Talk:Best Buy/Archive 2

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)

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." 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. In reaction to the same policy, the Catholic League placed Best Buy on its 2006 Christmas Watch List.

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."" 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." 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. In reaction to the same policy, the Catholic League placed Best Buy on its 2006 Christmas Watch List.

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)

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)

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)

Link somewhere for Dynexsemiconductor

Shouldnt there be a link somewhere for dynex semiconductor? because searching for dynex just brings up this, and im guessing theres a few things to do with the word dynex instead of just this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.98.178 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed external link

Hi -- there's a lot more information about best buy here, and the information at this site is complementary to the material about best buy already up on Wikipedia (it tends to focus on the company's business model and business prospects rather than from a cultural / encyclopedic perspective). I thought it would be useful to readers to link to this article as an "external link". Full disclosure -- I work for Wikinvest, which is why I'm proposing on the talk page first to gauge reaction... Parkerconrad 21:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive

The Best Buy Talk Page discussions prior to February 14th have been archived and I've condensed the main topics of the No-Christmas discussion on this page. B2bomber81 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have further archived/refactored the discussion; I don't want the people from WP:WQA seeing the original discussion because it is very long and boring. Sorry this has taken me this long; I am very busy in life right now. Tuxide 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please include anything I left out from the original. Thanks. Tuxide 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No-Christmas controversy

This section has been refactored from several different discussions that have been archived, and presents the perspective of one Wikipedia contributor. The summaries here might not reflect everything that was discussed previously, and none of it should be viewed as absolute truth or the opinions of those involved in these discussions. Tuxide 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been lengthy discussion on whether this article merits the inclusion of a paragraph on Best Buy's "no-christmas" advertising and business practice. Best Buy is criticized by the American Family Association and the Catholic League for not using the word "christmas" in its advertising and not allowing employees to use the word to their customers. Wikipedia has two core content policies, WP:A and WP:NPOV. Points that have been brought up supporting and opposing its inclusion are:

Supporting

• Passes WP:A as per [6], [7], [8], etc.
• Inclusion of such content is comparable to the inclusion of PETA's criticism of KFC and Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

Opposing

• Fails WP:NPOV as per the reasons below
• As per the essay Wikipedia:Criticism, such criticism content should go into the article about the concept or the critic, not the organization that is being criticized
• Criticism is not specific to Best Buy; other retailers such as Kmart, Target Corporation, and History of Wal-Mart have a prominent paragraph or a section on this subject

As of now, the paragraph may remain there only if the templates {{content}} and {{mergeto}} are above it. Do not remove the templates or the content in question until consensus has been reached. Furthermore, a request has been made on WP:WQA for outside opinions.

---

• This inclusion is supported, as it passes Notability and Original research policies with flying colors. I think the fact that when you search "Best Buy Christmas" in Google, most of the results are about this controversy, is enough to merit inclusion. In otherwords, if someone is just searching for Christmas items at Best Buy by entering those search terms, they will encounter the controversy. The NY Times, Snopes.com, USA Today, and various other very notable and popular newsmagazines have released articles about the Best Buy-Christmas issue, so it is definitely to remain. --Sarcha 45 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• The discussion on Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal has been closed; there was a strong consensus to leave this article alone and to perform the merge on Kmart, Target Corporation, and History of Wal-Mart only. Tuxide 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to cull paragraph and remove some of the tit-for-tat quotes that certainly does not read as encyclopedic. Also no where on this page or the merge proposal was I able to actually see "strong consensus" from a number of users supporting the paragraph as is. Tmore3 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That conversation isn't on this page because it has been archived. I believe the consensus was to discuss the issue on this talk page instead of going WP:ALLORNOTHING on Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal. If you want to bring it up again, then feel free to. Tuxide (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, great discussion actually and can see both sides of the debate as to whether or not it's notable on the Best Buy page. However it's still hard, for me at least, distinguishing between what is different between the main controversy article and the paragraph within this article other than Best Buy's response seems to have been used more often in reports last year which in itself does not seem controversial unique to the particular company. Tmore3 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Format changes due process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has come to our attention that certain users wish to make format changes to the Best Buy page. This is an opportunity for those users to present their case and win support. --Memejojo 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "we" refers to your multiple accounts that you hold, or perhaps your personalities - but either way, you do not hold ownership to the Best Buy article. And that is what you are inferring in your posts. I edited your addition to the Best Buy article for the following reasons:

• The website to which you link is simply an editorial. Not sure that it even meets the requirements as a reliable source. Last I checked, "watchdog editors" aren't included as a reliable source.

• All you have done here is reprint the allegations that this newspaper editor is making against Best Buy. Nothing is even quoted from the Attorney General. So I am highly suspect of your motives here. Do you want to state the facts about the Attorney Generals concerns, or do you simply trying to perpetuate a smear campaign?

• You can't include an alledged quote, and simply cite it as "Best Buy spokesperson". Include names or don't include the content.

B2bomber81 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a check user is in order? Paul Cyr 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the report. This is not an editorial. This is a serious investigation. Take a look and we welcome your positive contributions. For further editorial help please refer to the Wikipedia help pages. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction, this is indeed an editorial. It is quite clearly labeled as "Consumer Watchdog", and the writer is also referred to as a columnist. This is not a news story such as you would find in the Associate Press. This is one man's crusade that has gotten the attention of the Attorney General. I'm not disputing the inclusion of this story - I'm simply insisting that only the facts be included here, and to refrain from including your opinions. This is not your article - stop claiming ownership to it. B2bomber81 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is assumed that B2bomber81 is the one who is throwing out baseless allegations of multiple accounts. I would assume he is the one responsible for harrassment and marking up other user's wikipages. So with that said. I don't think this discussion should be used for silly tit for tat. I suggest removal of user to user speech in this forum immediately. If I have no objections I will clean up the above post and this one so that the topic of discussion may be more focused and coherent for the wikipedia community. --Memejojo 17:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

— Memejojo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Connecticut Attorney General orders Best Buy Fraud investigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following version is in violation with WP:NPOV:

"Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal orders investigation into Best Buy's alleged use of an in-store website to mislead customers on item sales prices. Following a months-long denial, Best Buy admits that an internal site exists that may or may not have been used by salespeople."

The last sentence is a biased opinion made by Memejojo: "Following a months-long denial, Best Buy admits that an internal site exists that may or may not have been used by salespeople."

I request that this paragraph not be re-introduced to the Best Buy article until Memejojo can agree not to include biased opinion and only state the facts included in the article.

B2bomber81 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Best Buy fraud thing is true; someone else added such a paragraph while using a different source. If such a paragraph were to be re-included, then we need to find a source that passes WP:A. Tuxide 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing it's truth. I'm simply disputing the opinions that Memejojo is interjecting into the paragraph, as well as the fact that this is an editorial column - not a news article. There's nothing in the article that says or infers a "months-long denial". Only the facts included in the article should be included. B2bomber81 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Memejojo, I have once again removed your contribution. Please see the previous paragraph for my concerns with the way this paragraph is written. Please do not reintroduce it until this has been discussed. B2bomber81 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Best Buy intranet investigation

I am closing the above two discussions given that the user has been blocked (again). The question now is should the paragraph in question be neutralized and re-inserted? It unquestionably passes WP:A, so I am looking for WP:NPOV implications. Tuxide 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, it seems fine.. its not compromised by any weasel words, doesn't violate NPOV, and is not original research 139.147.31.151 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First Best Buy in Puerto Rico

The first Best Buy in Puerto Rico starts construction tomorrow.

http://www.endi.com/noticia/negocios/noticias/pronto_best_buy_en_la_isla/174777

--BoricuaPR 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

telé.jpg

why does this image keep on being removed?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the claim that *many* stores use those signs does not meet WP:V. Someone has added it back saying "some" which is acceptable. Paul Cyr 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't it have been better to change it from many to some yourself instead? and many do, theyre concentrated in the areas with large amount of spanish speakers like california, texas, arizona, new mexico, florida, new york, and illinois. WP:V or not there is a rule that says if most people generally know it to be true thats enough verifiability until a source can be found.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that rule before (most people "know" that God exists, that doesn't verify that he exists), and the only rules that matter here are ones with a Policy or Guideline boilerplate. I'm sure most of the Best Buy employees I know wouldn't be able to even ballpark the fraction of stores with the bilingual signs. Paul Cyr 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Cyr, I'm not too sure if either "many" or "some" is acceptable, as per WP:WEASEL. In that case, it is both a WP:NPOV and a WP:V issue. Just my thoughts. Tuxide 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tuxide, I think it's okay in this case because the section that it is in (Demographics) explains how Best Buy tailors it's stores for certain demographics in the store's area - and it has sources included that verify that. This photo could be considered an example of one of the ways Best Buy does this. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if we change the caption to something simple like "An example of bilingual signs that are used in some Best Buy stores", that eliminates the weasel words in question. What do you think? B2bomber81 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:WEASEL is directed at presenting POVs that may not be credible enough. "Some people feel..." in this case it is being used for the "number of x with y" or "some stores with bilingual signs". It is not attempting to present a POV which WP:WEASEL prohibits. Paul Cyr 05:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

who cares what the employees know, that is irrelevant. and most people believe in god, no one knows, however most people know when somthing is plausable and likely to be able to be proved and verified. and FYI its somewhere in the four pillars.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When you claim that most people know it to be true, when a lot of employees don't even know, it is most certainly relevent (since they of all people should know). My point about god was to show that your claim about "a rule that says if most people generally know it to be true thats enough verifiability" is a rediculous notion. And it is in the five pillars... the one that says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy." Paul Cyr 05:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Paul Cyr. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. See the official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, Best Buy's policy is non-notable as hundreds of other retailers in Western states have a similar bilingual signage policy (e.g., Wal-Mart). If we allow this photo, then we will end up with similar photos in the corresponding article for every single such retailer, which makes no sense. The photo is more appropriate for Spanish in the United States. --Coolcaesar 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

The current poll regarding an issue related to this article is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as a new section of the article's talk page). Last issue: Talk:Christmas controversies/Merge proposal

Tuxide 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles with dead source links

We have an article or two on the Best Buy page, that have dead source links. What is the proper protocol in the event that a working link cannot be found in order to cite an article? For example, the Connecticut AG article has a dead source link which I've been able to fix a couple of times, but now it seems that the latest one has died as well. Is there anything in WP guidelines that cites this problem and/or a solution? Any ideas? B2bomber81 15:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" - repair or update if possible but do not delete. Paul Cyr 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

timeline

I find the timeline format very sloppy, with much more professional ones on other companies articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.223.73 (talk • contribs)

I agree, {{sofixit}}. This is a wiki, after all; so don't be afraid to make changes to make it look better. Tuxide 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More flexible work arrangements

"Smashing The Clock" is a Business Week article describing some significant-sounding changes to Best Buy corporate culture. I was going to link to it, but there is a stern message at the end of the page against adding more links. --Ryguasu 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to simply add a link to the article under external links, but if you think the article could enhance the actual content of this article, then I would recommend making the appropriate additions to the actual article and linking to it as a reference. Dr. Cash 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Customer Centricity

I would like to see more specific information regarding the different store formats designed for each type of customer. How is the signage different? Are the products different? How would a customer walking into a store tell which customer type the store was designed for? 166.82.206.146 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

...is this notable? Tuxide 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it even make sense? A different store for every customer? SpigotMap 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually each store is indeed designed for the predominant customer base in the area of the store. The specific information that 166.82.206.146 is referring to though is proprietary company information that shouldn't be posted on the website. It wouldn't make the suits at Best Buy corporate offices very happy! A lot of the basics about the customer centricity program are included in the wikipedia article already though. B2bomber81 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

REPUTATION FOR POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE

I would like to see some discussion of Best Buy's customer service record. I have been extremely dissatisfied with my experiences at the store and the poor customer service I recieved both in the store and on the phone. After speaking with my friends about my experiences, I discovered that many people I know have had similar Best Buy stories, being so dissatisfied that they reccount detailed stories of poor service even years after the incidents occurred. I even came across a webpage devoted to people's negative experiences at Best Buy, some former customers have posted with rage there. I think this aspect of the store's reputation should be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.202.48 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you cite a reliable source for all info and leave out original research

-- I would think bestbuysux.org would be more than a reliable source, as it lists YEARS of negative feedback regarding best buy. It should also be mentioned in the main best buy article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.42.131 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for "discussions". If you have notable and citable information to add, then that's fine. And no, Bestbuysux.org is not an adequate source. This is a privately-run website that's run and is maintained by disgruntled former employees and it doesn't qualify as a reliable source of information. B2bomber81 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the tens of thousands of negative feedbacks, some many paragraphs long in the "Anti-BB Customer complaints" section of the website must have all been written by the webmaster. Good call.

What relevance does this have regarding the company? Every single retail chain will have unsatisfied customers because they did not get "their way". I suggest you visit Bestbuysux.org and post there. Wikipedia is not the place.

except that it might be relevant to mention that such a thing exists... Novium (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The content of bestbuysux.org is not a relevant source, but statistics related to that site's hits and popularity I would imagine could be used. Best Buy employees and Scientologists seem to have quite a bit in common, I was lead to this article by Wikiscanner after noting all the Best Buy related articles coming from their IP. Brainwashing at its finest. 131.56.240.30 (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Citations relating to best buy customer service ----------

The arguments to ignore Best Buys well known customer service issues are inadequate. Yes every major retailer has dissatisfied customers, but almost none if any, to the extent of disdain garnered by best buy. I've collated some links to emphasize the point that Best Buy is well known for it's terrible customer service. Sites like bestbuysux(now defunct) and ihatebestbuy don't get the number of hits and posts they do for no reason. A companies Customer service is certainly pertinent to consumers and thus readers of this article if they are known to be either very good or very poor.:

http://www.resellerratings.com/topstores.pl

where they have a lifetime rating of 1.99 from almost 600 customers with specific purchase/return related issues. This gives them the 2nd lowest rating of any store with atleast 500 reviews. This can be contrasted with newegg.com with a 9.74 rating with over 20,000 reviews. Which simply shows that its not only the unhappy customers that post at that site.

http://www.insidecrm.com/archive2/2006/11/the_10_best_and.html

ranked as second worst behind AOL and their issues related to deceptive Service Plans are briefly mentioned. These deceptive practices resulted in several court settlements.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/Advice/HowCompaniesWereRanked.aspx

this survey listed Best Buy as the 13th worst customer service of ALL companies in the US and the 3rd worst retailer behind walmart and Circuit City.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/05/ct_bestbuy.html

Details Connecticut suing BB for deceiving and overcharging customers. In this case they used fake intranet webpages that were made to look like the online pages but with higher prices. and so only customers that printed the page and brought it in had any evidence of the trickery.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/best_buy_ohio.html

Ohio Sues Best Buy: "Because of the hundreds of consumer complaints he's received about the giant retailer, the state's Attorney General, Jim Petro, is suing Best Buy, charging that it's engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive acts and practices."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Consumer/Story?id=3363947&page=1

Quote: "Other recent examples include AOL, which attracted notoriety after a recording of a customer's inability to close his account became an Internet sensation, and Best Buy, which refused requests to redirect calls to stores.

The worst offenders invariably tend to be cell phone companies, cable TV companies, airlines and banks. These companies are among those that turned up in surveys by consumer and customer service consultants: AOL, Albertson's, Bank of America, Best Buy, Dell, Day's Inn, Home Depot, Sprint, Wells Fargo."

---

Merge

Merge Future Shop - same store different packaging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs)

You can't be serious...I am removing the merge template. Tuxide 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy runs two nearly identical businesses under two different names - the article can be best served if they are merged into one article. "Tuxide" appears to want to stifle discussion because he or she has some strong opinions - Wikipedia is collaborative project - let the discussion run its course. Bobanni 02:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's merge Chevrolet and GMC too, since they're both made by the same people and are nearly identical. No reason to merge this. SpigotMap 03:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy Canada a subsidiary is merged with Best Buy although they have separate management and distribution structure - yet a division within Best Buy Canada rates a separate article - inconsistent Bobanni 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tuxide makes a great point. Future Shop is not the same store as Best Buy. Yes, Future Shop and Best Buy are two divisions of the Best Buy Corporation, but they are different stores in different countries. Merging is not appropriate in this instance. I appreciate though, your effort to help streamline Wikipedia and make it a better place. B2bomber81 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Future Shop was an independent company before being owned by Best Buy--its corporate culture is completely different than its originally American counterpart. The demographic of Future Shop is entirely different than that of Best Buy. If I'm not mistaken Future Shop is also the only big electronics retailer that still works on commission and in Canada, Future Shop sells appliances and Best Buy doesn't. I daresay while the article is weak, it could be improved--if Geek Squad, which is a small division of Best Buy, can warrant its own article, then why not Future Shop, which is a four and a half billion dollar company? What about Magnolia Audio Video, whose article is almost as weak as that of Future Shop? Or even any other company they own? I'll get my hands dirty with the improvement of the article if it'll help this situation--although I strayed away from it due to potential conflict of interest. Either way, I'm all in favour of not merging, but improving. AbstractEpiphany (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Template should be removed, as Future Shop, before it was acquired by Best Buy, was an independent Canadian retailer, and deserves it's own site and history. It still operates under it's own name today. It was not a BB spin-off.--RobNS 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy sells appliances in the United States, last time I went to one. Tuxide (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy bought Future Shop Ltd and renamed it Best Buy Canada. Best Buy Canada runs two divisions and brands (Future Shop & Best Buy) - It has one head office and warehousing system supporting all its stores both BB & FS. Bobanni (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, I was not aware that Best Buy Co. owned Future Shop. Second, I think what needs to be clarified is if Best Buy is an article about the chain or about the parent company. For example, Target Corporation and Wal-Mart are articles about the parent companies and not necessarily their main retail chains (although they serve as the articles for the chains). As of now, it looks like an article about the parent company to me, and Future Shop looks like an article mainly about the subsidiary instead of the chain. Thus, I believe they should be left separate unless there really is a good reason to merge them. Tuxide (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy Internal Website Relevance to Article?

The following long-winded section doesn't really seem relevant to the article. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?: 139.147.159.189 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As of December 2007, the actual BestBuy.com national website is not available to consumers without the help of a Best Buy sales person from a Best Buy in store terminal. A Best Buy employee must log-in to the "Employee Toolkit" Intranet system in order to access the national Best Buy.com website. This exposes Best Buy to security issues as a customer could potentially have access to internal Best Buy systems while viewing out the "actual" BestBuy.com. Best Buy publishes "This website reflects in-store pricing. Please see a Best Buy associate if you have any questions" on the main page of the Intranet based Best Buy.com when a customer accesses the terminal without going through the "Employee Toolkit". This notification was not posted on the Intranet based site until after Best Buy was accused of over-charging customers from the Connecticut State Attorney General.

Bestbuy.com, as listed on the terminal publicly, is actually an Intranet based version of Bestbuy.com that shows in store pricing. In store pricing on many items is typically higher than BestBuy.com, although this varies from region to region; it is possible for an item to actually be less expensive in the store. Items typically sold in the store are more expensive or the same price on the Intranet version of the terminal, but items only available online typically are the same price as the "actual" BestBuy.com national website. Best Buy does price match BestBuy.com prices, so a customer can bring in evidence of a lower price online and can receive a refund of the difference.

Best Buy has removed a loophole in their "Employee Toolkit" internal login system that allowed employees to use Internet Explorer without major restriction. This action prevents customers and employees from surfing the Internet, but also prevents customers from doing Internet price comparisons and checks on product reviews.[18]

Agreed, this entry as well as entire section is in need of major culling for conciseness; also performed minor re-formatting of section to conform to standards of consisitency of model pages as identified by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Retailing; (see Target and Wal-mart). Tmore3 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction of intranet/internet access to employees and customers.

As a current employee of Best Buy, I would like to add that the folowing is not completely true.

Best Buy has removed a loophole in their "Employee Toolkit" internal login system that allowed employees to use Internet Explorer without major restriction. This action prevents customers and employees from surfing the Internet, but also prevents customers from doing Internet price comparisons and checks on product reviews.[18]

Technically they never removed the way that employees accessed the internet. Employees had to go through a link that took them to yahoo finance regarding our current stock price where they could find an internet search bar. The link has been broken for a while and now we have our own internal page regarding the current selling price of our stock.

There is a new link on the homepage of the "Employee Toolkit" called "Favorites" where employees can type in any URL including Google or Yahoo. URLs are saved for future use. This has actually made it much easier for employees to access the internet from our intranet. The customer cannot access this without the help from an employee since a login and password are required to access the "Employee Toolkit".

The majority of our stores have wireless networks available with proper proxy numbers. Most now have Apple stores inside them which have open access to the internet for customers, also. I have no interest in editing the actual page, if someone would like to fix this, please do.

I feel that the quoted text above misrepresents Best Buy and portrays the employees in a negative manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.185 (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're both right and wrong on that. Customers still can't see the price on the national BBY.com without the help of an employee, unless they have a phone with a mobile web browsing service. But I agree that it needs to be rewritten for clarity and truthiness. Frankly, what Best Buy needs to do is have one website, with both the "local" and "national" price listed on the same page. Which is far easier than maintaining two separate, equal looking websites. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Geek Squad's reputation?

Yeah, can someone add something to Geek Squad's repuation. Geek Squad has bad customer service. They would lie and say to you give a "price" , and later when you pick your pc they start to sell you more "[[BS]". Also Geek Squad messed around with the boot sector on my PC last January while I left it their hands for a simple maintence issue on the PC. Iron Valley (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, Geek Squad's reputation is bad where I live too. I recently talk to a man at a computer repair shop who just got his computer back from the geek squad. They charged him over $100 to wipe his hard drive, after taking the money they gave him back his computer and gave him instructions to wipe it himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.33 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I run a computer repairs shop in NYC we charge a flat rate of $59.99 for onsite support. We recently did a price comparison for a local business to install memory and they wanted to charge him like $1,800 to install like 20 machines with memory we quoted him $300. They are a total rip off just compare our prices here computer repairs nyc to best buys prices best buy prices as you can see they charge $150 for 5 minutes work.

Future Shop

"Best Buy acquires the Canada-based electronics-chain Future Shop Ltd. Future Shop Ltd was renamed Best Buy Canada."

Firstly, its Futureshop not Future Shop.

And secondly, Futureshop was not renamed to Best Buy Canada. Futureshop exists as a separate entity to this day [9]. Best Buy stores exist independently from Futureshop in Canada (though they will often be placed side-by-side to create the illusion of competition.

Made the changes in the article--199.246.40.54 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Accurate - see their website correct is FUTURE SHOP Bobanni (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Shop - two words - is the correct nomenclature. --199.60.112.10 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Best Buy UK

Any thoughts on including info on the UK arm yet? The decision makers seem to think it will happen but at the same time seem a little vague suggesting that there are little to no firm plans in place, to that end it may be difficult to mention here. On the other hand seeing as they're talking about it publicly maybe a quick mention might be a good idea? RaseaC (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of eventual 'Best Buy' name

If I remember correctly, after the June 14th tornado (and later tornado sale), the Sound of Music store in Roseville (Snelling Ave. & CR B) changed their sign to read "The Sound of Music Best Buy store" - or possibly "Sound of Music's Best Buy store". Seems like a useful piece of historical info..does anyone else recall this?

Drlegendre (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

Bestbuy also owns (in full or in part): Rocketfish, Dynex and Insignia. I don't have a source for this, but this is what I was told as an employee of the company. Cereal13killer (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rocketfish, Dynex and Insignia are private labels for Best Buy, not subsidiaries, similar to "Sam's Choice" at Walmart.--Finalnight (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Fact Box

The fact box says 140 million employees and 400 billion in revenue? I don't think so.... 2006 revenue was 30.8 billion USD, but I don't have a new number, so I just removed the revenue and employee details from the fact box. 140 million employees? that would be funny. 216.145.103.90 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

New Logo

http://gizmodo.com/5069560/best-buys-new-logo-goes-for-that-classy-look --Rcollins03 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Xbox Tax

Also has a few other names, but its how for Xbox 360 thrid party accessories, they are usually 5-10 percent more expensive than the MSRP or at other stores. At least this was the case in 200-2007. I havent paid much attention to it since then since I stopped buying 360 stuff from best buy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact box

To the average reader 40,012 million may be slightly confusing (reading it as 40.012 million for the people in the EU, or just as 40 million dollars for those in the US who have a difficult time analyzing confusing text, instead of 40 billion.) So I am going to go ahead and fix it, if you all dont have a problem w/ it. Ono (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Circuit City References

Too much info on CC & its bankruptcy was given early on page. This wiki article is for BB not CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.198.176 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Price-match lawsuit

As much as there seems to be efforts to insert an elongated three paragraph version of this lawsuit, there seems to be as equal opposition to removing it entirely. I still have preoccupations about mentioning it at all since there seems to be little reporting outside of a few tech blogs. Nevertheless for the sake of compromise at least for now I've summarized and sourced the single source where the other two sources were reporting from. Open to discussion but continuing to just re-insert the extensive details of a pending lawsuit seems unjustifiable and definitely of undue weight at this point. Tmore3 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Exclusive Brands

This section reads like Bestbuy marketing speak. Mathiastck (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Best Buy Sux?

The website for customer complaints against Best Buy called www.bestbuysux.org may have been taken down (replaced at least), but that doesn't mean it never existed, and it existed for a long time as I recall. It seems only fair to mention it, and a bit revisionist to erase all traces of it from the article.[10]72.45.107.22 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It may have lasted so long as it did because of the premise that you can't libel unless you are concocting lies.Landroo (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

i am Best Buy

Hi, I think there should be an external link added to http://www.iambestbuy.com/ because it talks more about the company and its programs. Ub3rst4r (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Best Buy in Turkey

In the timeline, both 2008 & 2009 talk about BB opening a store in Turkey. Which is correct? --Banksnld (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This article shows that 2009 is when the store was actually opened. —ADavidB 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2009?

On the time-line there are 3 sections for 2009, should that be changed. --Ruyl3 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Best Buy Connected

I am new to Wikipedia editing. There is nothing posted about the new Best Buy "connected" stores. I wrote a small piece in the operations section. I will supply and info required about the new program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.42.116 (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Best Buy On

Found this website: Best Buy On. It's some sort of Best Buy online magazine on technology stuff [11]. Might be of interest for the article and/or its ext.links. Lots of cool articles in there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMFS (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Best Buy Israel

Looking for confirmation of story from Best Buy Israel store worker: "Best Buy Israel is not connected with Best Buy America. Best Buy America was going to sue Best Buy Israel for using the Best Buy name, but found that Best Buy Israel began in Afula, Israel two years prior to Best Buy America name change." Unable to find history of Best Buy Israel in print to confirm or debunk. ShumDavar (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unless there are sources we cannot say anything about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

http://m.bestbuy.com/ This is so web.archive.org can archive the site WhisperToMe (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No Mail In Rebates On Mobile

This should be cleared up. I happen to know for a fact that retailers such as Walmart and RadioShack also feature the "no mail-in rebate" offer on all of their handsets. Could we get this fixed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.52.163.2 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

total store count is ~6K

It looks like the first paragraph says there are around 1,100 total stores, but there are more than 6,000. I just talked to the CFO and noticed this inconsistency. Someone better at editing than I should find a real source and fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.97.156 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone who worked on the Best Buy Project Teams for nearly 13 years, specifically building and opening new stores, I can definitely state with fully certainty that Best Buy does NOT have 6,000 stores and that the total count is somewhere closer to 1,100 as stated. When I first started in Oct 1996 the count was at 345. They probably a bit less than that now since they closed 55 US stores, all UK stores and their 2 China locations in the last 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.31.134.123 (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

Needs a section on their donations to Minnesota Forward and the resulting boycott. — Metamatic (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Best Buy Canada has just permanently closed all Stores on Vancouver Island, British Columbia,Canada, this morning. Also, numerous Stores across Canada, closed this morning, as well, with no warning at all. C6red54 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits

I rewrote/cut down the introduction to this article. I inserted some new sources and used the cite templates from the previous ones. I'll try and work on more. Per flags, I agree it needs work. Jppcap (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Inserting new sources/text in History. Jppcap (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some sections of the Corporate affairs. It was confusing and disjointed. Much of it had little to no citations and was promotional. Jppcap (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Article is not outdated and contains 80+ sources, I'm removing the tags. Jppcap (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Loss of customer product: This lawsuit was covered in the press, but was dismissed. I don't think this is a notable lawsuit. Is this notable? Jppcap (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing not notable suit. Jppcap (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Best Buy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726125838/http://m.bestbuy.com:80/m/e/ to http://m.bestbuy.com/m/e/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

Change this source link back from:

• https://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323982704578453591188471974

To:

• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323982704578453591188471974 120.72.90.170 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We prefer HTTPS. Your change reverts to HTTP, so you're going to need consensus. Izno (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's currently a DEAD LINK that REDIRECTS to LOG IN PAGES! Just HURRY UP and CHANGE them back! 116.74.236.77 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for documentary purposes: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bender the Bot 8 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GRRR. NONE OF THE HTTPS LINKS WORK. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME. 156.194.233.191 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal requires a paid subscription to read this article, whether linked via HTTP or HTTPS. I've updated the citation to provide notice of this requirement. —ADavidB 21:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I said they're broken links. Please, change them back. 1.215.232.90 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Best Buy. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zoomsystems.com/our-partners/partner-portfolio/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjr_3_part2.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-tv11apr11%2C1%2C152881.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/companies-revealed-to-be-purch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108012900/http://www.bestbuy.com/ to http://www.bestbuy.com/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Archive copies for this LA Times link are all dead (and re-marked as such), and the Best Buy link did not require an archive; otherwise good. —ADavidB 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Best Buy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415120919/http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-tv11apr11%2C1%2C152881.story to http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-tv11apr11%2C1%2C152881.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108012900/http://www.bestbuy.com/ to http://www.bestbuy.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)