Talk:Rite Aid

Bias?

I almost reverted this to the edit by User:Duckboy because of the critical content added to the Recent Years section, but for now I prefer not to trigger a revert war...Ranma9617 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... doesn't appear to be biased. I don't see any spin toward pro-Rite Aid or anti-Rite Aid viewpoints, therefore I honestly think the tag should be removed. John D'Adamo 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif

Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Fair use rationale for Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif

Image:Riteaid logo usa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas Section

The Las Vegas section will date soon, or has already dated. I put a tag on it, but I really think the whole section should be re-written. It doesn't say why they are closing in Las Vegas, and it has terms such as "this week", etc. I don't really know anything about Rite Aid, I was just looking on Wiki to see why they were closing in Vegas. Chexmix53 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Labor Violations section=possible POV pushing

As someone who both works for the company and is under a UFCW collective bargaining agreement, I seriously believe that the "Labor Violations" section is clearly POV pushing at its worst. Additionally, the user behind this section has had very few edits outside articles pertaining to unionized labor. To at least partially rebut his assertions; not only does the company have CBA's with various UFCW locals in many jurisdictions where it operates, but also the company does assert that it is bargaining in good faith with the relevant unions mentioned in this rogue section... Ranma9617 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ranma9617, thanks for your concern about POV. I have listed third party sources for all of the facts I've included. It isn't a pretty picture, but it is accurate -- it reflects the fact that Rite Aid is becoming a poster child for union-busting since it's hired Oliver J Bell and Associates and is using classic techniques to intimidate workers. Congratulations, BTW, on your UFCW agreement. Several UFCW locals are supporting the ILWU workers by urging Rite Aid officals to stop the union-busting and sign a first agreement with the Lancaster workers. The company can edit this section to refute any information that they believe is inaccurate. But unless there's a good reason to leave that bog ugly box at the head of the section, I think the article should be untagged. WikiGolightly (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole section needs to go. It isn't notable. The sources all either link to op-ed blogs (mostly union blogs) or the article doesn't say what the source does. One union has a disagreement with conditions at one distribution center. That happens every day all over. It is not encyclopedic. 99.111.226.99 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Lancaster was a big deal - just check the Google hits. Further, op-eds and blogs, pro-union or otherwise, are often used as Wiki sources. This is a clear case of one jackass purging a relevant section (and perhaps the most informative part of the article to date) and violating Wikipedia norms because of personal bias. I find little to recommend but that the information once again be made available and that the above user is flagged and future edits are followed to prevent future abuse. 208.118.163.99 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

thrifty ice cream

can their be a mention that this ice cream is only sold in their california stores —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.47.235 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)