|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Walmart article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
|Criticism of Walmart was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
|Midtown Walmart was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 April 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Criticism of Walmart. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
|This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .
Biased by definition of the title
The very title of this article states it as a biased view point, containing only criticism of Walmart. In this article numerous complaints against Walmart are described but it is rarely mentioned what Walmart did to address those issues, nor are any beneficial activities of Walmart mentioned, such as:
Hurricane Katrina ravaged America’s Gulf Coast. The storm hit some of Walmart’s stores and clubs. Some of the company’s employees lost their homes and savings; a few lost their lives. Still, Walmart associates in the region rose to meet the challenges.
One store manager in Waveland, Mississippi, took a bulldozer to clear a path into and through her store, finding every dry item she could to give to neighbors who needed shoes, socks, food and water. "She didn’t call the Home Office and ask permission," Scott noted. "She just did the right thing."
In Katrina’s aftermath, government agencies, relief agencies and communities turned to Walmart (and other companies) to help. Walmart, with its sophisticated and highly efficient logistics operation, was able to get supplies to where they were needed far faster than federal and state agencies could. It was a shining moment for the company, and some much-needed positive press. 
I do not work for Walmart, but upon reading this article it simply struct me as biased, one sided and unfair. There are statements such as:
While Walmart did "stabilize" the landslide, many residents said that Walmart merely stabilized the hillside so that it could continue with work to build the store.
What information did these residents have as to Walmart's motive? How was this landslide Walmart's fault? Might this not have happened to anyone attempting to construct a building on this site? Was there any reason to think that an attempt to build on the site would cause such a landslide? If that were even the case, would not the responsibility fall upon the city's build and zoning department to deny the construction request, or insist that certain precautions be taken? And after all this despite the unsubstantiated claim that "Walmart merely stabilized the hillside so that it could continue with work to build the store", the store was not constructed on this site, but was built somewhere else. Doesn't this run counter to the claim that "Walmart merely stabilized the hillside so that it could continue with work to build the store"?
This is one example, if you read through this article, you will see many other places where it is stated that so and so claims that… and opponents say…, etc. Just because they say it does not make it so. Perhaps instead of an article that is titled "Criticism of Walmart" it should be titled "The Reputation of Walmart" and should included at least some discussion of things that Walmart is trying to do right like the Katrina example I gave above. Don't get me wrong,I think Walmart has many issues, not the least of which is that many of their products are imported, taking jobs away from US workers, but I think the subject deserves a fair discussion, and this article is not it.
To quote "Criticism of Wikipedia"
The purpose of the Wikipedia project has been criticized for the uneven handling, acceptance, and retention of articles about controversial subjects.
Further concerns are that the organization allows the participation of anonymous editors (facilitating editorial vandalism); the existence of social stratification (allowing cliques); and over-complicated rules (allowing editorial quarrels), which conditions permit the misuse of Wikipedia.
Unreliable content; in “Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge” (2010), Edwin Black characterized the editorial content of articles as a mixture of “truth, half-truth, and some falsehoods”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 19 November 2015 10:52 (UTC)
- Makower, Joel. "Chairman and Executive Editor at GreenBiz Group". LinkedIn. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
Walmartsucks.com was a website created by a "a disgruntled customer" which created a long running dispute with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart filed a case with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against the walmartsucks.com website. Wal-mart accused Kenneth J. Harvey, owner of walmartsucks.com, of attempting to extort money from Wal-Mart. Harvey asked Wal-Mart for 5 million dollars for the site. Harvey said it was "as a joke", what representatives of Wal-Mart called "extortion". "The WIPO [later] changed its opinion in light of US law."
- Dave Johnson, How to respond to unhappy customers online, CBS News, (January 31, 2013).
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. wallmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey Case No. D2000-1104
- , Radford.
- REVENGE BY ANY OTHER WEB SITE NAME . . .;STORE SPAT BECOMES A WORLDWIDE DISPUTE, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER (October 02, 2000). "...a case in which a cybersquatter in July (2000) lost the use of several variations of the name "walmartsucks" because the squatter demanded that Wal-Mart pay a ransom to stop him from publishing offensive material under the registered names."
- What's in a name?: A lot if it's your Internet domain name, St. John's Telegram (Newfoundland) (November 20, 2002). "...long-running domain dispute between Wal-Mart and Harvey over such domain names as walmartsucks.com and walmartcanadasucks.com. The cases were heard by two different panels -- Wal-Mart won the rights to the former name, while losing on the latter. These days, Harvey maintains another Web site called walmartsucks.org that encourages Wal-Mart customers to e-mail horror stories about the department store giant."