Talk:Walmart/Archive 4

message: This article includes Wikipedia's work at its best in that it includes informative and accurate information, and appropriate visuals for a detailed Wikipedian description of the world's largest company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.68 (talk • contribs) .
I completely disagree.  The fact that "renewable energy" and "experimental" are both halfway down the page while "price fixing" and "aggressive import and labor violations" aren't on it at all mean that this particular article has very little reliability.
Aparently a massive whitewashing effort from many walmart PR apologists. Shameful really.
::: Bangladesh Taki should be Bangladesh Taka
:::I agree, this is an excellent article, clearly listing both pros and cons.  Please sign your posts.Travb 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page is a mess.  There are allegations Wal-Mart's PR team is whitewashing it.  .  Wikipedia should not hold this up as a featured article until the editors resolves the article's problems.  Abe Froman 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I very much agree.  In fact, this article's been mentioned on Slashdot.  Come to think of it, isn't there a Slashdot template that could be used to signify that it's been linked to and/or mentioned on Slashdot? Brian Ryans 17:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh boy.  Yes, there was, and despite my reverting vandals who kept removing it, consensus was reached that it was time to retire the Slashdot banner.  You can read more on that below.  Kamikaze Highlander 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article candidate

message: To make this article more NPOV, since the Criticism seciton is so big, maybe there should be a section called "Praises" to offset it. RJII 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that summaries are supposed to summarise? Why then would it be a bad thing for the summary to be shorter than some other part of the article? Gleemonex 08:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Praises of Wal-Mart

message: This article is bloated, and quite frankly...a mess.  There was an existing "Criticism of Wal-Mart" article and it's crazy to try to dual-maintain.  I've boldly merged the content to that other article, and left introductory stubs here.  Should we decide to merge that content back here, 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.  There's enough information and content to make this a featured article if folks stop grinding axes and start working to make this thing useful. -- MisterHand 17:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. I was just about to create a section called "Praise of Wal-Mart" to offset the huge criticism section but that may not be necessary now. RJII 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose deleting that from the article. First of all, it's not a criticism. Secondly, it's not even a response to a criticism. It's simply a study on the economic impact of Wal-mart by the the world's largest economics organization, Global Insight. Surely, the economic impact of Wal-mart should be made known in the Wal-mart article. RJII 06:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. Let's just not add anything other than hard facts. No POV spin. RJII 06:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, other companies do, like wal-mart, offer health insurance to only some employees.  But, due to Wal-Mart's size, Wal-Mart happens to be the largest single corporate beneficiary of state funded health care in 12 states.   Thanks to the taxpayer, Wal-Mart saves on health care costs.  Abe Froman 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved criticism and response to separate article 

message: The "Wal-Mart in popular culture" section is simply an embarrassment-it's irrelevant to understanding Wal-mart. The "Corporate governance"  may be relevant to a few, but that's what a company's corporate site (linked more than once on the page)is for. No one looking for that info should take it second-hand rather than going to the source. The section should be deleted. Eross8 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting article down to size

message: I heard that a "Wal-Mart Express" has opened on the Gulf Coast in response to Hurricane Katrina. Does anyone have any images and information about it/them? Alexzero77 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Wal-Mart Express" in Waveland, MS, is actually a store-within-a-store.  The 57,000 new setup was enclosed inside the 200,000+ sq.ft. structure, and was setup more like a SAM'S Club, with pallets of merchandise instead of traditional fixtures.  More info can be found at http://www.walmartfacts.com/community/article.aspx?id=1509. Prospero11 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wal-Mart Express? 

message: Why is the Jay Nordlinger passage from the right-wing National Review included in the Debates Over Wal-Mart section?  Isn't the Debate section a place where another point of view can be expressed?  The Nordlinger passage's only purpose seems to be to tendentiously tar any Wal-Mart debate as closet Socialism, before the reader has even visited the Debates over Wal-Mart page.  I think it should be removed and added to the Debates over Wal-Mart page as a rebuttal.  Abe Froman 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above passage is already present in the Debates Over Wal-Mart article, in the "Reasons for Criticism" section.  I removed it from the main Wal-Mart article.  Abe Froman 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean. Can you elaborate, specifically, on what you think needs to happen to make this article more neutral? -- MisterHand 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is pretty reliable, using verifiable sources and not really biased for wal-mart, but the problem is that researchers need to be made aware that there are criticisms, so I've made it easier for them to find the article about them.  The article, in my opinion, hides them by only putting a little reference in the middle, and only dedicated researchers would put out the effort to find them.  The criticisms of wal-mart aren't common knowledge beyond the fact that most people know there are some criticisms, so a truly neutral article needs to show that there are two sides to the subject.  Kamikaze Highlander 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV tag isn't designed to fix an article, but to make editors aware of the problem so it can be fixed. But I understand what your getting at, so I'll attempt an improvement. -- MisterHand 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I moved the blurb to the top of the article. Hopefully that alleviates your concerns. -- MisterHand 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That makes it a lot more encyclopedic, in my opinion.  This is definitely a much better article thanks to that.  Kamikaze Highlander 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any other sub-articles which are mentioned in italics above the actual article.. linking to Debates over Wal-Mart should be handled like all other sub-articles: There should be a "Debates over Wal-Mart" section in this article with a one-paragraph summary of the controversy, and a  link. The only time we use italic links above the article are for disambiguation. Rhobite 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: disagree.  The Debates over Wal-Mart section of this page was removed, so the link ended up at the top of the Page.  Since Wal-Mart is a contested issue I feel it is useful to have disambiguation at the top of the page, rather than fishing through the article for it.  vote replace.  Abe Froman 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the section ever removed? Having a summary section is our standard practice for any article with sub-articles. This article should not have a disambiguation link - disambiguation is used to differentiate between two separate topics with the same name. Like Paul O'Neill the baseball player and Paul O'Neill the former treasury secretary. Rhobite 22:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Debates passage was hard to keep alive, take a look at the history of it.  I suspect that is why the debates link ended up at the top of the article.  Abe Froman 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the main Wal-Mart article does not contain the information in the Debates over Wal-Mart article, so in fact it is a sort of disambiguation.  Most people who look up an article on a subject of debate expect to find information for and against the sides of the debate, and would not expect that they would have to look for another article to find information left out of an article with the name of the subject.  Think of an article about World War II that had a separate article on World War II in the Pacific.  If any information is left out of an article that could influence a reader's opinion on a subject, it belongs at the top so that they know what they're getting into.  Kamikaze Highlander 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, maybe an actual diambugation page should be considered if the suggestion for a "In Defence of Wal*Mart page goes up. Marrow Chiller 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates over Wal-Mart 

message: Hypermarts were converted to Wal*Mart Supercenters. Was there ever an official Super Wal*Mart? What's the difference between a supercenter and a hypermart? They took out the independent stores but lately they have put some in.--Gbleem 05:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypermarts converted to Supercenters. 

message: Shouldn't the fiscal information at the top of the article be moved into the article?  It doesn't seem to fit an introduction, as it's too specific to be general information about Wal-Mart.  It's not exactly vital information, and it's not the type of information that's usually included in an introduction in an article (perhaps at the top but at the side, such as a table or graph), so it should be moved with all other business information below the intro.  Kamikaze Highlander 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the fiscal info useful because it helps put the size and operations of Wal-Mart in context.  Abe Froman 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's very common for company finantial info mto be front-and-center in this type of article on many many websites. It seems very appropriate for a general over-view of a company. Jake b 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone ahead and moved the fiscal information to the financial section, since articles on other stores do not display this information in their introductions.  Kamikaze Highlander 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't fiscal information be within the article (not on top)? 

message: I added the link from the slashdot story.  I'm not adding an article section unless someone actually proves the claim... though it should be very interesting to see if anyone removes the link and if so, who it is.--Isotope23 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added link 

message: dear retards -- please stop removing negative facts about your company from this article.
*And so begins the /. inspired trolling...--Isotope23 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're right, that was too offensive. However, when dealing with large corporations such as Walmart, whose first priority above all else is profits, and who have a financial interest in putting people last, I believe the principle "guilty until proven innocent" applies. They must actively demonstrate that they are ethical. Jawed 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Wal-Mart ad agencies 

message: OK, let's talk about the NPOV issue. As I see it, the most glaring problem with the POV of this article is that the entire criticism section has been moved to a sub-article without providing a summary in this article. Every article in Wikipedia should be able to stand on its own. It is standard practice when creating a subarticle to include a summary of the sub-article within the main article. Here all we have is one sentence that says that criticism of Wal-Mart exists. This is certainly not an adequate summary. Also keep in mind that NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints have to be presented equally. It means that the article needs to be presented from a neutral point of view. This means that if criticism of a company is widespread we should report that in proportion to the amount of criticism. If praise of a company is widespread, we should report that in proportion of the priase. Right now, however, we have 1 sentence for criticism about a company that is probably among the most widely criticised in the world. Kaldari 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed .  Practically, it was difficult and proved impossible to maintain a criticisms section of the page, because it was either whitewashed or removed in minutes.  Take a look at the history of the passage.  If an admin or collection of astute editors are willing to babysit a resurrected criticisms section, it can work.  Abe Froman 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm curious (really), what form do similar summaries take? It seems to me it should be no more than a few paragraphs. Otherwise we might as well bring the section back to the main article? Of course maybe I have no clue... Jake b 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am also troubled by how the "Contributions" section is so prominent in the article, suggesting that Walmart contributes back to local communities in so many ways: this is pure PR (both the mention here and the actual "contributions") and should be mentioned as such. And it's really kind of ridiculous considering how much more substantial criticism is of Walmart's effect on communities.--130.58.194.190 16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the blanket NPOV tag with a POV-Because tag.  Feel free to comment.  Kamikaze Highlander 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree.  I'd like to see comments from more people on this issue before anyone tries to do anything about it, but the order does need to be changed significantly.  Kamikaze Highlander 18:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Should the "See Also" section include the Criticism of Wal-Mart page?
130.58.235.228 17:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "See Also"

message: I don't know that the factual accuracy tag is a good idea.  The user left no reasons for putting it, and at the same time they removed the POV-Because tag without replacing it with any npov tag, again without a reason.  Does anyone feel the factual accuracy tag should be kept?  Kamikaze Highlander 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy Tag 

message: Silence.  I guess now would be a good time for some cleanup?  Kamikaze Highlander 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I would suggest changing the "Debates Over Wal-Mart" link to avoid the redirect - so pointing straight to "Criticism of Wal-Mart" - whether the link is piped or not is a question - I would say no - "Debates Over Wal-Mart" sounds like weasel words - the separate article is criticism - so that is what it should be called. SFC9394 19:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I've made the change.  Kamikaze Highlander 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Having read the article with a fine-toothed comb...it sounds like it's spun very much in Wal-Mart's favor, as the /. story asserts. There's little-to-no information available aobut the criticisms and debates over Wal-Mart. I would like to see the articles merged if possible, or all the separate subsections plus the debates/criticisms made shorter members of a category, to which Wal-Mart would be an index page of sorts. There's a LOT of information there. DolphinCompSci 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a separate Pro Wal-Mart article, such as Support of Wal-Mart, or Praise, or Benefits of a world with Wal-Mart, separating all information for and against Wal-Mart out of the main article?  I'd like to see some more comments on this.  Kamikaze Highlander 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's sort-of what got us in this mess in the first place. People attempted to create a balanced article (where every criticism had a counterpoint, and vice-versa) vs. an npov article (where criticisms and praises were appropriately weighted). There have been too many instances where POV-pushers have come in and made sure they had "their say" in every paragraph of the article, rather than taking a step back and asking "Is this an encyclopedia article or an editorial in the local paper?" -- MisterHand 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, NPOV doesn't mean point, counterpoint.  Best case would be to format this with an overview (currently done), History, Business/Financials, Employees (which could cover official benefits numbers), and Criticism.  IMO, criticisms are peppered all over and the whole article is haphazard.  Fact is that lots of people like Walmart & lots of people hate Walmart.  It should be possible to create a factual article with verified info - including criticisms.  Then it's just a matter of protecting it from the POV pushers.  Also the links section is ridiculously bloated...--Isotope23 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree again.  NPOV has nothing to do at all with reaching any sort of balance.  For an article to be NPOV simply means to list all verifiable and notable information without resorting to sensationalism.  If there's more "bad" than "good," well, so be it. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed, however, look at the history of this article.  Any cited criticisms have been hard to keep alive inside the main article.  If an admin or a bevy of committed editors is willing to maintain vigilance, the ideas expressed above will work.  I am hopeful a balance can be reached.  Abe Froman 02:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  What you are describing, the idea of a separate "Pro Wal-Mart" article, is essentially the definition of a POV fork, and is not acceptable on Wikipedia for that reason. --Saforrest 07:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumbleweed Passes By, Wikipedians Take Note 

message: If I moved anything on-going feel free to move it back.  Kotepho 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Someone Wikified a few dates.  Is it really necessary?  They aren't really significant, I mean, what else happened in like 2005?  Kamikaze Highlander 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, wikified dates are not necessary and excessive wikilinking is distracting, a user can type a year into the search box should that rare need arise. Hollow are the Ori 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Wikified dates really necessary?

message: For fear of upsetting people, I'll suggest this here rather than changing it. Most wikipedia articles begin with a definition (eg. Tom Smith is a famous labour politician). This article begins:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  was founded by Sam Walton in 1962. It is 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. 
I'd recommend changing it to this or something similar:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  is 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. It was founded by Sam Walton in 1962.
--Ludraman 11:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does look better. --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Re the photo about unwanted solicitors. I take it this means beggars, and not lawyers? --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it refers to protesters, people handing out political fliers, etc.  The photo caption should probably be changed as it is unclear.  --soto 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solicitors?

message: It's understandable that the article should be split into subsections, considering the importance and size of the company, and the controversies surrounding it. However, I believe it's essential that this structure should be made clear at the beginning of the article. Perhaps an introductory note or box, mentioning that this is a general article, with Criticism of Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Employee and Labor Relations covering those issues in greater depth (and add other issues, if I've missed any). --Singkong2005 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need box for multiple articles 

message: "Specific assertions needing sources: the fact that WMT calls its employees associates and its managers servant leaders, the fact that they call for hourly meetings, and the fact that they have people greeters at every store with those duties"
These are common facts to any Wal-Mart employees and not critisism or controverial. I've added a few citations, but if you just enter a Wal-Mart you can see the greeters. That hardly needs an internet citation.
Bpage 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Request for Sources from "Employees" Section=

message: A user deleted a reference to The Nation, as requiring registration.  (actually that required a subscription; often free material requires a free registration)  Often you can do a google search on the article title and find another URL that does not require payment, not only here but at the Wall Street Journal and other sources.  I'm not sure a valid reference should be deleted anyway.  Often a library has the item available.--Beth Wellington 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unionization reference deleted

message: 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.
Tuxide 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject:  Retailing

message: As part of my proposed WikiProject, I have started to define a page structure guideline that retailing company pages, such as this one, should go by.  I have derived it from an already existing guideline.  Feel free to check it out or make it look better on User:Tuxide/Wikiproject_Retailing#Company_page_structure and to provide feedback on its talk page.  The idea here is to use such a guideline to resolve content disputes and to make articles about retailing companies appear consistent with each other as far as order of content goes.  Ultimately, this WikiProject will attempt to copyedit this article and arrange its content to make its structure consistent with a guideline such as this.  Tuxide 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page structure

message: Hi, I just wanted to bring to people's attention that the Wal-Mart NPOV issue is not isolated to just Wal-Mart.  A similar wiki-war happened with the Coca-Cola article - except that Coca-Cola "proponents" won.  I just wish more people could address this Wal-Mart NPOV thing more systemically, rather than looking at it one article at a time. Guppy 12:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues - [[Coca-Cola]]

message: I added a POV tag. I feel that anyone can add a POV tag if they do not agree with a statment and isn't this antiproductive. I think the we must stick to the fact, there is way to much anti and pro crap going on here. If walmart is good or bad the FACTS will tell the tale there is two side here in battle one is the Anti-Walmart Union types that is something looks good for walmart they are going to Screem POV the otherside is the Pro-Walmart PR people, and if something looks bad for wal-mart they are going to cry POV. So to resolve the POV issues lets stick to proven facts. Not Critism or Blessing, but Facts. If we look at facts only, know proven facts, we could remove a great deal from out walmart pages, many critisms and blessing could be purged. This would create a much more NPOV group of pages. As I have said before I am a walmart hourly Associate, I work in Store 3233, Bemidji Minnesota, I work In the Deli. So yes I do know the real story and I have been the target of critism from both sides for telling the reality, and that is that 
1. The crisism of walmart is mostly garbage from the unions to wedge into walmart.
2. The areas that do need to be worked on with walmart are not areas that the public is previewed to, and due to the anti-copyright policies of wikipedia I have been unable to bring the true areas of problems forward.
3. The largest reason for problems at walmart has nothing walmart itself and more with the additude of customers. In my Center we see upto 12,000 customers a day, many of them have poor additudes and associates get tired of dealing with it.
4. Walmart is like a family, as far as the hourly associates are conserned, when you work with people day in and day out, in a stressing, and thank-less job you do form bonds with your fellow workers. Sometimes our bonds are strengthed by our hatered for some of our managers.
5. There are some just plain bad managers out there. I personally hate my Store Manager, he is a smug, prick, who thinks he is the god of all managers. However I do like alot of our lower level managers. 
6. Most Problems can be handled from within the company, many of the lawsuits that are launched against walmart could be avoided from within if the person sueing had gone the next step.  I have many times been screwed over by managers, and a quick call to district or the Ethics hotline has always solved the problems. Infact my contact with the ethics and district about one manager ended in her termination from walmart.
7. Walmart's pay is always scaled by the local labor market. For instance I started at 6.50/hr and now make over 8.50/hr due to a pay scale change and changes in the local market. And thats in less the 2 years. The starting wage is  a dollar per hour higher then any other deli in the area.
Now as  you can see I am not saying Walmart is evil nor am I saying that it is perfect. There are many many issues that need to be addressed however we are never going to get them addressed if the unions keep pushing non-issues. Now I am not going to even discuss the issue of benifits because, most of that is a matter of situation and opinion, the healthcare walmart offers works for some and not for others, but what healthcare plan does work for everyone. So I am pleading with everyone here to help get this page/s back to a cenral point and help sort the facts from the non-facts. The Ace!
First of Kamikaze, to be honest this entry has really gone down hill since the last time I left it. Your so called facts you cling too are mearly third party trash, much of which is little more than fantasy, some of it is such garbage you would have to be an idiot to belive it. If you going to rely on "documents" from third party sites do a little research on the documents, like if its a PDF save it and take a look at the publishers marks on the file, find out what you can. Then look at what a legit document looks like. I see legit Walmart Documents. And if you find that a fact is a fake is it not your job to get rid of it for the good of the entry? As far as the Quebec store I have the proof on my hard drive, had you not been so fast to revert, I was trying to find a way to post it since its copyrighted. But no you couldn't give me a few mins, now I can't post it without being banned. Now if we are going to bring this entry back to where it should be, we need to stop this arguing and back biteing. And work for the better, that means getting rid of double entrys, make it easier to read, and understand. Now we have to look for real fact, not some third party fact thats been messed with. An example is the way AFL-CIO figures the average walmart workers income they figured 9.68/hr time 40hr/week time 4 weeks/mo times 12. That would $18,585.60/yr however is only 48 weeks there is 52 weeks/yr isn't there that means they missed a 4 weeks of pay. Factor in those weeks and bing wow the pay is $20,140.40/yr thats a differance of $1548.80/yr. See what I mean about Twisting Facts.....The Ace!
Will you please stop engaging in personal attacks? It isn't a personal attack to ask you to learn to spell because misspelling will get your edits removed. In the future, don't put opinions without sighting your source, don't repeatedly revert edits, and why not try waiting to put your opinions up until after you have sources to back your claims? Kamikaze Highlander 09:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: 1. Wal-Mart does not spend as much on insurance as other companies.
The fact. Yes Wal-Mart spends less per work for health.
The Twist. What they forget to say is that Wal-Mart does not buy insurance at 
all, it puts that money into a bank account, where it collects interest, it then contracts Blue Cross to admin the fund. 
The reality. Wal-Mart gives better insurance than most other retailers. 
Want to see for yourself go to your local walmart and get an assocate guide.
2. Wal-Mart does not supply as many with healthcare.
The fact. Yes on a percentage base Wal-Mart only 47% are covered.
The Twist. What critics don't tell you is that Wal-Mart offers Star Bridge health from day one, and that wal-mart has 1.6 million Workers with a larger turn over rate, so this leads to a lower percentage of works covered.
3. Wal-Mart has a high turn over rate.
The Fact. Wal-Mart does have a high turn over rate.
The Twist. Critics Site Wal-Mart as the reason, however most of people that leave walmart site customer related stress. And the area of walmart that has the highest turn over is also the largest pool of workers, cashiers. Plain and simple the customers run the cashiers out. And who can blame them think of all the people in the world you could not stand, and they deal with them all everyday.
4. Wal-Mart has more workers on state healthcare than any other company.
The Fact. Yes wal-mart does have more works on state healthcare.
The Twist. Critics argue that due to the number of workers on state healthcare is single handedly causing problems for many state healthcare,however what they forget to say is that Walmart pays 70 Billion dollars in federal taxes and nearly that again in state taxes and also generate billions of dollars in sales tax for each state with sales tax,which far out does the money spend buy the state on healthcare for wal-mart assocates. And many of the assocates that quilify for state aided healthcare also would quailify for welfare if they did not work for walmart. And would most likely be on both if they worked for a smaller ma and pa shop, that could not afford to supply any benefits. 
5. Wal-mart buys large quantities from china
The Fact Yes walmart buys a lot from china.
The Twist Critics argue that Walmart alone is the primary reason for US jobs being exported, however what they fail to say is that walmart is only 8% of the use Retail market, and 70% of walmarts income if from food sales and 90% of walmarts food supply comes from local and national suppliers, like con-agra. When broken down walmart sends a mear penny to china out of ever transaction. something much larger than walmart is helping china out. 
Now these are just 5 of the biggest twisted facts, there are many more out there, both good and bad for walmart, walmart does its share of fact twisting too. However I have seen almost no hard research here on any of the facts being relied on. I have alot of hard proof of lots of these twisted facts but I can not be the only one out looking for the twistes in the facts. And I also am not going to post any of the proofs until others start, because I want everyone here to start doing some research and finding some real reliable facts that we can bring this entry back to a good standing. But we must work together to do that, not against eachother. The Ace!
:If you can back your claims with sources, you can post whatever you want.  Though, that doesn't mean it'll last long.  Kamikaze Highlander 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twisted Facts

message: As a response to this page. I think this may be a simple vandalism problem (a well done one). Here is what i have read on that page: "the biggest retailer in distribution payed a communication agency to work on the article in order to move critics into an article called "Criticism of Wal-Mart". The main article has as a result reflected better the interest of Wal-Mart." - a kind of vandalism
Anyway, my suggestion is to create proportional sections, and to have diferent articles for each one. Write the same number of words related to the impact of Wall-Mart in economy of all countries, as in ecology and other, and expand each part into an article. Never put only criticism in one page, this is not NPOV. Let the reader judge if environamental impacts are bad or good, just describe the facts in a NPOV manner, by category.  And do not make too many chapters. I think you should folow the model of a country (history, economy, culture, social problems will be replaced with any anti-wall mart oppinions, etc...) Moa3333 22:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOS Vandalism ?? 

message: I have added the link to Criticisms of Wal-Mart to the see also page, it seems very appropriate
DRCarroll 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! The "See also" section is reserved for links to articles that aren't already mentioned within the text of the article. Since Criticisms of Wal-Mart is already linked (twice), I have removed it from the "See also" section. -- MisterHand 20:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: It is spelled "Supercenter" with a lower-case c, see Wal-Mart website Kevin_b_er 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercenter capitilization 

message: There is an ongoing dispute as to whether the following paragraph should be in the  introductory paragraph or in the business section:
:There has been much criticism of Wal-Mart.  Specific areas of controversy include the company's product origins, treatment of employees and suppliers, environmental policies, extraction of public subsidies (corporate welfare), availability of prescription contraceptives at Wal-Mart pharmacy counters, and store impacts on local communities and businesses. 
Let's try to work this out here. -- MisterHand 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indicate if you think this paragraph should be in the intro, in the business section, or other
* Intro -- criticism of Wal-Mart is a major part of the company. Indeed, criticism articles are bigger than the main article. As has been previously discussed on this page, it needs to be a prominant part of this article. -- MisterHand 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should criticism be mentioned in the subject header? 

message: :Please indicate if you think this paragraph should be in the intro, in the business section, or other
* Intro -- criticism of Wal-Mart is a major part of the company. Indeed, criticism articles are bigger than the main article. As has been previously discussed on this page, it needs to be a prominant part of this article. -- MisterHand 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: What happened to the table of cited references? The footnotes don't point to anything anymore. RJII 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've fixed it. -- MisterHand 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes don't link to anything

message: A bit of merging related stuff from a couple of articles has yielded Walmart intercom codes. It's clearly trivia; whether it should be deleted, merged here (or elsewhere), or expanded is a matter I'd hope editors familiar with Walmart will decide upon (I'm just tidying; I've got no opinion). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Walmart intercom codes