Talk:Criticism of Walmart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCriticism 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2006Articles for deletionKept
December 1, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 2, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
September 26, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 13, 2020Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Delisted good article

Biased by definition of the title[edit]

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. [1]

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.

and

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”.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.115.249.137 (talkcontribs) 19 November 2015‎ 10:52 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Makower, Joel. "Chairman and Executive Editor at GreenBiz Group". LinkedIn. Retrieved 19 November 2015.

Walmartsucks.com page[edit]

Walmartsucks.com was a website created by a "a disgruntled customer" which created a long running dispute with Wal-Mart.[1] Wal-Mart filed a case with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against the walmartsucks.com website.[2] 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."[3][4][5]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Dave Johnson, How to respond to unhappy customers online, CBS News, (January 31, 2013).
  2. ^ Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. wallmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey Case No. D2000-1104
  3. ^ [1], Radford.
  4. ^ 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."
  5. ^ 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."

External links[edit]


Additions[edit]

I suggest we add a section summarizing the information present on the Walmart opioids settlement article. Roasted (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5x expanded by Roastedbeanz1 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Criticism of Walmart; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

  • Sorry @Roastedbeanz1: but I do not believe that this can be promoted because the article was not created, expanded 5X, or made into a GA in the past 7 days. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]