Jump to content

Talk:Starbucks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.187.190.208 (talk) at 15:43, 7 March 2009 (→‎starbucks zionism claims). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Way, way, way too adulatory

This article - despite the criticism sections near the end - seems to have been written by people who regard Starbucks with a kind of religious awe. It could have been written by Starbucks themselves. This is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. The article should be radically rewritten and made much shorter. This is only a coffee shop chain! --APW (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be fixed. Needs to be nuked and reduced to 200 words max. 217.68.173.8 (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original comment. I was curious about the part-time employee benefits, and the article continually refers to it's employees as "partners." "Partners" is what Starbucks calls their employees, and can be reduced to being a marketing tactic to recruit employees. The use of it from the perspective of an unbiased author seems inappropriate. When I read this part of the article it felt more like company literature than an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilojake (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Stores

Argentina has to be green now, please webmaster.. ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.187.143 (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


argentina doesn't have any starbucks, so it shouldn't be green on the map...there's an intention from starbucks to arrive, but it hasn't happened yet... "please webmaster" --Camilorojas (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina does have a starbucks. It opened last friday i believe. It is located at Alto Palermo Shopping in the Palermo neighborhood in Buenos Aires. News Article Arg2k (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it has one now... but the thing has been green way before we had a starbucks... hence the discussion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.239.72 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Starbucks shop has also been opened 30th September 2008, in the Alegro shopping center, Lisbon, Portugal. Portugal isn't green yet though. KollyDolly (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria should be green on the map, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasko (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2009 there are only stores in 44 countries, NOT 94 countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander81 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosher Products Paragraph.

In my opinion the kosher products paragraph should remain. I have therefore undid it's deletion of about a week ago. I don't think it's fair to completely omit the kosher status of starbucks products from the article, as there are many people interested in this information, even if to some it might seem obscure. I would appreciate any help anyone can give in adding content or polishing the language of this paragraph. Ted19 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to reply to this note on my talk page, but have neglected it. I don't think it should be included, mostly because it strikes me as trivia that's backed up by an unreliable source. If Starbucks' use of kosher products is so noteworthy, where's the mainstream media coverage of it? Without that, it's just random information assembled by some website. I'm willing to leave it in until others have voiced an opinion, though (although I'm going to edit it to fix formatting and remove the overly laudatory tone). Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 13:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it needs its own section, but I think all of the information currently there can be summed up in 1-2 sentences as part of the main Products section.--Margareta (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may indeed be the best compromise. Esrever (klaT) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calories

Best way to add this report into the article? [1] - Lee Stanley (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand. What part are you trying to add to the article? Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just say something like Starbucks sells food intended to poisin children. Add that to the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo - any details, please?

Does anyone have fuller details on the history of their logo, please? This is NOT a mermaid, but a melusine, whose associations are rather with the dark arts - her double-tail associates the logo indubitably with the Templars' Abraxas cult. This putatively had its roots in the Phoenician and Philestine cult of Dagon, and is espoused by a satanic sect who appear to maintain similar practices in modern times, which is why a fuller explanation would be appreciated - I'm obviously aware of the association with Melville's Starbuck, but glib whale-based explanations should take account of Melville's own ideosyncratic metaphysics, which in no wise exclude such associations, as he clearly states his knowing separation both from Church and Lodge in preference of some form of transcendentalism. The heirs of the Templar cult, on the other hand, are rather the Royal Arch grade of Freemasonry, a very different kettle of fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.13.225 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably start out at this article and go from there. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 06:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that the idiot who keeps removing mention of the melusine logo would go hump a leg. It doesn't matter what anyone at Starbucks calls the thing. It *is* a melusine. Even if people call the image a picnic table, it's still a melusine. Nothing will ever change that. Just google the thing and quit vandalizing the page with your stupid mermaid crap. Obviously, they just randomly chose a cool looking woodcut to be the logo, thinking--quite erroneously--that it *was* a mermaid, but it isn't. It's a melusine. Period.Slagathor (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, find a source that says the Starbucks logo is a melusine, and you can put it back. Until then, we'll all live with the fact that there are a couple of sources in this article already indicating it's a siren. In the meantime, take a look at Wikipedia's policy on civility. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As en ex-Starbucks employee the company refers to it as a siren. Their registered trademark even lists it as a siren. As Esrever mentioned, if you can find an article that discusses the Starbucks logo as a melusine then feel free to add it and cite it. Bvlax2005 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what a Starbucks employee past present or future calls the thing. It's a Mélusine. It's like I'm staring at a dog and a bunch of people are saying: WE CALL IT A CAT. And I'm like... what's wrong with you, it's a dog. I don't need to cite references. It's a Mélusine. Anyone with even a halfway decent education can tell. It's even got it's own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.251.199 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly appreciate your position. But Starbucks chooses to call it a siren, so that's what this article refers to it as, too. When you find a source that can offer up a different name for the logo, then you can add that to the article. But the standard on Wikipedia is not "truth", it's verifiability. Esrever (klaT) 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying and I do agree that the logo does resemble a melusine. However, the company decided to call it a two tailed siren. Just because a logo resembles something else does not mean that it is, in fact, that item. Bvlax2005 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the company calls the image they use for their logo. What they call it doesn't change what it is. If I call a "chair" an "ostrich" that doesn't mean anything. The logo is an image of Melusine. Period. Just because Bush says that Iraq had WMD doesn't mean that WMD were in Iraq. Your logic is asinine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.97.187 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metamusile? "Dark arts"? That proves it, Starbucks promotes satanism. Put that in the controversy section pronto! Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a source http://www.deadprogrammer.com/starbucks-logo-mermaid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack Brown (talk • contribs) 05:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, that blog post seems to make it clear that the Starbucks logo is most properly called a twin-tailed siren. Esrever (klaT) 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what Starbucks says, let's smear them because using Wikipedia to lead smear campaigns is fun and you get to meet interesting people who have similar values. Put it in the controversy section, mmmkay? What about something like "Starbucks says their logo is a siren yet some critics maintain they are really promoting Satanism." That seems pretty "neutral" to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's time to stop ranting. If you have a problem with the article, make a genuine effort to fix it. Be bold. Otherwise, stop complaining on this talk page. Esrever (klaT) 04:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that Esrever would stop reversing the Melusine edit. He's just wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Just google the god damn thing. It's common knowledge. Reverting the edit is getting annoying and it's just plain freaking wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.148.130 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be missing something. What part of the logo makes it a melusine and not a two tailed siren? For that matter how does anyone differentiate between the two? From the description in the Melusine articel and the Siren article it could be either one. However, it was designed as a siren, not a melusine. Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, dumbass, stop vandalizing the site. How many citations do you need before you get it into your thick head that the creature on the logo is Melusine? I will undo what you do forever. FOREVER!!!!! Even if you're a typical wikipediaist edit warring clown, I will out last you. And if you try the old "original" research chestnut, I will go through every single one of your contributions to everything and nuke them for the same. A claim with 4 citations is NOT original research by any definition of the term. Now, sod off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you're referring to me, since I was the one who reverted your edit. I'm not interested in an edit war or anything of the sort. Frankly, I don't care what Starbucks' logo is, be it mermaid or melusine. My concern about your additions to the article come down to this: Starbucks calls their logo a mermaid, and I've not seen any reliable sources that call that same logo a melusine. If you can find a source that says it is, I'm happy to see that material included there. But until then, your additions amount to original research: you're taking your personal analysis of something and publishing it on Wikipedia. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable? Okay, listen carefully. A refereed scholarly article is RELIABLE. An interview with a corporate shill is NOT RELIABLE. The word of a corporation is NOT RELIABLE. My contribution is not original research but a simple and well-documented contribution like any other. You're just irritated because it disagrees with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In simpler terms, Slagathor, if Starbucks claimed that their logo represented a highly-stylized bunny rabbit, then that is what we would be constrained to report, per the rather iron-clad policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. On a different front, calling other editors "dumbasses" and calling good-faith editing "vandalism" violates the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, as well as basic, common-sense intersocial decorum. Please stop. --Dynaflow babble 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. If the US military claimed that it won the Vietnam war, we do not have to do more than document their opinion. Verifiable, third-party truth is independent of any corporate shill's word. Citing that the image that Starbucks expropriated is NOT in fact what they claim it to be hardly qualifies as original research. And yes, bad faith editing, eg deleting a perfectly well documented FACT does indeed qualify as vandalism. So enserver, or whatever he calls himself should stop being Starbuck's corporate voice--a criticism that has already been laid against him, and which he failed to address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the US military officially claimed to have won the Vietnam War, there are still plenty of other sources that will directly say that the US lost in Vietnam. Both assertions would merit inclusion. The difference here is that -- using the "parallel" example -- we wouldn't need to go to some source that put forward a description of what a lost war would be like, extrapolate from that description and the US's situation in 1972, and declare in the Wikipedia article, "By this definition, we must conclude that the US lost the war." That would be inadmissible original research. Do you have a reliable source that directly states, "The Starbucks logo is a mesuline?" If not, all we'd be doing is extrapolating from a definition to come to a new, synthesized conclusion -- which would be original research not appropriate for this article. So -- do you or don't you? --Dynaflow babble 06:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to remind you that characterizing other editors' good-faith actions as vandalism constitutes a personal attack, about the consequences of which you have already been warned. --Dynaflow babble 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that basic logic is being followed here. If you see a picture of a dog, and Starbucks says it's a cat. You don't need to cite a reference that directly states that Starbuck's dog is a dog. You merely need to show that a dog is indeed a dog. Starbuck's opinion of whether or not a dog is a cat is entirely irrelevant. Unless, of course, the person defending Starbucks is an employee. But that's not the case, now, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.106.255 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the recent additions to this section really add anything encyclopedic to the article? That is, is it really worth talking about the Starbucks cups in Fight Club (unreferenced, I might add) or about "Farbucks" in Shrek? It'd be different if there were any information discussing Starbucks' impact on popular culture, but all that's in this section now is just random minutiae and trivia. I'd argue that the whole thing should be deleted. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. The Fight Club thing is indeed referenced. Esrever (klaT) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Wi-Fi provider from T-mobile to at&t

Since Starbucks changed its wi-fi provider from T-mobile to at&t, should the section related to wi-fi be changed as well? Bentoman (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the company providing wireless access should even be mentioned, as I expect that it will differ between countries (and, as has been shown, across time) - I'd change it but I'm loath to remove the references, lest some insane person require a reference to the fact that wireless is provided! --Neo (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed most references to T-Mobile to AT&T, the new provider of wireless internet in U.S. Starbucks. To my knowledge, T-Mobile subscribers will still have access for a while, through an agreement with AT&T. But the Starbucks website clearly states a Starbucks/AT&T partnership for stores' internet access.168.122.187.182 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued products

Should we add a section on discontinued/failed products and syrups? In light of some of the new changes (breakfast sandwiches, etc) would this be a helpful reference? For starters, the breakfast sandwiches are being phased out, as well as the Almond-flavored syrup. There might be a few other syrups being phased out in the near future. Some of the tazo tea and fruit frappuccinos were also discontinued a while back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.187.147 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they're notable in their own right, I'd probably say it's just trivia, and thus that it doesn't really add anything to the article. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History & current lawsuit

I believe the current lawsuit, Jou Chou v Starbucks, regarding $100 mln in tips should be under the heading of controversies as opposed to history and would like to see it moved or will move it if consensus agrees NOTE: please don't bite this newbie :) Pandagirlbeth (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any written info about company policy regarding tips and who gets what that anyone has access to that we can quote from?Pandagirlbeth (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks Partner Guide (US Version) - Section 5: Your Pay (pp. 13-14) - "Starbucks hourly nonexempt store partners are entitled to share in the tips received." Usually, this tip income is taxed as it is reported to Starbucks upon receipt of cash tips each week. The section about Pay, and tips, is quite small compared to the rest of the 50 page guide. Tips are not discussed in the supplementary handbook, Starbucks Standards of Business Conduct. Shift supervisors are hourly paid employees and do the same work as baristas, and in some cases make less than experienced baristas. Their additional functions include assigning tasks for the day/shift, and balancing the registers at the end of shifts so that all money is accounted for. In Massachussets, shift supervisors receive part of the tips in the same way as other baristas. I think CA is a special case, and their labor laws are probably different from other states. --Current Barista from Boston, Mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.187.148 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel strongly that the current lawsuits, San Diego, CA and now Boston, MA, warrant their own section as opposed to being under the heading of History. If I get no response in the next couple days I'm going to relocate the info. Thank you. Pandagirlbeth (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Looks like someone took the current lawsuits and placed them in the labor disputes section. Hoorah! Pandagirlbeth (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks in Seoul - the only one with a translation?

I was told the only one Starbucks Coffee shop in the world with a fully translated sign resides in Seoul. I took this picture and uploaded it to commons. Is there any truth to this claim? A Korean man I met on the street explained that the neighborhood it's in demanded the shop conform to a traditional Korean style of building, hence the tile walls, frosted glass design and translated sign. Brian Adler (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear error regarding CEO History

As a newb I am unsure where to go from here but...

The article incorrectly states the Jim Donald took over the reigns as CEO from Howard Schultz in 2000. This is false, Donald took over as CEO in 2005 after the previous CEO, Orin Smith retired. Orin Smith was the CEO who took over for Schultz in 2000. We can't just omit an entire CEO can we? Tantousha (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, so I am looking into the timeline, and lets see if we can break down the management chronology: In 2000, Schultz moved from Chairman and CEO and became only the Chairman. At the same time, Orin Smith becomes President and CEO. In 2005, Smith retires from both posts, and Jim Donald becomes President and CEO. In 2007, Donald leaves the company and Schultz returns as President and CEO. That's all from the official company timeline PDF (Accessible from the website). I'll try to make relevant changes to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

I feel like the alopt of this article is negative. i dont think its biased but i just feel like it foccuses more on the negative side like the ethos water and the... oh wait I was reading the controversy section... never mind 64.193.92.3 (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Biased" Are you crazy? The article is supposed to smear Starbucks, not appear "unbiased" Get with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors Section

This section as a whole seems completely unnecessary. For instance, is a list of competitors necessary for all retail/foodservice Wikipedia articles for particular companies? It just seems like the section is an invite for advertisement, rather than any kind of factual validation on Wikipedia. Icarus of old (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Threatened boycott

I re-added mention of the threatened boycott of Starbucks by some Christian group because of the new logo. It is getting some significant news coverage. I included refs to the original press release, a Minnesota news article that first talked about it, as well as a UK news article about it.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think this group—which has a following of a whopping 3000 people—or their boycott is significant or notable enough to merit coverage in this article, but I'll defer to other editors if they disagree. Esrever (klaT) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the group is significant, since it has received significant international media coverage: news coverage.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that in the greater context of Starbucks, this is just trivia. Yes, it's receiving news coverage now, but in a month is anyone even going to remember that this happened? And in this sense, I think the group's notability matters, too. If this were a group like the Family Research Council, one which regularly garners significant press coverage, then I'd say that the boycott probably mattered in a Starbucks article. But "The Resistance"? Meh. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point, but right now this stupid boycott is under the "Business Top Headlines" on MSNBC.com. Maybe we should put something in that sentence that places the group in context.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I work in a Starbucks in the Boston area and we have heard nothing of this boycott. Some customers remark on the new cups, but mostly its about whether they like the green or the brown color. Honestly, no one has even mentioned the lady and her bits in the past month. If you can find a reputable international news source maybe we could add a sentence.168.122.187.182 (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I put like 4 cited sources (including MSNBC and international sources).--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I guess I'm fine with it. However, these brown original logo cups are not permanent - they were just instituted to help boost this whole Pike Place Roast marketing. The green cups will return in the next few months so it will not really be an issue. I guess we could include this boycott (has it taken form, or is it just a proposal?) and then remove it later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.49 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, stuff like the boycott above and the current information about some store in Brighton strike me as being in conflict with What Wikipedia is not (namely, a news report). Events should be considered in the context of their historical notability, and frankly neither of these two events strikes me as historically notable. So one store in England is opening against planning regulations? That's not notable, and now the article has become a place for someone to promote the views of the protesters. A fringe Christian group invokes a boycott? Again, this isn't a notable event in the context of Starbucks. Yes, mainstream news outlets are covering it (or rather, covered it briefly), but Wikipedia is not a news report. Will anyone remember in a year that this group boycotted Starbucks, or that this one silly store didn't open with planning permission? Probably not. Esrever (klaT) 05:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious extreemists don't like Starbucks? Obviously Starbucks is guilty. We should work together on this and make Starbucks look bad in the article. To begin with, put it in the "controversy" section and make it look like Starbucks is being attacked by mainstream religions. Little boobs on a chartoon character, I mean THAT is like putting pictures of oral sex on cups. Make it look like Starbucks is really offensive company. All we need is one dork we can quote and then we've satisfied the Wikipedia rules and we can smear Starbucks as much as we want on the subject. How about Pat Robertson, has he chimed in yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we say "Some people claim Starbucks is pushing pornography on children, and they are planning to add seating sections for pedophiles soon" We can worry about a source later, but for now let's add something like this in the "controversy" section. What say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia

Starbucks is praised by Transfair USA for their coffee bean purchase policies, yet Wikipedia calls their practices "controversial". Ethos Water donates $.05 per bottle to charity, that's $.05 more than any other water company, yet Wikipedia calls this "controversial". After reading this article I went and bought a bottle of Ethos Water from Starbucks. There is NOTHING on the bottle that suggests it's a charity company. Only a complete dumb ass who cannot read would come to that conclusion. How long did you have to look to find such a dumb ass you could quote? There is nothing misleading on the bottle whatsoever. Starbucks is the only company in the world to seek FDA approval for using recycled paper in their cups, yet Wikipedia calls this "controversial". Starbucks does something that will result in less tress being cut down and they go out of their way to make sure it is safe for human beings and you call it "controversial". Let's see, they bought a chain of stores in the UK, that of course is "controversial". If Duncan Donuts had bought that chain would you have called it "controversial"?

It's not that Wikipedia is a left leaning organization, it's more like an anarchistic, hateful and anti-business culture. You portray very noble deeds by Starbucks as "controversial". Why not ditch the uppity Wikipedia pretense and just smear Starbucks? Oh and yeah I know it's an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". No thanks. Why would I want to sit here and debate this nonsense with a bunch of uppity, anti-business anarchists? I'd rather get a root canal than associate with an organization that indulges in this sort of corporate character assassination of a company that does far more good than it does harm. Hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda works both ways. I read an article last year that Starbucks (or their marketing folks) had thoroughly whitewashed this article to suit their needs. Go figure. Rklawton (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I removed the recycled cup section since the topic is covered in other sections. It's also not controversial.Mancxvi (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Anti-competitive tactics" are hilarious to read. Half of them are merely business being business. Only two of the items listed are actually anti-competitive (buying out leases and market saturation / operating at a loss), all of the others are simply what everyone else would do because it's legitimate business. The "ZOMG THEY BOUGHT OUT SEATTLE COFFEE IN THE UK" is not anti-competitive, seeing how Seattle Coffee chose to be bought out. The OP has a very accurate point. Starbucks may have "whitewashed" this article at some point, but the article is blatantly anti-Starbucks and anti-business towards the end. Like chastising them for not using certified fair market coffee even though they pay higher than market prices, or attacking the Ethos water venture. If Starbucks shit gold, some of this article's authors would be mad it wasn't platinum.


Yeah this article is total bullshit. It is pretty much FACT that Starbucks has coffee that isn't in the top of taste tests (new article today on Yahoo! contains the latest taste-tests), but a lot of the other criticisms are just plain lies. I especially like the Muslims telling me about Starbucks. What a bunch of bullshit. Some radical shiek telling his future suicide bombers that Starbucks funds the Israel army just because a Jew runs the company! I use to work for Starbucks 4 years ago and havent been inside one since (way to expensive for me!) but the company has been more then great to it's workers! It's kind of a waste to even write this since Wikipedia has the credibility of the guy on the corner hawking his badly xerox'd pamphlets, but this article is just so Anti-Jew that it really should be considered for some kind of edit (btw I'm Catholic and not Jewish). But like I said, we all don't read Wikipedia for the facts, we read it because EVERY article contains some childish shit of rumors and lies that makes us stop and think, 'wow, whose got the chip on their shoulder?'. SHOW ME THE FACTS! NOT THE HEAR-SAY! Which translates as: unless you have solid fucking facts about Starbucks giving the Israeli Army money (which they don't need since the US Gov gives them more then enough). Normally I don't get so mad at an article but this one crosses the line and screams "AGENDA!" Now I'm not going to edit the article but someone with a level head needs to seriously address these concerns. Signed 72.219.143.253 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like it, fix it. Create an account, sign in, and start editing. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; anyone can edit it. But ranting about the problems on the talk page isn't going to help anyone. Esrever (klaT) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha. Right. Sure... The beauty of Wikipedia is that people can randomly undo each others' edits for absolutely no reason. I'm tempted, by the way, to delete every single line from this entry that does not have a citation. I'm allowed to do that if I feel like, you know. ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT MUST BE VERIFIABLE. There's nothing you could do to prevent it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.106.255 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The company is not being boycotted because the owner is Jewish, this is just a silly attempt to group legitimate protests of Israel with antisemitism. The CEO is an active supporter of Israel financially and he is an outspoken person with views deemed offensive by many, he should probably keep his views to himself if he wishes not to offend. After witnessing Israel's recent destruction of much of Gaza's infrastructure which set Gaza's already poor and weakening economy back 50 years, people such as myself choose not to support Israel's economy. It is a legitimate reason and there is noting antisemitic about it. BTW, it should be boycotted for just the reason it is overpriced mud. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of which has anything to do with Starbucks the company. If you don't like Howard Schultz, go make these claims in his article. But all of this is barely even tangential to a neutral, referenced article about an American coffee company. Esrever (klaT) 01:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response was to the original poster about the claims of antisemitism, and my post is a clarification of why exactly there is a boycott of Starbucks, which is relevant to this article, though I wasn't make any suggestions. Word of advice, don't open your mouth when there is nothing important to say and please avoid being condescending, otherwise you get what you give. Thank you.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect the whole "Change it yourself" message, lets keep in mind this article is closed to new members editing it anyways. And if I did edit it, what would stop someone from changing it back? I mean, it's been in the article this long, someone must keep putting it back in if it gets taken out. So I would have to spend my time re-doing and re-doing until I realize that I am wasting my time. Esrever, you seem like a reasonable person and I agree with a lot of what you said. Howard Schultz (you should read his bio because he had quite a humble life before being a billionaire) is not the spokesman of Starbucks, but the CEO. Plus, I can see Falastine is pretty much set on his agenda of pushing a pro-palestine ideal, which I don't agree with, and letting that bias interfere with an article about a coffee company! The only REAL controversy I can think of about Starbucks is one of their "My Words" cup had a poem or writing by some celeb or author that was pretty racy, and they got sued by employees because of the tip issue. Other then that, is there really any other REAL controversy about this company? Please let me know. 72.219.143.253 (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I am Pro-Palestinian, I haven't "pushed my pro-Palestine ideal" into the article. With that nasty attitude including the accusation of me having an agenda, I don't think you will last long here as a registered user.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you havent pushed your agenda then how do I even know you had one! We've never met before, I don't know you, but it sure was obvious you hate Israel just from those few sentences you wrote. I'm really glad I 'wouldn't last', maybe it's because I don't agree with hate or violence....no, actually that's not even it. I don't agree with distorting knowledge to push my ideals, I don't use lies to curry favor, I don't focus on the bad, and most importantly, I don't use an internet website as a replacement of the magnum carta because people exactly like you are editing it. So since there is no authority that keeps Wikipedia in line I'll continue reading this website FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY....or if I just want to read a bunch of slams on someone! I love dirty laundry! Oh and a tip in case anyone is thinking about being professional...if I had a world encyclopedia I probably wouldn't let the guy who hates Jew's work on the articles containing Jews or Israel...or I'd probably fire him for discrimination. BURN! 72.219.143.253 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some one is hysterical, somebody grab a tranquilizer. I am not sure if this is what you meant, but are you saying that I agree with hate and violence, that I hate Jews, and for that I should be burned? The only person who is seeming hateful is yourself. I advised that you stop making attacks and threats.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scream

An editor added a few paragraphs about a logo-related conspiracy theory from Japan. Unfortunately it was unsourced. This would be a good place to collect reliable sources with an eye toward adding this to the article. Rklawton (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

I've we put in about the fact that one of starbucks posters was ordered to be took down after customers said it was disrespectful for the nine 11 attack? Here is a reference:

[Here:[2]]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitual aelita (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering / Format problems with the Products section

The article seems to have several rendering / format problems with the Products section, I'm viewing it in Opera 9.5 WinXP, every other article seems fine and I checked the article source code and I can't find anything wrong with it. The section appears at the end of the article in a reference type format. A fix to this is out of my wikia knowledge. Pablogrb (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It was caused by a rogue ref tag.  SEO75 [talk] 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Store closures

here I was thinking they were just another franchise mill... clearly not the case!

Is there any rhyme or reason behind what stores are being closed (espec. in Australia, 'cause I'm an aussie!)? I live in a suburb of Blacktown.... the Blacktown store is being closed (see their full list) but the Mount Druitt,New South Wales one is staying open. Maybe because Mt Druitt is a free-standing building and the Blacktown one is inside a mall?

Garrie 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an interesting question, but not a subject of discussion that will improve the article. Maybe take it somewhere else, for instance here. Cheers --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse into cool references

[3]

[4]

[5]

There are lots more Vitual aelita (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are fine references, but I'm not sure what the point of including this trivium in the article is, exactly. It's a relatively minor ad campaign. Why is it relevant to an encyclopedia article? Esrever (klaT) 23:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is a contreversy and nearly started a lawsuit. Governmunt called it: "Politically incorect"

Whoever got rid of it, this change should be reverted Urbzincity (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


IWW protests

From this passage:

According to a Starbucks Union press release, since then, the union membership has begun expanding to Chicago and Maryland.[59] On March 7, 2006, the IWW and Starbucks agreed to a National Labor Relations Board settlement in which three Starbucks workers were granted almost US$2,000 in back wages and two fired employees were offered reinstatement.[60][61][62] According to the Starbucks Union, on November 24, 2006, IWW members picketed Starbucks locations in more than 50 cities around the world in countries including Australia, Canada, Germany, Great Britain and New Zealand, as well as U.S. cities including New York, Chicago, Minneapolis and San Francisco,[63] to protest the firing of five Starbucks Workers Union organizers by Starbucks and to demand their reinstatement.

I removed 'New Zealand' from the list of countries, because the IWW has as far as I know no presence in New Zealand. Possibly what is meant is the Unite! union. --58.28.72.6 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

canada / out of US stores

"The first location outside of the U.S. and Canada was established in 1990s, and they now constitute almost one third of Starbucks' stores."

The citation is wrong for this. I've searched the pdf, and "Canada" only comes up once, and not in relation to the statement above.

More importantly, the "almost one third" must be incorrect. United States has a population about 10 times that of Canada; if a third of the stores were in Canada, even if the rest were solely in the US, that means there'd be five times as many stores per capita in Canada than the US. Not likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.161.7 (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comments doesn't make sense. The text isn't arguing a third of the stores are in Canada, but that a third are outside of the US and Canada (the figure given in the article is 29%). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.135.87 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Schultz...controversial position on the Israel-Palestinian Crisis, aid to Israeli military

Why is nothing about this mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.218.74 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because such information, if notable, would need to be included in an article about Howard Schultz, not in an article about Starbucks. In addition, some of what you may have read about Schultz isn't entirely true. See this site, for example.

Pike Place Roast

There's no mention in the article of the new Pike Place Roast. Considering the importance that Starbucks placed on its release, it should probably be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.153.68 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this information necessary in the opening paragraph??

This page claims in its opening paragraphs, "On July 1, 2008, the company announced it was closing 600 under-performing company-owned stores" and that "On July 29, 2008, Starbucks also cut almost 1,000 non-retail jobs." Such actions, the article claims, "...have effectively ended the company’s period of prolific growth and expansion that began in the mid-1990s."

Yet in the same paragraph, it also states the fact that, "the company continues to expand in foreign markets and will open a net of 900 new stores outside of the U.S. in 2009."

First off, is the loss of 1,000 jobs important enough to report in the opening paragraphs if there are still a total 172,000 employees in the company (i.e. there has been a cut in 01.72% of total jobs)? And secondly, does the closing of 600 stores out of 16,226 total stores equate the quoted end of "prolific growth and expansion that began in the mid-1990s?" I don't think so.

Personally, if a company closes slightly more than one percent of their total stores due to non-performance, but then still plans to open 900 new stores (for a net total gain of 300 stores in the year 2009), this doesn't exactly define a net loss in any sense of the word, let alone the end of "prolific growth and expansion" that has continued since the 1990s. It's a question of bias.123.225.149.126 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.A.F.E. Practices

I don't see any much discussion of C.A.F.E Practices. Which is sort of a home grown FairTrade thing. [6] I think this is an important innovation and deserves a place in the article. Thoughts? Beanbuff (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say as long as you can find some sort of independent verification or explanation, then it'd be okay to include in the article. Esrever (klaT) 02:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whats wrong their own explanation IF tempered with say, criticism from authorities on such issues? It is a program they are trying to implement so what they say it is has some value no? (I'm new so I'm trying to be very careful)Thanks. [7] [8] Beanbuff (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd think that providing that level of balance would be fine. I wouldn't even say it'd need to be criticism, per se, just independent verification of what they're doing (like from a New York Times article or something).
Thanks for working to improve this article. :) One thing I'd point out is that I'm reformatting the links you put on this page to remove the <ref> tags you're putting around them. Those <ref> tags only really work in an actual article, where there's a template (like {{reflist}}) to "call" the references and format them. If you just enclose your links in brackets—[like so]—it'll make it easier for users on talk pages to click through them to read whatever source you're linking to. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 02:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips on the links! I had no idea. I'll work the the sources. Beanbuff (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,so I have looked about and here are some candidates:Forbes, Conservation International, NY Times, Change.org, (In the comments here is a long and informative discussion although not reference worthy)Beanbuff (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading all this I think that perhaps the best thing would to be to create a section on sourcing of materials. Perhaps ideally that would have historical data about counties of origin and such. This could also give information on CAFE, and Fair Trade purchases. This would make the %s pretty clear. (Good way to avoid POV no?) I think an important part of Starbucks is its impact not only on consumers but also the international coffee markets. Coffee consumption tables would also offer an interesting way to plot its growth. Beanbuff (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International operations: Bulgaria

Wow, just wow. Some people are ahead of time, they can't wait until Starbucks actually starts operating in Bulgaria. Fnugh (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of 9-11-01

The article never mentions how on 9-11 Starbucks decided to close most of their north america stores when they got word of the attacks. Probably because any time there are extreme situations like that, Starbucks is usually the first place to get a brick through their window (along with McDonalds). Also, after 9-11 most Starbucks locations added video surveilance cameras. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? I cannot be the only person who noticed it. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, frankly, I don't really see how that's noteworthy in the context of this article. But if you can find a reliable source that mentions the issue, I suppose we can all at least discuss putting it in the article. Esrever (klaT) 12:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as 9/11 is concerned, how about Starbucks charging paramedics for bottled water? I'd say that belongs in the controversy section. Kingadrock (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would argue that that fact, too, isn't really noteworthy enough to be included here. Yes, some Starbucks employee in downtown Manhattan did something stupid on 9/11 and charged relief workers. In the grand scheme of things, though, I'd simply ask: So what? It's one event, not corporate policy. There are plenty of notable things for which one can call Starbucks on the carpet, but this just seems like one minor incident among the history of Starbucks' mistakes and dumb policy choices. As always, if others disagree, I think we could certainly have a discussion about its inclusion. Esrever (klaT) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I feel it's notable. The controversy wasn't that an employee made a dumb mistake, it was Starbucks' initial refusal to acknowledge the incident or give a refund. Only after media coverage did Starbucks take any reconciliatory action. Then they deemed it important enough to not only send a refund check by courier, but have Orin Smith personally call to apologize. Kingadrock (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that in the grand scheme of the world of Starbucks, this just isn't a particularly noteworthy event. Plenty of companies screw up severely and visibly enough that the CEO is forced to offer some sort of very public mea culpa; Consumerist.com is rife with such stories. We don't include all those events in the articles on those particular companies. Starbucks is no different in that regard. I think it's perfectly fine to note the controversy around policy-level things (e.g, labor and competition practices, fair trade coffee, etc.). But as far as I know, it's not Starbucks policy to charge rescue workers for bottled water, so including a particular instance of it here doesn't seem relevant.
Those are my thoughts. As I said before, reasonable people may disagree, and we can all discuss it here. Esrever (klaT) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

starbucks zionism claims

the newly added sections are all out of proportion to NPOV. they merit a few lines, not multiple sections. some people claim they support the israeli army, starbucks says they don't, end of controversy - insofar as this wikipedia article, at least. Anastrophe (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against Starbucks stores (in the Britain, no less) are notable and relevant. The fact that Starbucks stores are being attacked by mobs in a Western Country based on bogus claims and false documents is certainly worth its own section. How often are major franchises in Western Countries attacked by mobs due to falsely alleged ties to the Israeli military? Boycotts are one thing - but violence is quite noteworthy. That's why I created this section. As for claims that this section is propaganda - please explain how and why? Is the information inaccurate, misconstrued, or improperly sourced? If there is a source that has an alternative view of these events, feel free to add to the section.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That whole section is utter bullshit. You're taking a minor hoax and giving it life. Total bullshit and using the Arab News as a source is especially cowardly. This article is a perfect example of why Wikipedia should not be taken seriously and how idiotic it is that anyone donates money to this propaganda vehicle. Idiots.

automatic archiving

Unless there are objections from other editors, I'd like to set up this page for auto-archiving through one of the MiszaBots. There are some year-old threads on here, so I'd like to use the bot to clean things up. Perhaps anything that hasn't received a comment in 180 days? Esrever (klaT) 06:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraxas Image

What is with the "Abraxas - Louvre" picture? Looking at it, one would certainly assume it's what the Starbucks logo was based upon but the article makes no mention of it whatsoever. Kingadrock (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that image is presented with no commentary at all. I feel like it used to have a more informative caption or at least some sort of mention in the running text—I could be mistaken, though. Besides, we all know the Starbucks logo is based exclusively on the melusine, so perhaps we should just remove that image altogether? ;) Esrever (klaT) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overrated quality

In which section can we mention the recent taste test that concluded Starbucks' inferior, overrated quality is comparable to decaf coffees, all of which ranked at the bottom? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors about Israel

I copy edit this to match the company's press release. So now if I drink their coffee I will be killing people? Why am I getting thirsty all of the sudden? This is pretty bad, even by Wiki standards, which is saying something :) Cheers! --Tom 19:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee bean market section

This section actually looks sort of like praise? Is this in the correct section about criticism and contraversy? It seems that it ahould mabe go up higher, under the environmental section? Who the hell can tell anyways, --Tom 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of locations worldwide

Anywhere on Wiki where it says, or we could add, the number of Starbucks locations in each country or continent? It would be interesting to see the breakdown. --Mezaco (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Conwh.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Starbucks&oldid=275613259"