The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pmahtani27 (article contribs).
There is already WP:POVFORK concern about criticism articles, but a sub-article on criticism of a particular company for a particular issue is highly unusual. The existing criticism article for Amazon is plenty capable of describing the criticism of its environmental impact if summary style is appropriately used (as opposed to dumping every negative thing ever said about the company, which is the current approach). The existence of the sub-article encourages that bad habit. Sdkbtalk06:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support: I think that the articles should be edited first to meet standards, then be considered for merging. However, your arguments are strong, so I would support a merge as-is. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds of WP:TOOLONG; merging isn't a suitable method of the deleting irrelevant material, which can be done boldly through normal editing practices. The main article is over 15000 words of readable prose (15184 currently). Klbrain (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain, we want to be looking to the eventual optimal state of articles, and which articles we want to exist in that state, rather than the current scenario. The idea is that, were the criticism article written using proper summary style it'd have room for the environmental criticism stuff, and were the environmental criticism article written using proper summary style, it'd be too short to warrant splitting off. A merge in this case may look like little more than a blank-and-redirect once the merger judges which parts are worth preserving. But having only one article sets us on a path toward achieving that optimal state, whereas retaining two encourages trivial bloat, since once an article exists, people look for content to fill it. Sdkbtalk17:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: I understand the vision of the future, which is a good one. My argument is that the correct route to that future is to edit to a manageable size first. You mask the deletion of referenced text through the process of a highly selective merge, which I don't see as transparent. That's why I prefer the copy-edit first approach. Klbrain (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: The problem with a copy edit-first approach is that, if too many people come in with that stance, then the merge proposal gets closed as unsuccessful, and the merge proposal tag is removed from the article, leaving no trace of the discussion except for the talk page discussion in the archives. This is what just would have happened with your close of the merge proposal I made at Interpersonal communication relationship dissolution had I not followed up at XfD. And for a topic that should ultimately be merged, we want the signals of that coming merge to be increasing over time, not decreasing (we don't want newcomers who don't check talk putting effort into an article destinated to be removed). A full copy edit trimming for summary style is basically as much work as a merge, so they may as well be done at the same time. Granted, it's a lot to ask of the merger, but I'd rather we have a merge backlog (with articles appropriately tagged in the meantime) than that we have articles that a nominator correctly identifies as destined for a merge but where that signal then gets removed (waiting for a copy edit likely never to happen and then a second nomination).Please lmk if I can clarify any aspect of my stance, or if there's any aspect of your stance that I don't seem to be getting. I do think it's important we get on the same page about this, since I perceive the copy edit-first approach to be doing a lot of damage to Wikipedia's merge system. Sdkbtalk21:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have recently performed some trimming work on the article, which would be necessary whether or not it was to be merged. I would urge all interested parties to do the same. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 23:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After editing the article, I am more strongly in Support (double !vote) of a merge, because I noticed that the headings would be better-organized by Amazon's business practices, and, lo and behold, the larger article is organized like that. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 23:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting Criticism of Amazon's environmental impact, as an indiscriminate list of negative content. And then perhaps delete Criticism of Amazon too. Failing that, I support a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸06:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain oppose, as the criticism article is clearly WP:TOOLONG; despite editing over the last 7 months or so to focus on reliably sources content, it is still over 15,000 words. In such cases WP:SUMMARY format is entirely appropriate, with Criticism of Amazon's environmental impact being a daughter article. I do think that the discussion should be closed with no merge, as readers would be harmed by the generation of an article that was too long. Klbrain (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pmahtani27 (article contribs).