Talk:Howard Schultz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Problem in 2006

"Holding the taxpayers hostage" Is that really necessary? Sounds like some Seattlite is a little miffed.

Particularly since they voted rather absolutely to not provide the funding he was looking for.--Hawk405359 02:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

"Starbucks is this place where you walk in and even if you don't know anybody, you're with other people." -- An interview on "Wake Up (CW1405)". Unwrapped. January, 8, 2007. {{cite episode}}: Check date values in: |airdate= (help); Unknown parameter |episode= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Where's the controversy?

Please don't tell me there are no citable sources for controversy regarding all the idiotic shit Schultz has been doing at Starbuck's lately. He's been wasting money, cutting out stuff customers like, and effectively dictating to the customers what they're supposed to like based on his own personal tastes and vision without regard to the actual sales figures. I know tonnes of people who are annoyed by either him or Starbucks in general (when they don't know who to blame specifically) for their recent tardapalooza of corporate decisions. There HAVE to be some published articles to this effect, thus. I can't imagine there aren't ANY.208.54.15.179 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted material

There was some useful, but deleted material in a previous edition of the article's history. It's probably innaccurate in places, but would somebody like to add back in and find sources for the factual descriptions? It's not all bad. Wikidea 12:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

“ In 1982, he joined Starbucks Coffee Company in Seattle as the Director of Marketing. After a business trip to Milan, Italy, he tried to get ownership (including Gerry Baldwin) to offer traditional espresso beverages in addition to the whole bean coffee, leaf teas and spices they had long offered. After a successful pilot of the cafe concept, the owners refused to roll it out company-wide and Howard Schultz started his own coffee shop named Il Giornale in 1985. Two years later, the original Starbucks management were forced to focus on Peet's Coffee & Tea because of bullying and harrassment and sold its Starbucks retail unit to Schultz and Il Giornale. The former owners do not speak favorably of Schultz in interviews to this day.

Schultz renamed Il Giornale with the Starbucks name and aggressively expanded Starbucks' reach across the United States. It can be said that Starbucks popularized espresso drinks such as the cafe latte to many Americans who had previously only ever tasted freeze dried coffee.They later acquired HEAR music and formed Concord Management Group in an attempt at music management and distribution using Starbucks stores. Schultz also became a board member on Dreamworks, trying to establish film output.He began his obsession with Angelina Jolie when she was at a very young age and saw to it that she rose to the celebrity status in her career. It is rumored that the success of the Ray Charles cd fueled Schultz' ambition to murder Charles in an attempt to secure the success of the film. Over the years, he is linked to the deaths of other actors such as Heath Ledger, Anna Nicole Smith, Tupac Shakur, and Notorious BIG. Unfortunately, he is affiliated with a secret group called *Velvet Mafia* in Hollywood. They are rumored to be gay, be responsible for removing Michael Ovitz from his CAA post with a huge power move and stalks young women and men for years to get ideas for their projects. Other members includes David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenburg, Calvin Klein, Tom Ford, and Michael Eisner amongst some others. This has earned him a bad reputation within the Hollywood community. His latest effort to bring his company back on track, he has unaffiliated himself from Concord Management and Dreamworks. However, Starbucks employees have been neglected, mistreated, stalked, harrassed, smeared and defamed under Schultz's management and have repeatedly plagued the company with multi million dollar lawsuits and won. The latest smear attempt came when a 16 year old barista was sexually harrassed by Starbucks management in Irvine, California. In his recent Portfolio magazine in July 2008, he responded to his employees calling him a *psychopath* by suggesting that they should just listen to what the leader of their company tells them. Schultz didn't believe in franchising. Because of this Starbucks owns every domestic outlet with one exception. Schultz went 50-50 with Magic Johnson on stores in minority communities. Others believe the reason why he doesn't franchise I'd because he would like to have access to the video recordings of his employees for private use.

Schultz co-authored a book called Pour Your Heart into It that expounds on his life journey with Starbucks. In his book Schultz admits that he was afraid that "Starbucks may become another souless big chain." This book is also published in Turkish by Babıali Cultural Publications as Gönlünü İşe Vermek.

Schultz is also the former owner of the NBA's Seattle SuperSonics. On July 17,2006, it was announced that Schultz sold the team to a group of businessmen from Oklahoma City for $350 million. It was speculated that the new owners would move the team to Oklahoma City some time after the 2006-2007 NBA season. On July 3, 2008, the City of Seattle reached a settlement with the new ownership group and the Sonics did, in fact, move to Oklahoma City. The Sonics had a 41-year history in Seattle, and the sale of the established franchise to out-of-state owners considerably damaged Schultz' popularity in Seattle. In a local newspaper poll, Schultz was judged "most responsible" for the team leaving the city, winning 42% of the vote. Howard Schultz filed a lawsuit against Sonics chairman Clay Bennett, in April 2008, to rescind the July 2006 sale based on fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Months later, he tried to smear him in the press by releasing email conversations that arguably suggests that Bennett had no intention of keeping the team in Seattle. The media, however, focused on the fact the Schultz had access to those emails instead suggesting that there was some sort of spying or wiretapping going on. Schultz dropped the lawsuit in August 2008 for fear of further investigation. When Bennett purchased the Sonics and its sister franchise in the WNBA, the Seattle Storm, for $350 million, he agreed to a stipulation that he would make a "good-faith best effort" for 1 year to keep both teams in Seattle. He has since sold the Storm to four Seattle women who will keep the team in Seattle.

Schultz is also a significant stakeholder in Jamba Juice.

In 2006, Forbes Magazine ranked Schultz as the 354th richest person in the United States, with a net worth of $1.1 billion dollars.

On March 29, 2007, Schultz accepted the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., Award for Ethics in Business at the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. The same night, he delivered the Frank Cahill Lecture in Business Ethics. Despite all the unethical treatment of his employees and affiliations with the Isreali military, educational institutions values his leadership in the community because he continues to support their programs financially.

On January 8th, 2008 Howard Schultz regained his status as CEO of Starbucks after a hiatus of 8 years.

”

WTF?

Okay can someone explain this passage to me:

"He is accused of illegally obstructing the unionization of Starbucks employees. Starbucks made the Frappucino in South Carolina."

If there is a coherent relationship between these two sentences it certainly isn't being made. What on Earth is the relationship between obstructing unionization and making a frappucino in South Carolina? Are we talking about bottling plants for their frappucino beverages sold in gas stations and grocery stores? Are the workers in those plants the ones that wanted unionize? I don't know because the article gives me no way to know. As it is written it is a completely incoherent juxtaposition of two unrelated sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.169.205 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Half sentence - start of sentence missing

"most is western Europe, and specifically the UK. The UK is in a spiral."
Would anyone like to complete this or remove it? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

wrong link

link 3 "http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=818" seems not to point to what it should—Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user {{ safesubst:p{{ safesubst:#if 2009 : on |1|2}}| |}} 2009

This seems to be gone now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed problem templates

I just removed problem templates from this article. If there is a problem please describe it on this board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Added citation for HS grad date

I added one of a number of possible citations for the highschool graduation date labeled 'Dubious'. I don't see what was odd about the date in the first place, but perhaps i misunderstood the issue. I will leave the label in place for now Jkw0010 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC) I found & removed source of confusion -- incorrect birth year in Textbox made him 14, rather than 18, at graduation. Jkw0010 (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This article needs updating

This article says that in 2006, Howard Schultz was the three hundred and fifty-fourth wealthiest person in the world. This is now outdated - I believe that he is now one of the fifty wealthiest people, and I can find the website where I found this information. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, according to this website:

http://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/

he is the forty-fifth wealthiest person in the world, unless I miscounted somewhere! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

More than one notable Howard Schultz

I have a set of extremely reputable references on this person, who is a senior research scientist for the department of computer science at the University of Mass.

• Offical Site of the Computer Science department http://www.cs.umass.edu/csinfo/faculty-bios/hschultz.html
• His lab http://cessna.cs.umass.edu/people.html
• personal page http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/%7Ehschultz/
• list of publications http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~hschultz/pubs.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user {{ safesubst:p{{ safesubst:#if 2006 : on |1|2}}| |}} 2006

If anyone wants to create an article for someone of the same name see WP:DISAMBIG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the Howard Schultz who died in December 2014 while on vacation was the reality TV pioneer, not this Starbucks founder. 38.115.185.4 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)HelenChicago

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Howard Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080117121159/http://www.starbucks.com:80/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=818 to http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=818

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Howard Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120418230418/http://seattlepi.com/polls/popup.asp?pollID=2983 to http://www.seattlepi.com/polls/popup.asp?pollID=2983

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Howard Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419015637/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/sonics/2004349361_schultz15.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004349361_schultz15.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://special.hsmglobal.com/us/wbfny2011/schultz-info.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Howard Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716161518/http://www.successtelevision.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3676 to http://www.successtelevision.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3676
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004349361_schultz15.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.archives.themanitoban.com/2007-2008/1003/121.Business.students.will.sell.you.the.rope.to.hang.them.with.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Shultz a zionist

Shultz is a gigantic zionist, he has drawn fire for his rabid support of isreal- http://www.snopes.com/politics/israel/schultz.asp --Pewpewlazers 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The link you provide doesn't show him to be a "rabid, gigantic zionist". It shows that he supports israel and that the "rabid" people are those who falsify letters and pretend they are written by him. The "ZioPedia" which falsified the letter has suggested that the Holocaust may be a Zionist hoax.[4] Much like your last link...--Urthogie 06:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Shultz is written SCHULTZ, German style. 91.65.16.250 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The snopes link you posted shows that the letter was fake, I don't understand why you would cite it to support your case. And yes I know you posted that over 10 years ago, but the content was only just now taken out of the article regarding the Israel award which didn't happen El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

The Mandelson quote says "spiralling." You can remove the quote or spell it as is in the quote. Only 2 choices. Warring over WP:ENGVAR is BS. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

removing award

Why was this cited award removed from the article?

− In 1998, Schultz was awarded the "Israel 50th Anniversary Tribute Award" from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah for "playing a key role in promoting a close alliance between the United States and Israel".

I restored it and the blanker proceeded to edit war and removed it again. I don't see consensus for its removal. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Howard Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814181820/http://www.equilar.com/CEO_Compensation/Starbucks_Howard_Schultz.php to http://www.equilar.com/CEO_Compensation/Starbucks_Howard_Schultz.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nd.edu/~cba/guestSpeakers/2007_Guest_Speakers.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

unexplained long list on Talk page

Why does the Archives box on this page have a list of something like 500 page titles that seems to have nothing to do with this page? I wasn't even sure what attribute in the template might have caused it. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Archives section of Talk Page appears to be corrupt

The Archives section on the Talk Page does not list the archives of Howard Schultz and instead is listing some other archives of other pages. Need technical support to modify the Archives section. --50.198.221.214 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This and the above section are related. I have no idea why the archive bot added all those pages to the index page, which is what was displaying in the archive box. For now, I've removed the auto-archive template and added a box linking to Talk:Howard Schultz/Archives/2014, which is the only archive page present. Old discussions can be left here or manually archived, or someone else with more experience with ClueBot III can come along and fix the auto-archiving. clpo13_(talk) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Comments about the United Kingdom"

Do we really need a whole section for what is basically a one-sentence PR flap? If anywhere, I feel like belongs more within Criticism of Starbucks. Is there opposition to re/moving it? PvOberstein (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a politician until he is in politics

Removed politician from description as he has not entered politics on any level at this time. Can be added once his candidacy for president is confirmed. --70.51.54.184 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

First, this is posted in the wrong place, it should be at the bottom of the page. Second, Wikipedia - Politician: "Broadly speaking, a "politician" can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in any bureaucratic institution." Jerry Stockton (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Philanthropy?

I see the part about Onward Vets and Onward Youth. Does he have an other philanthropic endeavors? I seem to recall he supported Israeli settlements, but perhaps I am wrong. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America

I've redirected From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America to this article for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Early life and education controversies

The citations added include self-evidently contradictory statements by Schultz, in his own words, about his supposed award of a football scholarship. The third citation is to an analysis by a journalist/lawyer of his contradictory statements and also of some seemingly dubious claims, including the claim that while playing high school ball in Brooklyn he was scouted by a football coach from a remote and obscure Michigan university. This is straightforwardly relevant material to interpreting the statements by Schultz that this section includes. The argument against including it appears to be made by editors who haven't read or haven't read carefully the 3 cited sources. One admitted he hadn't read it before deleting the whole section. The other claimed oddly that there were no contradictory statements of Schultz mentioned or quoted. Apart from wanting to shield Schultz from questions about his veracity, what is the point of these deletions? Why aren't these editors bringing the discussion to the Talk page first before arbitrarily deleting relevant and source-based material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.151 (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The blog post you cite doesn't even back up your claim that tuition at his college was "free", just that it was "dirt cheap". The supposedly "contradictory statements" are that he said his parents couldn't afford to attend his graduation ceremony while his brother flew out to visit him, and it's possible his brother had enough money to visit him during college and his parents didn't have enough money by the time he ended college. It's ironic that you accuse me of not reading the cited sources, while they don't even support the text you keep trying to add. ^Falling_Gravity 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You're as ignorant as a plate of dirt. I did NOT claim that his college was free. I stated that CUNY was free, which CUNY's wikipedia page backs up amply. CUNY was his hometown university, and far better academically than the university he did attend; thus he did not need to travel half way across the country to be able to afford to go to college because it was free right outside his backdoor. So even when you do finally get around to reading something, you can't take the trouble to compare it accurately to what I stated. Neither did I cite any discussion of his graduation ceremony. I cited the analysis of evidence undercutting his claim that he grew up impoverished, which that author approaches from several factual angles. I also cited Schultz's flatly contradictory claims about his supposed football recruitment/scholarship; curiously, you have nothing to say about that even though you're determined to delete that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.151 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Advertising language

I have added the "advert" tag. As just a few examples, and I want to stress that these are plenty more, phrases like A noted author of business literature... not appropriate. We do not tell readers something is "noted", we explain who "noted" it, and indicate why it matters. Likewise the use of informal language is a violation of WP:TONE and reads like a promotional biography instead of an encyclopedia article. "More than two decades"? How many more? He was "inspired" by Milan? He "quickly" open a network of shops? How quickly is quickly, and who's counting? Why does the lead mention that he sold office equipment if it didn't really matter? This level of obsequious detail is not an appropriate summary of his career. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the problematic wording you've specified from the lead. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 05:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There is so much more that needs to be done. Again, as just one example, this source doesn't properly support the line On a buying trip to Milan, Italy, in the Spring of 1983, Schultz noticed that the country's coffee culture was highly integrated in society, with coffee bars on every street. Where does it say anything about "the country's coffee culture" or "every street"? Is Coffee t&i Magazine actually a reliable source? Because it doesn't read like it. Further, the about page gives no real sign of editorial oversight, or editors at all, and no indication of fact checking. It acknowledges that the purpose of the magazine is to promote its industries. This appears to be churnalism, and very promotional churnalism, at that.

How many more sources are like that? Do I want to know? Grayfell (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not know how many "more" sources are like that, how would I? Anyway you are very right, that didn't look like a reliable source so I've replaced it with one from The Guardian I believe to be better. Thanks for helping improve the article! I'll have another look over the sources and make sure they're all RS, if you see anything else let me know here and I'll take a look. Thanks again. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 14:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you added that source, and many like it, you are expected to know whether or not they are reliable. More importantly, you should be adjusting the article to reflect sources, not the other way around. Do not hunt for sources to support trivial nonsense like how "inspired" he was. The problem is that the article now reads even more like a hagiography. Instead of tweaking sources, you need to rewrite to summarize what reliable sources say. That will, necessarily, mean trimming promotional filler. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. When I'm done with my edits I'll swing back here to see if there is anything else needed. Thanks again. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 19:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@DonSpencer1: these edits are insultingly perfunctory. Fix the insipid conversational tone and PR-stylings you added to the article. Then discuss whether or not the template should be removed. As an example, meaning that there are many, many other problems which will need to be fixed, the word "onboarded" is a trite cliche. Biz-speak like that doesn't belong in a formal encyclopedia article. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok I have removed any mention of "onboarding". I am, however, having difficulty understanding what you're trying to say. I'm going to work with other editors on the talk page to address this issue of advertising-language. I won't remove the tag again, I'll leave it on there until another editor thinks its OK to remove. I just don't think I'm grasping what you're saying, I'm sure another editor can explain it to me, though! Thank you for all your suggested edits. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You have added a very large amount of trivial detail, and have front-loaded too much of that detail to the lead. You need to cut-out or trim this detail. Rewording it to remove a few buzzwords is a good step, but it's entirely insufficient. There is still far too much conversational WP:TONE issues throughout the article, but this is a symptom of a deeper problem. Do not add editorializing, and do not preserve editorializing which was already here before you started working in the article. Do not look for sources to support trivia, because the article isn't a platform for public relations. The large quantity of minutia paints a flattering portrait. This is not appropriate. Trim content, and also trim superfluous sources. The article is too long, reads like it was written by a Schultz super-fan. Make sure that everything is directly supported by reliable sources. Most, if not all, of the article's sources should be substantial and independent, and most should specifically be about Schultz, not Starbucks. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: what is this revert all about? How, exactly, would you say my edits were "disruptive"? And "promotional tedium, cherry-picked quotes, use of unreliable sources"... what? Please explain, exactly, where you're seeing that in the edits I made. Thank you. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you've restored some of my edits? Why? I don't understand. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already wasted enough time with this, and am not interesting explaining every tedious issue with your disruptive edits. Your tweaks only superficially improved some of these problems, but also added new problems. Your aggressive use of bad sources (Goodreads!), editorializing filler, and passive-aggressive use of "notes" to imply that your own behavior is normal is exactly the kind of disruptive gaming and pseudo-civil nonsense that got you blocked last time. This article isn't a platform for hagiography. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please be nicer. I don't appreciate all your mean comments. If you tag an article, you should be willing to answer questions about it. I don't agree with your characterization of me or my editing. You mentioned Goodreads as a source, I added it under the belief that it was OK given WP:USERG ("review aggregators may be reliable"). When you say I keep adding "editorializing filler" I would really appreciate you explaining that to me. By the way I use hidden notes to help editors, that way they don't have to search for policies or waste time. If it would help I would be more than happy to get an uninvolved third opinion to assess the article. Thank you. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Civil doesn't mean being nice, and being "nice" doesn't mean being kind.

Goodreads isn't an aggregator, and you didn't use it as an aggregator, you cited specific opinions, which were only vaguely attributed. Further, Goodreads is not usable for factual claims, but you used it to repeat blurbs provided by the publisher. We don't use blurbs, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion.

Your explanation of why you used Goodreads seems like an excuse, and that is exactly what I don't care about either way. Once again, by focusing on a specific problem, the discussion derails and the article remains bloated. Above I mentioned that the burden was on you to review sources you have added to make sure they were reliable. Again I found many sources which are not reliable. Nothing about GreenBiz's about page, for example, suggests that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Additionally, your recent edits added even more unreliable sources, such as Forbes "contributor" content, which is specifically deprecated at WP:RSP. The problem is not just making honest mistakes about obscure sources. It's that all of these sources are padding for no obvious reader benefit. Hunting far and wide for churnalism solely to prop-up promotional content is not apporpriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That is, certainly, not my intention. Take for example what you've just posted. "Your recent edits added even more unreliable sources, such as Forbes "contributor" content." Please explain how this is possible after I specifically removed those sources. How could I have added more of these sources when I just removed them? In line with this you recommended that I "trim the article down", when I do so, I am reverted. When you told me to cut down the lead, I did, and still, I was reverted. When I removed editorializing language, e.g. "has long been known", you revert my removal, then removed the phrase yourself, and then tell me I didn't remove it. I hope you can appreciate how this could be confusing to me. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 21:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously it's not your intention, but that doesn't really change the end result. I really don't know how else to explain the many, many problems with the article. This edit added Forbes content. WP:NOTNEWS is also an obvious problem with that edit, but again, explaining every issue here in detail is impractical. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that was an unintentional addition, per my previous edit summary. Well if its too impractical to explain and I seemingly cannot edit the article as you like, you should just complete your edits to rid the article of what you see as advertising language. You've made many edits thus far. However, if you revert my edits and I don't understand your reasoning, I think its fairly reasonable for me to ask why, if for nothing but to improve as an editor. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I admit I have been very short with you, and I apologize if I have caused you distress. I am attempting to prevent the article from becoming too promotional. Your edits have introduced positive changes, but not all of these changes are positive, and it requires care and attention to differentiate the positive from the negative. Specifically, you added content supported by flimsy, promotional, or opinion sources, some of which was also in the lead without a citation or clear due weight. These edits were interwoven with some improvements to wording, but that only makes it more difficult to fix. There is no easy way to revert these kinds of edits, and any revert is going to be messy. Your edit summary shows why this is disruptive. You have acknowledge that these sources are unreliable and then use them anyway. It shouldn't be a surprise that this is reverted.

As I said, this is not just about making honest mistakes with sources, this is about the larger pattern. The shotgun approach to sources leads to a bloated article with severe WP:UNDUE problems. Schultz has said and written many things, given many softball interviews, issued many press releases, and many people have shared their opinions about him. It is not enough to document all of this crap. We need to use reliable sources to indicate to readers why this matters. The existence of many mediocre sources doesn't mean that all details are encyclopedic just because they can be sourced.

Just as it may seem obvious to you that these changes are improvements, it is obvious to me that they are not. This is why adding hidden notes is inappropriate. You do not have consensus for this approach, as my comments should've made clear. Notes such as "Please see WP:NEWSBLOG & WP:NBOOK before making major changes to this section" imply to a new editor that these sections are compliant with these guidelines. This will only cause confusion and dissuade editors from fixing problems. Edits like this preempt discussion, which prevents consensus from even forming. You say this was to help editors, but I do not agree at all. To me, this appears misleading. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed – not intended to be so. Before a major change was made to the article (I had hoped), editors would refer to the policies, (not be deterred by them), them hence the "please see" and "before" phrases. My worry was that editors would begin to edit the section unaware of those policies. However, I do want to point out that my most recent edits have tried to, as I've attempted to showcase, remedy the very issues you brought up. I don't have a problem with you disputing my additions to the article, I was just thrown off by the manner in which it was done. I encourage you to keep editing, and after you're done, I'd like to have it peer reviewed because a) an extra set of eyes won't hurt b) I know you have other editing interests. I'll get on with my other edits now and I'll wait to see what I can do to help this article further. If you have anything that I could do to help with this advertising issue, do let me know. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 23:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying the note was not polite, so this is missing the point, or a deflection. Saying "please see" is polite, but it's still implying that the section complied with these guidelines and that any editor should take unusual steps for some unspecified reason. The section was not compliant with these guidelines, and there was no consensus for these changes, so this was inappropriate, regardless of your motives. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I wasn't arguing its politeness just explaining my intentions. But you're right that the end result was not productive. Feel free to remove the note, I don't add these types of notes anymore anyway. Thanks. I'll follow along with your edit summaries as you edit. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 01:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DonSpencer1, have you been contacted by Schultz or anyone affiliated with him regarding this Wikipedia article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: No, but I appreciate you asking and not assuming. Thank you. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 22:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction to the date of Mr. Schultz' first book, Pour Your Heart Into It

Pour Your Heart Into It was published in 1999, not 1997. Correction in the "Authors" Section and in the Bibliography.Germaine777 (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Howard Schultz - politician

Wikipedia - Politician: "Broadly speaking, a "politician" can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in any bureaucratic institution." Jerry Stockton (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

January 27, 2019, "This moment is like no other," Schultz wrote, linking to his website. "Our two parties are more divided than ever. Let’s discuss how we can come together to create opportunities for more people. #ReimagineUS." Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

January 27, 2019, “When I hear people espousing free government-paid college, free government-paid health care and a free government job for everyone — on top of a $21 trillion debt — the question is, how are we paying for all this and not bankrupting the country?” he added. He told the Times that he is more likely to jump into the race if a left-wing progressive candidate emerges as a front-runner, rather than one of the more moderate potential candidates. Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

On December 27, 2012, Starbucks employees were asked to write "come together" on all cups distributed, to encourage bipartisanship in the federal government. Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The above are examples of political opinion, or at most aspirations, they are not evidence of being a politician. By that measure any celebrity would be a politician if they have at any point mentioned a political view. Title of Politician should be reserved for person who has been an official candidate as fits the definition cited above. As of this time he is not a candidate.--69.156.79.88 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a difference between someone being a politician, and someone else having a particular opinion. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)