Talk:Walmart/Archive 3

message: For the 'Dumping' section, I have added all citations I could find, and marked 'citationneeded' for those I could not.  I propose that any sentences lacking citations by February 14th should be deleted.  This should improve this section tremendously. Happy Valentines Day!  ;-)
Jvandyke 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumping citations

message: Article Length 
NPOV issues aside, this article is too damn long!  People should be linking to outside sources if they want to list benefits, board of directors, etc. that's what the corporate site is for. Likewise, if people want to add criticism, summarize as briefly as possible and link to supporting document, don't try to explain thporoughly on the main page, e.g. critics say Wal-Mart has escaped meaningful consequences for alleged labor law violations. (unsigned comment by User:71.32.17.41)
*Criticism makes up roughly half of the article. There used to be a separate 'Criticism of Wal-Mart' article (with a stub description and link in the main 'Wal-Mart' article), but some users felt it was POV to put criticism into its own article. Thus, the criticisms were merged back into the main 'Wal-Mart' article (they had previously been cleaved off into their own article). I was against merging the two, mainly due to length of the combined pages. I'm all for splitting the two up again. Anyone else? Feco 22:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <jest>hmmm... Hitler has been used as an analogy. Time to review Godwin's law.</jest> Feco 19:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: separate article or in a section of the main article?

message: Here's the deal: This is at least the third time Wal-Mart and Criticism of have been merged, unmerged, argued, remerged. In each of the previous cases, ultimate consensus was to keep the articles as one. This latest spat began when an anon IP (presumably TheAce!) split the articles. I rv'ed the split. A random user saw the change on the Recent Changes page and rv'ed me while accusing of censorship. Since then, other users have worked to preserve the split. The change remains questionable; there has been no new consensus, which should be necessary to alter the consensus-established status quo. Here's a space for a vote tally where only users can log their votes. As usual, signs of sockpuppetry and anon IP abuse will lead to such votes being ignored: (Feco 20:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NB- I messaged the users who have comments on this talk page related to splitting the halves. Since it was a manual operation, I may have missed some users. I also didn't look in the talk archives or the talk of Criticism of Wal-Mart. Feel free to look at my contribution history and compare against those users' comments above. Feco 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this! — mjb 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Support maintaining separate Wal-Mart and Criticism of articles:
#Mjb (but only if a sufficiently neutral characterization of the debate, not a rehash of the critics' arguments, is in the Wal-Mart article; otherwise, remerge) mjb 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Oppose maintaining separate articles:
#Feco Feco 20:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Oppose maintaining separate articles but some specific instances may have sufficient material that a separate article on that particular controversy is warranted. E.G. the Inglewood controversy which is significant in its own right as a current news event:
#--Gorgonzilla 22:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Oppose maintaining a separate 'criticisms' article but as Gorgonzilla says, some specific instances may warrant their own (with appropriate linkage). But I can live with anything between that and 'split, with neutral characterisation of the debate in the main article'. --Calair 23:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An 'official' consensus record

message: The poll is absurd, because a POV split would contradict NPOV and Jimbo clearly said that NPOV is not-negotiable. I recommend you to read Wikipedia:POV fork. bogdan | Talk 20:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:POV fork started as a proposed policy guideline, but was recategorized by an administrator as an essay due to lack of interest. Therefore it is reflecting, basically, one Wikipedian's opinion, and holds only marginally more weight than the discussions being carried out here. Also, for further consideration, it links to another dead proposal, Wikipedia:Criticism, which on one hand suggests never splitting criticism, and on the other, suggests that criticism belongs in separate articles about the critics(!). The discussion page there reveals that the handful of people who stumbled across the article and cared enough to respond all fell somewhere between Confused and Ambivalent, so the proposal was dropped. There was no consensus. You might as well have just linked to the discussion sections above. (Although as stated in my response to the poll, I'm not opposed to leaving everything in the main article; I'm only taking issue with how the split is being handled, since there is currently a split). — mjb 01:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For the splitting supporters

message: Today I added back the 
 
and 
 It has been suggested that Criticisms of Wal-Mart be merged into this  or section. (Discuss)
...why did you erase the dubious tag User:66.75.14.189  ?  
Travb 23:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why were the dubious and  mergefrom tags deleted and why?

message: There are two articles on Wal-Mart, a  Criticism of Wal-Mart page and a Wal-Mart page.  The argument is whether:
::a) Criticism of Wal-Mart page and Wal-Mart should be merged, and the Criticism of Wal-Mart page should be disbanned.
::b) All Criticism of Wal-Mart should be moved to the Criticism of Wal-Mart page.
Since there has been no agreement on whether to merge or split the article, a consensus decision on this article should resolve this debate. 
If you disagree with a user, please DO NOT repond to a user underneath their own argument,  simply add your own opinion in the opposing "merge" or "split" section (using "# yourname" mentioning why you disagree with the user.
===In Favor of merging the two articles===
# Travb Four reasons to merge the articles:  First , debate makes the article more encyclopedic,  Second , split articles encourage the deletion of relevent information;  Third , having two articles is repetitive;  Fourth , by default, the Wal-Mart page will be seen much more than the Criticism of Wal-Mart page.  1) Active argument is wonderful, and makes a great article. This article has been elected to be a  Featured article candidate, why? Because it is full of information, both pro and con--it is probably the best article on Wal-Mart on the entire web.  Hundreds of wikipedians have built this article, both "pro" and "con" Wal-mart wikipedians. Moving the criticisms of Wal-Mart to its own page, causes BOTH pages to become slanted, less encyclopedic and lower quality: one page becomes  an advertisement for Wal-Mart, one article becomes an advertisment for demonizing Wal-Mart. If you want proof of this, please see the difference between the criticism section here, and the Criticism of Wal-Mart page.  The Criticism of Wal-Mart page is slanted and of obvious poorer quality, with fewer footnotes and more biased information.  The Critism section on the other hand, is more encyclopedic.   2)  In adition new wikipedians will attempt to add "con" articles to the main article, and other "pro" wikipedians will delete the information, rationalizing there own bias by saying that the information belongs in the criticism page, but never actually adding the information to the criticism page, and vice versa.  3)  Having two articles, a "pro" and "con" page is repetitive. Much of the information on the  Wal-Mart page and the  Criticism of Wal-Mart page is repetitive.  For example, say we split up the article, a section will mention wages on the "pro" Wal-Mart page, and a section will mention wages on the "con" Criticism of Wal-Mart page, why list a wage section twice, why not instead combine these two entries on wages and then come to a consensus about Wal-Mart wages? 4) The Wal-Mart page will be seen much more than the Criticism of Wal-Mart page, even with a link. This is hardly balanced, by default, the "pro" section will be read more than the "con" section.  People come to wikipedia to read both sides of the argument, not just one.  To split the articles would be only giving most readers one side of the argument: the pro side.  When a person reads about the "Robber Barons" is an encyclopedia, the reader reads both the good that the Robber Barons did, and the bad that the Robber Barons did.  That by its very nature is what an encyclopedia is: a neutral article telling both sides of the story.  Why aren't pro-Wal-Mart people arguing to split the article into a Wal-Mart page and a Support of Wal-Mart page, because they know that the Wal-Mart page is by default more read. The ONLY fair comprimise is to have both "pro" and "con" together, on one page (or see my comprimise, below).  Thank you. Travb 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on Criticism of Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart

message: # Travb Four reasons to merge the articles:  First , debate makes the article more encyclopedic,  Second , split articles encourage the deletion of relevent information;  Third , having two articles is repetitive;  Fourth , by default, the Wal-Mart page will be seen much more than the Criticism of Wal-Mart page.  1) Active argument is wonderful, and makes a great article. This article has been elected to be a  Featured article candidate, why? Because it is full of information, both pro and con--it is probably the best article on Wal-Mart on the entire web.  Hundreds of wikipedians have built this article, both "pro" and "con" Wal-mart wikipedians. Moving the criticisms of Wal-Mart to its own page, causes BOTH pages to become slanted, less encyclopedic and lower quality: one page becomes  an advertisement for Wal-Mart, one article becomes an advertisment for demonizing Wal-Mart. If you want proof of this, please see the difference between the criticism section here, and the Criticism of Wal-Mart page.  The Criticism of Wal-Mart page is slanted and of obvious poorer quality, with fewer footnotes and more biased information.  The Critism section on the other hand, is more encyclopedic.   2)  In adition new wikipedians will attempt to add "con" articles to the main article, and other "pro" wikipedians will delete the information, rationalizing there own bias by saying that the information belongs in the criticism page, but never actually adding the information to the criticism page, and vice versa.  3)  Having two articles, a "pro" and "con" page is repetitive. Much of the information on the  Wal-Mart page and the  Criticism of Wal-Mart page is repetitive.  For example, say we split up the article, a section will mention wages on the "pro" Wal-Mart page, and a section will mention wages on the "con" Criticism of Wal-Mart page, why list a wage section twice, why not instead combine these two entries on wages and then come to a consensus about Wal-Mart wages? 4) The Wal-Mart page will be seen much more than the Criticism of Wal-Mart page, even with a link. This is hardly balanced, by default, the "pro" section will be read more than the "con" section.  People come to wikipedia to read both sides of the argument, not just one.  To split the articles would be only giving most readers one side of the argument: the pro side.  When a person reads about the "Robber Barons" is an encyclopedia, the reader reads both the good that the Robber Barons did, and the bad that the Robber Barons did.  That by its very nature is what an encyclopedia is: a neutral article telling both sides of the story.  Why aren't pro-Wal-Mart people arguing to split the article into a Wal-Mart page and a Support of Wal-Mart page, because they know that the Wal-Mart page is by default more read. The ONLY fair comprimise is to have both "pro" and "con" together, on one page (or see my comprimise, below).  Thank you. Travb 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Favor of merging the two articles

message: # Feco  If the articles are merged, the logical grouping of criticisms from Criticism of Wal-Mart should be imported to Wal-Mart. Below are the level 2 and 3 headings from Criticism... with the main criticism headings from Wal-Mart interspersed as appropriate and marked in bold. The hierarchy below can be tweaked, but it's a much more logical grouping of related complaints than the current shotgun approach. Feco 01:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Comments on dispute or an alternate version

message: Curps, you deleted the link: http://www.buyblue.org/node/2137/view/summary stating in your edit "rm, not a Wal-Mart corporate web site (a site by Wal-Mart)".  I just read the website, it is indeed not a "Wal-Mart corporate web site", and is in fact quite critical of wal-mart.  I will move it.
This does not mean though, that it sould be removed completly from the site simply because it does not conform to your own POV--please next time move the link to another portion of the web site, instead of heavy handidly deleting it from the current wikipage.   
When I and other users see actions like this, we assume that the wikipedian who deletes this information is biased, and simply does not want the other sides views expressed on wikipedia.  This is an undesirable reputation to have.Travb 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in the right section next time, and save others a lot of work instead of yourself.  If you didn't take the time to look and see what section that link might actually belong in, why should I? -- Curps 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: political contributions of Wal-mart link deleted by [[User:Curps|Curps]]

message: This may just be me, and just the particular Wal*Mart I live by, but... it is hard for me to shop there, because when I enter the store, I am overcome by tiredness and irritability.  I'll be fine while walking to the doors, but once I  enter, my main goal becomes getting done and out of there as soon as possible.  On the way home I'll start feeling fine again.  I'm not yet sure what is causing it.  I've tried wearing earplugs to see if it was the noise, but that didn't really seem to help.  I usually end up shopping there at night.  Anyhow.. just curious if anyone else has this same problem and if you found a solution or know the cause.  I doubt this really has anything to do with Wal*Mart at all, but perhaps some sensitivity I have to large stores.. sounds, lighting, certain smells?  I don't know, but I'd very much like to. Thanks for any suggestions. --68.105.130.108 10:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you need to see a doctor!  --Coolcaesar 06:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're joking, right? :) --68.105.130.108 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You may be experiencing migraine symptoms; there are low-pain and no-pain (or rather, pain that you subconsciously tune out) migraines that can be triggered by eye strain, sounds, smells, foods… When I was a teenager I was unable to spend any time in malls because the echoey sounds would affect me, somehow making me see stars, get nauseous, and sometimes have anxiety attacks. Those symptoms eventually subsided but fluorescent lighting with high glare or the tubes being directly in my line of sight became an issue and is still a problem for me. Took me years to figure out what was going on. I doubt you'll be able to pin it down to one simple thing like the floor wax they use at Wal-Mart or anything. :) Sorry. Oh, I did notice the last time I was in a Wal-Mart that the lighting was irritating, but not nearly as irritating as the 200 cameras watching my every move. — mjb 11:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone else feel ill while inside Wal*Mart? 

message: The benefits section says
:Wal-Mart offers benefits to approximately 620,000 of its 1.6 million employees, and there are plans to expand this to one million of its employees.
and it cites a Wal-Mart "Fact Sheet" as its source.
The statement is plausible but the cited source does not verify any aspect of the statement at all.
# The Wikipedia article repeatedly says there are 1.7 million employees. Where did 1.6 come from?
# The walmartfacts.com site that is referenced says nothing about 620,000 people or 1.6 million people. In fact, it only claims that "Wal-Mart offers affordable health care coverage to both its full and part-time associates" and "Wal-Mart provides insurance to more than 1 million people", nothing more.
# Those claims on walmartfacts.com could be (and probably are) very carefully worded to mislead. If an associate's spouse and children are insured, those probably count toward the 1 million. That's not the same as insuring 1 million associates. Similarly, offering affordable coverage is not the same as providing insurance, plus the definition of "affordable" is in question. AFAIK there's no way to verify any claims they make regarding benefits statistics, so regardless of what the actual figures are, in the article any statements should be qualified to only indicate that Wal-Mart claims such-and-such, in my opinion. 
Whoever came up with the 620,000 and 1.6 million, please correct the numbers and cite your actual sources. — mjb 11:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits section needs better citation 

message: right now the major complaints of this section were the following two points
*"Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices" appropriatly pointed out that it is unfair to subsidize Wal-Mart through taxpayer funds and not their competitors but it is tenuous to make this an arguement against Wal-Mart (as the documentary does) rather than an arguement against government influence/prefrencing over economic outcomes. Wal-Mart does not create these subsides, governments do.
*Critics of Wal-Mart wages, like those found in the documentary “Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices” argued that Wal-Mart is so large that the “meager” pay it gives employees has a major impact on driving down the wages of labor worldwide. This is not possible as Wal-Mart’s global sales were less than $300 billion which represents only a fraction of the GDP (more than $10 trillion) of the United States alone. Thus its impact on world labor wages is negligible when factoring in the GDP of every state in which Wal-Mart operates.	
Given much of the page above it, these are factual statements, and I dont see why they cannot be included.  I will look for more citation to make O.R. critics ahppy.  (Gibby 19:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two complaints of criticism

message: Im deleting the donation crap since this clearly is a good old publicity stunt by Wal-mart.
:You can't just remove things because they reflect positively on Wal-Mart. The donation section is sourced and written in a neutral tone. It should stay. Rhobite 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bullpaddies Rhobite, no other article about a major corporation includes a fluff section about its donations to "worthy causes", with special emphisis on how it pays money into local causes.  The whole section is nothing but propaganda, the fact that it is true does not make it less propaganda.  If every other Wikipedia entry, or even most Wikipedia entries, for companies included a section on donations then the Wal-Mart donations section wouldn't be propaganda, since a donations section is not common to other articles its existence in the Wal-Mart article demonstrates that it is propaganda. --soto 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donation BLA BLA BLA 

message: that has to be the dumbest complaint against wal-mart i've read to date.  That even beats hate Wal-Mart made a big deal about nothing.  (Gibby 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism charges

message: I have protected the article from edit warring. I will try to unprotect soon but please use talk page to solve disputes. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have blocked Gibby for repeatedly removing a POV tag from the article. Rhobite 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't block someone for doing that, but I would like more discussion by him. If he has violated 3rr then report it. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's disrupting this article by refusing to discuss his opinionated section, and refusing to let other users tag it as POV. Rhobite 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected the article to be fair. If the removal of the tag continues without discussion then tell me. A good idea is to make an area to discuss the tag. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I explained above. Gibby is forming conclusions based on data - this is original research. He writes that Wal-Mart critics make "questionable statements". He doesn't attribute the use of the word "questionable", it is his own opinion. Rhobite 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibby I think you should make a statement here too to explain why you removed the tag. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: *DO NOT EDIT WAR!
*CITE YOUR SOURCES!
*YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE!
*DO NOT USE PERSONAL ATTACKS!
That is all. Further personal commentary will be removed on sight. Personal attacks will be dealt with. This is a blanket warning, and this page is on its way to protection if somebody doesn't figure it out. --Tznkai 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War on this page 

message: I don't want to get into a revert war over this either. Encyclopedias should always write in smooth flowing prose format, not point format. If it is disjunct enough to warrant a point format it usually means the entire section in itself needs rewording. We should avoid using point formats like the plague, and only very sparingly. I don't think it makes it look cleaner at all. But I won't press the issue. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to put bullets in front of full paragraphs - it looks silly, serves no purpose, and goes against the manual of style. No other section in this article uses bullets in front of each paragraph. Gibby, please look at any featured article and notice that paragraphs do not have bullets in front of them. Bullets are used for lists, not paragraphs. Rhobite 06:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  point form versus prose 

message: * Billie Letts's 1995 novel Where the Heart Is depicts 17-year-old Novalee Nation moving in to, and give birth in, an Oklahoma Wal-Mart.
* Letts' book was adapted in 2000's Natalie Portman-Ashley Judd film Where the Heart Is. The film, costarring Joan Cusack and Stockard Channing, changes the setting to a Lubbock, Texas Wal-Mart.
* Tibby, a character in Ann Brashares 2001 novel, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, spends her summer working at 'Wallmans'. The character is also included in the 2005 film adaptation, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.
* A ultra-slick, out-of-control sled ridden by Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase) into the toy donation bin outside of a Wal-Mart in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. The scene was filmed outside a Frisco, Colorado Wal-Mart.
* A Wal-Mart in the middle of the New Mexico desert serves as a product placement parody in the 2003 animated comedy Looney Tunes: Back in Action.
* Sy Parrish, the main character in [[2002 in film|2002's One Hour Photo, works at a large discounter called "Sav-Mart"
* "Sprawl-Mart" is a big-box retailer in Springfield on Fox's The Simpsons. In thea 2005 episode "On A Clear Day I Can't See My Sister", the Sprawl-Mart carries the sign "Not a parody of Wal-Mart".
* "Mega-Lo Mart" (with a pronunciation similar to "megalomania") is a large discount retailer on Fox's King of the Hill. When Mega-Lo Mart begins selling propane, Strickland Propane can't compete with their prices, and protagonist Hank Hill loses his job selling propane and propane accessories. Ironically, he is hired to sell propane at Mega Lo Mart until the store is burned down when an inept supervisor causes a gas leak.[50]
* A "Wall-Mart" built in Comedy Central's South Park episode "Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes" runs all local stores out of business. The retailer is depicted as a self-aware and independent entity, building itself across the nation to take over everything, and forcing employees and managers to work there against their will. The episode also pokes fun at consumers: South Parkers are forced to shop at Wall-Mart because they are unable to resist its everyday low prices. The town, unable to resist shopping there, tries to burn Wall-Mart, but a crew rebuilds it the following day. Stan and Kyle eventually destroy the Wall-Mart by destroying its heart, a mirror in the electronics department that reflects the image of Stan and Kyle and they realize that the heart of Wall-Mart is the consumers. South Park residents return to a mom and pop store until it too becomes a big box retailer, which residents promptly burns to the ground.
* A JibJab comic called "Big Box Mart" premiered on the October 13, 2005 Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Another cartoon, "This Land", also parodies Wal-Mart.
* 'Wall 2 Wall Mart' is seen in The Fairly OddParents.
* 'Stuff-Mart is a location in the Veggie Tales video "Madame Blueberry," which addresses consumerism.
* Former Miami Herald humor columnist Dave Barry penned a column detailing the early millennium fascination with spending the night in an RV parked outside Wal-Mart.
* In Fox's The Simple Life, socialite Paris Hilton appears to be unaware of the existence of Wal-Mart and asks "Do they sell things for walls?" Cohort Nicole Richie comparatively appears more knowledgable, announcing "people hang out at Wal-Mart." In a later episode, the pair visit a Wal-Mart and are shown frolicking, reading magazines on the floor, and "hanging out".
FYI RHOBI!!!! FYI. Those are bullets, FYI!  (Gibby 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is obviously written as a list of short unrelated items, not in paragraph form. Stop yelling at me. Rhobite 06:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: comments refactored/removedunder WP:RPA because of WP:NOT and WP:NPA violations. See history if you're really intrested.--Tznkai
I am not a computer specialist so someone please add the current Maryland info to this article.  Thanks ultimate guardian Rhobite!!!!
Try discussing this Rhobite, you have no good point.  You say its for lists but this is a list.  You said nothing else had bullets but 3 other sections have bullets.  This is an entire section with no connecting points.  Prose form requires paragraphs to flow from one to the next with connecting sentences.  These sentences, having no connection with one another, require bullets to demonstrate their seperate and independent points.  The only other option is to subsection each critisism of criticism just as the criticsm section is done, but this will make the page longer  (Gibby 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wal-Mart in popular culture

message: It is nonsensical to compare Walmart's Annual Revenue to Greece's GDP. Greece's GDP is the sum total of all goods and services produced in that economy during the past year. Walmart's Annual Revenue is merely the total of all goods and services sold in that "economy" during that past year. The difference is this: Greece's GDP includes only goods and services created from scratch in Greece; the GDP measure is designed to exclude products and services imported from other countries. Walmart's Revenue includes all of the goods and services bought from other retailers. Walmart does not "create" its goods and services, but merely buys them from other companies, and sells them to consumers. While the people/industries of Greece create ~$230Bil worth of goods and services in a year, Walmart does not create nearly that much.
------
I agree with above.  Following are the options I see:
Options:
1) Remove the GDP comparison text.  *best option IMHO*
2) NPOV the GDP comparison text by incorporating something like the following:
"..comparing corporate annual revenues to GDP of countries worldwide is not a perfect comparison methodology, as GDP is a value-added measure and sales are not. To make this comparison truly comparable, sales should be re-calculated as value-added. This can be calculated as the sum of salaries and benefits, depreciation and amortization and pre-tax income.
However, whilst acknowledging this, the comparison of gross annual revenues of corporations to countries' GDP is designed as conceptual to illustrate the growing economic dominance of global corporate giants in the global economy, says ResearchWorldwide.com The Worldwide Commercial Real Estate Information Portal."
3) Improve #2, by actually doing the calulation described on Wal-Mart (I'm assuming that "doing math" doesn't count as original research), then a glance at the Walmarts 2004 Annual Report  results in the calculation:
Calculation:
+ Salary (proxy via Operating, selling, general and administrative expenses (OSG&M)): $51.1b  
+ Depreciation and Amortization: $4.4b
+ pre-tax income: 10.3B
= $65.8B *MAXIMUM* (b/c OGS&M is more than salaries) FOR WAL-MART GDP (23% of the cited $285B)
Maybe text such as: "In Wal-mart's case, this calculation using the 2004 Annual Report  would reveal a maximum GDP of $63.8 via the calculation of OSG&M $51.1B + Depreciation and Amortization of $4.4B and Pre-Tax income of $10.3B"
NET: #1 is best.  Both #2 and #3 are really ugly.  But if you want to keep the GDP comparison in place, then I think you'd need #2 - and probably #3 - to keep the entry [NPOV].  It is going to make the entry ugly.
Jvandyke 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this comparison should be removed. Comparing a company's revenue to a country's GDP is meaningless, except as a vague "look how much money this is" measuring stick. I don't think we should calculate our own "GDP" for Wal-Mart, as that does fall under original research. Rhobite 00:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing Walmart's Revenue to Greece's GDP

message: I noticed that all the Wal-Mart criticisms in the article are from people in the U.S. I went to a Wal-Mart in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil about a year ago and everbody seemed happy with it. Any word on protests in other countries against having access to jobs and low-cost goods? RJII 02:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unbalanced word view

message: While trying to find a source for:
"In 1970, Sam Walton resisted a unionization push by the Retail Clerks Union in two small Missouri towns by hiring a professional John Tate, to lecture workers on the negative aspects of unions. On Tate's advice, he also took steps to instruct his workers on how the company had their best interests in mind, encouraging them to air concerns with managers and implementing a profit-sharing program. Shortly after this, Wal-Mart hired a consulting firm, Alpha Associates, to develop a union avoidance program. [citation needed]"
I noticed the verbage was strikingly similar to an article from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_276_01.html.
Digging a little deeper, I found the culprit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wal-Mart&diff=24313028&oldid=24305542
Doing a bit of searching, and I found the culprit: a copy-and-paste job by [User:Izanbardprince|Izanbardprince] on Sept 29, 2005 (and a few edits slightly rewording things).  For some reason, not only did no one catch the plagrism (it was in the article for several months, word-for-word!) but the original source was removed.
I would guess our current wording is still too close to the original source?  I would work out a rewording, but I'm getting too tired to do it right now.. Ash Lux 04:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagrism