Talk:Best Buy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Criticisms

There needs to be a set of critera established for that should be posted in the Criticisms section. If having a criticisms section is going to allow for endless postings of every lawsuit filed against the Best Buy company, then I just as soon see the section go away. The truth of the matter is, is that Best Buy probably has hundreds of lawsuits filed against them every year. But I don't believe that the scope of wikipedia, is to provide an account of every single lawsuit that's filed against them. So what are some ideas for guidelines that need to be met in order to post something in that Criticisms section? B2bomber81 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

we can just debate each one to see which ones are worthy... I think court cases are much more relevant to the article than a "no-christmas" policy.. It's going to be nearly impossible to create a set of criteria that is fair. There's only one court case in the section, so I don't see how it is a problem. I'd say its relevant because it involves multiple stores, is a federal case, and has been brought to the court by a state. Future/past similar cases can simply be combined into the same sentence (rather than having multiple sections/paragraphs for it) Bgold4 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Criticism for ideas. If it's a major lawsuit then I usually put it in its own article and provide a link to it from both the defendant's page and the prosecutor's page (when applicable). As far as the Christmas thing, content like that should go in the article about the organization criticizing Best Buy, not the article about Best Buy itself. Regards, Tuxide 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. I think the no-christmas policy is not relevant enough for the article. Things like the PS3 and XBOX fiascos could probably be crafted into one short sentence with citations. I'm going to see how creative I can be and write those two into one paragraph. And I think we do away with the no-christmas policy. The truth of the matter is that if it was ever relevant, it's relevant only for this Christmas season. After that, it's pretty much irrelevant on all fronts. B2bomber81 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good... I'm looking forward to seeing it. Let me know if you want any help Bgold4 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I did it. I hope there's not too much flack. Basically, summarized the XBOX and Playstation incidents. If the reader wants more detail about the incidents, the links to the sources are included. It's not necessary for us to include all the nitty gritty details if it's available via the link. Secondly, removed the no-christmas policy altogether as discussed above. Lastly, removed the paragraph regarding the civil suit in Wisconsin. It's a pending lawsuit, so I don't see it as having any relevance to the article. If Best Buy is found at fault in the end, then that might be another matter to discuss later. Until then, I don't see how it adds anything to the article. Thoughts? B2bomber81 09:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree and out of respect for all those who actually contributed and edited this section I reinstated it.

It might be prudent to actually ask those who contributed to this page about drastic changes befroe making them unilaterally. Happy Holidays! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomomm (talk • contribs)

Jomomm, that is actually the intention of this discussion page. I have no way of contacting every single person that contributes to this page. That is what the talk page is for. And the reason I went ahead with the change, was because all I had seen was positive responses to my ideas and that was why I went ahead with them. B2bomber81 02:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to combine the PS3 + 360 paragraphs into one paragraph, get rid of the no christmas paragraph, and leave the Wisconsin trial... I'd also say that the trial magazine paragraph should be eliminated (I think that has to do with a third party rather than Best Buy) Bgold4 02:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The trial magazine thing has been going on for a long time, and yes, it has to do with a third party. Not Best Buy themselves. There have been numerous news stories on this, and the end result always pointed to either the magazine company or the subscriber not reading all the terms and conditions of the trial subscription. Back to the "no-christmas policy", I should reiterate that this is a short-term issue, and it really won't have any relevance after Christmas is over. So I agree, it should go. I did merge the XBOX and PS3 paragraphs already. I also included a little more detail than I did on the last edit, in hopes that it will cause a little less "shock" to other editors. I really think that if readers want more details than whats on the wikipedia page, then they can follow the links. It's not necessary to copy down every little detail. B2bomber81 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No-Christmas Controversy

Also, what could be done to keep people from adding the "no-christmas" content back in is to merge it into Christmas controversies (if it isn't there already) and provide a link to it in Best Buy's See also section. This is annoying me because "no-christmas" content seems to be prominent on many articles about retailers, despite that this is a single organization's cowboy crusade. Tuxide 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus here to not have it in this article... if someone wants to add it to Christmas controversies, feel free to... although I personally wouldn't consider it anything close to a controversy or anything close to notable Bgold4 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The proper article used to be called Secularization of Christmas; however Christmas controversies now contains such content because it was formed by merging Secularization of Christmas into another article that had to do with Christmas. I have brought my issue up for discussion on Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal because it seems to be quite an issue, so feel free to comment on it. Tuxide 03:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The biggest factor behind my reasons for not wanting it posted on the article, is because there is no fact-based sources for the information. Yes, the general issue is that the words "Merry Christmas" were not used in the 2006 marketing campaign. I don't recall even seeing the words "Happy Holidays" in the ads. But the best source we have for that is the website of the boycotting organization? That's a biased source, and shouldn't be relied upon as a reliable source. That's my extra two cents on the matter.  :) B2bomber81 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The first reference in the no-Christmas paragraph was an Associated Press article. B2Bomber81's claim that "there is no fact-based sources for the information" seems to be untrue. (Posted by 148.87.1.172)

First, please remember to sign your name on your posts. Second, the link that you posted, claiming to be an Associate Press article is broken and doesn't work. Besides, it appears its a forbes.com link anyway - not AP. So, going back to what I said - there do not seem to be any fact-based sources out there. The only working links anybody has posted are links to the AFA and Catholic League. I'm not saying that there is no fact to this story - I think it's well known to a lot of people. But in order for the article to be valid, you have to have a credible source to cite. AFA and Catholic League don't cut it for me. B2bomber81 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(posted by 148.87.1.172) I'm sorry the original link is dead. Fortunately, AP stories can be viewed on many different websites. The no-Christmas story is still available on the MSNBC site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15639425/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.87.1.170 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Please refer to earlier posts on this matter - there has been a consensus reached by the editors involved in the thread that this should not be included in the Best Buy article. Also, please remember to sign your posts. B2bomber81 06:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You stated above: "The biggest factor behind my reasons for not wanting it posted on the article, is because there is no fact-based sources for the information." The MSNBC link should remove your main objection. Are there other objections? You seem to be saying that that once "a consensus is reached", no new information can alter the final verdict. I hope this is not the case. 148.87.1.170

I don't see why this needs to be posted on the article. Why is it a criticism? Wal-Mart decided to say "Merry Christmas", which is great - Best Buy opted to not refer to any one specific holiday on the chance that they would offend someone for not also saying Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, etc. Now, that doesn't mean that Wal Mart did anything wrong by saying just Merry Christmas - I'm saying that I don't understand why just because some organization calls a boycott, why it automatically becomes a notable criticism? I'm want to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks. B2bomber81 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a criticism because of the simple fact that two national groups (AFA and Catholic League) have criticized Best Buy. Whether the criticism is merited is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Whether the criticism is "notable" is perhaps more subjective, but we could look at the media coverage. The controversy has been featured on the Bill O'Reilly program (http://mediamatters.org/items/200612200012 ) . Also the email campaign against Best Buy is big enough to warrant a Snopes Urban Legends profile (http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/bestbuy.asp ). This seems to be big enough of a controversy to be counted as "notable". 148.87.1.170
There is discussion on Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal concerning the inclusion of this topic; I encourage you to bring further discussion there. I will not repeat the points I brought up there on this talk page. Regards, Tuxide 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You have two points listed on the other page. One, the criticism is not retailer-specific. Two, this is a single organization's "cowboy crusade." Regarding the first point, it was Best Buy spokeswoman Dawn Bryant's statement that sparked the criticism. All the subsequent criticism focused on BBY, and this particular statement. Regarding the second point, there are three distinct critics of Best Buy: the AFA, the Catholic League, and Bill O'Reilly. It's not just "a single organization".148.87.1.170
I'd rather you state your disputes of the proposal on Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal instead of this talk page, although it seems you still might not be understanding what the issue is, though. Our goal is to find a solution that can work for everyone. Regards, Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The comment from Best Buy's spokeswoman didn't spark the controversy - AFA, CL and O'Reilly sparked the controversy when they chose to make an issue out of it. I'm sorry, but just because those people have I'm sure if you dig a little deeper, you can probably find somebody making a stink about Wal-Mart or Target saying Merry Christmas too. Do you think that should be posted on their articles as criticism as well? I'd like you to take a look at [1] before you say anything else. You'll see why I think that the whole "no-christmas" thing has been blown way out of proportion and shouldn't be included. B2bomber81 09:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of Media Matters and its stance on O'Reilly. In an earlier post, I included a Media Matters link. You seem to be saying that critics are the cause of the controversy. I think that a controversy requires at least two sides. For example, is KFC or PETA the "spark" for the controversy between them? For the sake of neutrality, I think the controversy should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles on both the source and target of the criticism. 148.87.1.170
Okay - but you keep using O'Reilly's involvement as a basis of truth to this and O'Reilly is the one that made up the story. He made claims that Best Buy was firing employees for saying Merry Christmas, and Best Buy came out and said that wasn't true. In the end, the only truth to this whole thing was that Best Buy stated they would only use Happy Holidays in their PRINTED advertisements. They pointed out that the TV commercials even had representations of Christmas and never once uttered the words "Happy Holidays". B2bomber81 17:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1. If you look at my posts, I have never linked O'Reilly's involvement to the truthfulness of the criticisms. I only mentioned O'Reilly's coverage on this talk page to show that the controversy got enough media attention to be deemed notable, which was one of B2bomber81's criteria for putting a criticism in Wikipedia.
2. There is no mention of O'Reilly's claims in the no-Christmas passage. I relied on the AP story for Dawn Bryant's statement, and the websites of the AFA and the Catholic League for their respective reactions. Only these 3 sources were cited in the removed passage, included below for reference. 148.87.1.170
Best Buy made headlines in November 2006 when it announced that it would not use the word "Christmas" in its 2006 advertisements, bucking a retailing trend. Dawn Bryant, a Best Buy spokeswoman, stated: "We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period, and we certainly need to be respectful of all of them."[1] The American Family Association criticized Bryant's statement, saying she equated saying "Merry Christmas" with showing disrespect. Furthermore, the AFA has launched a campaign against Best Buy's policy.[2] In reaction to the same policy, the Catholic League placed Best Buy on its 2006 Christmas Watch List.[3]
Okay, I'm really tiring of this thread and it's obvious you aren't going to stop until this statement is posted. I do find it interesting however, that you don't seem to be too involved in editing any other pages on Wikipedia. I would also highly encourage you to begin reading <<>> and learn how to do even some of the more simple things on Wikipedia - like learning how to properly sign your posts with your username. I also recommend registering instead of editing anonymously. You'll gain more respect that way.
I recommend that the following version be added to the article - no more, no less. It states the facts, which are included in the AP article. I don't see any need in linking to AFA, Catholic League or O'Reilly:
"In November 2006, Best Buy announced that it would continue to use "Happy Holidays" in its 2006 print advertisements. Dawn Bryant, a Best Buy spokeswoman, stated: "We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period, and we certainly need to be respectful of all of them."[4]" Best Buy spokeswoman Dawn Bryant later clarified the statement saying "Best Buy employees are allowed to greet customers any way they choose, including 'Merry Christmas,' but the company's promotional efforts are limited."
B2bomber81 21:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As stated in point 2 above, you'll see that O'Reilly was never part of the passage. However, omitting the AFA and the Catholic League's opposition (backed by factual citations) means that no criticisms are actually mentioned. The leftover result is just two decontexualized policy statements, which would be puzzling to the reader. 148.87.1.170

Well Wikipedia is built on consensus, so let's get some. I agree with B2bomer81. I don't really see why this is notable enough to be part of the article. I'm sure many other companies made similar decisions with a wide range of responses. You can't please everyone with this stuff and since it isn't really notable to Best Buy, I don't see why it should be in here at all. The Christmas Controversies article would probably be appropriate to have it in there, as a minor note. Paul Cyr 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your objection that the no-Christmas policy isn't notable has already been rebutted above. Bill O'Reilly's heavy coverage of Best Buy's no-Christmas policy (not just that of retailers in general) demonstrates that the controversy garners enough media attention. As mentioned before, O'Reilly's coverage demonstrates notability (as opposed to accuracy), while the Associated Press article is used as an reliable source. 148.87.1.170 13 February, 2007
Surprisingly enough, not everyone considers everything that Bill O'Reilly talks about to be automatically notable. (It's kind of funny that the link you found claims that he lied about the statements he made anyway...) Do you have any specific objections to the suggestion above about adding the Christmas controversy link to the See also section, and adding additional information there? --Onorem 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The O'Reilly source fails WP:V for coming to a hypothesis that Best Buy has a no-christmas policy. You have to see no further than the title of the article, O'Reilly falsely claimed Best Buy employee confirmed ban on "Merry Christmas" because the conversation is between O'Reilly and a customer. Even if the conversation was between O'Reilly and an employee, it would probably still fail WP:V because there is no way he can verify who he is talking to. Tuxide 02:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't think you read what I wrote. I mentioned O'Reilly's coverage because it implies that criticisms (whether true or false) generated significant controversy. This rebuts the charges that the criticism applied to retailers in general or that the controversy was minor.

Please note everything in the actual Wikipedia article (see below) is fully backed by the AP article. The comments from the Catholic League and the AFA are taken from their respective websites. These citations satisfy the WP:V criterion.

Best Buy made headlines in November 2006 when it announced that it would not use the word "Christmas" in its 2006 advertisements, bucking a retailing trend. Dawn Bryant, a Best Buy spokeswoman, stated: "We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period, and we certainly need to be respectful of all of them."[5] The American Family Association criticized Bryant's statement, saying she equated saying "Merry Christmas" with showing disrespect. Furthermore, the AFA has launched a campaign against Best Buy's policy.[6] In reaction to the same policy, the Catholic League placed Best Buy on its 2006 Christmas Watch List.[7]
  1. ^ Wal-Mart Opts for 'Christmas' Marketing. Associated Press. November 15, 2006. Retrieved on January 28, 2007.
  2. ^ Wildmon, Donald Best Buy Bans Use of Merry Christmas In Advertising . American Family Association. November 10, 2006. Retrieved on November 10, 2006.
  3. ^ "Christmas Watch." Catholic League. Retrieved on November 24, 2006.
  4. ^ Wal-Mart Opts for 'Christmas' Marketing. Associated Press. November 15, 2006. Retrieved on January 28, 2007.
  5. ^ Wal-Mart Opts for 'Christmas' Marketing. Associated Press. November 15, 2006. Retrieved on January 28, 2007.
  6. ^ Wildmon, Donald Best Buy Bans Use of Merry Christmas In Advertising . American Family Association. November 10, 2006. Retrieved on November 10, 2006.
  7. ^ "Christmas Watch." Catholic League. Retrieved on November 24, 2006.
Let me repeat: There is no mention or citation of O'Reilly in the Wikipedia article.
Let me repeat: The key source for the information in the article is from an Associate Press article. 24.218.124.62 13 February, 2007
The first source says the following: The moves respond to mounting criticism from religious groups that staged boycotts against Wal-Mart and other merchants after they eliminated or de-emphasized “Christmas” in their advertising. It is very obvious that the criticism by AFA, etc. is not Best Buy-specific. Tuxide 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
However, the second citation above (from the AFA website itself) explicitly states that the AFA has a Best-Buy-specific campaign. [2] Notice the link at the bottom of the page: "Send your email to Best Buy". 24.218.124.62 13 February, 2007
Your petition cites from the exact same MSNBC article, and it says the exact same thing as my previous post. There is also [3] [4] which shows that AFA's no-christmas campaign is not specific to Best Buy. Tuxide 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems like grasping for straws at this point. Paul Cyr 07:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think by you and I disagree on what "Best-Buy-specific" mean. I never denied that AFA has targeted Walmart and Target in addition to Best Buy. But they have a specific campaign with a web page explicitly directed against Best Buy.
To use another example, PETA has campaigned against many fast-food restaurants, such as KFC and MacDonald's, for animal maltreatment. PETA's anti-KFC campaign is mentioned in KFC's Wikipedia article, even though PETA has criticized McDonald's as well.
On the grounds of "specificity", if the anti-KFC campaign is in Wikipedia, then the anti-Best-Buy campaign should be as well. 148.87.1.170 14 February, 2007
You can bend and twist this anyway you want, but the answer is no. You are not acting in good-faith here. It's quite evident by looking at your history on wikipedia - you do this all the time. You are constantly getting vandalism blocks put against you. If you want to be a contributor to wikipedia, learn the rules and regulations. Until then, back down. B2bomber81 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope B2bomber81 could address the substance of my PETA/KFC argument. I've always been patient in addressing the arguments of others, and I hope you'll extend that same respect to me. 148.87.1.170 14 February, 2007
I've already told you my views on this. Like I said, all you are doing is twisting this and putting different spins on the issue. My response hasn't changed. Please see my past responses if you've forgotten already. B2bomber81 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

B2bomber81 and other opponents of the no-Christmas paragraph have 3 main objections:

  • veracity
  • notability
  • specificity

Here is how I have addressed these objections

  • Veracity: It is backed by the AP story.
  • Notability: It has received much media attention, including snopes and O'Reilly
  • Specificity: There is a Best-Buy-specific campaign by the AFA.

Are there any other objections? 148.87.1.170 14 February, 2007

Okay, let me break this down for you.
  • Veracity: It is NOT backed by the AP article. The AP article simply stated that Best Buy was not using the word "Christmas" in its advertising. Don't add anything to it, don't take anything from it. Your contribution is not based on the AP article, it's based on lies told by O'Reilly.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by B2bomber81 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

  • If you read my contribution, you'll find no mention or citation of O'Reilly. My contribution contains two things. (1) It contains BBY spokeswoman Dawn Bryant's quote about Best Buy policy. (2) It mentions the AFA and the Catholic League's negative reaction. That's it. My contribution is 100% factual. 148.87.1.170 14 February, 2007
  • Notability: Again, you use O'Reilly as a basis for notability, as well as Snopes. Not sufficient evidence for notability. You've been told that several times already. Get over it. It is insufficient.
  • Is the Associated Press sufficient?
  • Specificity: The AF-who? Who cares? Their campaign was based on (again) the lies were told by O'Reilly.

The entire "No Christmas Controversy" is a sham started by O'Reilly, then it cascaded into the AFA's ban of Best Buy which was based on O'Reillys lies in the first place. Your contribution is based on nothing, which makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia. Go find something else to occupy your time.

  • Your AFA-got-it-from-O'Reilly claim is wrong. The American Family Association started its campaign on Nov. 10, 2006. This is well before Bill O'Reilly's feature on the Best Buy policy, which aired Nov. 29, 2006.
  • The AFA campaign is based exclusively on the AP article. See this link to confirm: [5]148.87.1.170 14 February, 2007

I have come to a solution that will satisfy my end on the inclusion of a no-christmas paragraph. The paragraph can exist only if the templates {{content}} and {{mergeto}} are above it. The use of the first template requires that the disputed content should stop being removed. The reason that I am bringing this up is to keep this thing from being edit-warred over, and to encourage discussion on this topic from other Wikipedians. By proposing this I do not mean to imply WP:DNFT, because I do not want to label anyone with WP:TROLL yet; however this will go to WP:WQA if this discussion continues irrespective of Wikipedia's WP:DICK rule. Regards, Tuxide 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clear that this person, only identified as 148.87.1.170, 148.87.1.170 and 24.218.124.62, is an obvious vandal. My only regret is that I kept arguing with the troll instead of just following warning procedure to get him banned. If you look at his contribs, he's got a long history of vandalism. A consensus was reached already that this content does not meet Notability guidelines. Yes, it meets verifiability guidelines because it was published by Associate Press. But the argument for notability was that the AFA and Catholic League mention it on their website. This does not satisfy [[WP:Notability]. It states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. I think the page needs to be reverted back to version #108339637. Lastly, we need to return to the discussion of whether a Criticism section should even be kept on this page. It's well documented in Wikipedia guidelines that Criticism sections only serve to attract trolls and spawn frequent edit-wars. B2bomber81 07:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of "multiple, non-trivial published works" showing that passage meets WP:Notability standards

1. Chicago Tribune, Nov 24, 2006: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bal-te.bz.christmas24nov24,0,7755319.story
2. Oakland Tribune, Dec. 11, 2006: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061211/ai_n16903774
3. San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 9, 2006: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/16202176.htm

148.87.1.170 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.124.62 (talk • contribs)

My argument is not that the passage fails WP:N, but the inclusion of such passages on multiple retailer articles fails WP:NPOV. Not only do such passages exist, there is an entire article on this subject as well which is where these passages belong. Furthermore, I am strongly convinced that there is a user, or a group of users on Wikipedia that has been astroturfing this subject onto multiple retailer articles. Regards, Tuxide 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. You will notice you won't see this information posted on the Catholic League or AFA articles. Just the retailers. If this is such a major issue for the CL and the AFA, I find it interesting that such effort hasn't been made to get this information posted on THEIR articles. My proposition is that this be removed from the Best Buy article, and that the appropriate information be added to the CL's and AFA's article. For example, the CL's quote could be posted on their article, and the AFA's quote could be posted on theirs. Your thoughts, Tuxide? B2bomber81 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is to do what Wikipedia:Criticism says, and I know it's an essay. In the past, there has been some movement to make it a guideline. My interpretation is that the passage should go into christmas controversy, and a wikilink to this article should go into the See also section of the Best Buy, Catholic League, and American Family Association articles, etc. I am considering posting a request on WP:WQA merely for some outside opinions on this, since my opinion can no longer be considered "outside". Also, this talk page needs to be archived, and the active topics (prominently this one) needs to be refactored into a few bullet points. See Talk:Target Corporation for a good example on a refactored talk page after archival. Regards, Tuxide 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on the archive and bullet points already, and planning on posting it in the next day or so. Yes, some outside opinions are definitely a must at this point. Thank you. B2bomber81 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


You seem to want to segregate the "War-on-Christmas" criticism of Best Buy, Wal Mart, and other retailers into its own article. But as mentioned above, PETA's criticism of KFC and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is integrated in articles for both the source and target of criticism. As the PETA precedent suggests, integrated criticism sections are standard and reasonable. 24.218.124.62

Fast-food restaurants and circuses are outside the scope of WikiProject Retailing; therefore I am not really interested in them. The inclusion of this content is also disputed. If I had a say, content should remain in the PETA article, and the articles KFC and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus should have a link to PETA in its See also section. Sorry for my slow response to this; I am busy finishing my bachelor's degree. Regards, Tuxide 02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Any info

I read long ago that Best Buy wanted to expand to Puerto Rico,does anyone have any info?

The store locator lists Puerto Rico as an option, and Best Buy press releases say that they have stores in PR Bgold4 04:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility to add a section

I have received horrible service/prices----(they broke my computer via geeksquad+ told me I needed a service I didn't and said it was the only way to fix my computer+the extended service plan is made so that they have complete control over it so if they sais it's ok--it's ok(even if broken)+the "staff" there could not POSSIBLY be an worse) and I have noticed the mass amount of lawsuits filed against best buy along with anti-best buy sites such-as "bestbuysux.org" so I think it would be a viable idea to add a "Ethics Standard" section or something similar(same general idea, but it explains how best buy TREATS customers....not just how people THINK best buy treats customers(and the site I mentioned earlier would explain what I mean).....Dextrone 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a journal of personal incidences. If you can find a reliable source and properly cite notable incidences or notable suits then those can be included. Keep in mind not every lawsuit or complaint is going to be included. You have to demonstrate it's notability. Paul Cyr 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)