Talk:Criticism of Walmart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

(NEW) Citation for 2006 emergency contraception thing

I'm not a registered user and don't care to be just yet, so if someone wouldn't mind: toss this in as the citation for it; straight from the horse's mouth: [1] 198.209.225.230 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Offensive" Magazines

I removed some of the recent changes about the magazine controversy: 1) changing "deemed" to "claimed to be" is excess verbiage. Wal-Mart says it won't carry offensive items. Wal-Mart removed some items from its shelves. QED, Wal-Mart deems those items it removed to be offensive. 2) moderating language about freedom of the press. Freedom of the press = "Congress shall make no law....". Editors/publishers did complain, and that's now noted in the article, but 'free association' of commerce trumps non-existant private-to-private press rights. Feco 18:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mr WalMart Representative for constantly censoring this article! Very nice of you indeed. --85.74.183.150 15:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what was censored? Feco 16:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you described it above and in the next section. What critics say you "correct" it into "they allege" but what WalMart in your opinion always "deems". I doubt that your opinion is representing a neutral point of view. You make it look as if the critics don't know a damn thing and that they accuse WalMart injustly. --85.74.151.154 19:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

noted. I just did a style check of the article and tried to remove the "X says" "Y says" construction. I strongly recommend that you register (having a user name makes collaboration with other members much easier, esp. b/c it looks like you have a dynamic IP) as a wiki user and start making edits. As wiki states, no one has an NPOV. Rather, editors should always strive to write in NPOV style. I also am a big fan of brevity... "claimed to be" and "deemed" are almost exact synonyms in the context... fewer words are almost always better. Feco 22:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

incidentally, the verb to deem is used only twice in the article. In both cases, the context is Wal-Mart labeling something as offensive/inappropriate in the company's view. Seems like a textbook definition of the word. Doesn't speak at all on whether or not the item being deemed is objectively offensive. That would be much closer to NPOV.Feco 13:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to fog things even more than ever before. I am more convinced than ever that you are a representative of WalMart who has been assigned to keep the article "clean" (or, in other words, to remove any remarks your company might find offensive). And, yes, I DO have a dynamic IP. That's completely legal, isn't it? And in your last post you say "claimed to be" and "to deem" are almost exactly the same. However, in the first lines of this section you wrote that changing "deemed" to "claimed to be" is excess verbiage. It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. --85.74.188.125 21:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

acting as an unregistered user is perfectly legit, however, Wikipedia strongly suggests that anon users register. Claimed to be and deemed mean the same thing... the latter is more efficient at conveying the same meaning. The latter is also better grammar. I have repeated this several times. And yes, you caught me! I'm a Wal-Mart representative whose sole job is to edit this wiki article. As a fringe benefit, I get to create and edit lots of other wiki articles. Clearly, my edit history shows that I'm on wiki at all hours and all days, so this must be my only job with Wal-Mart. In fact, I never even have to go to work. They just mail me a check! </sarcasm> What remarks/content have I removed, btw? Feco 22:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You didn't quite explain why you first said changing "deemed" into "claimed to be" is excessive language and later you said both is exactly the same. It didn't at all seem to me that your comment on this was based on any grammatical error or whatsoever. BTW I am already registered at Wiki but discussing all these explicitg things I was afraid WalMart might sue me for speaking "too frankly". As to my knowledge they're known to react quite aggressively when being criticised. --85.74.188.125 22:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sigh... they mean the same thing. One is better grammar and more concise than the other. This is what I've said all along. To soothe your paranoia, read Slander and libel. I don't think you're in danger of being sued. Alas, if you were to be sued, a subpoena on your ISP (from your IP) would quickly reveal who you are. Better start using proxy servers! Feco 17:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC) (still waiting on the list of removed facts)

Have you ever even bothered to look at a dictionary? They do not mean the same thing. "they deem" asserts a state of mind, while "they claim" asserts an utterance. They only coincide if "they" are telling the truth, which of course is not a given and is beyond the scope of NPOV. And that you would remove "X says" constructions suggests that you haven't read any of the NPOV and editing guidelines. -- Jibal 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

128.104.161.16 03:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC) One would indeed argue that "deem" and "claim to be" are not the same thing. The use of the latter implies doubt on the part of the writer. The use of the former implies knowledgeability on the part of the actor.

The meanings are implicit but they are present. The two are not exact synonyms.

Also, excess verbiage is redundant. That has no relevance to the article, just to your own writing ~Tas

There's clearly nothing redundant about "claimed to be", nor can it reasonably be considered "excess verbiage". And changing it to "deemed" clearly changes the meaning, as the latter is a POV assessment of a state of mind. But then, the entire article is a POV fork. -- Jibal 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Radio Edit versions of albums

I modified the text detailing Wal-Mart's position on carrying the "clean" versions of albums. The company stocks the commercially produced radio edit versions of certain albums. These versions are provided by music publishers to any retailers... the editing decisions are made by the artist/publisher, not by Wal-Mart. The previous text seemed to indicate that Wal-Mart had a direct role in influencing the edits made to these versions. This is not the case. Feco 05:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I again removed comments about Wal-Mart's refusal to carry "obscene" albums. I removed text that seemed to indicate that Wal-Mart has a direct role in choosing what constitutes obscenity and makes editorial decisions to remove such content. Wal-Mart does not, and legally cannot do this (producing and selling an edited version of an album is a derivative work and constitutes a big copyright violation). Wal-Mart doesn't carry music with RIAA's parental warning label. RIAA makes the decision on what's "obscene" and what gets the label. Feco 18:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets not be naive the truth is that very few artists ever released a "clean" version of an album until Walmart became the single largest retailer of music. Their policies do in fact drive the creation of laundered music because without that version their exposure to the public is half what it would be otherwise. The fact that these artists and labels "choose" to release the clean version is due to marketing extortion and the company most in control of that process is Walmart.Stblndr 16:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Definately, any company that can be considered "[the] largest retailer in the world and was the largest corporation in the world based on revenue as ranked by the Fortune Global 500 in 2005," clearly has at least some impact on the market. By the way, I pulled that straight from the top of the Wal*Mart article here on Wikipedia. Marrow Chiller 05:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gundam Deathscythe Hell

As of 4/19, googling "Gundam Deathscythe Hell"+walmart returns around 40 hits. This indicates to me that there wasn't a lot of press coverage over the company carrying/not carrying the product. As near as I can tell, the company never stocked the product, and there was no press coverage alleging why it wasn't covered. The current version of the article states that Wal-Mart doesn't carry the product due to its name, but I can find no credible assertion to back this up. Wal-Mart doesn't carry tons of products... I don't think this article should guess at the reasons for doing so. I'm going to remove that reference unless more compelling evidence is found. Feco 05:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attempted big Change

I just posted a big re-org of the original article. 95% of the content is still here, only re-grouped into logical groupings. I read all of the talk comments before making the changes and tried to make sure that everyone's concerns were accomodated. Again, I'm taking this chance under the 'Be Bold' wiki idea. I think topic of the article is something that is important to be on wiki in a clear and usable format. Apologies if I stepped on toes here. Feco 01:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

This page needs a coherent introduction. It also needs to sort out what it is saying; and to manage some perspective on the scale of Wal-Mart (which would naturally lead to many issues anyway).

Charles Matthews 10:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The scale argument is limited here, because most of the problems addressed in this article are systemic rather than individual "if you have enough stores, this will happen in one of them" things. Wal-Mart is big, but problems like the low wages are also at Wal-Mart scale.

Scale can defend some of these things, though (like the 'most sued' bit); I'll have a look at it and see what can be fixed. --Calair 23:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

"Wages at Wal-Mart are about 20% less than at comparable companies."

What is a comparable company? A discount retailer like Target and K-Mart. Are these what the wages are being compared to, or are they being compared to grocery store wages?

---

Sounds like the motivation for this "criticism" is a hatred of free markets and/or American prosperity. Wal-Mart might consolidate small business into large via its supersized "box" stores, but not at the expense of local jobs; studies show that the arrival of a Wal-Mart causes a permananet increase in local properity.

Moreover, Wal-Mart has lowered consumer prices significantly, which benefits the poor disproportionately -- something socialist critics of free markets are supposed to love. They're always carping about how "capitalism" benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.

Other companies have been impelled to adopt Wal-Mart's economies of scale and other efficiencies, leading to increased American economic success. Is that what PBS/Frontline is against? I'm so tired of people picking on America.... --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

If you can cite those studies, that would be a worthwhile addition to the page. --Calair 11:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm paraphrasing this secondary source.

• "A distorted lens on Wal-Mart", Bruce Bartlett, Washington Times, November 22, 2004

• "Academic research by economist Emek Basker of the University of Missouri contradicts this last point, finding Wal-Mart permanently raises local employment."

I didn't dig into it further; Bartlett wouldn't make it up: he's one of the authorities PBS interviewed. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:40, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Gosh, it only took a few minutes to find this:

• a study by Emek Basker, professor of Economics, shows that while an average of 20 wholesale jobs are lost in Wal-Mart-occupied counties, 50 new retail jobs are created. "When Wal-Mart enters a community, retail employment increases by 100 jobs in the first year," said Basker. "Half of the gain disappears over the next five years as other retail establishments exit and reduce in size. Wholesale employment declines due to Wal-Mart’s ownership of its suppliers and its retail outlets, or buyers." [2]
• (abstract)
• 46-page paper in PDF format

The paper makes for interesting reading. From page 30, emphasis mine:

"I find an increase of 100 retail jobs in the county at entry; half of that increase remains five years after entry. This effect is substantially mitigated when neighboring counties are also considered, where there is a decline of approximately 30 retail jobs. There is also a negative effect on county-level wholesale employment. Combined, these negative effects are large enough to fully offset the gains to retail employment in the entered county."

Note that p. 28 puts the 5-year decline in wholesale jobs at 25 (not the 20 quoted above), and further indicates that another 10 wholesale jobs are lost in the longer-term.

Note further that it is not simply a matter of "50 new retail jobs created"; what the paper describes is a *net increase*. Given that the average Wal-Mart employs 150-350 people, it's more like "200 new retail jobs created and 150 old retail jobs lost".

This distinction matters because the average value of the new jobs isn't necessarily the same as that of the jobs lost. Basker notes that "It is difficult to compare hours of work for the typical Wal-Mart employee with hours of work at other retailers, because very little is known about employment conditions at Wal-Mart. A reasonable prior is that Wal-Mart employees work fewer, not more, hours than other retail workers..."

As for "studies show that the arrival of a Wal-Mart causes a permananet increase in local properity" - Basker explicitly notes that "this paper does not attempt to answer the question whether entry of Wal-Mart has a positive or negative net impact on a local economy. The answer to that question depends on many other factors, which are beyond the scope of this paper..."

Moral: *don't* assume that somebody else's representation of a paper is telling the full story. Check against the source. (Even the abstract, if read carefully, indicates that there's no net increase in employment.) --Calair 02:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral?

Of course not! It details the criticisms of Wal-Mart. It is a compendium of opinions rather than facts. It cannot possibly be neutral. --Colonel E 18:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it is a fact that people hold these opinions. Just because a page is *about* the opinions people hold and why doesn't mean it can't achieve NPOV. --Calair 00:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems like these type of articles: george w bush, bill clinton abortion, walmart have people taking strong sides. I'm not sure if neutrality can be obtained from people who care enough about the topic to spend their time writting up a wiki on it.

Many people read wikipedia and this article in particular, and not all of them hold strong opinions on wal mart. 209.148.142.90 21:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issue

I think that each point of criticism needs to a) be cited and b) have a counter claim. joe 07:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's silly--that kind of "balance" is what makes most mass media so useless, and it's especially absurd for a page identified as criticism. If Wal-Mart illegally locked workers inside a store overnight, for example, what exactly do you propose as a "counter-claim?" {Luisa}

Not necessarily consistent, those. If counter-claims need citations too, those might not be available? By the way, add at the bottom of the page is usual.Charles Matthews 17:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms don't necessarily need to be cited, but I think any facts need to be cited, on either side of any argument. Also, I think that a counter-claim should be posted. for example: if its posted that walmart sells $18 billion in Chinese goods, there needs to be a note that walmart sells over $250 Billion a year, making chinese made goods only 7-8% of the total of Wal-Mart's sales. People like to throw out numbers that makes it look bad on walmart, and while its not great that they're importing so much from China, they sell more stuff NOT made in china rather than stuff made in china. People also like to say walmart is the cause of the huge trade deficit, however walmart makes up well less than 20% of the trade with china (but more than 10%). joe 07:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

15% of the trade deficit - would be a large number in most people's terms. Why don't you edit the article on specific points where you see a lack?

Charles Matthews 10:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am going to write it up and work on it before I submit an edit. 15% isn't that much just based on the fact that Wal-Mart makes up so much of the retail market. If 5 companies held the same market share that walmart did, or 100 companies, they'd still make up the same percentage of the trade deficit. People like to assail Wal-Mart because its big, and uses its big numbers to make it look bad, without looking at the flip side of things joe 03:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and try to improve the article. What we like to see is POV material being made NPOV. That is actually not the same as 'the flip side' being included. Charles Matthews 09:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems a hopeless and futile enterprise to try to make a page of the (extremely well placed) critisisms of Walmart come out, when read all at once, as anything but damning. It is like reading just the FACTS about a genocide, and uncontrollably developing an opinion about it, just in sleazier terms. Orangetuesday 03:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orangetuesday, that's okay. NPOV doesn't mean "presenting both sides as equally valid". It means stating only 'facts' - this can include statements like "some people claim [insert opinion here]" - without saying that one opinion is "correct". As many people (often passive-aggressively) say, let the facts speak for themselves. If the 'facts' are damning, that's okay, but be sure that you are truly only presenting facts. 65.94.223.21 15:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy!

I believe WalMart will, due to their unique philosophy, always be discussed very controversially. I think this means that it will be very hard if not impossible to get the WalMart article or this criticism article into a form which no one considers biased or otherways non-neutral. I think it's impossible to put the two articles I'm talking about in a context all parties involved would consider neutral. The views are too far apart. So let's just take it easy and let's discuss things on a rational level. --Maxl 22:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is WalMart's philosphy and what's unique about it that it would affect attempting a nuetral point of view? Stating criticism should only involve saying people with this background say A, people with this background say B. The difference is listing the criticism and attempting to show document some peoples POV, versus writing the article using a particular POV. For instance, you would not say "WalMart is bad because they use inferior widgets", but rather "WalMart is also critcized for using inferior widgets by US Widget makers." Critcisms are just opinions that can be documented without representing them as belonging to the author. There may be many views to be documented, but that does not necessarily mean it's impossible. --GreatTurtle 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

redirect to wal-mart

Please discuss here why this article should be redirected to Wal-Mart so we can avoid a revert war if possible. Also, all parties should adhere to the three revert rule. Gamaliel 09:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's because according to NPOV, we should not split articles according to a POV. The article of Wal-Mart should have include both positive and negative facts. Currently, it appears that the "positive" facts are in Wal-Mart article, while the negative are put here.

This would be like in the Adolf Hitler article we put the "positive" facts of his biography and only to link to Criticism of Adolf Hitler where we put the rest. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 09:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but you didn't make any alterations to the Wal-mart article or any attempt to move the material here into that article. So essentially what your action amounts to is a deletion of this article. Perhaps you should build a consensus for this move at the Wal-mart article or move the material here into that article because I'm sure the anonymous editor won't be the only person who objects to this material essentially disappearing from Wikipedia. Gamaliel 10:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I made them, but they were reverted several times from there by anonymous 209.191.207.147. See the history page of Wal-Mart. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 10:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Bogdangiusca did simultaneously merge into the main Wal-Mart article. I support the merge. Mirror Vax 11:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. It was late last night when I posted and I guess I missed that somehow. Gamaliel 20:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• since it looks like the discussion has died down, I'm restoring the redirect. NB: I was opposed to the merging of Criticism into the main Wal-Mart article, but since they're merged, Criticism should be a redirect to prevent a forkFeco

Since someone decided to eliminate all Wal-Mart criticism on the main article page I have copied across section headings and more or less the first line of each section into the main article. I also moved the article up to the top of the page because it really wasn't prominent enough at the end, I don't think that 'first you say all the good' then give a link to the bad is anywhere near NPOV. Hopefully the criticism section on the main page can evolve into a reasonable precis of the criticism. I find the criticism article itself far too long and well boring to bother reading. It NEEDS an overview. I get the feeling that we are seeing a corporate PR effort here. --Gorgonzilla 22:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that this stuff deserves it's own page simply because the Wal*Mart article is alread too big. However, maybe the good stuff about Wal*Mart should be also removed and placed in Defense of Wal-Mart. The main article itself should be wholey nuetral.--The_stuart 03:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements attributed to Wal-Mart

There are numerous paragraphs that begin with "Wal-Mart responsds by saying..." that are unreferenced and not attributed to a person. I intend to remove these unreferenced unattributed statements, unless there is some reference for the statement in question, and unless there is a person being quoted as having said it. Wal-Mart can't make statements unless the corporation as a whole makes an official statement, otherwise, the statement was either made by a representative or employee of Wal-Mart, or was not 'made by Wal-Mart at all. Pedant 20:11, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Check the linked news articles that correspond to a lot of the points. Most journalists will get token quotes from both sides of a contentious issue. Also try google and PRnewswire to get sources for company responses. PR 101 usually dictates that a company says something in the face of criticism. Feco 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, whoever put things in like

"Wal-Mart responds that the real estate was made available for commercial purchase, 
and that extensive studies showed that the location would be extremely profitable.
By extension, the company claims that potential customers' enthusiasm for the
store indicated that they were willing to accept the store's presence in order
to lower prices and improve the quality of life."

is responsible for their factuality and references, I'm just going to take them out since they seem to be coroporate responses, but are not attributed to a corporate representative, and are not referenced in any way. Go ahead and put them back in if they are factual, relevant and referenced, but I'm not going to try to sift through the internet to try to defend evil Wal-Mart, let Wal-Mart pay someone to do that. Not me. They can pay for their advertising efforts, Wikipedia is not the place to put unsourced undocumented vague claims in their defense. We have a whole article with a slew of referenced "bad things about Wal-Mart", if there's any good things to add at all, they need to be factual, referenced material. Pedant 22:37, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

this article duplicates much of Wal-Mart

Almost half of the paragraphs in this article are simply duplicates of the main article. One or the other should be edited. —The preceding --plo comment was added by 67.171.74.109 (talk • contribs) . Any employee of Wal-Mart can make a comment, and it is Wal-Mart speaking. What else could it be? Plongpenii 22:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What is Palast, 121

What is Palast, 121? It's given as a source for a quote about minimum wage, but I can't find anything like that on google. Just because someone gives a source, doesn't mean the source is real. Does anyone have any confirmation, or other source for this? (And be aware that nearly all mentions of this on google are merely duplicates of this article.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.74.109 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts.

It is from: # Greg Palast (2002). The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth About Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High-Finance Fraudsters, Pluto Press. ISBN 0745318460

which is on the wal-mart page already, yet another reason to merge the two. Travb 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Major additions to the Wal-mart section

I added major additions to the Wal-mart section, including many critical articles. I think the two articles should be merged, unless someone wants to update all the info here.Travb 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC on Criticism of Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wal-Mart#RFC_on_Criticism_of_Wal-Mart_and_Wal-Mart Please vote. Travb

Moved criticism and response to seperate article

The main Wal-Mart article is bloated, and quite frankly...a mess. There was this existing article and it's crazy to try to dual-maintain. I've boldly merged the content from the main article, and left introductory stubs there. Should we decide to merge that content back, we can do it wholesale rather than trying to maintain the same content across two articles.

I think this has made the main Wal-Mart article a lot more manageable and easy to read, but there is work left to be done on both articles (this one is now bigger than the main article! --MisterHand 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Move to Debate over Wal-Mart?

I wonder if this article should be moved to "Debate over Wal-Mart"? I imaging it would be difficult to confine the article to only having criticisms with no responses to those criticisms. RJII 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion either way, I just wanted to point out that the article does have a whole "Response" section. The responses are a bit disjointed from the criticisms, however. It might be better to merge each of the responses into the appropriate area. Especially if we change the name to "Debate". Kudos to [[User:Jvandyke|Jvandyke][, by the way, who reorganized the article quite a bit last night and made it much more readable. -- MisterHand 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that SINCE it does have responses, then the title "Criticism of Wal-Mart" is kind of a misnomer. It's not just criticisms, but also praises and defenses. RJII 17:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart and Product Controversy

This section is unreferenced, and as such reads as original research. The author, KDRGibby has reverted multiple requests for citations, and insists that the section only states the obvious. If it states the obvious, than 1) it isn't needed because everybody already knows it, or 2) finding a citation to support it should be easy. If a citation isn't provided for the section, I will remove it...unless a consensus of editors think it should remain as-is, unreferenced. -- MisterHand 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• These POV essays are a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy and must be removed. KDRGibby has now violated 3RR two days in a row (including a whopping six reverts today) to enforce his POV on the article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not pov or original research. This is a stated fact. It is an obvious fact. I cannot help it if you two lack the intellectual capabilities to recognize this. You both are making unreasonble demands and deleting anything regardless of citations (so why the hell should we even bother!)

How bout you two find me economic sources stating that Wal-Mart must carry all items and discriminate against none. I want to hear why this is actually a controversy. Then I'll go find a source stating the obvious reason why wal-mart is free to carry what it wishes.

Go find them if you can.

(Gibby 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) .

It's not our responsibility to find sources. It's your responsibility since you're the one trying to add the paragraph into the article. Simple as that. For the record, I agree with the section in question...but Wikipedia is not an op-ed page, so my opinions (and yours) don't belong here. -- MisterHand 20:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We have already had several attempts to talk this through, but one editor continues to insert this section. Remember that the original point to which this is supposed to be a response reads

Wal-Mart's product selection is a controversial subject. As a privately-controlled corporation, Wal-Mart may retain the right to control what products are sold in its stores, but many criticize the company for allowing right-wing, conservative and religious viewpoints to influence its product selection. Critics claim this effectively forces the company's moral opinions on customers and suppliers.

This notes that Wal-Mart has no obligation to stock some products against its will. How is noting this again useful. It isn't a response to the charge that WM effectively forces its moral opinions on customers and suppliers. Mattley ^(Chattley) 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your going to have to prove that its forcing its moral viewpoint on consumers. That is a rediculus statement. No one is being forced to do anything. Wal-Mart does not have a gun to consumers heads. Wal-Mart does not force anyone to shop there or to buy only products carried at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart does not even force you to buy something when you enter the store. If stupid points of criticism are going to be made then counter arguements that point out the obvious should not be rejected. (Gibby 13:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

It seems to me that its pretty easy to show that Wal-Mart has a monopoly on retail in many communities. It often sends all of its surrounding competitors into bankruptcy. So if you live there, you are then "forced" to shop there. You are right that in a functioning market place one is free to sell what one likes. However Wal-Mart is locally a monopoly, and in retail locally is what counts. Monopoloies are subject to much more stringent regulations than others.

I think ist isn't that stupid at all. While on one hand you can do your shopping in a different store on the other hand when there's no other store within reasonable reach you're still subject to Wal-Mart's crooked product policy. And it's not so much about what you CAN buy but what you CAN'T! They make the decision what they'll allow their customers to buy (or forbid them to buy by not carrying it) instead of permitting their customers make their own choice. That's the point! That's how they force their beliefs on the customers. It would be perfectly ok if they carried Maxims or Playboy or Penthouse Magazine or morning-after pills - customers who don't like them don't need to buy them. --Maxl 13:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibby, you still fail to understand the way wikipedia works. No one has to prove that its (sic) forcing its moral viewpoint on consumers. We are not in the business of proving anything but of reporting the range of opinions on particular subjects. The fact that you find it a rediculus (sic) statement is neither here nor there. It is the question of whether or not it is a significantly widespread, notable criticism, attributable to a reputable source (you should note, by the way, that the criticism is that WM effectively forces its moral choices, etc etc, not simply forces. MisterHand has, quite appropriately, flagged up the need for a citation for this. Will work on finding one. Mattley ^(Chattley) 13:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again I find myself obliged to warn about civilty, especially on the "intellectual capabilities" and "stupid points of criticism" theme. Alai 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this paragraph is original argument. I'm sure it can be rephrased, many people have defended Wal-Mart's actions using a free market argument. Shouldn't be too hard to cite one. Rhobite 01:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a free market arguement its just plain observable and obvious fact. Cite me a source that says Wal-Mart has no right to discriminate in products it can sell and that consumers must shop at Wal-Mart and have no alternative or choice. Seriously. The complaint is so rediculous and stupid that there is not even a source to cite that will even bother mentioning this obvious fact...I believe this is because the academic and journalist writers do not assume stupidity of the reader...Wikipedia however does not. (Gibby 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Guess you didn't read the above comment [3] by MisterHand. If it really is such an obvious fact that no-one outside Wikipedia would bother even to mention it, why the hell should we? Mattley ^(Chattley) 10:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

SOrry for not being plain languaged enough, no one bothers mentioning it because people making the complaints are so utterly rediculous and stupid that it is useless to point out the obvious because they wouldnt believe anyway.

THis is not original research its a fact. Wal-Mart is free to carry what it wants. Consumers are free to shop where they want. Having and knowing this, we also know that no one is being forced into Wal-Mart morals. It is a retarded complaint to make or even suggest. If you are going to keep these complaints then you must have the statement demonstrating the obvious.

Stop deleting this. Or go find a source that says wal-mart has no right to carry or sell what it wants, that shoppers must purchase from walmart, and that wal-mart is forcing its moral values on consumers. Because if you find those sources you will have proven this to be original research.

But you will not do it and you can not do it because you do know its not O.R. you just dont want information contrary to your beliefs present and look to find the lamest escuses. (Gibby 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

You are the one adding the paragraph, it's your responsibility to cite sources, not anybody elses. It's clear that you really want this paragraph in the article. You could easily end the edit war by simply finding an expert who agrees with you, and quoting them. That way it is encyclopedic and doesn't read like original research. Simple as that. -- MisterHand 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to fathom that you are so completly stupid that you cannot see how obvious this point is. I therefore assume that you are making this arguement because you hate Wal*Mart and want to delete any arguement that counters your own. No expert is going to tell us that Wal*Mart is free to carry what it watns because thats just a freaking obvious fact they dont NEED to point out.

You arent doing this because Wikipedia requires one, you are doing it to be stubborn to delete opposing material. (Gibby 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Product selection and promotion of ideology

I have tried to reword both the criticism of product selection and the response. The "effectively forces" bit in the criticism was being read as forces too often, and it seems clear looking into it that the criticism applies more to the impact of Wal-Mart's policies on suppliers than on consumers. As to the response section, this was turning into a bloated defence of the Free Market from a Libertarian perspective. The underlying point, as far as I can see, is "if you don't like it you could always shop elsewhere", so we should just say that. Deleted text below. Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart operates in a capitalist economic system which allows free enterprise[4]. When operating as a free enterprise in a capitalist economic system, companies like Wal-Mart are legally allowed to engage in product discrimination while consumers are free to shop at any competitor of Wal-Mart for any product not carried by Wal-Mart. It thus argued by Friedman, as well as by Adam Smith, that people do not make a transaction unless they believe they will benefit by doing so (they value whey are getting more than they value what they are giving in trade, or they would not make the trade in the first place). Therefore, according to free market scholars such as Milton Friedman, both sides benefit from voluntary capitalist transactions, such as those between Wal-Mart and consumers, and because a transaction is voluntary no party to such a compact is exploited. As a result, no rational person can legitimately argue that they have been forced to shop at Wal-Mart, forced to accept Wal-Mart "morals," or that a customer has been done a disservice by being offered goods for sale of Wal-Mart's own choosing.

No Mattley you have shown a penchant for deleting non sourced material...and a greater penchant for deleting sources of cited material and then deleting the section all together. If this above section is reduced to "If you dont like it shop somewhere else" then you will delete it on the ground it provides no citation!!!!!!

Cut the bullshit and just accept the cited source...even as obvious a statement as it was without an citations or sources...(Gibby 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

More unsubstantiated nonsense. Why would I delete material and supporting source that I added myself? Mattley ^(Chattley) 21:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You've made demands before and when those demands were met you've deleted the material irregardless... you or someone else would delete it. Just watch (Gibby 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

It should be noted that in America, individuals and businesses are free to promote any ideology they wish. Why should that be noted? Did someway say otherwise? Doesn't the truth of the statement rely on acceptance of a POV about what constitutes freedom to promote ideas? I doubt Herbert Marcuse, for example, would concur with this statement. Given that there are always limitations on the exercise of free speech this statement seems unsupportable. Mattley ^(Chattley) 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes...technically, because we have some moronic criticism above it that insinuates Wal-Mart has no such right or legal ability. If Wal-Mart does have a moral agenda to promote they are free to do it. It seems you have a definition of freedom that suites only your political objectives. (Gibby 16:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Firstly, it isn't good enough simply to state that there is such an insinuation. Show us where you think it is and which exact words or phrases make this insinuation. I doubt you will be able to, as there has never been any suggestion in the criticism section that Wal-Mart's product selection policies violate any laws. This is a response to a criticism that has never been advanced! Secondly, my personal definition of "freedom" has nothing to do with it. What I am pointing out is that there are multiple points of view regarding how far it is, in fact, possible to advance and promote ideas freely in modern, Western societies. Since there are many POV's we should not be making statements that assert the truth of one POV. Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No you have already been so good as to delete my editions on the groudns that it did not address complaints of wal-mart forcing shoppers to accept moral values of wal-mart via their product discrimination. This complaint insinuates that wal-mart has no right to product discriminate. You've already provided that evidence. (Gibby 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Once again, we cannot simply say In America, private individuals and businesses are free to promote any ideology they wish. This depends on an idea of what constitutes freedom to promote ideas etc which is not universally shared. Many would argue that it is a lot more complicated - if you want notables then Herbert Marcuse or Antonio Gramsci come to mind. Or, looking at it from a slightly different angle, imagine for a moment that the owner of a very successful business became a Communist or an Islamic Fundamentalist. I suspect he'd find some limits placed on his freedom to promote his new-found ideology. Citing the US Constitution does not help. It tells us what is in the Constitution but not necessarily what happens in practice. Mattley ^(Chattley) 10:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've also noted before, this is a response to a criticism that no-one has made. Why do we need to point out that Wal-Mart isn't breaking any laws by product discrimination when no-one has said that they were? Mattley ^(Chattley) 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed NPOV Tag

I think the article is fairly stable now (it's actually gone several days without an edit), and reading through it, it feels neutral to me. So I've removed the NPOV tag. If somebody disagrees, please post here with specific suggestions on how the article could be more neutral. -- MisterHand 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Long! (Merging pro- and anti- sides of same topics)

This article is friggin' LONG. Can we reduce the sheer size of it without eliminating any of the key topics and points?SmartGuy 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. One thing that might help is to merge the two major sections ("Issues" and "Responses") together. That would make the article flow better too, as you don't have to scroll up and down to get both sides on a particular topic. -- MisterHand 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the article should integrate pro- and anti- views under the same topical headings. This will happen organically no matter what... might as well make it formal. Integrating the two will also shave one layer off of the ridiculous table of contents ("1.2.1.2.4. Why Wal-Mart sucks") by dropping the 1.Issues & 2.Responses headings. Feco 15:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart and unions

This statement [5] is unsourced - at least in this context. The two sources that follow are both statements by Wal-Mart: naturally they don't state that their workers are intimidated etc. I think Calton might have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line. There is a substantial section documenting criticism of Wal-Mart's anti-union activities/policies further up. Perhaps this is the time to integrate criticisms with responses. Mattley ^(Chattley) 13:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my edit summary - I think KDRGibby is right about this statement not being sourced, not about workers not needing to organise and combine to improve and defend their living and working conditions (!). Mattley ^(Chattley) 13:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That is right Mattley, the two sources are from Walmartfacts.com a Wal-Mart website, they would not cite in their own evidence proof of associates feeling intimidated. If such a statement wants to be present in the response to criticism it should be sourced. Better yet, it should be sourced and in the main criticism section rather than the response to. It would just fit better there. (Gibby 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

State-by-state tax burden (copyvio)

I removed the section on tax-burden by state [6]as the material was a copy-and-paste job from this source [7]. Some of this information could be used, but this is a clear copyright violation. Mattley ^(Chattley) 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would characterize it as original research too, since it compiles data and draws conclusions based on multiple sources (multiple sources state-provided statistics, and walmartfacts). It's needlessly detailed for a Wikipedia article. We have already covered the criticism that Wal-Mart places a burden on welfare programs, no need to add a huge list of states. Rhobite 21:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That was an addition I removed from the Wal-Mart page and placed on the debates page. If it is in fact, not a violation of copyright, I would support allowing it to stay, even though I think the critics are abusing variables for a political purpose. (Gibby 22:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

I removed it again... it's a direct copy/paste from wakeupwalmart. Feco 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The research from www.wakeupwalmart.com is meant for public distribution and consumption. It is publically available, relies on public and government newspapers and statistics, and is germane to the discussion of Wal-Mart's effect on State finances regarding health care.

From the page it was taken [8]:"The following studies and reports on Wal-Mart have been released by a variety of sources." They have no expectation of copyright, especially considering the sources used are all public. It should remain up, in my opinion. Abe Froman 01:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a copyright notice at the bottom of the wakeupwalmart page. The notice means we can only use the information under fair use. On proportionality alone, a verbatim copy/paste violates fair use. Feco 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget copyright issues, it's opinionated original research. Even if we paraphrase it (I am not suggesting this) it doesn't belong in this article. Far too detailed and opinionated for an encyclopedia article. Also, Brian, please don't accuse others of vandalism frivolously. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for the definition of vandalism. Thanks. Rhobite 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I'm new to Wikipedia. I think the state by state health care information is valuable, but that it also cannot be posted in its present form. I will work on making the information containedin the original sources more acceptable. A state by state analysis of wal-mart's effect on health care is useful to focus debate. Rather than generalized "Wal-Mart has such and such an effect on America," users could read about its economic impact on their own state. Abe Froman 18:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Big purge coming

This article is chock full of unreferenced sections and paragraphs. Several were already labeled, I have labeled several more. I'm going to give it a week or so, and any paragraph/section that is not backed up with a citation will be deleted. Any objections/suggestions/problems? -- MisterHand 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I object. What unsupported passages are you referring to? Perhaps if you identify the possible dreck first, others can try to cite it before there are "purges." Abe Froman 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

All the problematic passages are marked with the {{fact}} tag. -- MisterHand 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

mR. hAND, I hate to break it to you but...corporations are free to pursue any amenity value such as promoting an ideology, they wish. Try proving it wrong. (68.97.49.51 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

MisterHand has been busy with that {{fact}} tag. I hope purgers will give editors a day or two to find sources before editing. I, for one, would like a shot at salvaging some of these passages. Abe Froman 03:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As stated, I'm not planning to delete anything for at least a week, and if it seems progress is being made then I'll be happy. -- MisterHand 03:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added several citations, but there's more to be done. The biggest problems are the weaselly worded paragraphs that have statements like "Critics say..." or "Supporters say..." -- MisterHand 14:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through and purged all the unreferenced material. There's been more than enough time to gather citations. Feel free to add any or all of it back once proper citations have been found. -- MisterHand 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just found something unreferenced in the "magazines" section. Anyway that statement doesn't make much sense to me. The people approving of what Wal-Mart is doing about the magazines are more likely self-appointed extreme right-wing moralists than ordinary parents. --Maxl 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorganized

I've merged the "Criticisms" and the "Responses" section together for better flow and understanding of both sides. There's probably some duplicate material still left and some other cleanup to do, but I think the article works a lot better this way (but it's still incredibly long). -- MisterHand 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

This article is huge. In order to trim it down a bit, I'd like to split off the largest section, Employee/labor relations into a new artcle: Wal-Mart Employee and Labor Relations. Any thoughts on this proposal? -- MisterHand 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• The split is done. See Wal-Mart Employee and Labor Relations. -- MisterHand 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hawaii Graves Incident

So where is the mention of the handling of Bones in Hawaii at one construction site of Wal-Mart? http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Mar/26/ln/ln12a.html--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Replaced POV tag

I don't know what the article was like when the tag was removed, but right now large parts of it seem to come straight out of Wal-Mart's publicity material. Osomec 15:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of the most egregious examples of POV-pushing, i.e. statements that were misleading or outright false. Hope that helps. Kaldari 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Complete rewrite tag

I have added a complete rewrite tag. This whole article is painfully baised towards Wal-Mart, with the defence too often placed first, made to read like a conclusion and presented as fact. I'm no anti-corporate activist, indeed I'm a Tesco shareholder, but the pro-Wal-Mart lobby isn't even trying to observe Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. A lot more needs to be done than tweaking the odd word and some sections are probably beyond salvage except by scrapping them and starting again. But I can't do it because I'm British and I don't know much about Wal-Mart - but I do know crude corporate propaganda when I see it. Osomec 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is sinister. It's strange that on the main Wal-Mart page there's no _actual_ criticism, just a link to this page. This is a bad idea; it's making that page inconclusive. --80.176.94.14 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! The entire article needs to be examined. Someone additionally needs to examine editing trends and see what they come up with - this will take some time, but the allegations raised are sincere and large in consequence. TheWGP 19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)TheWGP

• I think that what you'll find are a few POV pushers (from both sides) and a larger selection of editors trying to improve the article but giving up after a short period of time because of the all the edit warring. I've been watching this article (and the related ones) for some time, and I've seen first hand that it only takes a few bad beans to spoil the batch. -- MisterHand 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A draft page exists on User:Tuxide/Wikiproject_Retailing/Wal-Mart, feel free to make improvements to it. I basically dumped the entire contents of this page into the Criticisms section, however. Tuxide 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Criticism section

This section cites only right-wing sources, and is clearly POV. Brianski 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think that the American Public Broadcasting System is a right-wing source. Twiztidlojik 18:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems the section you reference was either deleted or you were looking in the wrong place. Check again, the 3 quotes are 2 from Cato, one from the conservative national review. Brianski 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

While this section does need to be expanded if it wants to accurately describe the reasons behind criticism of Walmart, it does not site 'right-wing' sources --- Cato institute, for example, promotes a libertarian ideal of laissez-faire economics --- which is certainly biased in its own way. In any case, it is not a right wing source. Paltin 20:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's different in the U.S., but in much of the world "a libertarian ideal of laissez-faire economics" is most certainly right-wing. 62.31.55.223 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Even in the US, libertarians are most decidedly right wing, at least economically (Libertarians also have a caucus within the Republican party, the Republican Liberty Caucus). Perhaps I should have said *economically* right wing sources, but the point stands that regardless of how the groups are classified they are all lined up on the same side of this issue. Brianski 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've retitled the section to match the general sentiment of the three op-ed pieces that were cited, though perhaps it's still not ideal. I also added specific attributions and qualifying info to each citation, and an intro paragraph to describe all three and expand upon the section title. The statements were made in editorials by specific authors in libertarian/anti-regulatory (if not strictly conservative) publications, and one of the authors recently admitted to being bribed by Jack Abramoff to write op-eds of this type. Does anyone know if Wal-Mart was one of Abramoff's clients? I did some cursory Googling but couldn't find anything definitive.—mjb 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(Defeatist) long term reponse

As I see it, this area of corporate manipulation is the biggest long term threat to Wikipedia's ability to create a high quality encyclopedia of all topics. If the worst comes to the worst, we could create a tag along the lines of.

"THIS ARTICLE IS COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE BECAUSE OF SUSTAINED MANIPULATION BY PEOPLE SEEKING TO PROMOTE THE COMPANY. This may have been organized by the company itself for its own commercial advantage. Persistent attempts by volunteers to enforce Wikipedia:Neutral point of view have been overwhelmed by the volume of pro-company edits. Every positive statement that the article makes about the company should be treated with extreme suspicion. If you feel strongly about this abuse of Wikipedia's attempt to create a free and unbiased encyclopedia, please consider writing to the company's CEO and/or boycotting the company's products. Many other companies, including some of this company's competitors, have resisted the temptation to abuse Wikipedia in this way."

Then all we would have to do would keep the tag in place. If a few companies got bad publicity over this sort of thing, it could be a pretty strong disincentive to others I think. How many CEOs would want their company to be in the "Wikipedia Fortune 500 Hall of Shame"? But would it create legal problems in the U.S. given that it would be almost impossible to prove that a company had systematically arranged the manipulation of its article? 62.31.55.223 01:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles are supposed to avoid self-references. ~MDD4696 00:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This would amount to a POV stance. But the idea of a tag alerting readers to edit-warring by strong POV editors might be useful, as a last resort, if worded differently. But hopefully it doesn't come to that, and we won't need to do anything more drastic than a soft protect. Though I notice that a lot of useful edits are done by anonymous editors, so that's not necessarily the best solution either.

If certain editors are very POV, it could conceivably be necessary to stop certain individuals from editing these articles (but not necessarily other Wikipedia articles). Two ways I can think of:

• By agreement. If people on both sides are identified as having opposite POVs, perhaps we could arrange a truce, where just these people agree to refrain (as long as their opponents also do) and let the majority get on with editing. And failing that...
• By Request for adminship - and hopefully the balance of removing people from both sides, it would get a sympathetic hearing.

--Singkong2005 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All that amounts to is, "Let's hope the existing systems continue to work". But what if they don't? It is perfectly possible that certain parts of Wikipedia will be overwhelmed by organised biased editing and if that happens Wikipedia will need a response outside the existing range of options. 62.31.55.223 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you mean Request for arbitration or Request for comment. I don't know what Request for adminship would do for this page. -User:Rayc

Restore previous name

To avoid POV issues, the name of the article should be changed back to Debates over Wal-Mart, because the article includes not just criticism but also praise of Wal-Mart. RJII 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, criticism of Wal-Mart is perfectly all right! :D --Maxl 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Under WP:FORK, this page probably shouldn't exist. Based on the fact that the Wal-Mart page contains the rebuttals but not this information, I think the correct thing to do is re-merge this page into Wal-mart. Renaming this further hides the legitimate criticisms of Wal-Mart. The best solution is one single page, but failing that, this page should be, and should be called, Criticisms.--ZachPruckowski 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent

I will repeat here what I've mentioned elsewhere. Large corporations like Walmart are guilty until proven innocent when it comes to unethical practices. Walmart's foremost priority over all else is profits. Walmart has a financial interest in putting people (its employees) last. It also has financial interests in violating anti-monopoly laws that are intended to protect smaller independent competitors. Walmart must actively demonstrate that it is ethical in all its actions. This is its duty, and failure to do so will understandably strengthen criticism against Walmart. Jawed 08:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How can they get rid of competitors? By lowering prices. That's good, not bad. Then, once they get rid of competitors how do they keep them from coming back? By keeping prices low. Again, that's good, not bad. Anti-trust laws are very misguided, and as Milton Friedman agrees, they should not exist. RJII 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual behavior of monopolies doesn't follow that pattern, due to basic economic facts beyond the scope of this page. Hint: in a free market, the price is set by the law of supply and demand, and there's nothing to prevent other sellers from competing at that price. The existence of a monopoly is proof that the market isn't free. Also, as a "rational" economic agent, Milton Friedman's statements are governed by how much he can make from uttering them, not by whether they are true. "Milton Friedman agrees" is about as blatant a fallacy of appeal to authority as is possible. -- Jibal 01:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lowering prices is not as good as it seems. For one, the lower the prices are, the lower the wages of the employees are. And the lower the prices are the less they pay the suppliers - often WalMart is the only company they supply and they have no choice but to accept the conditions WalMart forces on them or they go out of business (or they do so anyway because they hit bedrock, meaning they have to accept such low prices for the goods they supply that they work deficitarily anyway). Thus, lowerin prices is bad for the employees as well as the suppliers and on the long run costs jobs. --Maxl 10:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The more cheaply anything can be obtained, the higher the standard of living. If Wal-Mart will only pay so much to suppliers, then only those that that are able to meet that low price will stay in business because those are the suppliers that are the most efficient, which is what we want. We don't want society to have to pay unnecessary costs, for anything. It does not mean necessarily lower wags, but it can. That depends on the supply and demand of workers. If Wal-Mart lowers other costs, then they can increase their profit while paying the same amount of wage. Or, alternatively, they can pay a higher wage and retain the same amount of profit. There is no reason that wages would be lowered just because they lowered other costs. If anything, that's a reason not to have to lower wages. So, it's the reverse of what you're saying. Wal-Mart paying higher prices to suppliers would put pressure on them to lower wages in order to maintain profits. And, them charging lower prices to consumer doesn't cause them to pay lower wages either. They charge low prices because that increases their profits. If charging lower prices decreased their profits they would not be doing that. Since lowering prices helps to maximize profits there is no reason that wages should would be lowered as a result of making more money. And, being willing to only pay low prices to suppliers does not hurt the supply industry either; rather, it only hurts those suppliers who cannot keep their own costs down. The suppliers that cannot figure out how to be more efficient are driven out of businesses, which is good. Those that have found a way to be more efficient by lowering their own costs continue to prosper. When inefficient businesses close, that frees up capital to be applied toward satisfying unmet wants and needs of society. These arguments against Wal-Mart come from a lack of understanding of economics. RJII 15:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong here. It's WalMart who presses them so hard that they have to go out of business. The suppliers often don't have a chance at all. They're the sole suppliers to WalMart so they'll be out of business if they don't accept WalMart's conditions. But they're also out of business if they accept the conditions because it won't take them long before they are forced to file for bankruptcy then. And never mind the efficiency of the suppliers - there are limits to that too, which WalMart does not acknowledge. They're just pressing, pressing, pressing. They don't mind if a supplier goes out of business and jobs are lost, as long as managers of WalMart and the Walton family increase their fortune. For the supplier thing please read here: The WalMart You Don't Know. Please, most importantly, read the section about the supplier of pickles. --Maxl 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If jobs are lost because a process or business has become more efficient, that's a good thing. That frees up labor to work on meeting the still unmet needs of society. Sure, it can be painful for some to make the transition to new jobs, but that's how economies grow and we increase the stock of wealth for everyone. Opposing Wal-Mart for putting people out of work by lowering costs and becoming more efficient is like opposing the invention of robots for putting people out of work. It's Luddism. Job elimination and creation is constant in a dynamic capitalist economy. Without the increases in efficiency (innovation and lowering costs) that result in constant job elimination and creation, we would have economic stagnation. The only way to lower the costs of living, and eventually eliminate all poverty, is through increasing efficiency. RJII 04:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're getting it wrong again. Using more advanced technology is one thing but pressing a supplier into bankruptcy is something totally different. What I wanted to point out that WalMart ignores the needs of its suppliers to also make profits in order to keep the business running. As I said before, there are limits to increasing the efficiency of a business. Some costs are there always. That's what WalMart ignores. You mention capitalism - well, WalMart is driving it to its very limits. WalMart is exploiting their suppliers on the cost of the working force. Don't you understand that economy is based on how much consumers can spend? An unemployed person can't spend very much, though still a trifle less than an employee of WalMart. That's part of the economy, too. If employees are paid reasonable wages they can spend reasonably, but if not they are sometimes not even able to feed their family properly. Cheap prices isn't everything. We have a saying here where I live: "Quality has its price". I believe you want to purchase things of reasonable quality. Therefore you should be ready to pay reasonable prices. It's not possible to reduce prices without end. People live upon providing the products. A farmer lives off his land and hopes to receive reasonable payment for his agricultural products. A company refining the product (like the pickles company mentioned in the text I linked and you obviously didn't read) needs to live on the profit made on refining the product. Some work force is always needed to keep up such a production . However, WalMart doesn't acknowledge this and often presses their suppliers beyond the limit (and that's just one of the things I don't like about WalMart, just think about their ultra conservative product policy! C'm on, why don't they allow their customers to chose which magazines they'd like to read instead of banning harmless magazines like Maxim? And whatever you say, you'll never live to see me enter a WalMart store even if you live to the ripe old age of 100 years. Btw, RJII, your statements sound a lot like you might be a WalMart representative. You don't need to tell me if that's true - I just wanted to mention it! --Maxl 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. I'm a Wal-Mart representative. I've got my blue smock on as we speak. You're not understanding that it's good to push inefficient suppliers out of business (ones that can't lower their own costs enough to be able to profit from selling supplies). When inefficient suppliers go out of business because a business is not willing to pay higher prices than necessary for supplies, that's how the market is supposed to work. When only the efficient businesses survive, and the inefficient ones close, that frees up capital and labor to be used for to satisfy other purposes in the hierarchy of human needs. Why should a business continue to exist that sells supplies at a higher price than others? Just to maintain useless jobs? Jobs aren't gone for good when business close due to being less efficient than others; rather, jobs are created in other areas. This is how economies grow. It's called creative destruction. It looks to me like you're against capitalism itself. This process of economic growth and evolution, through job elimination and job creation, is intrinsic to capitalism. What is it you want? Do you want government to force businesses (including suppliers) to keep prices high in order to ensure job stability? It sounds like socialism is the system for you. RJII 01:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one way to run a successful business. Walmart is right at the most explotative end of legal business. More Microsoft than Google. Tesco is as successful as Wal-Mart, growing faster and outcompeting Walmart in most countries where they both operate, but it doesn't pay below industry-norm wages, or do whatever it takes to prevent unionisation, or exploit public healthcare funds or offer exceptionally bad pension arrangements. Carina22 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If Tesco is paying higher wages than it has to, then it's doing a disservice to stockholders and shoppers. They will be punished in stock market and retail market. RJII 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It pays slightly better wages in order to provide better service, which is a top priority for me and for vast numbers of other shoppers, and in the latest quarter it has continued to pull ahead. The CEO of WalMart's UK subsidiary ASDA recently admitted this. Cutting corners on staffing can make it impossible for a retailer to run a quality operation that meets the need of any shopper who is not desparately hard up, yet Tesco also leads the way in price cutting in the UK becuase it has the most motivated and efficient staff of the four main supermarkets. Tesco's stock market performance has been better than WalMart's for years (I've made a 60% profit so far, whereas Walmart stock is lower now than it was when I bought my Tesco shares) and Warren Buffett has just bought a stake. Carina22 08:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board, this is an encyclopedia. Please take your personal debates elsewhere. Kaldari 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the entire article has turned into a veiled debate. I'd rather people keep busy on the talk page than further jeopardizing the neutrality of the article. What do you care - it's just the talk page. - Anonymous User (whose opinion counts just as much as a registered one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.206.182 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject: Retailing

Hello, a new WikiProject called Retailing has been created, and we invite anyone who is interested in joining to sign up. If you would like to join it, then list your name on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Retailing.

There is also a draft for a complete rewrite of the Wal-Mart article that is being worked on. Feel free to continue improving the draft and to take part in its discussion. Tuxide 06:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to do some work on my draft of Wal-Mart page. Here, my objective is to take what is on this page and trim it down a ways. For example, I'm attempting to take sections 1.1-1.3 of this article and summarize it into a paragraph or two, because in my opinion individual cases should be noted in the references section and not the main article unless it really is remarkable enough for inclusion. You can see this work on User:Tuxide/Wikiproject_Retailing/Wal-Mart#Cleanup_section, feel free to make further improvements to it and discuss it here. Tuxide 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.