Talk:WinCo Foods

Beginning talk page

Just wanted to start the discussion page, that's all.

(67.169.192.214 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC))Just an ex-employee here who noticed that the corporate page does indeed claim that the name WinCo means 'Winning Company'. It seems that "Winning Company WinCo" have not only developed a fine aptitude for revisionism but have need of a professional publicist as well! Stick with the acronym--you do want people to take you seriously don't you? (Besides it's the truth!)

It's the company's official statement, and revisionist or not, should be mentioned. Owen 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy and Paste

Although not an exact copy, this article is very similiar and contains many phrases from the history section of the companies websiteFastFoodKnight 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin and Meaning of Store Name

I was told by a store employee, that the store is called "Winco", because of the five states there are locations in (Washington, Idaho, Nevada, California and Oregon.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garr1984 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Common misconception. The name was voted on by employees (can't recall the date) and is Winning Company. mauler90 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Winco2.gif

Image:Winco2.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale provided! --emerson7 | Talk 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PR puff piece like writing

I've noticed style of expression uses distinctive style that Winco uses and portrays it general positive light. There are also a handful of IP editors coming from their home base, so I'll be keeping close eyes for astroturfing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Superior Service"

Hello, I can't seem to find direct, non adversarial support for the statement "low cost but superior service " in the cited reference and it appears to be an editorial interpretation of the source. Can you explain the process leading to that summary you added in this edit? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's an inference. I obviously think it's a fair summary of the Time article but I don't mind your removing that statement. I will add back a few other operating characteristics like fewer SKUs. Samw (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless the visitor go back and check the source, it creates an impression that cited source states that. Inference is your conclusion based on materials presented so its original research which we must not be doing. Certain wording can have editorializing effect as well. While hard facts like not providing bagging service isn't likely to get challenged, subjective quantifier like "superior" on a subject quality like "service" is highly controversial. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask if you're affiliated with this company in any way? The reason I ask is that I'm perplexed by unattributed statement like "superior service" and your use of proprietary lingo like "WinCo Foods Employee Stock Ownership Trust" which again do not appear to be in use by Hoovers source referenced. You acknowledged that the former statement was your inference. I happen to see it as interpretive statement in favor of the company despite it not being directly supported by sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, never heard of this company until I read the Time Magazine article. I did not use "WinCo Foods Employee Stock Ownership Trust" Samw (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind on that part. I got it mixed up. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But you reinstated "[A]s well as not providing bagging service to customers. Conversely it provides health benefits and pensions.". The term "conversely" defined as "Introducing a statement or idea that reverses one". Which part of the article directly provides this interpretation? I'm not seeing it and I challenged this edit of yours in edit summary. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to highlight their health benefits and pensions. If you don't like "conversely", may I just put it in a separate paragraph? Samw (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should its benefits and pensions get highlighted? Some businesses offer these, some don't. Looking at other businesses, it is not something usually included. Company's often boast it in their own PR puffery however. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional thoughts on vested interest conflict of interest

In its employee ownership program, it means that any employee who is part of the program means they have vested interest to promote the company as they stand to gain directly from company dividends. The pattern of many IP editors from the surrounding areas of its headquarters as well as edits that make use of Winco proprietary jargon in referenced portions of prose despite it not being used by the source itself concerns me if those affiliated with company is trying to frame this article in its favor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OMG, so there could be an ARMY of off-work employees from around the country editing articles of "employee owned" companies to frame their employer in an entirely positive light. Someone should probably be policing any article in Category:Employee-owned companies of the United States to ensure there isn't any bias being pushed in any of those articles. I nominate you to do it. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're encouraged to start working on it if you spot bias or PR puffery kind of non-sense. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid enough to assume that simply because a company is categorized as "employee owned" it simply must be edited full time by zealots that work for the company... —Locke Cole • t • c 09:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Company has complete control over its press releases, which is published by its corporate communication and intended to get favorable press attention. it's common sense that Winco self-published materials selectively contain what they want to emphasize. This is Wikipedia, not Prnewswire. Writing the article with considerable referencing to self-published materials as well as many edits from the vicinity of its home office seems to satisfy the duck testfor conflict of interest editing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the sources used in this article, particularly before you trimmed the article, were to sources outside the control of the company (that is, reputable news outlets). I count ONE PRNewsWire release in the references, the rest are to reputable news sites or the companies website. So that refutes your claim that there is "considerable referencing to self-published materials". Now to your claim that there are "many edits from the vicinity of its home office"; please list the anonymous users you believe are editing from this so-called "home office". And remember, the onus is on you, as the person making these claims, to justify them, not simply blather about quoting the WP acronym of the week and trying to revert war your way through it. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is already a report at ANI about this user, which i would encourage additional comment at. I'm adhereing to 1RR so i won't re-revert, but my impression is that WinCo is quite clearly a cooperative, even by the SBA criteria linked in the revert. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Cooperative is defined as a group where its members have a voting right, not shareholders. It appears that you misunderstood the definition. Winco is a for-profit privately held corporation whose shares are mostly owned by current and former employees. I hope this clarifies the definition of a cooperative. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikiproject Cooperatives has different classifications than the strict US-legal one, or rather, your interpretation of the legal classifications you have cited? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I maintain my position that I did not err in my judgment that Winco does not fall under the definition of cooperative. I have reviewed the page cooperative and the definition is generally consistent and a for-profit privately held corporation does not fit the definition of it. Unless you have further comment on this thread that is relevant. Please do not continue discussion on this talk page that does not relate to this article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding WP:COI

Please stop adding WP:COI to this article. It appears that because you see biased tone in the article, you assume COI. This, however, is expressly stated not to be sufficient grounds for leveling a COI claim. Keep your WP:NPOV on there, but stop adding COI unless you have more evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop changing the description from the conclusion of your original research.

[1] [2] [3]

It can therefore be concluded that by reporting from reliable sources that company type is private.

Since Wiki isn't an extension of the company, we use normal words to describe things, not internal cliche jargon. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

about "employee owned"

I referenced this, several times. As I understand it, employee owned is a subset of "privately held" so i am going with the more specific employee owned. I also checked a few of the other pages on the National Center for Employee Ownership's list, and did not see any others that required such significant sourcing for the "employee owned" label. But it's there now, in any case. I also saw a primary source, an SEC filing, that mention WinCo is ~80% owned by the ESOP, which is the particular way they do employee ownership. But this link was much less relevant, and in any case is a primary source so I didn't add it. That link, BTW, is here and though it is written on behalf of WinCo foods, it's also an SEC filing so I think there is a presumption that it is fairly accurate for plain statements of fact about the basic organization of the company. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I support this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

ok?.. it is not a vote count. If it was, public relations operations would have their way by astroturfing with recruiting people all over to simply say "aye" to support their agenda without having to put forth any convincing argument. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no "like" buttons on Wikipedia, so I was expressing that I agree with this. We do have a consensus system here afterall. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"as I understand it" "I think that" etc are YOUR opinions in INTERPRETING it. The subject strongly boasts "EMPLOYEE OWNED" prominently which makes it clear it wants it portrayed in that way. In the previous talk page post, I cited three sources that lists as "privately held". Forbes is considered a very credible source.

Here's another source

• Hoovers.
• SECfiling

"WinCo Foods, Inc., a privately-held regional grocery chain " in "QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934"

• grocery.com

Those that do public relations editing emphasize "advocacy" and represent subject interest over topic neutrality and those two fundamentally clash. The SEC.gov one you provided was an open-ended letter written on behalf of the company strict in its interest.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine is correct that "employee-owned" is a subset of "privately held". From Privately held company: "A privately held company or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately" (bold added). Note on Employee-owned_corporation#Other_forms_of_employee_ownership that "Unlike in the United States, however, Spanish law requires that members of the Mondragon Corporation are registered as self-employed. This differentiates co-operative ownership (in which self-employed owner-members each have one voting share, or shares are controlled by a co-operative legal entity) from employee ownership (where ownership is typically held as a block of shares on behalf of employees using an Employee Benefit Trust, or company rules embed mechanisms for distributing shares to employees and ensuring they remain majority shareholders)." In other words, in the US, an employee-owned company is simply one that offers shares to its employees.

I understand that you are concerned about the tone of the article and potent twisting of words for PR purposes, but it seems clear from the definitions of these terms and the discussion on this page that WinCo is an employee-owned private company, the former term being more specific. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The main ownership type is therefore, privately held, as described in these credible sources. When we're writing articles, we don't reference other wiki articles which is described in sourcing guidelines. Articles are susceptible to collective astroturfing operations as well if they're allowed to be used as reference. I thoroughly disagree with using employee owned as company type. This page shows evidence of WP:DUCK test passing public relations puff up already and I think my suspicion of presence of PR manipulation is warranted. At this point, I will be starting a RfC on this article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it might be a bit redundant, i have changed the article text to include both "privately held" as well as employee owned.

in order to maintain a consistent style, it is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, to look at other articles of the same type to see what they look like. this is why we have things like WP:MOS.

feel free to start an RfC, though I will also note that this seems consistent with previous RfC/U which noted WP:FORUMSHOP behavior as part of a WP:BATTLE mentality. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I am working on contents dispute here. We can not agree on contents, therefore seeking outside input on contents is the proper process here. Your ad-hominem attack and soliciting others to support your claim against me for another cause on an article talk page is inappropriate. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow... asking for outside input is not a bad thing... As for me referencing other wiki pages, I did that for your benefit, not as a definitive source. I am utterly confused about why you are fighting this so hard, despite no one supporting your position. We have pointed out that (1) employee-owned is a subset of privately owned, (2) the company itself, in legal documents, says that it is employee-owned, (4) the sources you provide do not preclude the company from being employee-owned (they simply say it is privately owned), and (4) two of the sources (Hoovers and Grocery) expressly state that the company is majority employee-owned. As already demonstrated, these are not mutually exclusive categories. Citation is currently given that the company is majority employee-owned, thus it would be nonsensical to use only "privately owned" as it does not properly express the nature of how the company is owned. At this point, I am beginning to conclude that you are arguing for the sake of arguing and/or that you have a personal beef with this company (suggested by your excessive use of templates such as COI on this page, when on NPOV was warranted). You furthermore seem unwilling to compromise on this issue. UseTheCommandLine's edit is an excellent compromise and I hope this helps mollify you. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The "employee owned" aspect of it is well sourced and verifiable. I urge everyone here to read over WP:DR, as we might do well to ask for a third opinion (more like a fourth or fifth opinion, but anyways). Skipping straight to an RFC wouldn't really accomplish much because there are other steps to follow first in dispute resolution. We could always skip straight to ArbCom while we're discussing "nuclear options" though. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Skipping straight to an RFC wouldn't really accomplish much" according to who? I'm just going by guidelines and not "he said she said that editor said"

Per WP:3PO, "The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. ". Which part of this do you not understand? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

According to me, of course. I'd have thought that would have been obvious, since I said it..

As for which part I don't understand, I suppose it's the part where you seem to think the issue requires escalation simply because you don't like the result. A consensus of editors here seem to share the opinion that this company meets the criteria to be labeled as "employee owned". You don't like that, and appear intent on making this a long, drawn out battle that is unnecessary. Certainly there are more productive things everyone can be doing besides arguing with you endlessly. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Going "straight to" RfC won't do any good IMO because this is much more a behavioral dispute than a content one. Cantaloupe2, a simple WP:CONCEDE-like gesture could probably go a long way towards ending this conflict and getting everyone working again towards consensus. I know it would for me. But do whatever you feel you have to. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

More sources

• [4]: WinCo’s Employee-Owners Speak Out – An entire article on the "employee owned" aspect of the company.
• [5]: WinCo Goes for the Win – Lead-in of the article discusses the ESOP and employee owned aspect of the company; discusses expansion into Texas, Colorado and New Mexico.

I'll add more later, this article clearly needs to be expanded, there's also articles out there on their new store brand from a few months ago. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on company type descriptor; and listing of events in history

Current editorial disagreement involves more than two editors so I am listing it as an RfC as recommended on WP:3O page which says it is for dispute between two editors.

• Description in Infobox. Winco Foods, is a privately held company which operates as a privately held company and implements ESOP program. 80% of company is owned by past and former employees. Company could be public, follow procedures as public company and still have substantial portions owned by employees. Should the main descriptor be "private" or "employee owned"? Employee owned is a marketing slogan for the company as well.

• List of events. From looking at other company pages such as Home Depot and Kroger and referring to WP:ORGDEPTH, listing routine announcements about individual store location openings do not appear justifiable. What should be appropriate for neutral, impartial encyclopedic entry for history?

• Sourcing. I have a reservation with the source nceo.org which is described as a "think tank" by a BusinessWeek article, which is used in the sections under dispute when it is not needed to support the claims as other sources already exist. It does not appear appropriate for much beyond its opinion per prior discussions. one,two

Should press releases be used if third party sources not based on mere rehost of PR is available? When is it ok and when is it not? one of many discussions on PR as source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just about every secondary source we have in the references refers to WinCo Foods as "employee owned". That, honestly, should settle the issue (as it is now, I believe it's listed as private/ESOP, which I thought was a fair compromise, but I guess not...). As for events, one need only look at Walmart for an example of how in depth the history can be. Note that most of the "store opening" history points are expansions into states the company had previously not operated in, ever. There are probably 20 other store openings in just the past four years that are in states the company already had operations in.

As an aside, welcome to the battleground, uninvolved editors. We already have a consensus here, but one editor is deciding he's the exception to WP:CON. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Myself, Locke Cole, User:UseTheCommandLine and User:EvergreenFir are involved. Since we don't appear to be all on the same page, I would like uninvolved editors to evaluate the discussion on this talk page and established practices to comment on the questions I asked, thank you. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC structure: "involved" and "uninvolved"

I have searched the archives and have been thus far unable to find a single example of an RfC that has been structured as to differentiate between "involved" and "uninvolved" editors. my reading of WP:INVOLVED is that it applies specifically to administrators and their actions. At first blush it seems to me like this is a facile attempt to evade WP:CONSENSUS by relegating the comments of active editors to a secondary or less-important status. If there's some precedent for this I'd be interested to see it, but I couldn't find any. None. Nada. Not a scratch. That doesn't mean they don't exist, so please feel free to provide examples if you know of any. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing here for the better part of nearly ten years and have never seen RFC comments segregated like that. It's offensive and misleading, and prejudices editors in a way that shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so that it's clear what we're talking about (especially in the case of newcomers to this talk page), it's these edits -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to ask. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the big problem here?

I really don't see a huge issue... Of course it is privately held and not publicly held. Of course they have a huge Employee Stock Ownership Program which they tout at every turn and which is mentioned in much of the secondary coverage. "Privately held/ESOP" sounds perfectly reasonable as a descriptive, does it not? Now why not everybody work together to do some serious company history here instead of quibbling over semantics? Carrite (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See "Superior Service", above, for an example of the effort that needs to be made to just add a few words to a sentence. Note the ratio of references to volume of text in the article itself (a direct result of having this editor seemingly question every single thing about this article). Couple that with claims of "PR puffery" and alleged "COI edits" by anonymous IPs (which were never directly identified, yet brandished about as if fact), and it becomes a difficult thing to want to try and edit this article while the behavior is ongoing. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"according to(another wikipedia article)" was the rationale someone posted, but the employee ownership page is filled with partisan references and think tank like NCEO.org, so I don't think its a good point of reference. The fact that they tout every chance they get gives a very good reason the company wants to have it labeled that way so, its easy to see that those who represent company interest wants to show it that way. Even if they do not represent this particular company, the ability to gravitate the article to read in wording and tone favorable to company and have it remain maybe something PR editors try to establish.

If a company that is private, but just went public and employees represented 85% ownership, what would it be called? For the INFOBOX company type, I think private vs. public are more common descriptors which describes if stocks are publicly available or not. Approximately 80% of the Winco is owned by ESOP, which consists of current and former employees. According to SEC, ESOP is a retirement plan. Privately held company which impelents ESOP option is more precise. What about any other private/public companies who's company ownership proportion by employees/former employees exceed 50%? The definition of "employee owned" is too unclear. This site says it is defined by NCEO, which is a pro ESOP think tank(as described by Business Week), which is not the legal definition. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)