That last paragraph need more proof than just saying that there was a TV progam that said such and such. You do not even remember what progam you saw it on. Back these statement up.
In my opinion, the 1st view lacks NPOV, while the 2nd does have NPOV (with the exception of the aforementioned last paragraph, whose problem is not so much NPOV as citing an unknown TV show - taking out any citation might be a good idea as I've heard this from several sources.) Some of the stuff in the 1st view is informative and should be merged with the 2nd view but other (like the stuff about helpful staff) is just kind of silly. - Eean
- largely done. --Robert Merkel
The usual Wikipedia practice is not simply remove other people's writing but move the disputable topics into the talk page so the idea is not buried. I wonder why some people try to hide the topic, perhaps further discussion may open a can of worms. If you do this because you own Wal-mart's stocks, then you don't have NPOV, you have a hidden agenda! I have put the questionable paragraph back here so that someone can resurrect it with proof.
I myself have seen the TV show mentioned by the original author. Though I cannot remember the details of the TV show, it does not mean it did not exist. It was on a US network TV show like 20/20 quite some time ago, it could be several years back. If it was reported by a major network, I trust it had some truth to the investigation.
I bet if this paragraph is allowed to sit here for some time, sooner or later someone with a good memory would be able to quote what that TV show was. It would be nice if someone can find the transcript to the TV show that exposed the Wal-Mart's problem.
Someone attempted to hide the following:
In all competitive business, the company that can provide the best products to the consumers at the lowest price is the winner. However, a TV investigative program (such as 20/20 or Date Line or 60 Minutes) did a special report on the business practices of Wal-Mart some time ago. The investigative reporters learned that Wal-Mart's strategy is to open a store close to a town and drive the local stores out of business. Then they abandon that site and move to another town in the same region. They move through the area, eliminating the local businesses, then create one store serving multiple towns. The TV report showed the trail of the abandoned sites Wal-Mart has gone through. The locals were happy when a new store opened just a few miles away, but after the local businesses closed, the Wal-Mart moved an inconvenient distance away. The usual complaint is not about the presence of the Wal-Mart stores nor the merchandises it sells at low prices, but about the perceived "betrayal" when Wal-Mart eliminates local businesses but then moves away in betrayal. This practice does not affect major metropolitan areas that can support multiple Wal-Marts, but in less densely populated areas, local economies have suffered.
If someone still remember that TV program, please give some pointer to its transcript.
I'm the person who removed the last paragraph. If you notice I added a sentence which in my opinion summarises the key points of the deleted paragraph. The fact that an investigative program did a story on Wal-mart isn't particularly noteworthy, except as an aid to jog people's memory. In this case, mention of it belongs on the talk page, IMHO, rather than as part of the main article. You will also note that I removed the corporate propaganda version that was placed above the text. As far as my motives for the edit, I merely point out that I do not live in a country with Wal-mart stores. --Robert Merkel