Talk:Amazon (company)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move 2 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is very clear that the long-term significance of the Amazon river and its surrounding rainforest, let alone the many other significant uses of the term, prove a lack of primary topic. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Amazon (company) → Amazon
• Amazon → Amazon (disambiguation)

– Going on the strength of the previous discussion, where "Amazon" was preferred over "Amazon.com", it is worth noting that as far back as Pageviews Analysis will go (link), the namespace for "Amazon.com" and later "Amazon (company)" have surpassed the other noteworthy topics by a significant margin (save for August 2019, which reverted to a normal pattern the following month.) No other topic on the disambiguation page is spoken of in common speech as just "Amazon" without some type of qualifier (ie. rainforest, river); I would argue that the company meets the criteria for WP:PRIMARY. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support this move. "Amazon" is the most valuable brand in the world[1]. You'll notice that every major news outlet including outlets like Bloomberg, NYT, CNBC, etc. all refer to "Amazon.com, Inc." as simply Amazon. 75.172.212.65 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Amazon is so big nowadays that anyone looking for the rainforest or the river knows to disambiguate their search. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 16:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are several highly probable search terms (and dozens of other lesser articles) that there is absolutely no reason for a primary here. --Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – the Amazon has long-term significance over the company. "Amazon rainforest" may be common, but just "(the) Amazon" is as well [2][3][4]. There are also enough other items in that list that are highly probable search terms that having a disambiguation on the base title is the optimal solution. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons listed above by Gonnym and Þjarkur. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the long-term significance of other topics with this name. Dekimasuよ! 23:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify in light of some of the comments below, "the Amazon" and "Amazon" are equivalent for naming purposes, so the titles do, in fact, conflict. Having many hits at a base-title disambiguation page in and of itself is not an indication that there is a problem. If there are multiple major topics with similar titles, that setup is correct and the disambiguation page would appear to be working properly. Dekimasuよ! 14:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that many hits at a disambiguation page may be an indication of a problem in some cases. I agree that "if there are multiple major topics with similar titles, that setup is correct", provided that there is no primary topic among those major topics. In those cases, diffusion from the dab would be be diverse and such pages are sometimes unavaoidable. In this case, based on usage, I think there is a primary topic. Station1 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the oppose comments above. The Amazon forest and Amazon river would seem to hold the long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The above oppose comments all cite long-term significance of the term "The Amazon", "Amazon Rainforest" or "Amazon River", but not "Amazon". Page should be moved to "Amazon" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARY. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That second link is about primary sources. Not sure what you could've meant to link to, as I think there's only one guide regarding primary topics. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Fyrael, Disagree here. Apple Inc has another company in AppleCorps as I understand it, so it's got not just a generic Apple to compete with, but another company (albeit not one as well known). Also, the fruit apple is still more common and obviously primary relative to the tech company. By contrast, I would argue most of the world associates Amazon with the tech company, not the South American river. WP:PRIMARY can change based on prevailing global sentiment, which I think has clearly shifted. Moreover, the most recent consensus in favour of the move was arguably weak when you consider three or four past move attempts failed; in short, the previous page move requester got lucky. So, consensus, if anything, is mixed, and it's clear to me the current page name is unsatisfying to all concerned.

Thus, we need to decide whether the tech company or river is WP:PRIMARY. If so, then Amazon should be this page's name, with Amazon moved to The Amazon or Amazon River consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. If, for some reason, consensus is that the river is still WP:PRIMARY, then we should at least consistent moving to Amazon.com, per WP:COMMONNAME and per Lordtobi and myself above who noted that Amazon's divisional subsidiaries are named Amazon.com.ccTLD. Thus, every subsidiary is a spinoff off the Amazon.com in both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME.--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the user was only pointing out that WP:PRIMARY is incorrectly mentioned here. WP:PRIMARY discusses the use of primary sources for verifiability. It does not discuss article naming, as oppose to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which was mentioned alongside). Lordtobi (✉) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, you have misunderstood quite a few things here. For one thing, please stop linking WP:PRIMARY. If you follow that link you'll see that it's not what we're talking about. Also, if you actually follow the links in the proposal or read the proposed titles, you'll find that the river article is not currently titled Amazon and this is not a proposal to change that article's title. It has not been proposed that the primary topic be moved from the river to the company. The decision here is between making the company primary or keeping the status quo, which is that no topic is primary. Amazon is currently a disambiguation page. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Most of our articles follow WP:THE (dropping the "the") and readers looking for "the Netherlands" will only enter "Netherlands". – Thjarkur (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Þjarkur The fact that you said most implies to me that there articles beginning with the initial article the. Thus, we're justified in naming the river The Amazon per WP:NATURAL, in addition to WP:COMMONNAME. We could also invoke WP:IAR for renaming this article to Amazon, but I don't think it's necessary. There are established articles and policies which support this naming convention. --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant to point out that "Amazon" and "the Amazon" are equivalent for naming purposes (like Dekamisu says here above) even though an article on the forest/river could be under either one. For that reason there is a title conflict and why I feel a disambiguation page is the best option. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying re: potential title conflict, though I don't think that applies here. The only way this comes in to play, I think, is if the database ignores initial articles for the purposes of filing and sorting. Otherwise, I note that titles are case sensitive so it's conceivable to think we'd have two articles titled the same, for different subjects, with one article using lower case letters and others using a different casing. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per commonsense and it's a river. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It barely has the combined views of the other topics and clearly fails long-term significance. This is not primary for the same reason Apple Inc. isn't primary. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose there are as noted several significant uses even though there often called more than just "Amazon" but there are also many lesser uses of "Amazon" no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:PRIMARY, WP:COMMONNAME, the comments above (notably, XXeducationexpertXX), and as nom of previous move request. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose — The word Amazon dates to 1398 in English, says the OED, from its origins as Ἀμαζών in ancient Greek. Circa 500 to 1000 BC? I'm not sure. I'm willing to be convinced that this ancient term which once referred to a warrior tribe, and then was applied in the 16th century the Amazon river, one of the worlds largest, if not largest rivers and river system, and the vast geography of the Amazon basin, now mainly only means the online retailer. Perhaps Amazon.com has superseded all these prior usages, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Some editors here say it is so, but if so, then you should be able to easily cite copious evidence. You might see on the Internet Amazon used to mean the company more than the Greek or the South American Amazon, but the Internet isn't everything. What about all the books in all the libraries? And all the periodicals? Is "common" only what was published in the last week? I'll change my mind, but show me proof. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dennis Bratland and others. The term has a long history and many uses. Amazon is a big company but supporters haven't demonstrated that it's the primary topic here. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The river is not widely known as simply "Amazon" while the company is. Calidum 04:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes it is! It's known as "the Amazon". Given we don't use the definite article in article titles, of course it's known as the Amazon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Necrothesp, The fact that you had to add the initial article the to that indicates, strongly, that the river should be moved to The Amazon and this article should be moved to Amazon. Each should have hatnote references to the other article and to the dab page at the top of the respective articles. What is clear is that there is extremely weak consensus for the current naming of this article. Whether it should be Amazon or Amazon.com, it's clear to me the community does not like the current naming convention and will continue to see further page move requests until one that is supported by a strong plurality of the community is achieved. --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good grief, please read WP:THE. We do not name articles in this way. We do not make exceptions for no good reason. Where is it obvious that the community does not like the current naming convention? I take part in many RMs. The naming convention is applied without much demur again and again. It is not unpopular with most editors. And this is certainly not the place to get it changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support because, to quote the closer of the previous RM, "Amazon is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE." The dab page is getting 700 hits per day. That's high, indicating many more people than necessary who want to be somewhere else wind up on the dab page. Based on page view proportions showing Amazon.com gets 6 times the views of the river and more than 4 times everything else combined, probably 500 or more of those people want Amazon.com.[5] There's no reason to inconvenience them. Putting a hatnote on Amazon.com will keep the status quo for the minority seeking the river. Station1 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll assume it was an accident that you left off 2 of the 4 topics that are listed as common targets at the top of the DAB page. Here are the actual monthly averages over the past 2 years of the top terms: Amazon (company) 343,986; Amazon rainforest 95,421; Amazon river 63,743; Amazons 48,372. Just the other top three combined total ~206k compared to 344k. So, since my guess at next highest topic (Amazon basin) got ~20k monthly and assuming the other 50+ topics taper off from there, the company gets as much or maybe a bit more than the combination of all other topics. Nothing remotely close to 4 times. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Amazon rainforest and Amazon basin would never properly be titled "Amazon" (not to mention there's some duplication of views since they're both closely related to the river); therefore there's no title conflict. Amazons is admittedly a closer call, since we could theoretically title the article after a singular Amazon warrior, but I think the current title is better, and even if we added that article in, that would only change the company views to 3x everything else vs 4x. But even by your calculations, if the company gets 6x the next highest and "maybe a bit more than the combination of all other topics", that would still qualify as WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. However, my main point is that hundreds of people per day are inconvenienced by the current setup for no reason. Station1 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Any entry on the dab page is there because it can plausibly referred to by "Amazon" and is therefore relevant to this discussion. And the fact that the dab page is frequently hit says nothing whatsoever about one topic being primary over others. After a reader hits the dab page they may go to any article. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A reader may go to any article, but in this case, objective data suggests the majority go to Amazon (company). That majority does not benefit by the current setup. Station1 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have described the benefit of having a primary topic in general. It is not evidence for the company being the primary topic. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The usage statistics are the evidence. If you need further confirmation, just type "a" in Google's search bar and see the first suggestion on the dropdown menu. Station1 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Station1 here. Either we prefer dab pages to have no parenthetical qualifier or we don't. If we prefer the former, and I should note that I wouldn't be opposed to that, then we should undertake a mammoth bulk page move exercise whereby there becomes no primary topic and we default to a dab page. As I suspect the community has no interest in this, then how Amazon can be for anything besides the e-commerce company baffles me!--Doug Mehus (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean this as no insult, but I'm guessing that this is the first time you've been involved in a primary topic discussion because you don't seem to get what we're deciding here. This is NOT a debate about naming conventions. If you read our guidelines for disambiguation pages you will see that whether or not we have "(disambiguation)" as part of the title simply depends on whether or not there is a primary topic for the term and is very intentionally decided on a case-by-case basis. We will absolutely not be making blanket changes to our disambiguation page titles, no matter what happens in this discussion. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Frankly laughable. In terms of long-term significance, the river system and area are quite clearly far more notable than the company. Even in terms of current usage there's no primary topic. People arguing that this move should happen because the former is known as the Amazon clearly have no knowledge of Wikipedia naming conventions and should read WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but in what possible universe is the company more notable than the river system, one of the most famous in the world, that has been referred to by that name for hundreds of years? This is honestly one of the most ridiculous RM nominations I've ever seen. The river system/basin/rainforest are almost invarably referred to just as the Amazon, whatever name we may have given them. We did that for disambiguation purposes, just as we put "(company)" after the company for disambiguation purposes. Claiming that the company should be moved to the default name just because it's the only one that has a parenthetical as opposed to a natural disambiguator (or isn't used with a definite article) is frankly ludicrous and a complete misreading of Wikipedia naming conventions. Any of the geographical meanings could be and commonly are just referred to by the default name too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Tentative support, as mentioned in the previous discussion. This topic is the most notable to just be called "Amazon". I would argue that Amazon River and Amazon basin are more notable, but I see no reason for either to be moved from their current naming. Having this topic as primary for a full-title match on "Amazon" is certainly better than having the DAB page in that place. WP:RECENTISM might apply, but I doubt that Amazon is a fad that we won't hear from again in the coming decade(s). Lordtobi (✉) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. No clear primary topic. It's concerning that this isn't immediately apparent to everyone. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apple/Apple Inc. and all the other reasons I already strenuously wrote about at Talk:Amazon earlier this year. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as I agree with Xezbeth that there is not a clear primary topic. Aoba47 (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some proposed changes

I would like to remove this claim

a hyper-competitive and demanding work culture

As Amazon is not hyper competitive or demanding

 DeclinedThe content you wish to remove is sourced, and as such, will not be removed. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

Amazon.com Services, Inc. is missing from the list. Bloomberg publishes an online description, "Amazon.com Services Inc. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services distributes its products worldwide." [6] Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Change "effect the consumer health" to "affect consumer health" under the Controversies heading. 45.64.241.71 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Massive gap after 'Additional hiring as a result of pandemic' sub-heading should be removed

In my opinion the massive gap after the text under the 'Additional hiring as a result of pandemic' sub-heading on the 'Response to COVID-19 pandemic' tab should be removed as it looks strange to have such a big gap in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020/8240118931

8240118931 2409:4064:4E11:48EB:9D2F:38BE:6796:493F (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No request provided. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Change Big Four to Big Five and add Microsoft. 183.83.47.25 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Website

Websites section is missing amazon.sa (Saudi Arabia), launched June 2020 A4035 (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

Can someone add this to the working condition section please?

As of 2019, successful delivery service partners (DSP) can earn between £50,000 to £150,000 in annual profits operating a fleet of 20 to 40 delivery vehicles. <ref>{{cite web |title=Next up for Amazon UK employees: build your own small business delivering Amazon packages |url=https://blog.aboutamazon.co.uk/supporting-small-businesses/next-up-for-amazon-uk-employees-build-your-own-small-business-delivering-amazon-packages |website=UK Day One Blog |language=en |date=13 May 2019}}</ref> Haych.101 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Added; albeit in a new section, which needs expansion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett Andy, In areas of the project I'm most familiar with, a blog would not be considered a reliable source. Thoughts? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Read the policy; there is no prohibition on citing blogs; only unreliable blogs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

... I'm not sure amazon is reliable for stuff like that, and I dont think we should be telling people that amazon say you can make £150k pa delivering packages if you have 20 to 40 vans. It's a bit more complicated than that. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Than change it to "Amazon say...", or add a second source. This is a wiki. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll think about it. PigsOTwing sounds very Northern English Yorkshire in my head. I like it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

My only concern is that section looks like an advertisement right now. It would be akin to the McDonalds article having an "Employment" section saying 'experienced frycooks can make between $15 and $20 an hour. I mean, is the amount that delivery partners can make really salient here? Especially without any other content whatsoever, and so high up in the headings.. it doesn't even explain what a delivery service partner is. Just because a statement can be sourced doesn't mean it necessarily belongs in the topic's main article ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

So expand the section. Still a wiki.... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Move Turkey to Europe Table Group

Turkey is listed as a Asian country in the "Website" section of the page but it is kind of inaccurate despite being a intercontinental country since its economy is integrated with European Union via a customs union and also a member of Council of Europe since 1950.

Sislietfaldekiteyze (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Trimming Amazon taxes

I took liberty of being WP:BOLD, and trimmed down tax related content here and at Criticism of Amazon and moved some of them to Tax amazon. It will definitely need more editing, but I think this will help make this article and Criticism of Amazon easier to reason about. Shushugah (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

location delivery 182.75.139.26 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

70.249.170.51 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No edit requested. Closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Criticism of Amazon section

This section has undue weight. This should be a short summary, with the main content covered at Criticism of Amazon. This is as per the History section, and of course the Manual of Style. Mark83 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think given the length of this page, the relative weight of this section is not undue, and this small, appropriate amount of discussion of this content should exist on this page, while that other page goes further in depth. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If it was a "small, appropriate amount of discussion" I would agree with you. However this is not a summary of the main Criticism of Amazon as per the MOS. At approximately 44% of the article (based on word count), the criticism section does have undue weight in my opinion. Mark83 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • What would be an appropriate amount of discussion in your opinion? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Moving the section would reduce unnecessary duplication. At present I'm unsure which page I should add new content to. As the years roll by the situation will only get worse. Sadgrove (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Is there room for a solution that involves a shrinking down of this section and adding a note to the top of the Amazon page that says "see also: Criticism of Amazon"? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • In my opinion, shrinking down the section to only include the most important details in a small summary and then having the main article as a "see also" note at the top of the section. --JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not undue weight. And, in fact, a lot of content from the criticism article should be brought back to Amazon (company) and History of Amazon. There are controversies that are notable enough to be described right in the history sections, not in special controversy sections or articles. MarioGom (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

Amazon.ru 178.214.254.178 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 13:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Ownership Breakdown Private Companies 0.0009% 4 402 shares State or Government 0.04% 181 921 shares Public Companies 0.1% 541 632 shares Individual Insiders 10.6% 53 427 176 shares General Public 30.6% 154 443 973 shares Institutions 58.6% 295 724 632 shares

Dilution of Shares: Shareholders have not been meaningfully diluted in the past year.

Top Shareholders Top 25 shareholders own 45.14% of the company Ownership Name Shares Current Value Change % Portfolio % 10.55% Jeffrey Bezos 53,209,269 $175.9b -0.02% no data 6.43% The Vanguard Group, Inc. 32,435,650 $107.2b -1.06% 2.22% 5.46% BlackRock, Inc. 27,524,749 $91.0b -0.49% 1.92% 3.16% State Street Global Advisors, Inc. 15,954,486 $52.8b -2.39% 2.67% 3.1% T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. 15,635,541 $51.7b -0.42% 4.3% 2.98% FMR LLC 15,048,319 $49.8b -2.78% 3.59% 2.03% Capital Research and Management Company 10,218,382 $33.8b -7.27% 1.77% 1.28% Geode Capital Management, LLC 6,460,626 $21.4b 0.97% 2.84% 0.97% Northern Trust Global Investments 4,913,827 $16.2b -2.04% 2.66% 0.91% Norges Bank Investment Management 4,567,893 $15.1b 4.58% 1.49% 0.87% Morgan Stanley, Investment Banking and Brokerage Investments 4,389,160 $14.5b 22.62% 2.52% 0.79% BNY Mellon Asset Management 3,970,178 $13.1b -7.13% 2.43% 0.67% UBS Asset Management 3,365,317 $11.1b -3.12% 1.69% 0.64% Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America - College Retirement Equities Fund 3,246,790 $10.7b 1.85% 2.86% 0.63% Baillie Gifford & Co. 3,197,240 $10.6b -11.13% 3.02% 0.63% J.P. Morgan Asset Management, Inc. 3,173,209 $10.5b -0.24% 1.58% 0.58% Jennison Associates LLC 2,911,025 $9.6b 4.15% 6.16% 0.49% Legal & General Investment Management Limited 2,462,010 $8.1b 1.25% 2.28% 0.49% Wellington Management Group LLP 2,446,081 $8.1b 11.1% 1.19% 0.45% SoftBank Group Corp., Asset Management Arm 2,267,882 $7.5b 12.79% 39.22% 0.45% Janus Henderson Group plc 2,254,481 $7.5b -1.46% 2.64% 0.42% Eaton Vance Management 2,140,403 $7.1b 0.83% 2.42% 0.39% Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. 1,983,019 $6.6b -0.01% 1.72% 0.39% Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC 1,980,777 $6.5b 3.19% 1.73% 0.38% AllianceBernstein L.P. 1,891,207 $6.3b 8.87% 2.26% Mstarty (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TGHL ↗ 23:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post: Footage of Amazon destroying thousands of unsold items in Britain prompts calls for official investigation

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/23/amazon-uk-warehouses-destroy-items/

John Cummings (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

More references for the environmental impact section

Here are some references that might be useful for the environemental impact section:

• https://depts.washington.edu/sctlctr/news-events/in-the-news/amazons-environmental-impact-delivers-climate-change-concerns
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/environmental-impact-of-amazon-prime
• https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/amazons-environmental-record-could-be-as-bad-as-its-work-culture_n_55e70360e4b0b7a9633aefa0?ri18n=true
• https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2021/07/09/the-prime-effect-amazons-environmental-impact
• https://www.wired.co.uk/article/jeff-bezos-climate-change-amazon

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

[[7]]

88.251.196.65 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Amazon logo.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

Egrenert (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I Want To Edit The Sources Said Jeff Bezos Officaly Step Down As Ceo Of Amazon In July 2021.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

The domain of the Amazon Egypt website is "amazon.eg" not "amazon.com.eg" as it is now found in the article. Alwalid95 (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 05:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

I want to write the lastest Amazon employees data. The number in the article is old. Thanks. YMVD (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK _Talk 00:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Error under "Third Party Sellers"

In July 2019 the 3rd U.S. City Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled ...

Should be fixed, instead of "3rd U.S. City Court of Appeals", it should be the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit or 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. 3rd U.S. City Court of Appeals does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.184.139 (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"MiniTV" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MiniTV. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 13#MiniTV until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

1998-2002 misaligned on the graph in the finances section

The years 1998-2002 are misaligned on the graph in the finances section. This spoils the presentation of the article in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we include the warehouse?

Context: On December 10-11, a tornado outbreak resulted in the destruction of an Amazon-owned warehouse in Illinois. 6 people were reported to have been killed in the warehouse due to a tornado. The devastation was acknowledged by Jeff, having said the following in two tweets "The news from Edwardsville is tragic. We’re heartbroken over the loss of our teammates there, and our thoughts and prayers are with their families and loved ones. (1/2)... (2/2) All of Edwardsville should know that the Amazon team is committed to supporting them and will be by their side through this crisis. We extend our fullest gratitude to all the incredible first responders who have worked so tirelessly at the site." The event is also stated in page for the outbreak.

TL:DR - An Amazon warehouse was destroyed by a tornado and resulted in 6 deaths. Jeff Bezos also acknowledged what happened that day. Mobius Gerig (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Doengesm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dw2460.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of .amazon into Amazon

Not really individually notable and is more of a part of the bigger Amazon article. could just be a small paragraph instead of this basically permanent stub --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 12:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Amazon's apathy to Twitch (its Subsidiary) allowing its users to promote Russian War propaganda

Many users on the Streaming social media site Twitch wonder why right-wing Russian users are allowed to stream their fascist view about Russia's war in Ukraine. Twitch seems to be indifferent to this happening. It's Russian users are still making money through Twitch and their streams on it. With so many companies leaving Russia and so many other social media websites reducing Russian access to their sites, the question is does Amazon know this is happening and approve of it or is Twitch responsible. One of the right wing Russian Streamers is linked below. 2405:9800:BA00:163:8190:3927:53E0:465 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, as noted in the one of the banners above, this page is intended for discussions on how to improve the article. It's not for discussions on Amazon's corporate behavior. Blue Riband► 09:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The year 2021 on the table in the 'Finances' tab is misaligned compared to the other years in the table

On the table in the 'Finances' tab, the year 2021 is misaligned compared to the other years in the table. This makes the table look unprofessional in my opinion. {{subst:unsined|Xboxsponge15|08:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)}}

Wrong

I found that the map were it shows which countries Amazon.com operates is wrong, in the text it says it operates in Egypt but Saudi Arabia is shown instead 178.174.193.222 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

History - Mackenzie Scott

The bit in the History section about Mackenzie Scott...

"Mackenzie Scott was also instrumental in its founding, and drove across the country with Bezos to start it. When Scott graduated, she applied to work for D. E. Shaw & Co., a quantitative hedge fund in New York City, as a research associate to "pay the bills while working on her novels".[30][31] Bezos, then a vice-president at the firm, met her when he interviewed her.[32][30]"

That really feels shoehorned in. If Scott deserves credit for founding the company, what did she actually do, other than get in a car? Surely the circumstances of Scott and Bezos meeting don't deserve mention in a short history, especially when it's not mentioned at all in the actual History of Amazon article. In fact, Scott isn't mentioned at all there, either. Perhaps she should be. But I'm deleting it here. Khakiandmauve (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

Amazon Online Arbitrage is an online retailer whose sole purpose is to resell its products at higher prices in order to profit from other online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay and Facebook Marketplace. Lllheng (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Article rework

I've just reorganized the article into fewer main sections that make more sense, to make this page more comparable with Google, Apple Inc., Meta Platforms, etc.

There's still a bunch more work to be done. The history section should be expanded, not quite to the level of NeXT, but to around half of the History prosesize at Apple Inc. (I'd expect there might be less relevant stuff on Amazon due to it being younger). The history section should probably be divided into eras (early era, middle, late/current); the cutoff years should be debated here. The COVID-19 section shouldn't be more than a single paragraph in the History section, within the latest era subsection to avoid the extreme WP:RECENTISM we have now. Controversy needs to be trimmed down by a ton; it already has its own article. I'm thinking we pick the top 3 controversies, according to WP:RS, and just talk about those here, and link to the rest. DFlhb (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Number of contractors

How many people work for Amazon as independent contractors, or through contract firms who only have Amazon as a customer? -- Beland (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It depends what the sources say. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

Satan the devil (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fire tablet apps. Amazon maps Amazon weather Amazon Appstore Kindle email Audible

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Change image in infobox

Would anyone object to changing the image in the infobox to one of the Doppler building, Amazon's headquarters? The consensus on most other company pages, such as John Deere and Microsoft, seems to be to include an image of the headquarters building, while for this Amazon page, it's of a conservatory that is part of the overall compound. Thoughts? JJonahJackalope (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable change to me. The conservatory image can be argued to create a bias - showing Amazon off as sleek and futuristic. I'd say the change would be okay.

Also, as an aside, JD shows the company logo upon hovering on the hyperlink, while Microsoft shows the photo instead, probably something to be amended as well. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

AWS not listed under "services" in Infobox - why?

I know that it is not possible to list every service or product in the infobox. But compared to e.g. Amazon Luna, isn't AWS much more important for both Amazon's revenue and market position?

Maybe there is some reasoning I don't understand.. that's why I'm asking here instead of editing.

As far as I'm concerned, AWS and S3 are Amazon's most important services apart from its retail and marketplace offerings. Thoughts? Moritz1988 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Enelly23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: TotalSustainableFuture, Moonwatch Snowave.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Amazon & Climate Change

Amazon's Influence on Climate Change

One of the most significant impacts Amazon has on climate change is through its operations and business practices. Amazon has been criticized for its reliance on fossil fuels for powering its massive warehouses, fleets of delivery vans, and data centers that make up its global infrastructure. Additionally, the company’s demand for new products from suppliers around the world has resulted in increased emissions from transportation and energy usage. While they have expressed support for clean energy and climate policies, Amazon has had a controversial lack of transparency about their own contributions in the past.

Carbon Footprint

The company’s immense carbon footprint is primarily due to its excessive packaging and product delivery. Amazon’s delivery fleets, which are composed of trucks, planes, and drones, cause a large amount of pollution from their exhaust. Furthermore, Amazon wastes about 90% of plastic they use with their products. Additionally, their huge warehouses and data centers generate large amounts of energy and create immense waste. Amazon’s environmental impact is further amplified by its lack of accountability, as the company has been known to skirt environmental regulations and avoid compensating communities affected by their activities.  

Amazon’s vast global reach has a significant impact on the climate crisis. The company’s warehouses, delivery fleets, and data centers together consume an enormous amount of energy . Additionally, Amazon’s business model is built on the convenience of fast shipping, which results in large quantities of fossil fuels being burned to power their delivery fleets. The company’s storage warehouses also cause a large carbon footprint, and the company’s focus on fast delivery means that its goods are often transported over long distances . Enelly23 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Amazon operation!

How many countries does Amazon operate in? Saeed0559 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

For the text: "In September 2006, Amazon launched a program called FBA (Fulfillment By Amazon) whereby it could handle storage, packing and distribution of products and services for small sellers.[citation needed]"

The citation for the text above is https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon 2600:1700:290:BF5F:C5B:5E2D:8FB4:A751 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source needs to be independent and the source you gave is both from amazon and it also does not give a date for when the program started. WanderingMorpheme 14:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done It was mentioned in another place in the article with a press release from amazon, I reused that source to fix the citation needed in the other place. WanderingMorpheme 14:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2024

Please restore the pronunciation in the lead that was erroneously removed by this edit. 2A00:1FA0:6A2:B4F4:0:69:9856:4901 (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024

would also add One Medical (One Medical.com; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Medical), a division of Amazon Health Services (https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/teams/health-services) along with Amazon Clinic to the list of services Amazon provides. Rldgator (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Circular link

There's a circular link under the "logistics" heading (Amazon Logistics). Can someone fix this? 2600:1700:B090:1AD0:5823:CFA:498F:2B0D (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for noticing, removed.

ASpacemanFalls (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

The first sentence of the section entitled "Affiliate Program" reads "Publishers can signup, etc" "signup" should be two words. "Sign up" is a verb phrase whereas "signup" is a noun or adjective.

Please change "signup" to "sign up".

Thanks, Jamie Jcowperthwait (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Ran user script per WP:ENGVARB no changes were made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Done anyway. It's not an ENGVAR issue. As the OP said, "signup" is a noun, "sign up" is a verb phrase, and it was being wrongly used. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Thanx, never been good at this stuff, that's why I use the script. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. ENGVARB knows words, but it doesn't know grammar, clearly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove "circa" preceding the number of employees Amazon has

Circa should only be used for a date, not a number of employees a company has. I propose changing it to "approx." or something similar, but wanted to get community consensus before changing. Jwilli39 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

New cat

Please could somebody add Category:Companies in the Dow Jones Global Titans 50 ? 78.148.152.27 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

"and owns Brilliance Audio and Audible, which produce and distribute audiobooks, respectfully." The correct word here is 'respectively', not 'respectfully'. 2607:FCC8:FFC0:A0:7C4D:21BD:CEE9:5439 (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

redundancies

It seems redundant to list the same services & subsidiaries in the info box. Does anyone else think it's redundant? I think it's redundant. Seananony (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Which do you see as overlapping/redundant?

From what I can tell they're different (even if they 'feel' similar). The service Twitch is not the same as the subsidiary Twitch Interactive. The same distinction is made under Microsoft for LinkedIn and GitHub, the services and the subsidiaries.

(I don't feel strongly either way, and I'm not sure there's a standard way of listing those) TomNormanCohen (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@TomNormanCohen I don't feel strongly about it either, but it also seems redundant to list LinkedIn twice on the MS page table, each instance linked to the same page. It's fine though. I've moved on. :) Seananony (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony I agree having both link to the same page has something off about it - I also don't have a good idea of what a good alternative might look like. If you have a good suggestion I'm happy to take on the cleanup and standardise it in other megacorps. :) TomNormanCohen (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)