Talk:Starbucks/Archive 4

"Starbucks in popular culture"

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

"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)

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)

• Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah, I put like 4 cited sources (including MSNBC and international sources).--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:[1]]

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Collapse into cool references

[2]

[3]

[4]

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

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)

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)

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)

There is more information in Memo to Starbucks: Dig In, Smell the Coffee, Fight Back by Carl Horowitz. Asteriks (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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. [5] I think this is an important innovation and deserves a place in the article. Thoughts? Beanbuff (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. [6] [7] Beanbuff (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't think it's notable either. And it's really starting to annoy me the way everyone wants to include every negative anecdote they can find, just because it is a large American company.--Susan118 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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))

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree (with the original post in this section) that it is definitely not NPOV. I'd also like to add that the opinion of one Muslim cleric and a sheik do not require their own special sections, just to make the "criticism" section longer. When I have time I plan to work on this. --Susan118 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image copyright problem with File:Conwh.jpg

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)

Image use

There are a lot of images of Starbucks stores, and I doubt they are all necessary. I've removed this one to the right and replaced it with a more appropriate image for the section. Fences and windows (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also this one to the left, replaced with Ethos water pic. Fences and windows (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Images and edits

I've sourced a few more images, and given the article a once-over to get rid of wordiness, pointless detail and self-serving puffery. Fences and windows (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Smashed Starbucks in London

I added the detail that a hezbollah flag was placed in the smashed starbucks by pro-palestinian protestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawabider (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks in Pakistan

The picture of another coffee shop in Pakistan, where there are no Starbucks, is completely irrelevant, and the accompanying text is unsourced. Someone else removed it once, and I removed it again when it was added back in, and now it is back. It should not be there, but I am not about to start an edit war over it. Hopefully someone else with some sense will come along and revert it. --Susan118 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reversed it twice, and am not going to go to 3RR. However it is being re-inserted by two users, User:Sansonic and User:Coffeeaffection, the latest edition includes a source that does not even reflect the text that has been added to the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also noticing incorrect edit summaries when these pictures/text are added back in (and then also being marked as minor when they're not.) I did go back and revert it, but will hold off on fixing it again for now. There are enough people watching this article that hopefully someone else will revert it soon enough. --Susan118 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the text yet again, and included a note that I hope those who argue for its inclusion will first try to establish consensus on this talk page. As you've both noted, this is in no way relevant to Starbucks and doesn't need to be included in this Wikipedia article. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 18:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's nonsense. That pic is of a bar in Goa: http://www.flickr.com/photos/vinayakh/60850427/. Pic is non-free. Fences and windows (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

- according to http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/10/creative-ads-issue-8.html its a pic of Pakistan. Anyway I have deleted the picture and now there is free to adjust text. I prefer if it is not deleted tbh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeaffection (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it just makes no sense at all to include this information in the article on Starbucks. There are hundreds—if not thousands—of companies that could be thought of as "competitors" to Starbucks in the US and abroad. Why does this company need a specific mention in the Starbucks article? Esrever ^(klaT) 23:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

- I am asking nicly if I can have something about Starbucks Pakistan. If people are unhappy with the Costa thing then you can cut that bit out but PLS leave as much of the rest as possible. I am very Thankfull to any1 who can help make a compromise and end this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansonic (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem: none of the citations you provided has any mention at all of Starbucks. Why is Pakistan being singled out? There are over 100 countries with no Starbucks; why does this article need to talk about the lack of Starbucks in Pakistan? Esrever ^(klaT) 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Esrever. The references are about the rise of a middle class in Pakistan. I guess there are any number of brand names that a newly emergent middle class might aspire to, but oddly none of the articles mention Starbucks. Claims that there is a demand for Starbucks in Pakistan is not even original research, it is just speculation, and has no place here. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

- I wish to add the following to the article and wanted to check if its OK: "Despite high demand for Starbucks in Pakistan, the company still has no branches in the country. This has led to locals opening their own unofficial coffee places and naming them "Starbucks". The Starbucks logo is being used without permisssion to lure customers. However customers have noticed and those comming in search of signiture caramel frappuccinos are saying “It doesn’t feel like Starbucks”. As a result of low standards these cafes are not selling very many cups. Critics fear that this illegal use of the Starbucks brand will tarnish the companies reputation, however Starbucks seems to be turning a blind eye to these unauthorized licensees. The people responsible for these cafes claim to be "making a market for a future franchisee.”

One of Starbucks Multinational competitors Costa Coffee are taking advantage of a market monopoly in Pakistan. They have grabbed the opportunity and officially opened their own outlets in the country which are proving very popular partially due to high standards. ." I feel that it is all very relevent, however if you do not think the same then give me advice, which sentences need cutting out and which bits can stay? --Sansonic (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sansonic, you know it isn't OK. Forums are not reliable sources. This might be a reliable source, but not the way you present the story. You also know that you have been accused of WP:sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sansonic. If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. You should defend yourself. Please also stop refactoring others' talk page comments, as you did by removing the notice of the sockpuppetry investigation. There are reliable sources about Starbucks' relationship to India and Pakistan, e.g. [8][9][10], but please, Sansonic, leave it to other editors to decide how to include them. Fences and windows (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay so I (or another editor) can replace the forum source with [11] all agreed ? --82.24.79.155 --Sansonic (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't think any of this information needs to be included in this article. You haven't addressed one of my fundamental concerns, which is why we need to include information about the lack of Starbucks in Pakistan or about Costa Coffee at all. There are 100+ countries with no Starbucks, and there are hundreds of Starbucks competitors. Why do Pakistan and Costa Coffee need to be mentioned? As far as I'm concerned, it's just trivia. If other editors feel differently, that's fine, but I'd like to hear from those people on this page. Esrever ^(klaT) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again I agree entirely with Esrever. This is trivia, and the proposed edit, even if it introduced notable information (which it doesn't) still is not supported by the source. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

- Fair enough there are 100+ countries with no Starbucks but the way how Pakistsnis are dealing with it is so unique it is worth mentioning. There no evidence of any other country in the world faking Starbucks logos to attract customers and Starbucks dosn't seem to care about its logo being used. The costa coffee bit just shows how one of Starbucks main rivals has used the situation for its own benifit. The question isn't whether we should delete the whole section, it is whether we should cut certain sentences out or not. Thanks --Sansonic (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it unique? My guess there are plenty of people misusing international brandnames on the streets of Karachi today. I'm sure the situation with Starbucks is no different to the situation companies like Rolex and Le Coq find themselves in. Starbucks is probably not in Pakistan because it doesn't see it as being a viable market, while Costa does. No big deal, just normal commercial decisions. And your sources don't support your position. And finally do not remove the sockpuppetry notice, you are verging on vandalism, and approaching 3RR. It is not as if you do not have enough problems with the sockpuppetry case as it is. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it's not an interesting concept, but it doesn't really have a place in the article, even if your sources were all acceptable and actually reflect what you are saying. As has been pointed out by others, plenty of countries do not have Starbucks, why is it so important to mention Pakistan?

--Susan118 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

- thanks Susan - I think Pakistan is worthy of mentioning because it is the only country in the world where fake Starbucks are opening up. The facr that Starbucks corp do not care is also notable --Sansonic (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

- I wish to end this whole dispute ASAP. I am asking for just something small, a couple of sentences maybe on Starbucks in Pakistan beacuse it is the only country where this is happening. we can end this dispute by agreeing on a few select sentences remaining --Sansonic (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"it is the only country in the world where fake Starbucks are opening up". No, this is wrong. That image you tried to include in the article of the beach cafe called Starbucks was in Goa, India, the name Starstruck was registered for a cafe in India, and there's a Star and Bucks Cafe in Ramallah. Anyway, you don't have a reliable source for "fake" Starbucks cafes opening in Pakistan.

Oh, and you still have to answer the accusation that you are running two sockpuppet accounts, Coffeeaffection and Silvesterking. We can end this dispute by you defending yourself, and stopping trying to introduce non-notable and poorly sourced information into articles. Fences and windows (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

- This is a reliable source for fake Starbucks in Pakistan. there is no evidence of any other country in the world using the Starbucks logo, Goa dosn't use the logo neither does ramala as it is not Starbucks there but instead Star struc. How about renaming my section something like "Fake starbucks" and we can add countries other than Pakistan when we get evidence. --Sansonic (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

- On a lighter note, would you all agree that this Starbucks in Pakistan section is the most contoversial issue this article has ever seen, or have older editors seen worse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansonic (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved by (talk) Many thanks Sansonic (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

See WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic Fences and windows (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (--Michael Johnson (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Round 2!

User:Lowbiologist is suspected of being a sockpuppet of Sansonic. Sansonic was blocked yesterday for a week for being the sockpuppeteer for Coffeeaffection and Silvesterking, who were both banned. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sansonic. Fences and windows (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not connected with Coffeeaffection or Sansonic though I sympathise with what he wants. I cut down what he wanted and made it into something short which has good sources and is relevent, it complies with the article policies and frankly if you cut it again it will be classed as vandalism.--Lowbiologist (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing content that does not have a place in the article is not vandalism. --Susan118 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Susan, I am happy for people to change a couple of words. However, deleting the whole thing is unacceptable especially as its only one sentence long and it directly relates to copyright infringements (which is what the section is about). I did not create the parody and infringemet section btw. --Lowbiologist (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can expect their edits on Wikipedia never to be edited or removed, the best you can do is argue in support of your edits here. However first you have to defend yourself against an accusation of being a sockpuppet of Sansonic, here. If you don't, it is probable your account will be permanently blocked. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lowbiologist, your edit wasn't OK. The Chinese case was already mentioned, and is not a "fake Starbucks", but an infringement. The two differ. Refactoring other people's talk page comments is frowned on by the way [12], and is something Sansonic or a sockpuppet also did - behaviour like that only makes it more certain that you are a sockpuppet of Sansonic. Your comment about wanting a bit left echos Sansonic's style of arguing above. Don't you understand that using more than one account surreptitiously is not allowed and will get you banned? Accusing other editors of vandalism does not help you; who do you think you're going to persuade? Fences and windows (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that Sansonic=Lowbiologist=Coffeeaffection=Silvesterking. Fences and windows (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Trademark and copyright

Here are sources on trademark/copyright disputes with Starbucks:[13]. Fences and windows (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

- Okay so we now have evidence of other countries using Starbucks logos. It would be sensible to rename my section some more general about Fake Starbucks and copyright infringments etc. However, while Starbucks may have took action aginsed those in China, they havn't done anything about the Pakistan case which began in 2003. --Sansonic (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[[14]] is a good example of how a simular company is having simular copyright probs, I think they have presented it in a good way and maybe we can learn from the section. what do you guys think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowbiologist (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved by (talk) Many thanks Sansonic (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

logo = melusine?

Hello,

I have a theory, but it doesn't seem supported by anything else but a few blogs - that Starbucks mermaid is in fact a Melusine - look closely at some of her pictures - for example this one [15]. Should I mention it in the article (for example, that logo "looks like a melusine"?)

It would be "citation needed" probably, but it is surprisingly similar. (there is, in fact, no "twin-tailed siren" - when it's twin-tailed, it's Melusine). --78.128.199.9 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought there were no reliable sources, but lo! [16] Fences and windows (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This has been brought up on this talk page before (see here, for example). Before you add anything like this to the article, it's best to have a reliable source that explicitly backs up your claim that the Starbucks logo is a melusine. For example, there's already a source in the article that calls this a "twin-tailed siren", and that's what Starbucks calls the logo themselves. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same, then searched and found one. I didn't add that it *is* a Melusine, only that it had been *likened* to one. A blog also shows that the logo was taken directly from 15th century carving of a two-tailed mermaid, but it ain't an RS: [17]. Fences and windows (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I found a source in a book for it being based on a real woodcut. Indeed, it seems to be fairly well-reported that they copied the original logo from a 16th century Norse woodcut:[18]. Fences and windows (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The source of the blogger checks out:[19]. The image is said to be 15th century, in contradiction to the other sources, which probably all took their info off Schultz's book. Would be improper synthesis to include this in the article though. :( Fences and windows (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does "improper synthesis" mean? The picture is so obviously the same, so it shouldn't be considered original research (my opinion) ... but, the excerpt at google books doesn't tell much about the picture anyway. But, well this [20] article should be sufficient enough to, at least, suggest the linking in the article... what do you think?--78.128.199.9 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has more on the meanings of the logo: "And yes, although the image is that of a split-tailed sea creature, it is a siren. More specifically, it is a double-tailed siren, a baubo siren, which The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects points out, is "a cross between a mermaid and a sheila-na-gig" and is found as a decorative motif in many European churches and cathedrals. "Her suggestive pose, like that of the sheila-na-gig, referred to female sexual mysteries in particular." (Heinz Insu Fenkl. The Mermaid. Endicott Studio's Journal of Mythic Arts, originally Realms of Fantasy magazine, 2003). Fences and windows (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another book draws the connection to the sheela na gig:[21] Fences and windows (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So, er, the Christian groups protesting about the sexual symbolism [22] were, um, right... Fences and windows (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

article name

What the hell happened to the apostrophe? Or was it meant to plural? Three Starbuck of Coffee.... That makes even less sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.58.245 (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a plural or a possessive; it's just the name of the company: Starbucks. Esrever ^(klaT) 14:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks' melusine

I have corrected the former confusing text about the "siren" in the Starbucks logo, which elicited a query at my Talkpage. It now reads as follows:

Though technically the heraldic charge employed as Starbucks' logo is a melusine displayed, crowned or, in 2006, Valerie O'Neil, a Starbucks spokeswoman, said that the logo is an image of a "twin-tailed siren", the sirens of Greek mythology having developed aquatic characteristics during the Middle Ages, and cognates of siren have come to denote mermaids in several European languages. The image was more correctly identified as a melusine by Ann Rippin the following year.

Notes

We have an editor who, without actually knowing anything about sirens, mermaids or melusines, just prefers the confusing version. I think we needn't be bullied about this: "if Starbucks call it a siren, we call it a siren" etc etc. Wikipedia is a readers' service. Intentionally retaining misleading text is a disservice. I struggle every day with scribblers and others who undermine Wikipedia's credibility, so perhaps I am intolerant. The text above is fully supported by references, here and at Siren, Mermaid and Melusine. I am willing to provide additional references for any statement. --Wetman (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument that we "call it a siren because Starbucks calls it a siren" is neither bullying nor misleading. I've always said that we have to call it a siren in the absence of any sources identifying it as anything else. I'd probably edit your addition to remove the stuff about the heraldic charge (since that's not supported by a source), but leave in the bit about it's being a melusine, assuming that final source is useful in that regard (haven't had a chance to read it yet). Esrever ^(klaT) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I look at it, I'd probably cut almost all of that stuff, since it has nothing to do with Starbucks and is a relatively minor point about the logo.

In 2006, Valerie O'Neil, a Starbucks spokeswoman said that the logo is an image of a "twin-tailed siren". The image was more correctly identified as a melusine by Ann Rippin the following year.

And as I re-read that, I notice that it seems to sound an awful lot like what's already in the article, so I'd probably have reverted you, too. Esrever ^(klaT) 11:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"The image was more correctly identified as a melusine by Ann Rippin the following year". Total opinion. Also, Wetman, mind your insults. I bloody well do know what a melusine is, and a siren, and a mermaid, but I also know what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is, and I know that Wikipedia is verifiable and not WP:THETRUTH. So before you start characterising other editors as "scribblers", perhaps you should get off your high horse and stick to using reliable sources. The version as it stood was entirely factual and based on sources, and was not at all confusing. It might not satisfy your insistence that the logo really is of a melusine, but that's Wikipedia for you. You'll notice above that I've sourced the book the woodcut was copied from, but without a reliable source telling us that it's original research. Fences&Windows 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As for confusing, this wording is far too complex for a reader who wants to know about the logo of a coffee company: "Though technically the heraldic charge employed as Starbucks' logo is a melusine displayed, crowned or...". "Heraldic charge"? "displayed, crowned or"? "Employed as"? We're writing a general encyclopedia here; give the poor reader a chance. None of that information is relevant. The current text includes the magic word "melusine", which I added a couple of months ago after sourcing that article by Ann Rippin. Fences&Windows 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Has someone any info about the new starbucks in Tiranne?Villick (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

15th ave coffee and tea

why is there no mention of this. This is there new marque/brand 75.24.248.83 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is now! Thanks for raising it. Fences&Windows 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks-ese?

Very surprised not to see any mention of Starbucks jargon in this article. All this "grande", "with room" etc stuff is one of the best-known features of the chain, and a paragraph about that could surely be sourced acceptably. Whether people's attitudes to the use of the jargon (personally I think it's inane, but I know others like it) is quite another matter! 81.153.106.207 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

VIA Ready-Brew instant coffee

Shouldn't the article mention the new instant coffee product they just introduced "VIA Ready-Brew"?

So fix it. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

London/Manhattan

"By November 2005, London had more outlets than Manhattan, a sign of Starbucks becoming an international brand" Ok, but Manhattan is just a part of a city and London is a whole city right? Probably i can say, with the same critery, By November 2009 Japan had more outlets than California!!! So? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oupals (talk • contribs) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. Removed. --JaGa^talk 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks and Israel Defense Forces

The section Starbucks#Alleged relationship with the Israel Defense Forces has been recently tagged bombed and then removed. I've reverted the removal, the coverage of the allegations plainly warrants some mention in this article. Could editors please describe how this section is not neutral or unverified, and how it might be improved? Fences&Windows 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, how about WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP? Despite the headline "Alleged relationship with the Israel Defense Forces", there are no "allegations" and the article doesn't provide any. It turns out a "satirical article" appeared in an "anti-Zionist newspaper", whatever that might be, and a mob later thought it was real, and attacked a Starbucks. Another mob is given a whole paragraph to express its views. Reliable sources, including Snopes, which is linked, do not support any assertion of a "relationship" with the IDF. As I wrote in my edit summary, "This might be worth a sentence or two, but currently violates WP:UNDUE". You could mention that Starbucks has been attacked by Middle Eastern mobs acting on Internet rumors, but that's all there is to this story. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So let's come up with a better title for the section and improve the wording and sourcing, e.g. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. There's no substance to the allegations, but if we remove the section it'll only get added back with even less neutrality and worse sourcing. Fences&Windows 15:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The allegations are simply rumors and hearsay, from chain letters. It's absolutely ridiculous. Starbucks is generally very apolitical, one of the most apolitical major corporations in the United States, yet it's the subject of hate and vilification by certain groups simply because it's American. That is the only reason. If Starbucks was Canadian or Australian, there wouldn't be unfounded allegations of Starbucks supporting the IDF. Why is it even in the article if it isn't true? It needs to be removed. It isn't notable. If it's suggested that it is notable, then I suppose Wikipedia has become the encyclopedia anyone can edit to put in rumors, hearsay and blatant lies to slander certain corporations, organizations, places and people. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP stands for "Biographies of Living People." This isn't a biography, Starbucks isn't a person, and therefore can't be living. Also, this sounds suspiciously like a legal threat, which gets people banned. It may interest you to know that this particular Wikipedia article was used in the media as a specific example of a company successfully manipulating Wikipedia to eliminate all negative coverage while flooding the article with sunshine and unicorns. A person who wasn't WP:ASSUMEing good faith might suspect you were a marketing flack, but not I. SmashTheState (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

SmashTheState, you also cannot use Wikipedia to push a political agenda ... which you quite obviously do. Your username itself reveals it, your user page reveals it, your edits reveal it. Wikipedia articles are to adhere to NPOV and a biased slanted political agenda to the far right or the far left is not acceptable at any time on Wikipedia without proper sources for the claims made. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Closure of all Starbucks stores in Israel

On March 31, 2003, Starbucks announced closing all its stores in Israel. Should this info be added to the "Store closures" section? Also, is there any other country where Starbucks failed so badly that they had to close all their stores? Scatophaga (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Georgetown Starbucks Murders

No mention of the triple homicide back in 1997? TyVulpine (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of countries

In the introduction it said that starbuck operate in 49 countries, in the section with the list of countries it said 55. Also, the map of the countries they operate in is wrong, at least it missess sweden and finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.198.229.83 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hungary is not marked on the map as well.72.49.195.229 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair Trade

After a long-running dispute between Starbucks and Ethiopia, Starbucks agrees to support and promote Ethiopian coffees.

An article in BBC NEWS, [30] states that Ethiopian ownership of popular coffee

designations such as Harrar and Sidamo is acknowledged even if they are not registered. The main reason Ethiopia fought so hard for this acknowledgement was to allow its poverty-striken farmers a chance to make more money. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. In 2006 Starbucks says it paid $1.42 per pound for it's coffee. At [www.Starbucks.com]the coffee Starbucks bought for $1.42 sold for $10.99 per pound. As of August 2010, Starbucks sells only one Ethiopian coffee on its website and it is proclaimed by the website to be "new".CrystalC75 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Image

The photo of the smashed window outside of Starbucks (from the Toronto G20) is actually space jointly (and more prominently) leased by a TD Canada Trust branch... There were certainly instances of targeted SBUX windows, but we could use a better photo. -216.235.8.120 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Article vandalized with "Evil corporation" opening sentence

I just looked up the Starbucks article to find the various coffee brands it owns (i.e. Seattle's Best), and was surprised to see the opening sentence describing Starbucks as "an evil corporation bent on taking over the world through mind control under the guise of a coffee company". It's deliberate vandalizing of articles like this example that give Wikipedia a bad name in the academic community. Whoever has access to moderating this article please remove that opening sentence because it's lamentable as well as laughable.

Rich Rodriguez, West Covina, CA, USA

67.58.151.216 (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It's been removed, within two hours of being inserted. Short-lived nonsense like this is the price we all pay for allowing so many people to contribute content here...sometimes they abuse our trust. You might be interested to read the various studies that repeatedly find the open contribution and "many eyes" here a net advantage, despite occasional glaring problems. DMacks (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong "new" logo

I have noticed that the "new" Starbucks logo that was uploaded by Philtro is wrong as it is just a cut of the old one and so completely incorrect (you can see the old nose, old body, and too big TM sign). That is why I have reversed it to old one as the official logo will not be in use until spring. It will be appropriate if we upload the correct one when it will be available as vector and in official use. Hrcek (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Logo History?

I'm looking for more info on the Starbucks logo -- the article states that its based on a 17th century Norse woodcut, but its more than that; its some sort of national heraldry ... The logo appears, as heraldry, on a 17th(?) century stove (vaguely similar to this one), exhibited in the Vilnius Valdovu Rumai. The stove is covered with a repeated pattern of ceramic tiles; one tile shows the Lithuanian Vytis, a second the Polish Eagle coat of arms, a third tile shows the Starbucks mermaid. The first two tiles clearly signify the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th-18th centuries. The mermaid is presented as an equal, in size, proportion, and frequency, of the other two coats-of-arms: it is clearly a coat of arms signifying some or another political/geographical region in union with the commonwealth. But which part? I'm guessing parts of Belarus, or possibly parts of northern Europe; I'm not clear on which, and thus pose the question here (of course, the stove could well be a bit of 17th century propaganda, as it were -- making the pretension that the mermaid was on par with the Vytis and the Eagle). Would love to know more. I presume that there is no chance at all that the mermaid is that of the Jurate and Kastytis legend, but given the age of the legend, and of the logo, I wonder ... linas (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about Starbucks, and not so much about the logo. You'll probably have to look elsewhere to find more about the history. Esrever ^(klaT) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Esrever, but, clearly, this article handles the logo as well. Now, the article currently attributes the article to a "17th century Norse woodcut", and I have no idea what they mean by that. I'm presuming they mean Nordic rather than Norse, as they're clearly misusing the term Norse here. That said, I've seen numerous Northern European and Western European depictions of mermaids that are quite similar. Can anyone find some more specific information as to exactly where this logo came from rather than this poorly worded vagueness? I'm also interested in a potential Lithuanian connection, as mentioned by Linas, but I don't know how likely that is. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We know where it came from:[31]. See Talk:Starbucks/Archive_4#logo_.3D_melusine.3F. Getting that into the article is another matter. Fences&Windows 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I read all that, and the article still reads poorly. This article is about the company, and the original logo is long gone. I think it would better serve the rest of the article to simply mention it thus: "In the first version, which was based on a European woodcut[ref]", without the debatable use of the word Norse, the unsubstantiated use of quotation marks around it, and the supposed century of its creation. Sometimes less is more...--Rfsmit (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Anyone else think that the "Corporate social responsibility" section sounds like it`s been taken directly out of the PR director`s speech booklet? SweetNightmares (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It contains notes of criticism, and is balanced by a whole section on notable criticisms and controversies. Do you have any specific complaints? Fences&Windows 00:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Three Unbranded / Street level stores?

The article mentions three of the new stealth Starbucks in Seattle, but I'm only aware of two. 15th Street & Roy Street. Can anyone confirm a third? For while there was speculation that the Olive remodel would be a unbranded, but that's clearly not the case. Also, the Roy street shop is entirely new, not a remodel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.31.77 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was just (01/07/11) announced that Starbucks will be reverting the 15 st location to a branded star bucks. Roy street will remain "unbranded" for now. (source: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2011/01/07/starbucks-returns-the-15th-ave-coffee-tea-experiment-is-over ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.31.77 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link to update reference 89

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/news/2004news/04-star.htm There's the article. I don't know how to fix it because I"m not well-versed in Wiki, but there you go. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorial preference

It seems strange to me to write "over 16,858 stores" in the opening section. This is a very precise number. I would expect to read "over 16,800 stores" or "nearly 17,000 stores" or "has 16,858 stores." Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenote7 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, it does sound a bit odd doesn't it?FWest2 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no Starbucks presense in South Africa.

This should be changed in the tables of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.247.249.190 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be correct. From my understanding Starbucks was previously present in South Africa for the World Cup, but according to news reports, it does not mention that they would remain as a permanent presence there. FWest2 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Partnership with Kraft missing

I'm surprised that the entire article doesnt mention the name "Kraft" once. Kraft had a partnership for over 10 years with Starbucks to distribute and market packaged coffee in the US. This agreement was recently cancelled and covered heavily in the press because of the ensuing court battles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.77.119 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a pretty big omission, I am trying to figure out the ideal spot to include that information though. FWest2 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam?

The company site doe snot list Vietnam as a country in which they operate. Some news sources claim Starbucks is considering Vietnam for future expansion...but it doesn't have reach that extends that far yet. So why is Vietnam listed in the table? Until Starbucks is actually in Vietnam why would an "encyclopedia" state that they are there? Yet again Wikipedia goes beyond dropping the ball, this is an epic fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.151.23 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

PASQUA coffee

i'm surprised nobody mentioned starbuck's purchase of Pasqua coffee back in 1998? pasqua coffee was known for their artisanal sandwich making expertise, which is WHY starbucks brought it out. Lucky dog (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No mention of sandwiches in the LA Times and only a general reference to their succesful lunchtime trade in SF Gate. Not good enough to say that was the reason for acquiring the company? Warren (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of international locations

According to Starbucks' own site, the number of international locations is far fewer than what is cited in the article. See here: http://www.starbucks.com/business/international-stores — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgcubfan (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

gun controversy

I added a section on the ongoing gun controversy. It may be recentism and a flash in the pan, but so are several of the other items listed in that section. In any case, it is fairly well sourced, and significantly more sources are available if needed. I tried to keep the tone as NPOV as possible, and in particular left out statistics regarding the relative strength/turn-out of the two groups. Feel free to tweak if desired. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the paragraph is way too long with too much detail. Making mention of the event is fine, and reasonably interesting for those of us who live in Europe. Sounds like the campaigners need to lobby government rather than a coffee shop chain if they want to change the law? Warren (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the campaigners are mostly using it for PR, as starbuck's position has been constant for a few years now. In the US, momentum is pretty strong for the spread of open and concealed carry, with only Illinois left completely banning both, so I think the campaigners were looking for something to get some press, and possibly get a quick win if Starbucks caved to use as pressure in the legal battles. I am sympathetic to the length issue, but wanted to make sure I included both the boycott and buycott to avoid NPOV, as well as the brief introductory lines. Perhaps the earlier brady stuff could be cut or merged with the current protest, but the bulk of the length of that paragraph is really the starbucks quote, and having their position I think is important, as they are the target of the tug of war. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Map update

The Starbucks availbility map should be updated, some countries are out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.42.152 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Corporate social responsibility

I've removed a load of spammy content from the corporate social responsibility section. Content in this section should have secondary sources and ideally articles over a period of time to show that the truly representative of how Starbucks is covered by sources, not just sources that are re-written press releases (WP:DUE). SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started a new sub-section, as the company has joined the (RED) campaign.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I was thinking of reordering the list of countries (in intro) by outlets per capita, which would put canada at t top, it would fit in here. Jabberwoch (talk)