Talk:Starbucks/Archive 2

Starbucks Logo
I think we should show the second logo - then one with the breasts covered but not the modern logo - as it is rarely seen. I found one here: http://news.agendainc.com/mt-agenda/content/archives/2005/06/starbucks_logo.html, but i don't know if they'd let us use that.

Venti History
The article ~mentions~ the sizing slang of Starbucks, but doesn't make the obvious next step and tell where this comes from. Does "venti" have any history or is just made up?


 * It's [supposedly] Italian for 'twenty' referring to the number of ounces in the cup. --Purplezart 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Venti is the Italian word for 20. Ironically, Starbucks patented the word in reference to their large size, which is not 20oz.


 * Venti hot cups are 20oz. Venti iced cups are 24oz. --Iamvero 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Black joke
The article states that the Starbucks stores referenced in the monologue are at Post Oak and Westheimer. I think this is incorrect. He states that he spotted this after exiting a Laff Stop, of which there is one located on West Gray. Also on West Gray are...two Starbucks' across from each other. Here is an image from someone's personal site. Clearly these are the stores in the joke, and not the Galleria locations.

Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup?
joke websites aren't a source Starbucks investor 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks investor
The website isn't a Joke, and your last edit removed the whole section about their labor dispute. It also as I believe skewed data. Chooserr 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks Barista/Coffee Masters
I'm curious about this statement:


 * Starbucks baristas who don a black apron are known as "Coffee Masters"; their expertise in coffee growing, roasting, brewing, and serving is considered truly exceptional in the coffee industry, where Starbucks is the only company to train its baristas this comprehensively.

Coffee growing and roasting? Is there proof of this expertise? If I'm not mistaken, Starbucks coffee isn't roasted on site (and certainly not grown there). Also, I seriously question the verifiability of the premise that Starbucks is the only company to train its employees this comprehensively. ScottW 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott: You are correct that we do not roast our coffee on site, but Starbucks does strive to train its baristas about how the coffee is grown, roasted, et cetera. I will edit the last part of that statement, however, to make it non-POV. BMetts 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

BMetts: Thanks for making that change. I still have a couple of concerns with this phrase: "is considered truly exceptional in the coffee industry." First, using the scope of the "coffee industry" seems overly broad to me. That covers everything from germination to point of sale. While learning about how coffee is grown may be exceptional in coffee-retail industries, it would not be among the coffee growing segment.

Second, I have a similar concern with the roasting part. It would not be considered exceptional for an employee to have extensive training in roasting, if the employee works for a roasting company or a retail shop at which roasting is done on site.

So far as the roasting and coffee growing parts go, if you're going to say that the training is truly exception, I think it would be more accurate to limit the scope to that of retail coffee shops at which coffee is not roasted on site. ScottW 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my suggested change to make this section more verifiable:


 * Starbucks baristas who don a black apron are known as "Coffee Masters". In addition to comprehensive training in coffee brewing and serving, they are educated in the growing and roasting aspects of the coffee industry.

Any thoughts or objections? ScottW 14:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that is a good way to make it informative and accurate at the same time. I'd say go for it. BMetts 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and made the change. Thanks for the feedback. ScottW 23:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect information?
Being a shift supervisor, manager, or assistant manager is not required in order to qualify as a Coffee Master; nor does it automatically entitle one to wear a black apron (the black aprons in question are clearly labeled "Coffee Master" in embroidery on the front). It is, however, an expectation that managers and assistant managers complete the Coffee Master program as soon as possible.

If noone comments I will go ahead and edit this section accordingly. --Purplezart 09:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Austin Powers Reference
I may be wrong, I haven't seen Austin Powers in several years, but I thought Dr Evil already owned Starbucks, and that the HQ was their base. This is at odds with the entry.
 * Maybe you should switch to decaf buddy... Quase 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was in the second Austin Powers movie.

Removed Section: Starbucks Coffee Growing Regions
This section was recently added, and I have removed it for the following reasons:


 * The information is unsourced.
 * The descriptions of the coffee growing regions are extreme generalizations of a large and diverse group of diverse coffee growing regions.
 * There are a couple of POV issues.

I'm not saying that this section shouldn't exist, but these issues would need to be resolved first.

Starbucks Partners
The article seems to grudgingly admit Starbucks provides insurance coverage for even its part time employees. I added to that sentence but it might make sense to elaborate on some of the positive notes about Starbucks. Starbucks calls its employees "partners" because everyone who is employeed by Starbucks is a share holder. Even 20 hour a week employees get the same 12-14% yearly stock option grant and have the same opportunities to purchase additional shares at a discount. Also, part timers get the same benefits as far as vacation days, etc and the health care coverage Starbucks provides also includes domestic partners (gay/lesbian). As much fun as it is to make Starbucks appear evil, we might want to consider adding a few things that might just seem positive. Perhaps we could add something like but they are still evil and causing the doom of western civilization after anything positive written about them in the article? Oh, and according to Starbucks newsletters drip (brewed) coffee is still the biggest selling item and not However, most of its revenue does not come from coffee, but from blended products that combine coffee or other flavors with large amounts of milk, sugar, and/or granulated ice.  Mr Christopher 22:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Link Deletions
I removed this link because there is already a link to the Starbucks website: I removed this link because I don't see how showing people creative ways to get FUCK OFF from the two words "Starbucks Coffee" helps a reader to enhance their understanding of Starbucks or coffee consumption: I removed this link because although the fellow proudly hates Starbucks his site does not lend any helpful understanding of Starbucks or coffee or offer any meaningful criticisms of Starbucks. I don't think just because someone claims to hate Starbucks it somehow makes their web site relevant to an encyclopedia: And could someone explain the relevance of this link: Cheers! Mr Christopher 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Way I See It
 * Starbucks Spoof Website
 * Voice of dissent
 * SuperSizeMyPay.Com campaign website


 * I removed the ihatestarbucks link *again* for the same reasons I posted above when I removed it originally. And note their so-called "forum" is not much of a forum at all and any positive comments about Starbucks are deleted.  If the owner of that web site needs links and traffic to their site there are more appropriate ways of accomplishing that then trying to piggy back off of Wikipedia. Mr Christopher 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really noteworthy?
"The employee handbook has other rules for employees to ensure that the Starbucks customer experience is not compromised. For example, employees who work two jobs are scrutinized for conflicts of interests, and romantic relationships between supervisors and employees who work for them are moved outside of the workplace by transferring one or the other to a different store. Employees cannot accept gifts and invitations from customers except where refusal 'may cause offense.'"

Probably every company in North America have similar policies. And by "scrutinized" does the author mean an inquisition is held concerning the second job? Don't offend customers, don't accept special gifts from customers, your second (or third) job should not conflict with your employment here, keep the romance (and drama) out of the office and don't date those who answer to you. These are not unusual practices, they're very common and typical for a mature company, so I am scratching my head wondering what makes this noteworthy? I assume Starbucks also has a policy where employees should wash their hands after relieving themselves. Should that also be included in the article? Mr Christopher 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. There's nothing really noteworthy about anything in that passage. Even if it weren't standard practice in most American businesses which bother to have an employee handbook, it's not terribly relevant. In fact, much of the content in the Inside Starbucks section has the same problem. It strikes me as a collection of unrelated, and often unimportant, facts. ScottW 17:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well how about we give it some time (early next week?) to see if anyone has a different opinion. If no one objects we'll delete the section I referenced above.  And yeah, the article is a pretty good one but it could use a little improvement here and there.  I'll try and contribute as time allows.    Mr Christopher 20:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I agree that the article is generally good. There are a couple of places, however, where the information seems pretty random. This article is not at the top of my list of things to work on, but if I get time, I might try to take a closer look at some of these sections. ScottW 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported Allegations
Does anyone here have any plans to provide supporting evidence for these claims:

''On July 22, 2004, the Retail Workers' Union IU/660 filed an unfair labor practice charge against Starbucks for allegedly making threats of wage cuts[citation needed], giving bribes[citation needed], and selectively enforcing no-distribution policies to alter the results of the barista's union vote[citation needed]. The IU/660 has also joined with Global Exchange in calling on Starbucks to purchase at least 5% of the store's coffee from fair trade certified sources. Currently only 1% of Starbucks' coffee is fair trade certified, although they claim to pay fair, above-average prices for all their coffee.''

''Starbucks in Tenmabashi Station, Osaka, JapanOn January 14, 2005, charges stemming from a march at the 2004 Republican National Convention were dropped against Starbucks' baristas' union co-founder Daniel Gross. Witnesses allege Starbucks' managers coordinated with the NYPD to single out Daniel Gross and another union activist from a crowd of 200 peaceful protesters[citation needed]. Witnesses also claim to have incontrovertible video tape evidence that shows the arresting police officer(s) fabricated evidence including filing a false police report[citation needed]. The dismissal charges came two weeks after the NLRB issued a complaint against the company [Starbucks] alleging that management made threats[citation needed], gave bribes[citation needed], and created an impression of surveillance in a failed effort to defeat the first-ever union of Starbucks café workers in the United States[citation needed].''

I am not suggesting these claims are true or false, but without reliable and credible support, most of those claims are pretty fantastic and do not belong in an encyclopedia. I put the Fact tags on there a few weeks ago and so far it appears no one has made an attempt to provide any supporting evidence. In view of this I think those sections should be removed. I'm suggesting we wait until early next week for some supporting evidence. If no one provides it then we can remove them. Any opinions? Mr Christopher 21:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a citation for the content in the first sentence in question. ScottW 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And I've added another reference which should cover a couple of the other statements. I think the sentence beginning "The dismissal charges came two weeks after the NLRB issued . . ." can be moved up to the first reference of bribes and retaliatory wage cuts. I believe they are referring to the same event. Someone with more knowledge of the issue may be able to correct me on that though. ScottW 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * These are much needed improvements, Scott. There is an awful lot of he said she said in regards to the IWW union activity so I think it should all be well supported.  I'll try and dig in some myself when I get some free time.  Cheers! Mr Christopher 02:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that these type of allegations need support. And thanks for bringing up the issue. If I get time, I'll try to find a citation for the fair trade numbers. I know I've seen the statistics somewhere (although it's really a much more complex subject than a percentage can reflect). ScottW 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting factiod - I am researching some of the unsupported claims made in this article and so far they are mostly the results of copy and pastes from actitvists web sites. No wonder they are not cited Mr Christopher 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the pieces of this that had no cites. They have lacked cites for months, feel free to add the information back to the article if any credible evidence can be found to support it. Mr Christopher 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed some recent additions
An anon editor added sections dealing with fair trade numbers, coffee farmers, milk, and an activist organization. I've removed the the activist section as it was mostly a copy directly from the Website, and I'm not certain it needed a specific mention here. I've also removed the section on coffee farmers. It was a broad generalization of an incredibly diverse group of farms and people. For example, the statement that coffee farmers receive between 30 to 50 cents a pound is way to broad of a statement to be included here. Cooperative farmers working outside of the fair trade model can receive more than fair trade price. On the other hand, many farmers in Kenya receive as little as a penny a pound. Coffee markets are far too complex to be dealt with this simply.

The hormone milk section I'm not really sure about, and I'm planning on cleaning and combining the fair trade data stated in this article, so I've left those two for now. ScottW 13:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Scott, I removed the anonymous and poorly cited hormone milk "controversy" for several reasons. Allow me to explain from a soap box :-) - Citing a letter from an organic milk organization as supporting evidence of a milk controversy is dubious at best.  It is unfair to the other editors here for someone to anonymously make poorly supported charges like this that require significant editing and research and expect the other people here to do their work for them.  Hit and run editing is cheap and time consuming to clean up.


 * For the anonymous hit and run editor - Starbucks does not own any dairy farms nor do they raise cattle. They purchase FDA approved milk from milk suppliers.  And all you have to do to get organic milk in your Starbucks latte is simply ask for it, I do that all the time and it causes me no discomfort. And the ONLY milk you can buy in a carton (in the self-serve cooler) at Starbucks is organic.  Starbucks does not even carry non-organic milk in cartons.  The fact that an organic milk organization thinks organic milk should be the Starbucks standard or that they don't like the non-organic milk being served due to hormones does not constitute a milk controversy.  And if someone is going to claim Starbucks sells milk that is unsafe or not FDA approved then they need to provide some links to an FDA report or other credible, non-biased source.


 * Furthermore, numerous organizations use Starbucks' notoriety as a means of drawing attention to their own cause. That is fair in a free society but I don't think it is appropriate to use this Wikipedia article as a vehicle for these groups to draw attention to their cause(s).  The same thing with the meaningless, uninformative website links that have been removed.  If Starbucks had 10 stores we would not have a controversy section.  Look at the section about a guy who was sued (and lost) for using the Starbucks logo.  Why is this noteworthy?  Why is this considered controversial?  That sort of thing happens with most every large company that owns a logo and trademark laws exist for a reason.  Their is nothing controversial about an organization legally protecting their trademarked logo (I plan on deleting that section for these reasons, anyone please let me know if you disagree, I'll wait a few days before I delete it in case anyone objects).


 * Since they are one of the largest and most successful chains, Starbucks is a magnet for groups and individuals who want to further their own agenda and gain public attention piggy backing on the popularity of Starbucks. The IWW inclusion makes sense, but the so called controversies here are pretty marginal so I think we need to remember this is an article about a coffee company and not Enron, religion, Republican Party or the benefits of drinking organic milk.  Starbucks sells coffee, they do not kill baby seals so I think we should continue to scrutinize the controversies section and external links.  Realistically though, I think these hit and run edits are likely going to be the norm for this article but I personally do not plan on doing the reasarch and foot work for the hit and run activist/"editors" who believe Wiki is a legitimate place to further their agenda.


 * This is my own take on it and I am most open and receptive to the opinions of the other editors here, at least those who take Wiki serious enough to either have an account or sign their name. Mr Christopher 15:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also just consolidated some of the criticisms from evangelicals and tried to remove some of the POV and original research . Mr Christopher 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Those changes look good. I was leaning toward getting rid of the section on the hormone milk issue, but since I had already removed a couple of the other sections the user added, I was being a little conservative. So far as the logo section goes, there has been enough issues with Starbucks trademark litigation that I think there is room for some coverage in the article. However, I don't thing this particular event is substantial enough to stand alone. I'd say remove it until a better thought out section can be put together. ScottW 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the Name and Logo section we might mention that Starbucks has a history of protecting their logo (and the Starbucks name for that matter) and link to a few credible news sources and call it a day? Or that there have been a few attempts to use the logo or a modified version without unauthorization that resulted in legal action.  Or something to that affect and then remove it from the controversy section since the unauthorized (illegal) use of a trademark does not really constitute a controversy and it happens with most every large, prominant company.  Thoughts? Mr Christopher 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think something like that should work. There is some controversy with some of the litigation, but I think it can be handled in the logo section if it's properly referenced. I'll take care of that this weekend. ScottW 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "This weekend" (which was last week) turned out to be too ambitious. I haven't forgotten this, but I've had a few other things to care of. I'll try to get back to this task soon. ScottW 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Name and Logo section, I think this should really be cited or removed "Thinking it sounded a little too much like a slang term for urine" Mr Christopher 17:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I can see how Pequod would sound like urine, but I agree there should be a reference for it. I'll see if I can find it. If anyone else knows of a citation, feel free to speak up. ScottW 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Page 32 of Schultz's book. "But Terry recalls protesting, 'You're crazy! No one's going to drink a cup of Pee-quod!'" Accessible through Amazon's "search inside this book". I'll add a citation. Jerry Kindall 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't read the section in question (and now there seems little point), I'd like to point out that the milk you're talking about is exclusive to the U.S. Starbucks in Canada (and I'm sure elsewhere as well) don't use American milk, and organic milk is not available in Canada (at Starbucks). --Purplezart 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture section
I've removed a few items from the pop culture section. This section can't possibly hold every reference to Starbucks in any medium, so I've removed the ones which refer to a starbucks-like store and a couple of others which did not appear to be notable. I think I might pare down the list a little further at some point. Maybe just have the most notable examples. Or discuss common traits of the pop-culture references and then give an example of each. Any thoughts? ScottW 14:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This entire Pop Culture section now seems to have disappeared - i would like to see it or at least most of it re-installed at least as it was as of 26th June 2006 (version still available in google cache). I'm an MBA student and have produced work on Starbucks in Strategy and Brand Management courses and the examples listed in the now deleted popular culture section were excellent examples of how the company is suffering from 'culture jamming' and other forms of brand activisim... see Craig J. Thompson et al. Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelganger Brand Image in Journal of Marketing, January 2006 pp50-64 to see how this is directly relevant. paul** 06 July 2006


 * I've been away for awhile (summertime here--living is easy and whatnot), and my limited time on wikipedia hasn't included the cleanup mentioned above. Still, I'd have to say that I prefer that the pop culture section not exist at all than it exist in the state it was in. It was nothing more than a random list of media which happened to mention starbucks. It was certainly not a scholarly study of how Starbucks influenced (or was influenced by pop culture). For better or worse, Starbucks has certainly had quite an influence on western culture, so I do agree that there is room for a section here. But what was there previously wasn't it. ScottW 04:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing section on online store
I've removing the recently added section on the online store. As it's noted in the content, it's not actually owned by Starbucks. Also this addition has the appearance of being promotional in nature (the original submission of this content was straight from promotional material).

Seeing as how Starbucks is having more and more cross-promotional type initiatives, I can see this topic being legitimately covered under a broader heading (maybe Starbucks Partnerships, or something of the sort). But this article can't contain a reference to everything in the world related to Starbucks. ScottW 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'd be glad to discuss and contribute to a section dealing with Starbucks Partnerships. Feel free to post any ideas here. ScottW 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, can we put StarbucksStore.com under Starbucks Partnerships? StarbucksStore.com is directly linked from Starbucks.com and it is the official online store for Starbucks. Thanks.


 * Yeah, I think that would be a logical one to use as an example. It will be important, however, to make sure that the primary purpose of the section is to document traits of Starbucks partnerships, not to cover in detail one specific partnership. ScottW 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For
Starbucks has been in the top 100 companies to work for on numerous occassions. I don't have time to add to the article right now but I wanted to park this 2006 link/source: http://money.cnn.tv/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/snapshots/1267.html  Feel free to use this, otherwise I'll add to the article when I get more time. This also has some interesting demographics (% of minorities, women, and turn over, etc). Mr Christopher 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added it in under the #History section. Iola  k  ana |(talk)  16:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) Mr Christopher 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing external links
I'm moving for a second time the link to a blog about Starbucks. The reason that it is not appropriate here is that it is not a topic covered in the article (nor should it be). It is not possible or recommended that this article contain links to every Starbucks related site or blog. If there were something notable enough to be mentioned in the article itself, it would be a different matter. I can, however, understand why the editor thought the content to be appropriate. There are a number of other external links that are equally inappropriate. I'm going to remove a couple of those as well. When I have time (after the fair trade rewrite I promised and the massive cleanup needed in the pop culture references section), I'll take a closer look at all of them. Feel free to discuss any comments or objections here. ScottW 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We may lack some clarity (and boundaries) on this subject. This link was added and removed today:


 * Starbucks and Conservation


 * It links to the Conservation International website, specifically a piece outlining the partnership with Starbucks. CI is a non-profit organization dedicated to "protect[ing] the Earth's richest regions of plant and animal diversity in the biodiversity hotspots, high-biodiversity wilderness areas as well as important marine regions around the globe".


 * As mentioned on the previously linked page, they are currently partnering with Starbucks in South America. I though the link was relevant and we might even use some of it in the article but another editor removed it as "link spam".  It's odd that a link to the Starbucks Union (which I think is highly appropriate) is considered good while a link that points to a conservation society, specifcially their page that outlines their collaborative efforts with Starbucks to promote conservation is considered link spam. Especially since Starbucks places a great deal of value (and resources) on conservation.  Or am I missing something that is obvious to others?  It would not be the first time  Mr Christopher 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More - this is from that link "CI believes that the world's major coffee roasters can become a positive force for biodiversity conservation by integrating environmental and social considerations into their purchasing decisions. The development of the coffee industry's first global green coffee purchasing guidelines with CI's Center for Environmental Leadership in Business, and Conservation Coffees™ such as Starbucks Shade Grown Mexico and Conservation Colombia™ are results of Starbucks and CI's efforts to help sustain the people and places where coffee is grown."
 * Is that not the stuff that actually belongs in this article? Mr Christopher 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello - I removed the link mentioned above primarily because it was spammed across a ton of pages by a particular user. If you feel it's useful here I take no issue with it being re-added --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, that makes perfect sense, I thought I might be missing something. I think some of what was in that link might be useful information for the article (as a cite) so I'll think about how to incorporate it and use it as a cite.  Mr Christopher 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, I'll leave this in your capable hands --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Article is currently unreferenced, which is a real shame. It's better to cite. Iola  k  ana |(talk) 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions on culture
I have attempted twice to add material on Starbucks and popular American culture, but it has been deleted without explanation. Since I am new to this, I would like to know how to edit in this material, or be told the reason for its deletions. Thanks. Wrklink 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The primary reason the content you added was removed is that it was uncited and appeared to be original research. Please read about Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research. ScottW 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just about to reply to the user. Iola  k  ana |(talk)  18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

well, not really. Please see: Rudolf P. Gaudio. Coffeetalk: Starbucks and the Commercialization of Casual Conversation. Language in Society. Nov. 2003, vol 32, iss 5, p659. It examines how Sbux plays a large role in structuring conversation and with whom. I attempted to extend his arguments to your use of references in media to Sbux. At present, I don't see how that list covers the topic as is. A discussion of culture requires just that, it seems to me. Anyway, there have been similar studies on McDonald's and Disneyland that you probably know about. I am happy to work with you on this problem, if you want. Wrklink 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks as a Poster Child
Any ideas of how we might rephrase this to sound a little less POV? The "poster child" thing is what I believe is in need of rewording:


 * Starbucks has come to be regarded by some, particularly the anti-globalization movement, as a poster child of the problems posed by globalization. 

Who exactly is the anti-globalization movement"? This reads like "anonymous people think Starbucks is bad"  I have read most all of the groups who portray Starbucks as the evil coffee company but they're pretty few and they tend to lurk on the outer fringes.  I am not suggesting we ignore legitimate criticism but calling Starbucks a poster child for "globalization" seems a bit out there, especially since we do not qualify specifically who regards them as such.

We might as well add to the article something like "Starbucks has become a magnet for publicity starved, fringe activist groups that would otherwise not gain any attention whatsoever without attacking Starbucks publicly", no? I mean that's about as acurate as the "Starbucks has come to be regarded by unamed organizations...Who are these anonymous people who regard Starbucks this way? Out of fairness we should name them.

Starbucks buys and sells fair trade coffee (more than any other coffee company), but certain fair trade activists say that is not enough. Starbucks buys and sells organic milk (and ONLY sells organic milk in cartons), but certain organic milk activists say that is not enough. Starbucks pays higher than minimum wages and grants stock options and full health benefits to folks who work at least 20 hours a week (please name 5 other public companies who do this), they consistantly turn up in the best 100 companies to work for, but certain labor activists (mostly anti-capitalist and/or pro-communist) say that is not enough and others simply claim Starbucks is bad simply because they are in many countries. Does that constitute a controversy?

Even the "attacks" during the WTO riots seems a bit out there. I was in Seattle at that time and I am old enough to be considered an aging hippie and I had numerous people call me and ask if I wanted to go downtown and cause trouble (I declined). Many if not most of the WTO trouble makers did not have an agenda, it was simply chaos and became a breeding ground for trouble makers.

I believe two Starbucks locations had a window broken, does that constitute an "attack"? And do we know that the Starbucks vandalism during the WTO was even WTO related other than timing? Lots of businesses downtown had windows broken and suffered other forms of vandalism but few instances of vandalism were actually politically motivated. Most of the "rioters" were nothing more than aged hippies who thought they were back in the 60s and wanted to cause mischief. I asked a numerous people who were headed downtown to "protest" what exactly did they want to protest and their response was basically "who cares, let's go hassle some cops". Not exactly an anti-globalization protest :-) The WTO riot had alot more to do with the conduct of the Seattle police department and its citizenry and less do to with the WTO, the chief of police admitted this.

So I think the poster child comment is a bit POV and we ought to be cautious of creating a controversy within this article that doesn't really exists outside of fringe or extreem activist circles. I am open to the opinions of others here but at the very least let's replace the "poster child" description with something more NPOV (and I am at a loss as to how it should be worded). I also plan to replace "attacked" with "vandalized" since I don't think a broken window constitutes and attack. Mr Christopher 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I found an article (that is now cited) regrading some of the WTO vandalism. There was as many as 9 (not 2 as I had thought) stores vandalized and there was in fact evidence of organized vandalism, though the article states no one took credit for the vandalism a known anarchist logo was painted on some of the locations.  I clarified some of this in the article and added the cite. Mr Christopher 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In regard to the "poster child" comment, I agree that this phrasing could use some work. I believe the sentiment of Starbucks being put forth as a symbol of globalization (for better of for worse), but certainly not as much as a McDonalds. In any case, there does need to be a citation there to give more specifics as to who regards them in this fashion. For now, I'm going to change "poster child for" to "symbolic of." In my mind, that's slightly less POV. It doesn't eliminate the need for citation however. ScottW 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding fair trade, that's a tricky issue. On the surface, Starbucks being the largest purchaser of fair trade coffee seems like a big mark in their favor. However, the fact is that they are simply a large purchaser of coffee in general, therefore their fair trade purchases will also be large. Compared to Nestle or the other big coffee sellers, they do have a much better ratio of fair trade coffee purchases, but no so much when it comes to the specialty coffee industry as a whole. However, even this analysis is too simplistic. There are whole regions of the world which do not participate in fair trade certification. In some of these areas there are cooperative farms which receive far more than the fair trade price.


 * Without going into too much detail about the ins and outs of fair trade, I'd say that there is room for documenting legitimate criticism for Starbucks' coffee buying practices. However, it's something that's far more complex than what is dealt with in the current article. Instead of spending so much effort on fair trade, I'd like to see all of the information combined into a generalized section on Starbucks' coffee buying practices. I think that there is potential for a good NPOV section to deal with all of the relevant issues. This is the section I've been procrastinating on for awhile. I have a couple of other articles I need to get to first, but it's definitely on my list. ScottW 00:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Great improvement on the "poster child" bit, Scott. Thanks Mr Christopher 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Scott, also I found some useful information here regarding Fair Trade Certified coffee and Starbucks http://www.transfairusa.org/content/resources/faq.php These folks are apparently one of the certifying and auditing organizations.  There is all sorts of useful stuff on their web site.  Mr Christopher 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent reference. Thanks for tracking that down. ScottW 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah with all the hoopla and "controversy" regarding the Starbucks and Fair Trade Certified coffee I thought quoting and referencing the American authority on the subject would be a good idea :-) Mr Christopher 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism from the Religious Right
I renamed the cup controversy header since the cup issue as well as the Planned Parenthood "controversy" stems from primarily one Christian fundamentalist group and their criticisms are religious based. It is not a cup controversy or a Planned Parenthood controversy, it is a religious organization who objects to Starbucks policy of inclusion and the value Starbucks places on diversity. If you have a better title for the heading feel free to give it a go but this made sense to me. Mr Christopher 21:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the current content, this looks like a good change to me. ScottW 01:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks Everywhere (the website)
Anyone seen the website http://www.starbuckseverywhere.net/? A man by the name of John Winters is a Starbucks addict who travels the world taking pictures of every Starbucks there is (he even has a photo of the Starbucks in my town ... and I live in a small town!). Anyone think this would be worth adding to the article? I mean it does have pictures of almost every Starbucks in Canada, the US, England and several other countries. Decimal10 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that site used to be linked from this article, but I removed the link about a week or so ago while cleaning up the External Links section. I'm reluctant to support adding links to sites that are not the subject of content of the article itself. Is there evidence that the site is notable on its own? If not, then I'm not sure it would be good to mention it at all. While it may be an interesting site/feat, it's just not possible to include every Starbucks-related phenomena here. If this site is indeed independently notable, then I would be open to discussing ways of including a mention. ScottW 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally find the site notable because he is the only person I've ever heard of trying to attempt such a feat, whether it be with Starbucks, Burger King, Wal-Mart or whatever. He has also appeared on shows such as CNN Live, Inside Edition, and Fox and Friends, and has been mentioned in newspapers such as the Seattle Times, New York Post and Associated Press. Not saying it's deserving of a section in the article, but an external link wouldn't bother me. (By the way, his name is simply Winter, not John Winters. BMetts 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Inside Starbucks
This section seems really long and I think it could be compressed into 3 or 4 paragraphs but someone has obviously put a lot of time and energy into writing it and it is well written so I thought it should be discussed prior to making any major changes. Perhaps we might keep 3 or 4 paragraphs and then move the rest to a sub-article for those readers who really want to know all the nuances, logistics and other details of a Starbucks store and how they operate? Mr Christopher 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed "all stores in the US have internet access" to "most..." because they don't all have it =) I work as a barista in a store in central texas, and we've been on the waiting list for wireless internet for 3 years. 71.115.104.231 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right way to add to this discussion, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. I agree that this section is really long. Especially the staffing section. It could be shortened without loosing much value by focusing less on who does what and more on what makes working for Starbucks stand out from other retailers (such as partner benefits and company values). I should disclose that I am a store manager for Starbucks and therefore somewhat biased in my company's favor, but I would love for more people to have the opportunity that I did - starting as a barista and within five years being the manager of a million dollar a year business unit for a leading international company. I think that Starbucks gets a lot of flack that they don't deserve, but you have managed this article in a very fair way that requires fanatics to back up their claims. Thanks for that. 71.231.205.110 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Yet another proposal from yours truly. The criticism section has 4 subsections (6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4) and as a result the info box looks weird, as if half the article is crtiticism. I propose we roll all of them into one section (yet the titles would remain in bold type). The content and formating would be the same but each criticism would not have its own section, just its own title. Does that make sense? Mr Christopher 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just made the changes I proposed. The info box looks cleaner and the headings are still bold, so the content and emphasis is the same.  Mr Christopher 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually think it goes against the entire tyle guide, WP:MOSHEAD. Iola k ana |T  16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, thanks for the link. Ok, we can do one of two things, revert my changes or remove the headings and try and make the criticism section flow better.  I am fine with either.  My motivation was primarily due to the info box had about 1/3 or more of it dedicated to itemized criticisms which seemed odd to me, especially since Starbucks is not a controversial organization, or at least not in mainstream circles.  So what do you think would server our readers better, revert my changes back to the itemized list or rework the criticism section with no headers and make it flow better?  I am open to suggestions. Mr Christopher 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone feel free to offer an opinion :-) I'll go with whatever seems the most appropriate. Mr Christopher 23:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No one voiced an opinion, other than the changes I made conflict with the manual of style, so I am putting it back like it was. Give me a sec or two to finish Mr Christopher 20:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have failed twice now at reverting myc changes :-)   Would someone else put the criticism section back like it was?  If not then I'll try again this evening. Mr Christopher 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that it now ;-) Iola k ana |T  21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and thank you kindly. Mr Christopher 22:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

World's largest coffee chain?
I am pretty sure Starbucks qualifies as the world's largest coffee chain. Perhaps check this out and add it to the article? Iola k ana |T 22:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Already added it in—with sources! Iola k ana |T  22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Labor disputes again
As I mentioned above, I'm not doing much here for awhile, but I am a little concerned with a recent addition to the labor disputes section. The addition has a few issues with its language ("Starbucks Workers Union won another watershed victory over unfair labor practices in a conflict between the world's largest coffee chain and the baristas who work there", for example). However, what I'm most interested in is the source of the information itself. Can anyone find this reference anywhere other than the starbucksunion.org site? If it's really an agreed upon settlement it seems like it should be public record.

No matter what, this section could use a little cleaning, but I want to be sure that this information is accurate. I've looked a little and I can't find anything yet. If it weren't so damn nice outside, I'd do some more research this weekend. Probably won't though. Any Argentinians look at this page? ScottW 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Scott, I agree with you completely. What was written comes across very heavy handed and POV.  Idiotic for an encyclopedia and/or propaganda is another way to describe it.  And yes I think we should make a priority of finding more than one source for this entry.  Starbucks usually posts information on their website about any union activity so I'll poke around and see if there is anything new there.  Outside of union sites, communist sites and the New York Metro there seems to be very little written about Starbucks and the union activity.  I have been buried lately and have had no time to work on this or any other articles, hopefully that will change soon. Mr Christopher 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More - If you read the settlement linked from the Starbucks Union website and then read what has been written about it in this article you cannot help but notice how profoundly dishonest the Wiki article now reads. This is pure propaganda.  That settlement is limited to paying some back wages to three people and Starbucks agreeing to not do certain things (they do not admit they ever did any of those things, they simply agree to certain demands made by the Union).  And now the rest of us here are stuck cleaning up the dishoinest portrayal/propaganda left by an anonymous hit and run editor.  This sort of thing makes me want to just delete all the nonsense they left and call it a day.  When someone wants to write something that is usefull, informative and NPOV they can add more on the subject but I personally do not have time (at least at the moment) to clean up the slop left by the anti-Starbucks crowd.   Sorry to go on and on (rant), but I just get wearly of this sort of thing and it forces editors who are working in good faith to have to clean up after hit and run propagandists who could obviously care less about the integrity of this article or Wikipedia.  There are plently of places more appropriate to smear Starbucks than this article.  Mr Christopher 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Last from me today - I removed the propaganda/dishonest/POV portion of what was written. Feel free to improve my edits.  Mr Christopher 17:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I would have removed it myself, but I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Thanks for making the change. ScottW 17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Starbucks does not have a workers union. I have been an employee for 5 years and there has never been a union. I previously deleted that section because it is false. If you want to clairify the Starbucks union, please contact Starbucks to recieve the truth. If you work for Starbucks, please clarify that as well because I believe to see a lot of incorrect information. on this webpage. (meganjune)

The current labor section, with respect to fair trade, is very POV. Starbucks only uses Fair Trade coffee for approximately 1% of its coffee beans. This rationalizes Starbucks' greed and abuse, and doesn't present another side.


 * What is your source for that number? That is far less than I have ever heard.  You may have old figures. Oh, and you can sign you comments by typing four tildes.--Margareta 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * anonymous IP Person, please read the article before commenting on it. You'll come off alot more credible.  Had you read the article you would have noted fair trade represents almost 4% which Transfair USA is glowing about.  Also, seems I read somewhere recently that this figure is much higher now.  I'll see if I can track that down and update the article.  Finally, you "POV" comment is curios for two reasons, one you seem to have not read the article, two that section is one of the best sourced sections in the entire article.  Cheers! Mr Christopher 00:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name Starbuck
It is notable that on Nantucket Island in MA there are a handful of "old Quaker family" names including the Folgers and the Starbucks. A Folgers from Nantucket went on to start Folgers Coffee in San Francisco. And it was from Nantucket that the Whaleship Essex was based (owned by the Folgers family), from which the story Moby Dick is derived, from which the fictional character "Starbuck" originates, from which the company is named. Curious connections. -- Stbalbach 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also the connection to a mine on Mt. Rainier called "Starbo" is really due to a misspelling of the name Storbo.

From: Theodore Catton - Wonderland: An Administrative History of Mt Rainier National Park

p. 151: In the summer of 1902, Peter Storbo of Enumclaw and B.P. Korssjoen staked claims in Glacier Basin. Between 1914 and 1916, their Mt Rainier Mining Company built a wagon road from the confluence of the White and Greenwater rivers up the White River into the basin, a distance of more than twenty miles. In 1915, the company received permits to construct two more buildings in the basin. One of the two buildings was a "tourist hotel," which remained incomplete and never saw any guest use.

One can find references to both spellings "Storbo" and "Starbo" but Storbo is correct.


 * Since the founders were liberal arts types (English Lit and History degrees) I'm inclined to think they were aware of the connections to their competitor Folgers in naming it Starbucks. Probably serendipitously but when a name has so many connections it probably seemed "right". -- Stbalbach 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks → Starbucks Coffee – Official name (actually on the coffee shop's windows and the outside of a Starbucks state "Starbucks Coffee".) This is also the name on the logo and all around the inside of a Starbucks. Iola <b style="color:#50C878;">k</b> ana |<sup style="color:orange;">T 22:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support - Per above (nom) reasons. Iola <b style="color:#50C878;">k</b> ana |<sup style="color:orange;">T  22:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Corporations can have a corporate, a company name, and product names. In this case, looking at their web page, the corporation is called "Starbucks Corporation" while the company is called "Starbucks Coffee Company". "Starbucks" and "Starbucks Coffee" are probably trademarked for products and services used interchangeably with the official corporate and company names. IMO we should stick with "Starbucks" simply because that is what most people know it by, and that is how we are supposed to name articles on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose most common name. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stbalbach. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above. Common name.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 11:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-smoking policy exceptions
The paragraph about the non-smoking policy is outdated. The Starbucks stores in Istanbul, Turkey contain smoking sections (and sometimes smoking is allowed in all of the store). I don't know if there are other countries that are exceptions to the rule. --Durinmine 12:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Is there (for example) some sort of a law in Turkey preventing people from preventing smoking that might explain this?  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Frappuccino
Is it really true that the Frappuccino is their biggest selling item? Or more accurately, that the 'bulk of their sales' comes from the Frapp? Worldwide? Nationally? Sounds questionable to me. Anchoress 11:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bulk of Starbucks sales"
I've removed the unsourced statement that "The bulk of Starbucks sales comes from Frappuccino," as it's untrue. The bulk of Starbucks sales comes from espresso drinks, then drip coffee, then blended beverages. I'm new to Wikipedia (as an active participant, anyway), so I don't know how to source this except I work for the company and I see our sales every day--espresso drinks top the list by a long shot. Until we can get accurate data on the sales breakdown, let's leave it out. --Faeryrose
 * By a long shot, eh? LOL. Thanks for doing that, it answers my question directly above. Anchoress 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sales can vary by store; for example, I'm sure a store in a mall with lots of teenagers would sell a higher percentage of frappuccinos than a store in a downtown location near lots of corporate offices. However, I'm sure that espresso drinks top the overall numbers. BMetts 04:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unions, controversies and using Wiki to promote ones agenda
I saw where someone removed the link to the Starbucks Union web site. I thought that was a good move and it got me thinking. I went to the General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler, Dunkin Donuts and Coca Cola articles and noticed none of them link to their respective union sites nor do they have sections discussing the latest (or any) union activity. Those articles seem to be about the company and not the unions associated with them.

Furthermore, I didn't see criticism sections in those articles like we have in this one (although a few people have sued Coke claiming the ingredients tried to kill them or something, and that is covered in the Coca Cola article). I know Coca Cola and Ford (and suspect all the others mentioned) have had numerous law suits and threats of lawsuits over copyright issues yet those articles do not make that ordinary part of corporate day to day business a part of the article.

It makes me wonder if we are being too liberal or too lenient when it comes to some of the material in this article. For instance, one fundamentalist religious organization objected to a single phrase on a Starbucks cup and it gets air time in this Wiki article. Was that single event (that everyone has forgotten about now except this article) really significant enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia?

Where do we draw the line on including the objections/view points of fundamentalist religious organizations? My wife was recently at a Starbucks in North Carolina and there were some wingnuts picketing outside in the parking lot. Remember that there is a movement in North Carolina to secede from the Union and become a Christian nation. It seems some folks there felt Starbucks was a bad company because they extend health benefits to unmarried and, oh my gosh, homosexual unions. Should that be included as well? It was a hand full of people, it made the news, no one cared, no one cares, no one remembers it anymore (except my wife of course who thought it was amusing). So where is the line drawn? Which wingnuts get included and which do not?

There is a Starbucks union and at times they do not play well together. Is that fact really that remarkable? And it appears shadow editors add something new to this article (or try to) every time the union does anything at all. And the slant of those edits betrays the motives of the anonymous persons making them ("Starbucks is evil, Starbucks Union is good"). We're talking about a union with less than 100 members out of a company of about 125,000. There are more Starbucks employees with ingrown toenails than there are union members. Is this article the rally point and place for news updates for the Starbucks union?

I know I am asking rhetorical questions because I have been asking myself the same questions and I am not coming up with any good answers but when I look at the articles for other well known, global companies I don't see the same sort of material there that I see in this article.

It almost seems like we're looking for controversy. Every major company has been involved in copyright skirmishes. So has Starbucks, what makes the Starbucks attempts to protect their name an logo noteworthy? Every major company has some sort of criticism (from the left or the right), so does Starbucks. Does a comment on a cup that has been long forgotten really worthy of inclusion in this article? And most every major company has a union, so does Starbucks. What makes the Starbucks union noteworthy for this article?

And to be very clear, this is a great article and I do not mean to sound like I am ranting or complaining, but for some reason there seems to be a lot of type given to marginal material in this article and I'm not sure why.

And I am not opposed to adding criticism or things that might not be approved by Starbucks leadership, but I'd prefer they be things that seem worthy of mentioning. Something significant that belongs in an encyclopedia. Am I crazy or am I on to something here? Would some of you mind looking at some of the other articles I referenced and see what you think? And I am not suggesting Starbucks is a perfect company that should not be scrutinized, I am simply questioning the value of some of the material in the controversies section in this article. Mr Christopher 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are good questions. To answer:
 * No unsourced material or original research should be in the article.
 * It is normal for Wikipedia articles to have a 'criticism' section, and I think that is healthy. The fact that the articles you mentioned don't have them is surprising, unless the criticism is actually combined into the article. Actually now that I've checked, not only does Coke have a criticism section, it actually has a whole article called Criticism of Coca-Cola. General Motors has a controversy section, and of the others the Ford article looks quite POV, it has only four statements referenced despite an extensive bibliography; the Chrysler article is almost completely unreferenced also, and frankly the Dunkin Donuts article is a piece of crap. Don't take my comments as a criticism of you, but as you can see it's not necessarily enough just to check a few comparable company articles on WP; wildly varying quality is one of our hallmarks, after all. ;-)
 * Your numerous references to 'notability' are the most important point, IMO. All the data in a good article should be a) notable, and b) meticulously referenced. If they are both, they are unlikely to be POV, despite the POV of the author. I haven't looked carefully enough at the Starbucks article to see whether or not there is unsupported or non-notable information in it, either pro or con, but to sum up I'll say that notable criticism, controversy etc most definitely has a place in the article, but if unsupported (even if true) criticisms and controversies are being added they should be ruthlessly weeded out.
 * And again, not to criticise you, and after all this is the talk page, NPOV rules don't apply, but IMO your POV was betrayed in some of the phraseology you used in your statement ('shadow editors', 'wingnuts'); I am sure you will work to ensure that your bias doesn't influence the editing process.
 * As to the union; as I said I haven't looked carefully at the article, but if anything, the fact (if it is a fact) that only 100 of 125K Starbucks employees are unionised is notable, in fact it is extraordinary. That doesn't mean that the union itself or union activities deserve to have space in the Starbucks article devoted to them, IMO, but it definitely is notable.
 * And in closing, labour relations are a major part of most large companies, and IMO do have a place in the history of a company. What part will differ from company to company, but I don't think the absence of such information is a good thing, nor do I think it should set the standard for Wikipedia's coverage of corporate articles.
 * Happy editing! Anchoress 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding this link to the budding Wiki policy on writing about ongoing enterprise to be pretty helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_about_ongoing_enterprises Mr Christopher 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm adding the cite needed for the last two union entries. If they are going to use this article as a blog for the union I think they should be held to the same standard as anyone else and use reliable, neutral references.


 * Does anyone believe that Starbucks press releases and other documents are reliable, neutral references in regard to labor disputes? I haven't seen anyone raise an objection to their use as citations? Why is the union, and its web site, held to a different standard?


 * By my quick analysis, the "Labor Disputes" section currently has 50% more wording than the company's History section (748 words vs 503). It seems a bit out of proportion.  The section should be edited down to a few major points or spun off into its own Criticism of Starbucks article.  I think that the labor topic needs to be addressed, but this section seems to be more of a publicity piece for the IWW as it stands right now.  The fact that the Wobblies want to organize "One Big Union, establish industrial democracy through "Solidarity Unionism", and abolish the wage system seems to have no direct relevance to an article about a coffee company  Justin 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The section concerning the IWW should be pared down to the essential facts: 1. There has been an ongoing labor dispute since 2004 centered in several stores in New York and Chicago; 2. A settlement was reached between the union and starbucks in which fired organizers were offered reinstatement and back pay (certainly significant).


 * How about eliding the bulk of the IWW section and replacing it with:

"Since 2004, Starbucks employees at several locations in New York City and Chicago have joined the Industrial Workers of the World labor union, calling themselves the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. Starbucks does not recognize the union as a bargaining agent. Several employees have claimed they were retaliated against for union activity. On March 7, 2006, the Starbucks Workers Union and Starbucks agreed to a settlement in which three Starbucks employees were granted almost $2,000 in back wages, two fired employees were offered reinstatement, and disciplinary warnings and negative performance reviews against several employees were removed from their records. The agreement did not require Starbucks to admit to violating the National Labor Relations Act."

with the appropriate citations, of course.

Anyone thinking about deleting the labor disputes section should visit WikiProject_Organized_Labour and its related project WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias

Israel section
Leaked letters, weasel words; not the place on an encyclopaedia. Iola <b style="color:#50C878;">k</b> ana • T 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To the person with the boycott Israel and Starbucks agenda:

a) The source cited is hardly neutral, that alone disqualifies them. Their mission statement is to promote Islam to Westerners, they also are advocating the boycott of Israel and Starbucks.  Does that sound like a neutral, reliable source?  Dragging this article into the struggle (gutter) between Palestine and Israel does not do the reader one bit of good, nor does it help the reader to understand the corporation known as Starbucks.   If you think a controversy over Israel and Starbucks actually exists then go and find a legitimate source and not an admitted Islamic propaganda site that needs incoming links to raise their search engine relevance. b) Howard Schultz, a Jew, speaking at a Jewish Temple to other Jews about Israel does not represent Starbucks "policy" on Israel. He was not speaking to the New York Times, he was not speaking to Starbucks shareholders about Starbucks policy, he was talking to members of his own Jewish Temple about his personal feelings. c) If you want to promote Islam, this Starbucks article is probably not the best venue for it. There are better places to promote your cause.  If you want to promote the idea that Starbucks policy is somehow against Palestine then find a legitimate, credible source and not some propaganda arm for a pro Islam group who advocates boycotting Israel and Starbucks. d) If you want to smear or mischaracterize Howard Schultz, you might try the Wiki article about him. I doubt many people are watching or reading it and your nutty link to your nutty web site might last longer there. Who knows maybe that link will stay up long enough so your search engine ranking for your Islam promoting website improves.

And for what it is worth, Starbucks closed all their Israel stores. That must prove to you that Starbucks hates Palestine. In fact all the Islamic countries where Starbucks operates just goes to show you how much they hate the Islamic world. Sheesh....

And if I sound miffed it is because I am miffed. Anyhow, back to your regularly scheduled program :-) Mr Christopher 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, here's the link that was cited for this Israel nonsense http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-starbucks.html I encourage other editors here (who are familiar with Wiki standards and policies) to visit the site and let me know if I am being a screwball. Mr Christopher 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And be sure and poke around that web site, you'll learn that the Jews and McDonald's are also part of a sinister plot against Islam as well, not just Starbucks...Coca Cola too! Who knew? Mr Christopher 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A closer examination of the web site being cited for the Israel section reveals the site is primarily an activist one dedicated to advancing a series of Fatwas http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-fatwas.html called by Islamic "scholars".  In essence they are calling for the boycott of any business who is doing business in Israel.  It's not even an article that is being cited, it is a call for action.  I've added the Enterprise link to the top of this page.  Perhaps the person who insists on dragging this article into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will take the time to understand what is appropriate for this article and what is not.  On their talk page I requested Nwe to stop adding the information back to the article and instead engage the other editors here and present reasons he/she feels the information belongs.  Mr Christopher 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just heard someone say that Starbucks supports the Israeli army, so after googling the topic, I turned to Wikipedia for information. I think it'd be equally important to mention the claims (and investigate their validity) whether or not they're true. - Emiellaiendiay 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's pretty good. Go ahead and pull the other leg, Emiellaiendiay. Mr Christopher 03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion (which is put back in) just indicates that these protests did occur not that you are endorsing them. The sources (one is a Catholic service and one is the reporter Robert Fisk) should be reliable sources to verify that these protests did occur. There are also some pretty good pictures in case you still have any doubts about that. Again, you don't have to agree with the protesters reasons (or even the evidence that they are using). However, when you consistently delete these references, it leaves the impression that (1) either that you don't believe these acts of civil disobedience ever existed or(2) you don't want the reader to be aware of them. Suspecting that it is the first reason, I have added some sources which should allay any concerns you might have that these events (in multiple locations by different groups)were not fictitious. Thanks for the clarification.
 * Reverted. poorly cited and not notable. Caper13 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On top of that the idea that starbucks ever supported the israeli army is an admitted hoax perpetrated by a holocaust denier who pretty much hates all jews. Mr Christopher 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation
Why the globalization content says that Starbucks purchases only 3% of the coffee beans grown, alluding this volume is not as important as being considered monopoly? However, the same paragraph states: “They [Starbucks] have become the largest buyer of Certified Fair Trade coffee in North America (10% of the global market).” I mean 3% is too few to be a monopoly, but 10 is an important number? Moreover, since the term “global market” is quite fuzzy, it can be interpreted as the world’s purchase, but “STARBUCKS, FAIR TRADE, AND COFFEE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY” clearly refers to the U.S. market.

Enterprise template
I added the enterprise template, someone removed it because it is not yet an official policy. I added it back because Wiki seems to be sorely lacking in any enterprise related guidance and I think any guidance is better than none. Does anyone have any opinions on it? Has anyone had a chance to look it over? Mr Christopher 04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to it. Certainly, sourcing negative information (or positive information for that matter) is desirable and appropriate. The only problem I can see is that the template is still just a proposal at this point. ScottW 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Link vandalism?
In the very first sentence of the article, did someone manipulate the first referenced link so it now points to a post on the Starbucks Union forum? Mr Christopher
 * That's odd. But, it appears that it's been that way since the references were first added in this July 4th edit . Maybe it's a reference to the fact that Starbucks "is the world's largest multinational chain of coffee shops". I'm on my way to work, so I don't have time to follow up on it at the moment. I don't think it's vandalism though. The Starbucks link is still in the External Links section. ScottW 10:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Scott, long time no chat.  Um, the link provided in the references section point here http://www.starbucksunion.org/comment/reply/941?quote=1 I've read what it links to a few times and it appears to be a forum entry on the union site that warns that some Starbucks items are fettening and such. The entry is about the nutrition (lack of actually) in many Starbucks products.  It is not an article about how large a coffee chain Starbucks operates.  Someone correct me if I am wrong.  Otherwise I'll try and find a more appropriate link to that supports the first sentence or just remove the innapropriate one.  Folks, feel free to let me know if I am overlooking something. Mr Christopher 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I replaced the link in question with a neutral and business oriented one from Hoovers. Mr Christopher 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, life's taken precedent over wiki-ing lately, so I haven't been around much lately other than to take care of vandalism/spam on pages I watch. I checked the older link, and you're right. It doesn't even make sense to have that there. The one you replaced it with works much better. Nice catch. ScottW 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks Mission Statement(s)
Folks, here is the Starbucks Mission statement (seen here:


 * <b>''Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles while we grow. The following six guiding principles will help us measure the appropriateness of our decisions:


 * Provide a great work environment and treat each other with respect and dignity.


 * Embrace diversity as an essential component in the way we do business.


 * Apply the highest standards of excellence to the purchasing, roasting and fresh delivery of our coffee.


 * Develop enthusiastically satisfied customers all of the time.


 * Contribute positively to our communities and our environment.


 * Recognize that profitability is essential to our future success.''</b>

They also have an environmental mission statement:


 * <b>''Starbucks is committed to a role of environmental leadership in all facets of our business.


 * We fulfill this mission by a commitment to:
 * Understanding of environmental issues and sharing information with our partners.
 * Developing innovative and flexible solutions to bring about change.
 * Striving to buy, sell and use environmentally friendly products.
 * Recognizing that fiscal responsibility is essential to our environmental future.
 * Instilling environmental responsibility as a corporate value.
 * Measuring and monitoring our progress for each project.
 * Encouraging all partners to share in our mission.''</b>

I would think these should be added to the article but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions/opinions? Mr Christopher

Starbucks also has a training tool for parteners called the "Green Apron Book": a pocket-sized booklet which lists and explains the "Five Ways of Being". This is part of Starbucks' commitment to "legendary" customer service.


 * Be Welcomming - Offer everyone a sense of belonging.


 * Be Genuine - Connect, discover, respond.


 * Be Knowledgeable - Love what you do. Share it with others.


 * Be Considerate - Take care of yourself, each other, and the environment.


 * Be Involved - In the store, in the company, in your community.

--Purplezart 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good information as well. I don't think we'll see any articles or whatnot on the subjects but they do lend important insight into the company's objectives and principles.  Perhaps we might incorporate this (and the mission statements) in the form of info boxes or something?  Mr Christopher 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with including the mission statement unless there is something especially notable about it (receives independent coverage or something of the sort). Among other reasons, I don't think that someone looking for the mission statement would look here first instead of the starbucks site. ScottW 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been researching the mission statement and the Starbucks "corporate culture" lately as well as their diversity practices and I think there is a lot to Starbucks that is in fact noteable but might not make the front page. The mission statement and how it is implimented and "enforced" is an interesting if not amazing story.  In fact Starbucks has a "mission review" department whose function is to insure Starbucks is abiding by their own mission statement in every facet of the organization.  How many companies have such a system (or even care)? Here is a link to an article that talks about the mission statement as well as how it was created.  The whole environmental thing has even been a point of controversy with Starbucks so including their environmental mission statement makes sense *to me*.


 * I also think their focus on diversity is not covered well in the article and it seems to be a central theme, not only from an employee standpoint but extends to suppliers and contractors too.


 * Regarding diversity, here's a link to a "Starbucks Careers" website: --Purplezart 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to sound like a smarty pants but we have an enormous section on how to make a latte and the union is doing a good job of making this article their own blog, I think what makes the organization tick merits some sort of inclusion, but as Scott mentioned it needs to be done in a way that is noteable and not just a bunch of fluff or filler. Comments, ideas or suggestions?  Mr Christopher


 * I don't think it's uncommon for large companies to spend a great deal of resources to implement and publicize their misson statement (seen it personally, actually). However, I do think that much of what you mentioned about diversity and environmental focus is worth noting on it's own. In fact, I think it is much more effective to show how the company is attempting to accomplish these things and the results of those efforts rather than to show how it's in a mission statement. I also agree that the article could focus on a few more important things than it currently does (how much space is spent on cup sizes?). At the moment, I don't have much time to spare on the task. ScottW 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the mission statement to the article awhile back, and for some reason it was removed. I am still highly supportive of it's inclusion in the article, possibly in it's own section. I'll wait to see if someone else agrees before re-adding it. BMetts 04:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pressure Valve
In Starbucks' training material, it is claimed that the incorporation of the gas valve present on whole-bean and pre-ground coffee packs is what allowed Starbucks to expand as widely and rapidly as it did, by allowing coffee to be packaged and shipped long distances or stored for longer times without becomming stale. The valve is mentioned briefly in the Inside Starbucks section of the article, but I think it may warrent more substantial coverage, especially if these claims are true. --Purplezart 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with what you are talking about and they have a name for that valve but I can't recall it right now. I know some folks who would know, I'll see what I can come up with. Mr Christopher 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to the "Flavorlock" seal on our whole bean coffees, which has definitely helped contribute to Starbucks' success as a coffee retailer. BMetts 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Barista Terminology
This is a little nit-picky, I know, but as someone who has worked for a number of years at independent coffee shops I have often had to deal with customers using Starbucks terminology that is not true to traditional espresso-making, thereby causing unwarranted confusion and hassle. I object to the over-use of the term barista in this article, particularly in the Inside Starbucks section. A barista is a person who makes drinks--in the US, espresso drinks. In Europe this term also refers to someone who makes alcoholic beverages. All Starbucks employees are trained as baristas, yes, but it would be more accurate to refer to them as Starbucks employees or partners, especially in sentences such as: "Some stores might also have a barista at the Frappuccino bar or an inventory barista at the back of the store." There is no such thing as an 'inventory barista'--that makes no sense. You certainly wouldn't refer to all employees of Pizza Hut as pizza-makers, even if they had all been trained to make pizza. I acknowledge that I have a long-standing grudge against Starbucks' indiscriminate changing of long-established espresso terms, but I think this is a legitimate case of an over-used and inaccurately-used word. Thoughts?


 * It is appropriate for the article to describe those who work for Starbucks and make espresso drinks as baristas, but I went and confirmed what you found and yes the term is being overused and yes there is no such thing as a "inventory barista". I'll try and clean some of it up when I have time, or you can do the same if you wish.  You need not like Starbucks to contribute to the article, just keep your personal feelings in check and write from a neutral point of view NPOV :-) Mr Christopher 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I have suggested the the Frappucino article be merged into the Starbucks article, as Frappucino is a trademarked beverage that is unlikely to be encountered in other context. In addition, there is a lot of overlap in the information presented in both articles. Please discuss the matter here. --Purplezart 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the two stay separate, if for no other reason than the fact that the current Starbucks article is rather unwieldy as it is. The Frappucino article itself is fairly large too, so I don't see a good way to combine these into something that won't take a day to bring up in an edit screen. Even without the size considerations, I think Frappucino (as disgusting as it may look to me) is a substantial enough product to stand on its own. I might feel otherwise if it weren't sold in so many places outside of a Starbucks. ScottW 23:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that both the Starbucks and Frappucino articles are weighty and arguably unwieldy, I also believe that most of the material in the Frappucino article is redundant and can be edited down. As for standing on it's own, "Frappucino" is a registered trade mark of Starbucks, so it shouldn't be available anywhere else (unless you're referring to bottled Frappucinos sold in some grocery stores; even then, they're branded with the Starbucks logo). There are similar products available many other places, of course, but they go under different names and are probably covered under different articles (Milkshake, for example). --Purplezart 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like merging. They are two very different concepts. It is unlikely that somebody looking for starbucks will type frappucino, and vis versa.  -The Gomm 21:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge Frappucino is a distinct product of Starbucks, as Big Mac is a signature item of McDonald's.  I do agree that the article needs to be improved beyond the advertisment it currently is.  Milchama 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be a separate page for everything that someone is likely to look for or type in. A simple redirect page would work just as well, if not better, in my opinion. --Purplezart 01:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about sharing the wealth of information with the world. If there is enough substansial information for an item to have its own article, and/or the parent article is too long in size, then an article shall be made.  While I don't think that Starbucks items like Chantico or the particular coffees neccesarily fits this criteria, Frappucino certainly does.  It's now three against one. Milchama 10:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge Four against. --HailFire 05:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge--I just don't see the point in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EOBeav (talk • contribs)
 * Don't merge Six against. Again, look at McDonald's, McDonald's products, and Big Mac. The Frappucino is a noteworthy product by itself.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 07:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to close this merger file. What do you think? Milchama 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Kill the merge.  The Gomm 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavery?
I just removed this paragraph from the main page as it is gossip and hearsay, someone will have to do better than this unsourced material to be able to say this. "===Slavery=== An unknown source within Starbucks Headquarter revealed that Starbucks uses orphan slaves to pick and grow their coffee beans. These coffee are sold exclusively to Starbucks at a bargin price, hence making Starbucks one of the most profitable corporations." --Adouglasmhor 10:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversary in China
Starbucks sued some Chinese coffee chains that used a logo strongly resembling starbuck's logo and also the name of the Starbucks in Chinese sounds the same as Starbucks in English. The end result was that starbucks won the lawsuit. It might be worth adding.


 * Can you find a reliable source for the info? Mr Christopher 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks Franchising?
Can anyone source this? I know that Starbucks gives licence to other corporations to sell their products and use their name (Safeway and Target for example), much like a franchise - but these locations are not owned by individuals and are thus referred to as "business alliances". I'm rather new to the whole wiki thing, but if you want me to change it I will, I'm just not too sure how to use code to cite references. --joecdn 05:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My limited understanding is that they do not franchise but instead have limited "partnerships" that they call "licensed concept stores" such as those you see in airports that are actually owned by Marriot (I think). Some stores inside Targets or grocery stores are wholly owned and others are examples of these licensed concept stores.  Do not quote me on any of this though, this is my limited understanding.  Best bet, joecdn, would be to find the sources that shed some light on this subject and then we can help you add, cite and format them (if you want that sort of assistance that is). Mr Christopher 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm actually a Starbucks partner, and so when I have to explain the difference to them, I use the corporation vs. individual ownership as an example of how Starbucks doesn't franchise. I know in the case of Safeway, and Target - those companies hire/pay/manage the employees at their respective Starbucks kiosks, but there is a District Manager employed by Starbucks that oversees them. As a mgmt partner at Starbucks - I know this information to be accurate - but how would I source that? --joecdn 23:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how best to put it in the article without some sort of cite/support. I've been Googling it and have yet to find a good source.  Let's keep digging.  Mr Christopher 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not somewhere on their website? I'd think there'd be something published somewhere in a prospectus, or something. There might even be something in their quarterly reports that would qualify. Do partners get those? Remember the ref doesn't have to be on the 'net, it just has to be a reliable source. An official corporate publication qualifies, I think. Anchoress 09:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are correct, it does not have to be an internet source. It just needs to be referenced and not original research.

Recently...
I removed this:

'' Recently, Starbucks has started training Barista partners to take the name of the customer, and put it on the cup. That way they can say "I have a Iced Venti, Sugar-Free Vanilla, Soy Latte for Steve", or Kamran, or Mike, or Winifred, or Jantzn, or whomever it might be for.''

It is unsourced and mistaken. I have been buying coffee from Starbucks for 8 years (in a half a dozen states) and they have always (at least 90% of the time) asked my name and put it on the cup. As a side note we need to provide support for claims regarding Starbucks policies and practices. And there is no such thing as a "barista partner" that's like saying a barista employee. Mr Christopher 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I work at Starbucks, and I was never trained to write names on cups; nor have I witnessed other partners doing it, neither in the store I work at nor at other stores, except occasionally by customer request. I think it must vary by region. --Purplezart 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've never witnessed it at any of the Starbucks' I've ever visited (mostly in Vancouver, Canada). Anchoress 09:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Must be regional then. But until we have a reliable source (that we can cite, not original research) on the subject I think we should avoid claiming Starbucks has instituted a new policy.  Mr Christopher 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Consumer Whore
The Kieron Dwyer "Consumer Whore" image is wholly innapropriate for this article. The image was the subject of a lawsuit (that Dwyer did not win) and it serves no purpose to post it here. Where would we draw the line on this sort of thing? The so called "controversy" is already covered in the article and for those who are curious about the image the Consumer Whore image can be found on the Kieron Dwyer and I believe his website. Mr Christopher 15:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

is it just me...
or is the formatting on the article page kind of bizarre? The table of contents is down and to the far right and it just seems weird... I was just wondering if that is the way it is meant to be or if there could perhaps be a better way of formatting it? Wikipediarul e s 2221 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes some of it does seem odd to me. The info/navigation box on the right hand side seems odd, I believe the standard here is for it to be on the left (and possibly higher in the order).  I can assure you that if I try and fix it I'll wank the whole article.  Perhaps someone with more formatting experience (and famililarity with Wiki formatting standards) can help.  Mr Christopher 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, same with me. I am not great with formatting and so I am not going to even try.  I am glad to see that someone agrees with me though :) Wikipediarul e s 2221  03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I took out the TOCtemplate to restore the usual left-aligned, right above first heading TOC. Looks fine to me in 1024×768 in FF and IE. Hyenaste (tell) 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it fixed?
I posted a request for help on this issue; if it's fixed to everyone's satisfaction I'll annotate the request. Anchoress 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied. Thanks a lot for your help! Wikipediarul e s 2221  00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Seems like this article sees at least a few hit and run vandals daily and 99% of that comes from people without an account. I've seen some articles that are protected from being edited by anonymous accounts but I'm not sure how or when something like that is implimented. Are there any knowledgable folks here on the subject and does anyone think this article would be a good candidate for that sort of protection. Or should we just continue to treat the wounds daily? :-) Mr Christopher 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and request semi-protection for this article? The anonymous vandalism is a hassle and this would make it so only people with accounts can modify the article. I'm out of town and don't have time to do it right now. If no one else can pick this up I can do it this weekend. Mr Christopher 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no way this article is being vandalised often enough to warrant page protection; they'd never agree. IMO. Anchoress 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Low level vandalism on an article like this with lots of editors watching and reverting is far from needing protection. I'll continue to monitor it of course. --Guinnog 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A sign of a global brand
As a part of the global expansion i've heard that there are more stores in London than Manhatten, interesting fact if it can be verified??172.189.133.73 16:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) It's true (i think) as of end 2005 - http://www.beveragedaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=64001-starbucks-coffee-russia There are now more Starbucks coffeehouses in London than on coffee-guzzling Manhattan Island, and the firm has partly managed to beat down competition in the UK from Costa Coffee and Café Nero through shear numbers

Can someone help me with this?? 172.189.133.73 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You want help adding this to the article? Please clarify and also feel free to get a Wiki account and sign your name here when you post on the talk page :-) Mr Christopher 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mr Christopher, i think that, if true, it should be added. but i appreciate that i can't just go and edit it without it being true and verifiable. \thanks Gary 172.189.133.73 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Got the account too Londonscouser 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers to you! And ::I did some research on this and correct me if I'm wrong but the population of London is about 9.5 million and the population of Manhatten is about 1.5 million (the smallest burough in New York), so the fact that there are more stores in London is not that remarkable.  Unless of course I'm missing something.  Mr Christopher 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

London is only 1sq mile, otherwise known as 'The City' or Square Mile, again the smallest borough of the London Metropolitan Area - Pop 9,200. But surley more than 1.5 million people work in Manhatten and more than 9,200 work in The City. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London

Perhaps th first title wasa bit misleading, i'm tring to suggest that as a sign that the company is global, there are more stores in a forigen city compared to the american equlient. i'm not trying to show that London is better than NY (although we all know th answer!!!) :) Londonscouser 17:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So much for my numbers :-) I think we should approach this briefly as an interesting factoid and not something with it's own title.  Let's look and see where it might fit best. Mr Christopher 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

History, end of 3rd paragraph? How about "As a sign of Starbucks aggressive overseas expansion there are now more stores in London than in New York, 167 in New York compared to 168 in London." Thats taken from the stoe locator, with stores in a 5 mile radius. Londonscouser 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Using the store locator to do the math would be original research on our part, we want to avoid that. Instead I think simply quote the source you provided. Mr Christopher 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem right where it is now. --Guinnog 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

?????? org research ca't be done - sorry i'm new. any other ideas where itcan go. finally do you think it's important?


 * No worries, yes we want to use existing sources versus doing our own math so to speak. While I don't peronslaly find it terribly important, other readers may feel otherwise.  I don't object to it being included.  A simple sentence like this might work:


 * As a sign of Starbucks' expansion in international markets, they now have more stores in London that they do in Manhattan


 * Or something like that, perhaps someone can do better :-) Mr Christopher 18:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work! Mr Christopher 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know how many stores are located in Seattle? I think it would be even more impressive if there were still more in London than in Seattle. --Purplezart 20:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

FAO EVERYONE who amends the fact that london has more outlets than new york. according to the STARBUCKS WEBSITE ITSELF, london has more than NY, the center of london with a 5 mile radius, Seattle has 99, new york has 167, london has ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY EIGHT (168), so oldish claim or not it's still very true. please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please don't change this with out discussing. YOU may not have an opinion that his is important, but as a fact that an american company has more in a forigen city than it's comparable american equlivant is, i'd say, notible and a sign of it being an international brand. but....... we can't have our own research although this is correct and ture. A blinkered american vision....... again??????????

PLEASE DON'T CHANGE THE FACT WITHOUT DISCUSSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (AGAIN) 172.189.133.73 01:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

criticism
is it just me or does this whole section sounds more like "responses to criticism"?


 * Ideally a criticism section includes criticism and a response to it. Do you have a more specific concern?  Mr Christopher 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks cup sizes
What is "Size Name Elsewhere" supposed to mean, really? Is this information relevant, important, or not obvious to anyone? The volume of each cup is clearly described, and many businesses have names for sizes of cups other than small, medium, and large. --Purplezart 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. And what is a 'traditional' espresso size?  Were they serving 20 oz espresso in Italy 50 years ago?  The Gomm 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Marine Controversy
I removed this section. It appears to be a hoax.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/starbucks.asp

--James Bond 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retail market section
I renamed this previously renamed section. It seemed a little dramatic. I'm not convinced the new sub-titles are keepers, feel free to revert or use/propose something better. I also tried to broaden some of the subjects a little.

Also, we describe the amount of stores and store influence nicely in this section I think. What seems lacking is anything regarding the scope of their grocery store and other venues of retail sales. I'm not that familiar with those numbers and such but it's probably not difficult to dig up. A sentence or two on the subject might round out the retail market paragraph. Mr Christopher 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the name change on both. I split them because they were so obviously unrelated to each other.  Perhaps the 'globalization' section should be eliminated, and the two sub sections (longer than many other subsections) promoted to sections withing the 'controversy' section.  The Gomm 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, what do you think of the latest changes I made. Mr Christopher 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your recent move was definitely a good one. I was scratching my head over why Starbuck's number of stores would be considered criticism.... Caper13 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

World coffee production
The link for that is dead. Please provide a valid link for citing worldwide coffee production and Starbucks' claim in it.

It would be nice if someone could do this preferably soon since I'm doing a case study on the company and need as many adequate sources as possible. Thank you! Kyuu 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Starbucks Workers Union
The topic of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union has come and gone in this discussion so I decided to start a new topic. I understand that citations may be difficult to find given that the starbucksunion website (which is the most consistent resource) is biased. However, with a quick search I was able to pull up a number of New York Times articles and a New York Magazine article referring to the union:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E0D91531F930A35755C0A9629C8B63&fta=y http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/nyregion/08starbucks.html?ex=1167973200&en=c98efbde52ad596c&ei=5070 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E16FA3E540C728DDDAF0894DC404482&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fCompanies%2fStarbucks%20Corporation http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/12060/

These articles refer to specific events such as the union petition, the NLRB complaint and the settlement. There is already a Starbucks Workers Union page here on wikipedia with it's own credible references, however there does not appear to be a link or reference to that article on this page. Complaints have been made that the editing to this article represent propaganda on the part of the IWW, and I agree that such phrasing has no place in an encyclopedia. However previous references to labor disputes have been removed completely, rather than edited. One could argue that bias on the other side is responsible for sponging out any reference to the Starbucks Workers Union in the main Starbucks article. I am not an encyclopedia writer and am not comfortable editing this page with the appropriate citations. But for the sake of honesty, I am asking that someone restore the information concerning these labor disputes to the article.

Any discussion about the Starbucks Workers Union can continue in this section. 146.96.19.112 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Joseph


 * There is no recognized Starbucks Union. Only a small group seeking to organize Starbucks employees and apparently having little success. A union organizing drive by itself isnt noteworthy by itself even if it has ongoing theatrics associated with it. the Starbuck's workers union has its own page, but as it is neither affiliated with Starbucks nor recognized as a bargaining agent by either the government or Starbucks Corp, there is no more reason to link to it here than any other unaffiliated group that has a campaign against starbucks. Starbuck's Corporation may be noteworthy to the Starbucks Workers Union page, but the reverse isnt necessarily true. Caper13 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the labor disputes section that was deleted on November 6. There are most definitely recognized Starbuck's Unions in several countries. There are actually five different unions that represent or have represented Starbucks baristas. The "Starbucks Workers Union" is just one of these (under labor laws in the United States, BTW, recognition by the company is not required for the formation of a union). The labor dispute section is relevant because labor disputes at Starbucks have consistently gained mention in the mainstream business press, and have involved significant numbers of workers in several countries, as a check of the cites reveals. Also Starbucks has paid out large sums of money to settle various labor disputes. The labor dispute section is timely, notable and written in a blanced NPOV style, and anyone thinking about deleting it should visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour and its related project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias.

Trans Fats
Recently someone made an edit to the effect that Starbucks is reformulating some or all of their menu items to remove Trans fats. This was reverted by someone else because it was uncited (and suspected to be false I assume). I have actually seen news stories about this so it is true. That being said, I still don't think it is particularly noteworthy for an encyclopedia article even if it did turn out to be true. Caper13 07:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true and very noteworthy (they are one of the very first). I removed the previous entry only because it was unsupported.  Mr Christopher 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno, its essentially a recipe reformulation isnt it. More of an item for Wikinews than an encyclopedia. I look at an encylopedia article as something that will still be relevant if read in 20 years and the story of the day (while might be in the news today) isnt going to be cared about later. I don't feel intensely strongly about it, I just think that it is a small issue in the big picture. Might be notable in an article about trans fats, but not so much for Starbucks Corp. Caper13 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Considerable influence?
I am skeptical of the following (unreferenced) phrase:


 * ". . . considerable influence in domestic coffee retailing and global coffee bean purchasing."

I'll buy influence in domestic (do they mean U.S.?) coffee retailing, but how can Starbucks have "considerable influence" in global coffee bean purchasing when they only buy 2% of the world's coffee supply--and don't buy coffee on the commodities exchanges at all?

I'm deleting it; feel free to put it back if you have a reference.--Margareta 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

gums and mints
Could a section be added somewhere with a bit of info on the 'After coffee chewing gum/mints"? Im looking to find out all the availible flavors and can not find anything anywhere. I know for sure theres Wintergreen, spearmint and cinnamon. (excuse my spelling.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.168.142.226 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Starbucks alternate format
Starbucks tried an alternate format at a vertical mall in Seattle with sit-down menu service, as well as a coffee counter. Comments? Nospamtodd 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, the Studio City Starbucks has a sit down coffee counter as well. Caper13 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)