressing solidarity with those who were on strike took place outside of Walmart retail locations. Primary grievances surrounded the issue of higher pay for Walmart retail employees.[66]"

Also, please note incorrect reference format for adjoining footnote: Old Footnote: [1] (linking to ) Suggested new footnote: "Walmart workers strike in major cities". CNN Money. June 20, 2014. Retrieved September 21, 2014. (linking to ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


In the infobox, it says

Founded 1933, Rogers, Arkansas, U.S.

Yet in the article itself, in literally the second sentence, it states

Headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, the company was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31, 1969.

2001:468:C80:4340:4569:82D6:6527:EBFD (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Union members becoming loyal Walmart customers? Pressuring Walmart to become a union?

I read this article about how this union group doesn't boycott Walmart, instead they become fiercely loyal customers, and every time they visit Walmart, they leave one piece of union literature on a counter or shelf, talk to employees about unions or give them literature, etc. It is difficult for Walmart to stop because these people are loyal paying customers.

Has anyone else recall reading an article about this? I found the several articles mentioning it two weeks ago, but I can't seem to find it.

Thewhitebox (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wages so low, each store in Wisconsin costs taxpayers at least $904,542 (per study by U.S. Congress Democratic staff members)

Wal-Mart's wages drive employees onto public benefits, report says, Los Angeles Times, Alejandro Lazo, June 7, 2013.

' . . . The report analyzes data from Wisconsin's Medicaid program, estimating that a single 300-person Wal-Mart Supercenter in that state likely costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost up to $1,744,590 per year, or roughly $5,815 per employee.

'"While employers like Wal-Mart seek to reap significant profits through the depression of labor costs, the social costs of this low-wage strategy are externalized," concludes the report's authors, the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. "Low wages not only harm workers and their families — they cost taxpayers."

'Titled "The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Mart's Low Wages and Their Effect on Taxpayers and Economic Growth," the report is an update to a 2004 report. The revised version advocates for several measures, including reforming labor laws to make collective bargaining easier and raising the minimum wage. . . '

Probably worth including. I'm kind of old-fashioned and like to get at least three sources when possible. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
From the article: "Wal-Mart was first on the list with 3,216 employees enrolled in BadgerCare, the state's Medicaid program. Including the children and dependents of these employees, Wal-Mart accounts for 9,207 enrollees." - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If someone can get money from the government to supplement their income, they need less money from their employer, so wages will naturally be suppressed. Even some conservative groups have toyed with the notion of increasing the minimum wage as a way to make people earn too much to qualify for welfare. That would be fine for people who are worth what the new minimum would be, but for those who are worth less, they will be out of a job. Walmart provides ENTRY level employment for lots of people, and honestly, some people are too stupid to work anywhere else, but they can still vote for Democrats who will subsidize their income with public welfare. TodKarlson (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds to me they've proven that government subsidies for the poor pervert the price levels of the labor market causing artificially low wages and shifts the burden of paying their employees from the employer to the taxpayer. If Walmart were forced to raise their payscale above the value created by a worker then they would be unable to employ those workers. They would have to fire those employees who add less value than the wages paid and although the remaining employees would have a higher wage, all those who lost their jobs plus those who were unable to qualify in the first place. Drewder (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I can only add Bernard Shaw's comment "women's wages are subsided by the family since they bring in less money than they cost, BUT they bring in more money to the family than if they did not work" (Cited from memory, I will complete the citation with source when I find it again in the Prefaces to his plays. BTW he also said that donations to hospitals did not better the hospital care, it only lowered the rates(taxes) to pay.)Seniorsag (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Walmart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hispanic store in Garland that is not Supermercado de Walmart

In 2008 Walmart reopened one of its branches to be Hispanic themed, but at the time it wasn't Supermercado de Walmart:

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting updates


Hello, my name is Jenny (User:JLD at Walmart) and I'm introducing myself here as one of Walmart's official representatives on Wikipedia. My goal is to work with the Wikipedia community to ensure this and other articles are accurate, up to date, neutral and well-cited. Understanding that the community's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editing, I won't edit any pages linked to Walmart and will stick to using this and other talk pages to make requests or open up discussions about content. My colleague MS at Walmart has also registered an account to help out with requests here and there. To make things clean and clear, only one of us will take part in any one request or discussion.

To dive into finding ways to work with editors on this page, I've found a few instances that could benefit from updates. Mainly, I have focused on areas that rely on years-old reports, including the company's annual report from 2010. Below, I have highlighted information to change and new citations that can be inserted. I am happy to answer any questions on this. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


  • The sentence: "It has over 11,000 stores in 28 countries, under a total of 65 banners" is no longer accurate.
    • Walmart has over 11,000 stores in 27 countries, under a total of 72 banners.[9]
  • If two inline citations are needed at the end of the first paragraph saying Walmart owns and operates Sam's Club, can we replace the 2010 annual report with the 2015 annual report[9] to make the references more current?

Retail rise to multinational status (1990–2005)

  • The first sentence in this section has a "Citation needed" tag. To address this, I propose rewriting that sentence:
    • While it was the No. 3 retailer in the U.S., Walmart was more profitable than rivals Kmart and Sears by the late 1980s. By 1990, it became the largest U.S. retailer by revenue.[10]
  • At the end of that paragraph, there is another "Citation needed" tag. We can rewrite the following sentence to eliminate redundancy and add a proper inline citation. Perhaps this would work:
    • Walmart stores opened throughout the rest of the country, with Vermont being the last state to get a store in 1995.[11]

Operating divisions

  • The opening paragraph relies on the 2010 annual report, so is now outdated by five years. The following is the most accurate current description, based on the 2015 annual report:
    • The company offers various retail formats throughout these divisions, including supercenters, supermarkets, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs, cash-and-carry stores, home improvement, specialty electronics, restaurants, apparel stores, drugstores, convenience stores and digital retail.[9]

Walmart U.S.

  • Revenue figures are five years old. To bring this up to date, the figures should say $288 billion, or 59.8 percent of total sales, for fiscal 2015.[12]

Walmart International

Sam's Club

  • Again, the revenue figures are outdated. They should say Sam's Club's sales were $58 billion, or 12 percent, during fiscal 2015.[12]

Corporate affairs

  • The reference to the 2010 annual report can be switched to the 2015 annual report, which echoes the earlier report's business model.[9]
  • I propose adding mention of current CEO Doug McMillon after the second sentence of the Corporate affairs section:
    • Doug McMillon became Walmart's CEO on February 1, 2014. McMillon began his Walmart career in warehouses while in high school. He has also worked as the head of Sam's Club and Walmart International.[13]

Gender and sexual orientation


Citation details


  1. ^ "Wal-Mart Unveils Tiny Walmart Express in Arkansas". 
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^ "India launches probe into Wal-Mart lobbying report". Reuters. December 12, 2012. 
  5. ^ "India Unit of Wal-Mart Suspends Employees". New York Times. November 23, 2012. 
  6. ^ "Probe Walmart 'bribe', says opposition". The Times of India. December 11, 2012. 
  7. ^ Alberts, Hana R. (29 January 2010). "Hong Kong's Li & Fung will source up to $2 billion in goods". Hong Kong: Forbes. 
  8. ^ a b c Paul, Ruma; Quadir, Serajul (14 May 2013). "European, U.S. retailers split on Bangladesh reform plan". Dhaka, Bangladesh: Reuters. 
  9. ^ a b c d "Walmart 2015 Annual Report" (PDF). (PDF). Walmart. p. 19. Retrieved 6 October 2015. 
  10. ^ Hayes, Thomas C. (28 February 1990). "Wal-Mart Net Jumps By 31.8%". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 July 2015. 
  11. ^ "Timeline: An Overview of Wal-Mart". PBS. 20 August 2004. Retrieved 21 July 2015. 
  12. ^ a b c "Walmart 2015 Annual Report" (PDF). (PDF). Walmart. p. 20. Retrieved 6 October 2015. 
  13. ^ O'Keefe, Brian (4 June 2015). "The man who's reinventing Walmart". Fortune (magazine). Retrieved 21 July 2015. 
  14. ^ "Corporate Equality Index 2015: Rating American Workplaces on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality" (PDF) (PDF). Human Rights Campaign. 2015. p. 9. 

Revenue updated. I found that the general structure of the company (CEO, Sam's Club, etc.) were up to date when I started editing. I did not include sentences on Doug McMillon as they tended a bit towards advertising. I updated the data on the Corporate Equality Index but did not write a new sentence, instead, I merely appended the data to the end of the existing sentence. Also, I used the data from the 2016 version, as opposed to the 2015 version. Dschslava (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this a good ref for top selling categories? Hcobb (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dschslava, thanks for updating the revenue figures in the introduction, Walmart International and Finance and governance sections, as well as the Corporate Equality Index figures in Gender and sexual orientation. I felt the sentences about Doug McMillon contained good background information and were not "advertising", but I'm willing to take another look at it. Was there anything in particular that struck you as being promotional?
A note for other reviewing editors: I have added collapsable boxes to the Walmart International and Gender and sexual orientation portions of my request above as they have been completed. My requests for the introduction, Sam's Club, and Corporate affairs sections remain outstanding. Please let me know if anyone has questions on the remaining suggested edits. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@JLD ar Walmart: as a personal general rule, anything remotely approaching advertising on pages involving businesses is advertising. I'm sure that that viewpoint is incorrect, but I'd rather stay cautious and avoid breaching it than making bold edits here. Then again, I'm sure that some other viewpoint will add that data for you, although I am not. Dschslava (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Hcobb, Thanks for reaching out here. I would point to the company's quarterly earnings, annual and other reports for the sales information released by Walmart.
@Dschslava: I understand your viewpoint on not wanting to add the sentences about Doug McMillon, but I would like to point out to other editors that Mr. McMillon's history at Walmart has been written about in several reputable publications, such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, ABC News and Fortune, among others.
As to my other requests above, these are to fix or update existing content. Some of the details in the article use a 6-year-old report as a source. Thank you for your time on this. JLD at Walmart (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing request

Hello. Following recent updates by Checkingfax, all the above requests have been done so I am marking this complete. (You can see the discussion with Checkingfax here.) Thanks to everyone who reviewed and gave feedback on these changes. As I move forward with future requests here, I will be sure to take into account your suggestions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)