Talk:Criticism of Walmart: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:29, 25 May 2017

The article Midtown Walmart was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 April 2017 with a consensus to merge the content into Criticism of Walmart. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.

Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 18, 2006	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 1, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 2, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
September 26, 2015	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organized Labour Mid‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Retailing High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Retailing To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : SM Lanang Premier
Copyedit : Retailing in India
Expand : :- Please expand this project's list of articles. The subcategories of Category:Retailers is also an excellent starting point.
- Expand this project's image gallery page

- More articles for expansion: Automated retail, Big-box store, Chain store, Hypermarket, Store manager
NPOV : Retail loss prevention
Photo : Retail design
Stubs : Leakage (retail), Retail geography
Verify : Department store, Discount store, Retail clerk, Retail in the Republic of Ireland, Retail media, Retail software, Suggested retail price
Other : * Please add this project's banner {{WikiProject Retailing}} to retail-related talk pages. Also, bots can be utilized to automate this task.
- Also, add biographies to the articles list.

–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

JLD at Walmart (talk · contribs) has been paid by Walmart. Declaration
MS at Walmart (talk · contribs) has been paid by Walmart. Declaration

Archives

Archive 1 - April 2005 - June 2006
Archive 2 - July 2006 - August 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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. ^[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 (talk • contribs) 19 November 2015‎ 10:52 (UTC)

References

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

WP:UNDUE weight

Hello, Wikipedians! It appears some editors have begun to notice and attempt to fix WP:UNDUE and WP:POV content within this article, including recent edits and Talk-page discussions by Paige Matheson and Kendall-K1. I also point to a note Checkingfax left on this Talk page in May 2016, saying the article violates "WP:UNDUE given that this article and the Walmart article are the same size (9500 words)" and it "(u)ses a deprecated terminology per WP:MOS (Controversy and criticism)". So the purpose of this post is to ask Wikipedia editors how we can keep moving forward to clean up this article.

Any reasonable editor would see that portions of this article are written with a very specific point of view. For instance, take Slavery in Thailand. The source leads to a news article about slaves who were used in the fishing industry in Asia to supply shrimp worldwide, and not only to Walmart, but also other major retailers. This Wikipedia entry fails to include Walmart's response, which is in the story referenced. While it is not my goal to attempt to scrub the article of negative detail, this is not a specific criticism of Walmart and I am not sure it belongs. The article is also full of weasel words.

As editors watching this page probably know, I am one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia and I have a financial conflict of interest so I won't edit this article. But I hope we can have a discussion that leads to a well-balanced, neutral, sourced and verifiable solution. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came to this article a few months ago I thought it would be a simple matter of going down a list of problems and fixing them. I have since discovered that when I check the content against the sources, at least half of what is written here has some problem; either what we say isn't in the source, or it's not relevant to Walmart, or the source is bad (not reliable, or allegations later disproven), or only one side of the POV is given. Half my edits have been removal of problematic material.

Fixing this article, in my opinion, would be a massive effort, one that I do not want to undertake. I am tempted to just throw the whole thing out and start over. Otherwise we really need to go through everything, check every cited statement against sources.

It's kind of an odd article anyway. I'm not a fan of Criticism sections, much less Criticism articles.

I am somewhat at a loss as to how to proceed. Continuing what we've been doing isn't going to work, because we simply don't have the manpower. We could try to rally more people from various noticeboards and project pages. Maybe ask for advice from someplace like Village Pump. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is enough to begin a long difficult journey, by taking that first step :-)

If the three of you wikipedians begin improving the article, soon you will attract more eyeballs. Rather than seek to WP:TNT the whole shebang, my advice is to first focus on whichever sentence in the article jumps out at you as being the least well-sourced and the most non-WP:PAG-compliant. Fix that sentence, by properly sourcing and properly rewriting it. Then, just repeat the process, as long as you are unhappy with the state of the article. Even if you only fix one or two sentences thataway before losing steam, by definition, you just fixed the two *worst* sentences! So pick a poor sentence, the worst one or just whatever one jumps out at you as low-hanging fruit, and then concentrate on fixing that one sentence up, properly. I expect you will find, before too many sentence-repair-jobs are finished, that other wikipedians will be reworking the article with you, picking (one at a time) sentences *they* think need improving 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but that is not working. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are WP:VOLUNTEERing and I'm not a-gonna force you to fix this article. I am not able to fix it right now, either! :-) But WP:TIND applies, so sooner or later, somebody will come along and start doing the work... and in my experience, once one wikipedian begins to fix things there is a snowball-effect. One snowball can start a snowman, or a snowball fight, of course, so it is not always guaranteed to be collaborative. But in some cases, one snowball can eventually cause an avalanche of changes... sometimes for the bad but often for the net overall good... and usually that sort of tactic is more effective than just WP:TNT'ing the entire article, since wikipedia is structured so as to resist rapid bursty changes 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JDL at Walmart regarding the problems in the article. I do not, and have never worked a Walmart. I stumbled upon this article a few months ago and when I read it, I would click links to sources that were dead, or had little to do with Walmart. Also, I remember reading a section about insurance in the article, and how it was not affordable or something, but when I went to the source, the source stated the total opposite. I think the copays were like $10 and free or $5 prescriptions? It's been a while since I read that, so forgive me if I'm wrong. I also agree with Kendall K1, I'm not a fan of criticism articles either, and I agree that rewriting the whole article would be a massive effort. I would love it if the article was chucked, and maybe other editors could help us start over. Paige Matheson (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Matheson, thanks for getting the ball rolling on fixing this article up. I don't have time to help with it at present, but you have a good eye and will probably get it ship-shape if you keep persistently going through the prose, sentence by sentence and source by source. JDL_at_Walmart, thanks for following the WP:PSCOI guidelines, appreciated. Wikipedia tends to be 'unfair' to corporation-articles, not necessarily because individual wikipedians are biased against corporations in general or against walmart-the-corporation in particular, but simply because the news media tends to cover years of success stories with a mere footnote (if that) and cover controversy with as much ink (and electrons nowadays) as they can possibly manage. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE has a specific meaning: wikipedians are supposed to *find* the WP:SOURCES which satisfy WP:RS, and then in a neutral encyclopedic WP:TONE without any WP:PUFFERY or any WP:WEASEL write impeccably-sourced summaries of what them thar newspapers/books/magazines/televisionNews/radioNews/academicPapers/governmentalReports/etc, *actually* say. Sounds like we have Paige and Kendall-K1 who are willing to handle the write-neutral-sentences part of the job, which is good. The best way you can help, JDL, is by digging up the URLs and the ISBNs of WP:RS sources -- well known publishers with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and if possible objectivity, and for a famous corporation like walmart, that preferably means sticking to nationally-recognized or internationally-recognized WP:SOURCES and especially when possible http://scholar.google.com WP:SOURCES which have double-digit citation-counts thereon. It is okay if the WP:SOURCES are WP:NONENGLISH e.g. France 24 counts just as much as WSJ and BBC, it is also okay if the sources are WP:DEADLINK or even hardcopy-only per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If you can help Paige and Kendall with writing up a nice complete bibliography, doing the legwork of digging for sources, they can probably write up neutral encyclopedic prose that will put this Criticism of Walmart article onto a sound WP:5-compliant footing again. Once that major effort is mostly accomplished, would be the best time to consider whether WP:MERGE per WP:NOCRIT is a good idea. Depending on what the *sources* spend all their ink and electrons talking about, it may end up being the case, that 'criticism of walmart' will remain a separate article. But that is almost always inherently a failure to adhere to neutrality... it is almost *always* better for wikipedia to treat the topic-matter in a holistic fashion, and intermix the 2014-criticism-stuff with the 2014-positive-stuff, and intermix the 1990s-criticism-stuff with the 1990s-positive-stuff, rather than specifically creating an article which by the very title will only criticize. You can get further help at WP:TEAHOUSE if you (where 'you' here means any wikipedian :-) need help, or leave me a note on my usertalkpage if I can possibly be of assistance. Best, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendall-K1, Kendall-K1, Paige Matheson, and 47.222.203.135: Thank you for continuing this conversation. It is encouraging to see that editors recognize this article needs work. However you and others decide to move forward with improving this article, I am here to assist. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kendall-K1, I obviously agree this article requires a massive effort to fix. Your insight is very valuable. I am able to help with "grunt" work such as checking facts and providing sources if that is useful. However, due to my conflict of interest, I do not feel comfortable making suggestions as to whether we should try to correct what's here, or start over by reducing to a stub. Would me starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump be useful? I am happy to help with that, too. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saw notice at NPOV board ... and will try and help too. It is a 'criticism' page so the topic is going to focus on identifying and explaining the negative aspects or those which are perceived as negatives. I'll offer the hopeful part for article editors that just having an article and major points present is a good way along, and that pretty good is pretty good. Markbassett (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Markbassett: Thanks for taking a look. Please inform me if I can be of any help. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JLD at Walmart - I'm just doing bits ad hoc and not sure how much I will do, and how much of it will be wording/decommatizing or checking references and such. I'm going to look at whether comments are made about why criticism is done -- is it partly as a surrogate for large business or american business or globalization, such as the start of the staffing section is all things say generally not specific to Wal-mart, and that there seems a lot of vague "some" usage. Markbassett (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup - removal of Neutrality tag

As part of general cleanup mentioned above, I notice the Neutrality tag had no TALK item for it.  Looking at the date mentioned, I see it was a tag added 15 November 2015 here, by an IP editor who in TALK mentions the title/topic here but did not discuss specifics to improve and I'll presume whatever improvements they would make are long since made.

I about to remove the tag, as the title is unchanged and the discussion is dormant as it was just an editor input and no further work or specifics set for clearing it. I note the guideline 'when to remove' says:

"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. we'll work on the content a bit more but ... the topic being 'criticism of', I think it's feasible to include the company response (if any comonly seen) but just going to be WP:OFFTOPIC to put in the mentioned good acts. Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Criticism of Walmart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1]

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:23.115.249.137|23.115.249.137]] ([[User talk:23.115.249.137#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/23.115.249.137|contribs]]) </small> 19 November 2015‎ 10:52 (UTC)
 {{reflist-talk}}
-== Insurance. ==
-I removed the following regarding  insurance "One criticism of the new plan is that it provides benefit only after a $1,000 deductible is paid ($3,000 for a family). These deductibles may financially be out of reach for eligible part-time workers".
-The above wasn't in the source. In fact, the article highlights that a plan is $11 for 3 office visits and 3 prescriptions before a $1000 deductible kicks in. The article also states that walmart or (any company I guess) can't do much better than $11.00
-[[User:Paige Matheson|Paige Matheson]] ([[User talk:Paige Matheson|talk]]) 03:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
-:That looks good, but why did you remove the ABC News citation on the first sentence in that paragraph? [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
-:: I think I removed the link because it was dead. When I clicked on it, it took me to the main ABC news page that was doing a story about Dylann Roof and regular news stories. I checked it 3 times to make sure. [[User:Paige Matheson|Paige Matheson]] ([[User talk:Paige Matheson|talk]]) 01:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
-:::I'm going to restore it then. We don't remove sources just because the link is dead. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
-{{od}} Why do you want to keep a dead link? The other links explain about the insurance, correct? The link is 11 years old.  I'm not trying to be rude, but are you in charge of this page or something? I feel like I have to justify why I edit or remove something, and if you agree it's ok, but if you don't you just add stuff back? [[User:Paige Matheson|Paige Matheson]] ([[User talk:Paige Matheson|talk]]) 03:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
-:It's a Wikipedia content guideline, which is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. It is documented at [[WP:DEADREF]]: "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working." But if you feel strongly about this, I won't argue. Also, please try to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]. That's a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Wikipedia runs on [[WP:CON|consensus]], which means if two editors disagree, they discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit warring. The most popular method for achieving consensus is [[WP:BRD]], which suggest that when some edit you make has been reverted, you discuss on the talk page rather than simply re-doing the edit. [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 04:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
-:: Agree that there is no need to retain a deadlink, *if* the contents of that deadlink did not provide any ''unique'' factual details.  In other words, if the deadlink to ABC_News was used to back a specific neutral factoid, and removing the [[ABC_News]] URL which *once* [[WP:AGF|must have been working]] since otherwise the wikipedian who added it would not have done so, will also necessitate remove the factoid (or tagging it 'citation needed')... then leave the deadlink.  Sooner or later, somebody will happen along, that knows where to scrounge up a working archival copy of the no-longer-functional original URL.  {{talkquote| On April 17, 2006, Walmart announced it was making a health care plan available to part-time workers after one year of service, instead of the prior two-year requirement.<ref name="parttimehealth">Freking, Kevin. "[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1852359 Walmart to Offer More Health Coverage]." ''[[ABC News]].'' April 17, 2006. Retrieved on February 24, 2007. {{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> }}
-{{reflist-talk}}
-:: And in this case, one currently-working URL for that newspiece, would be here.[http://poststar.com/business/local/wal-mart-extends-insurance-coverage/article_608816d6-8a9e-500b-9b69-488a7f8c4770.html]  Note that this has a slightly altered title, and was the following day, but backs up the sentence well enough methinks.  Somebody might want to read the full PostStar.com version of the [[Associated Press]] article, though, and see if *addtional* facts need mentioning -- I just skimmed the first paragraph to make sure it was about the now-one-year-was-two-years factoid, which it was.  I also pre-emptively archived the PostStar.com version, which can be found here.[http://web.archive.org/web/20170131001930/http://poststar.com/business/local/wal-mart-extends-insurance-coverage/article_608816d6-8a9e-500b-9b69-488a7f8c4770.html]  So the altered material would look like this;  {{talkquote| On April 17, 2006, Walmart announced it was making a [[Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-sponsored_coverage|health care plan]] available to [[Part-time_contract#United_States|part-time workers]] after one [[Vesting#Employment|year of service]], instead of the prior two-year requirement.<ref name="parttimehealth2">{{cite web
-|author=[[Kevin Freking]]
-|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
-|website=[[The Post-Star]] (at PostStar.com)
-|title=Wal-Mart extends insurance coverage
-|date=April 18, 2006
-|access-date=January 30, 2017
-|language=English
-|quote=...[[Wal-Mart]] Stores Inc. said Monday it will relax [[Vesting#Employment|eligibility requirements]] for [[Part-time_contract#United_States|part-time employee]]s who want [[health insurance]], allowing an additional 150,000 workers to gain coverage if they choose. Until now, the employees have had to work for Wal-Mart for two years to qualify for [[Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-sponsored_coverage|employer-sponsored insurance]]. Beginning next month, they will have to work at the company for one year. The coverage [[Employee_benefits#United_States|also will]] extend to [[Health_insurance#United_States|their children]].  The changes [[press release|were announced]] by one of the company's [[vice president]]s, [[Susan Chambers]]...
-|url=http://poststar.com/business/local/wal-mart-extends-insurance-coverage/article_608816d6-8a9e-500b-9b69-488a7f8c4770.html
-|dead-url=no
-|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20170131001930/http://poststar.com/business/local/wal-mart-extends-insurance-coverage/article_608816d6-8a9e-500b-9b69-488a7f8c4770.html
-|archive-date=January 31, 2017
-|via=[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1852359 story] by [[ABC News]] on April 17, 2006 (retrieved February 24, 2007 but no longer online as of 2016).}}</ref> }}
-{{reflist-talk}}
-:: I'll go ahead and let somebody else insert this into mainspace, since it has already been removed and re-inserted a few times, once everybody is in agreement that my new URL is an improvement, and that this sentence needs no further elaborations. [[Special:Contributions/47.222.203.135|47.222.203.135]] ([[User talk:47.222.203.135|talk]]) 00:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 == WP:UNDUE weight ==