Talk:Starbucks/Archive 3

International Operations
Do we really need that much detail about Starbucks in China? If the date of opening and location of the first store in every city is listed, the article will be ridiculous. Maybe that paragraph, (which seems to be half unsupported statements, and was originally in pretty bad English) could be drastically cut back or removed.86.153.187.1 11:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Someone should add a section of references that have appeared in popular culture such as the mentioning of the store in the simpsons or futurama or family guy. It has also been mentioned in numberous occassions worldwide - I can't believe anyone hasn't put this in! Find me on my talkpage LOTRrules 15:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Starbucks advertising line
I removed the following phrase, both because it's basically Starbucks adspeak and also because of unsubstantiated claim: "With its emphasis on being a "third place," Starbucks has helped develop a coffeehouse culture in places around the world." I'd like to see a citation on a study showing Starbucks 'helped develop coffeehouse culture,' it would be equally plausible to say (just for example) that Starbucks 'built its success on the back of coffeehouse culture created by small independent coffeehouses, which were then driven out of business by Starbucks predatory shop placing practices.' S.chock 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. q 16:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

more criticism?
It seems that criticism section should at least mention the movie "Black Gold" and its argument that the coffee retail insustry, mainly Starbucks, does not pay coffee farmers a fair wage for their beans. Alfred Utton 22:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Starbucks is one of the largest purchasers of Fair Trade Certified coffee in the world, and yes thats true it does not pay the coffee farmers a fair wage...I have not seen the movie, Black Gold, but have read a lot about it, especially how it caught Starbuck's attention re-negotiate its purchases with African countries they buy coffee from. I think this is one of the great ways to get any corporation to react by doing documentaries like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucerro (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

too much criticism?
Seems to me there's way too much heaping on of criticism here, especially criticism that isn't especially notable. The "Israeli/Zionist Controversy" bit gets enough wordage for an article of its own, and yet it's really just a minor blip in the company's history, not to mention being really old news. Likewise, why is so much detail put into the "Labor disputes" section? ALL major companies have labor disputes, what makes Starbucks' so noteworthy? wikipediatrix 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points, and I agree they can be a bit wordy, but in their defense, it seems that Starbucks gets criticisms that are just more 'interesting' than the criticisms of most other major corporations. -Gomm 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Zion bit is actually wholesale nonsense yet POV pushers with an agenda people keep putting it back in article. Look at the "reliable", "neutral" sources used.  Hardly neutral and hardly  reliable.  And most of it is a hoax, since when do encyclopedias perpetuate hoaxes?  The labor piece is questionable too, they have about 125,000 Starbucks employees and about a dozen in the US belong to the so-called union.  And union membership is not controversial. That section keeps getting added/removed as well. Mr Christopher 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is indeed nonsense, we should be glad we are getting it at wholesale. It is a lot better than paying retail for this kind of nonsense. This is GOOD quality nonsense

I don't understand how you have a problem with those who want to include the controversy surrounding Starbucks and Schulz association with Zionism, it did draw media coverage in the Middle East and many who choose to divest and boycott Israel frequently mention Starbucks as a target. It may be old, but that's irrelevant when discussing controversies. Furthermore, Wikipedia uses non-neutral sources all the time, a simple glance at articles discussing religious and political controversies makes that fact simple; that does not automatically lend them to be discounted. If Wikipedia was to strictly enforce the use of neutral sources for all articles, many articles would be significantly shortened, and a great many would have to be deleted altogether. Perhaps the biggest support for more criticism comes from the mention in the web page articles found at the top of this discussion page; the insinuation is that this article has become, via subtle changes, a talking piece for the company. As editors of Wikipedia, we should be striving to eliminate the kinds of things mentioned in that articles; and more criticism (well-sourced) should be a start.


 * Very reasonable. q 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New Map


KLHYUETYTJK

Headquarters building?
Anybody know the history of the building? From the picture it looks like a 1920s-era Sears catalog/warehouse building. Thanks --Jolomo 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know the history of the building but yes it is the old Sears building. I believe Sears is still there.  I think it is called the "Sodo" building.  Mr Christopher 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I just found this article Sears' legacy, Starbucks' action and Frank Stagen's vision which gives some history. Mr Christopher 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC) And more from the building owner's web site found here. Mr Christopher 18:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Union once again
This is not the starbucks union article and if we add everything the union does or says the article about starbucks will be dwarfed by the union section. We already state a union exists and there is a lot of he said she said. All new developments need to go to the starbucks union article and not this one. This article is about Starbucks the coffee company. The incessant "unionizing" of this article is getting old. Mr Christopher 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you find the activities of the actual workers at Starbucks tiresome, but your anti-union vandalism is not helping this article. A labour action held across the entire planet in more than 50 cities is certainly notable, given that the article mentions the controversy surrounding Starbucks and the existence of the Starbucks Workers Union.  I also notice you reverted back to the non-NPOV version which slyly insinuates the Starbucks Worker Union is not actually a union. Is it really necessary to get into an edit war over this? SmashTheState 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Attempting to abide by Wikipdedia policies does not constitute vandalism (a funny charge), or anti-unionism. The only source you provide for this 50 city picket is the starbuck union itself and the "author" is "SWU"?  Hardly a neutral, verifiable source wouldn't you agree? Per Wikipedia policy [] When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source. A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately. Alternatively, a text from conservative or liberal alternative media or a focus group may be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms...Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties).   We have not identified the source og the 50 city picket is an anonymous Starbucks Union member.  That needs to be done but ideally we should find a neutral, verifiable source. Are you familiar with WP:V?


 * And my other concern is this article is about Starbucks and not the Starbucks union. This information would be highly appropriate (if you had a verifiable, neutral source that is) for the Starbucks Union article. As mentioned, if we add every union move or comment to this article it will eventually dwarf the article.  You also have over 100,000 Starbucks employees in North America alone and about 2 or 3 dozen of those are union members.  As it is now we are giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint.  I am not suggesting we ignore the union, or remove it from the article, but we need to cap how much space is dedicated to 2 or 3 dozen union members.  Would you not object if we started adding substantial Starbucks coffee information to the starbucks union article?  Of course you would because that article is about the starbucks union.  What I am trying to do is keep the article consistant with Wikipedia policies and also keep the union activity in the article to an appropriate size.  Again, this is not being anti-union, it's working within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.


 * So paint me anti-union all you want, but let's not ignore Wikipedia policies and standards when it comes to editing the article. Mr Christopher 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That said, what's the story with the ridiculous quotations ending this section? Only two quotes, both essentially opposed to the actions of unionized Starbucks employees.  This feels not only NPOV, but redundant and inane: there's a pompous, laughable quote by the chairman, followed by an undeveloped claim from the Seattle Times.  Couldn't we at least quote something about the ruling against Starbucks by the NLRB?  Also, perhaps we could link to the Starbucks Union entry here.  Though I would like information about non-IWW organized Starbucks labor, as well.  (Does such a thing exist?)


 * I won't doubt the Wobbly presence is small, but where do you get your numbers (the repeated "2 or 3 dozen")? I'm curious, myself. Maxisdetermined 01:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Union information is if anything too small currently. q 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

partners versus employees
The article correctly states that within Starbucks employees are called "partners" (through stock option grants and stock purchase plans most all of them own a piece of the company, thus "partners") yet the article itself should be written from a NPOV and use language that is NPOV so I have changed the instances in the article where we called employees "partners" to "employees". This will be more understandable to ordinary readers and avoids adopting the SBUX POV. If we were wrting a SBUX brochure then calling them partners would be fitting. Since we are writing an encyclopedia I think we're better off using ordinary language. Mr Christopher 18:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) L LUV STARBUCKS PEOPLE R CRAZY BOUT STARBUCKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.31.57.142 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Double Cup Policy?
Is there a policy now that all drinks be served with two cups? Since about January every time I've gotten Starbucks they have used two cups. I know that they do this for the tea because it is very hot.

It is policy to serve all water-based beverages in a double cup. This includes tea, coffee, caffe americano, Tazo Chai latte and Tazo green tea latte. The reason for this is that the water poured from the brewer or the "insta-hot" tap is between 200 and 210 degrees Fahrenheit, making for a very hot drink as opposed to a milk-based drink (a latte) which is at 180 F maximum.

-helpful barista71.121.108.224 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd question this, though of course it may depend on the location of the branch. In London, I've only ever received two cups if they have run out of the brown sleeves. Dmccormac 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Starbucks has recently changed it's policy on double cupping. The only drinks that are served double cupped are americanos. Teas used to be, but they aren't anymore. Of course, you can always get any drink double cupped just by asking.Amandagbasile 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I work at starbucks as a supervisor and here it is: double cupping is actually NOT required due to the availability of sleeves. when it comes to hot drinks, it is recommended that some of the drinks such as chai and americanos get two cups but no where does it say that it is required. usually the decision comes down the the individual store managers. some do it some dont. i've worked with both sides and both have their reasons. for the one supporting double cupping, it helps by reducing risk of self-injury and accidental drops, but for the one against, it helps reduce waste considering most customers go for a sleeve in addition to the second cup, and out of common sense, most customers use a sleeve thus eliminating the need for a second cup altogether. now of course there is the rule of saying yes to request for second cups in which the store is more than happy to oblige to the request. Viperbui 07:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mice
I appreciate the point that it's easy to go overboard with criticism of major brands like Starbucks - but what about the mice found in the Charing Cross branch, and the fine they faced for it? BBC News article

I'll be honest though, I believe it's a one-off, and it hasn't stopped me going to Starbucks - their coffees are just too yum for me to be put off by the occasional mouse! On the other hand, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if the branch wasn't in such a central location - but then again, I think that general awareness of this particular food safety breach is pretty low in the UK. Is it appropriate to include it in the article? Squashy 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh lord. If every article about every industry included a paragraph about incidents like this at individual locations, Wikipedia would be totally unreadable.  If, for example, mice and vermin were a widespread problem at multiple Starbucks locations around the world, and if that problem exceeded the general number of such problems for other, similar businesses, then maybe it would be worth a mention.  But as you say, this is a one-off, and hardly noteworthy enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia.  Surely Starbucks isn't the only coffeehouse to have had mice?--Margareta 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually rodent and insect infestation happens at many Starbucks locations. Here video evidence from IWW starbucks workers in NY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2zfphonUgA Delirium of disorder 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the previous behaviours of the starbucks union we have no way of telling if they put those mice there on purpose or not. That would be my take on it.  But nonetheless, every estalishment in the world that serves food/drink is always fighting off or preventing vermin and bugs.  That is the nature of food establishments and vermin/bugs.  Mr Christopher 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that rodent and insect infestation is common, I consider your accusation of worker dishonestly unfair. Unless you can actually provide evidence that "previous behaviours [sic] of the starbucks union" were deceptive, than charging them with lying is at least unfounded and possibly lying on your part, or even a case of illegal defamation.  (Just as planting mice at or near a café would be defamation) Delirium of disorder 05:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow--holy overreaction, Batman. Personal opinions are allowed on talk pages (and also have to meet pretty stringent First Amendment tests in order to qualify as defamation), and Mr. Christopher made clear in his statement that "we have no way of telling if they put those mice there" (he didn't say they did put them there) was "[his] take on it."  Let's please avoid threats and stick to the issues.--Margareta 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not threatening anyone with legal action. I just said that accusing someone of "previous dishonest behaviors and possibly planting health code violations" without evidence is at least deceptive and at most a case of defamation.  I'm extremely supportive of free speech and think that there should not be exceptions to the First Amendment for libel and slander (but there are, so, I agree that we should not be threatening, mis-characterizing, or otherwise attacking each other).  Thanks Delirium of disorder 06:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Christopher has a well-established bias against organized labour, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Calling him on this bias isn't a personal attack, since articles are required to be NPOV.  SmashTheState 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but talk pages aren't. And whether or not Mr. Christopher has biases against organized labor, I doubt either you or Delirium of disorder could reasonably claim not to have biases against Starbucks.  So here we are.  Everyone gets to express their opinion, and no one else has to like it.--Margareta 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not call it a bias against labor, I am labor myself :-) However, the IWW/Starbucks Union is known for riff raff.  Take Richard Hurd, professor of Labor studies at Cornell when he talks about the IWW/Starbucks Union "These are leftist anarchists who just love stirring up trouble...I don't see any lasting result from their efforts." and "The Wobblies had their heyday 100 years ago...The IWW is pretty much an anachronism in the modern world." Hurd goes on to say that if he worked for Starbucks he would not join the IWW/Starbucks Union but instead seek representation at another union that can actually do something.

Also that article shows that the IWW/Starbucks Union claimed several stores in NY had mice and insect infestation but a subsequent OSHA ingvestigation found no vermin or insects. Surprised? I'm not. Just because I am familiar with the tactics of the IWW/Starbucks Union does not make me anti-labor, or anti-union. And there is no requirement that editors not have a bias, the requirements are regarding our edits to the article. I'd be more than happy to discuss any edits I have made to the article if someone feels they are unfair or biased. But in the meantime let's just say no to linking to scurrying mice videos. Mr Christopher 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not labour, you're a garden-variety scissorbill and the IWW has been dealing with people like you for more than a century now. Whatever support you might or might not have for bureaucratic unions, you openly admit your bias against solidarity unionism, which makes your judgement suspect in this case to say the least.  Wikipedia reports facts.  It is a fact that the Starbucks Worker Union -- made up entirely of workers labouring for Starbucks itself, who have precious little reason to want to harm the company which provides their paycheques -- report instances of pest infestation in the name of public safety.  No corporation is going to freely admit to such charges.  The fact that a government agency didn't report similar findings in every case cited is not proof such charges are false, only that the agency either didn't see it or chose not to report it.  Automatically siding with Starbucks and the State against the workers who are actually on the site and labouring in these conditions is... well, let's just say it's not surprising in your case, and reflects your freely-admitted bias. SmashTheState 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine and good. The point was the mouse video does not belong in the article.  Now, if  neutral, reliable parties publish articles indicating Starbucks has a policy of ignoring local health standards I think we'd have something worthy of admission.  I could be wrong, but I believe New York city had a rat problem even before Starbucks opened a store there.   Mr Christopher 22:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the Logo section?
I thought that was very important in this article, yet it seems to have just been removed with no reason why. I thought it was neat to show the difference thru time on the logo, and even just what the logo actually was, I never knew until I read that. -User:LetsWalkForward 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The logo removal was vandalism. The vandal blanked a lot of content, much of which was restored, but the logo section was missed.  The vandal's account has been blocked, and I've restored the logo section.  Thanks for the tip-off.--Margareta 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the pictures of the logos? I think it's more beneficial to see, rather than just describe the changes in the evolution of the Starbucks Siren Stovelkor 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Frappuchino Accreditation
I'm trying to locate a viable source that verifys that the coffee frapp was a barista creation out of a Los Angeles store... anyone ever read about it? I'll keep an eye out in the mean time.Antsam 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The frappuccino was the creation of several employees at a Boston chain called Coffee Connection, and was on their menu for almost one year before the company was acquired by Starbucks. I will have to look, but I think I have a newspaper article documenting the takover that mentions the Frappuccino. If I find it, I will add that info.Diego Gravez 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The acquisition of the Coffee Connection chain occurred in the early 1990s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diego Gravez (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Coffee Master
I really feel that Coffee Master designation deserves more than just a few lines, is anyone interested in helping me flesh out a Coffee Master page?Antsam 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, something like Coffee Master, which doesn't really affect the normal public, would be frivolous, and all the ideas in my head could easily be placed inside an article on coffee tasting Antsam 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization
The article as it stands right now is poorly organized, so I will attempt to switch around sections to make it an easier read. How bad is it? The first thing you read after the intro is something about breakfast sandwiches. Arcimpulse 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job. I'd like to write a section about the CAFE standards sourcing guidelines.  Any thoughts on where it should go?--Margareta 02:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Coffee Master Program has been discontinued to cut costs

The Coffee Master Program was really only put on hold to evaluate costs and the way the program was being run. It is now back in motion, adjusted slightly to make it better and more effective. As for the CAFE standards, that would fit well into the section discussing Fair Trade, as CAFE standards are a form of regulating coffee purchases within the company umbrella of Starbucks

Starbucks Roast
Mention should be made in the article about Starbucks' coffee roasting practices, which generally consist of 'over roasting' which achieves 'consistency' at the expense of taste, imparting a 'burned' taste to their beans. Hence the nickname 'Charbucks' among coffee fans.


 * Roasting to achieve a dark roast does not improve consistancy nor does it rob the bean of flavor. Consistancy is the result of good roasting equipment and a good roaster who knows what he/they are doing, not the length of time the coffee is roasted.  Starbucks carries a dozen or more varieties of coffee and not just one.  Some are roasted darker than others because some people like a darker roast (such as me).  Those who like a lighter roast drink stuff like Breakfast Blend, those who like a darker roast go for Kenya or whatnot.  I've probably had just about every coffee Starbucks makes (at least the typical blends they sell) and I've never had any I felt was burned or "over raosted" but I do not care for light blends.  That's because I like dark roasted coffee.  And a typical Folgers drinker (who prefers a light commercial blend) is not likely to enjoy any Starbucks coffee because their taste buds are accustomed to something very light, simple and unflavorfull.  They will find any specialty coffee (Starbucks, Pete's, et al) to be too strong.  But if you simply want a place where you can call Starbucks "Charbucks" and complain that their darker blends don't match well with your own taste buds I'd suggest starting a blog or something, but you might want to get your roasting facts in order first.  Cheers! Mr Christopher 19:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair, the lighter the roast, the more the qualities of the specific beans come out. Professional tasters use very light roasts for just this reason, but of course daily coffee drinkers have their own preferences that have to do with more than detecting subtle differences in the beans.  Random tidbit: "French Roast" and "Italian Roast" are dark roasts (darker than Starbucks') developed specifically to conceal the flavor of low-quality beans.  Both countries gave trading preferences to their former colonies, which grew primarily Robusta, and that resulted in French and Italian coffee having much higher percentages of Robusta in their bleds than we would ever tolerate in North America (think of that the next time someone waxes poetic about Italian espresso).  And a couple of years back, Cooks' Illustrated did a blind taste test of various supermarket coffees, including Starbucks.  The tasters said that they detected higher-quality beans in the Starbucks, but said that the darker roast disguised the bean quality, and actually chose Chock Full O' Nuts over Starbucks because of it.--Margareta 06:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Though, for the record, I support what Mr Christopher said about personal tastes not belonging in the article.--Margareta 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal tastes presented as universal certainly don't belong, but it's entirely appropriate to mention in the article that Starbucks coffee is consistently high-roasted, which certain customers or potential customers dislike. Sure, lots of people love it that way, I go both ways myself. I just reinserted my earlier addition to the article, with a reference this time. It took about two minutes to find one with Google; there must me a gazillion similar comments out there. I didn't add a reference before as it seemed to me that there wasn't much point finding a random reference to a very commonly held view. Thanks for the heads-up. Perhaps someone could find a strictly factual reference to Starbucks roasting practices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.102.138.149 (talk • contribs).


 * I have to disagree with the assertion you made in your edit comment ("Message board comments are reliable as illustration of a commonly held opinion"). You have found one set of message board opinions.  There is nothing to indicate that this is a commonly held opinion.  Unless you do an audit of the entire internet, you cannot reliably say that how widespread this opinion is held; pointing to a number of instances where the opinion is expressed on message boards does not suffice.  For all we know, different opinions are being expressed elsewhere.  I can point to numerous sources on the internet where quite unusual or unpopular opinions are expressed.  For this reason, you need to find a reliable source, rather than googling random message board comments.  Skeezix1000 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tech Republic is not known as a expert or even mildly informed source regarding specialty coffee. And using message boards as a source violates Wikipedia policies.  Some people like Starbucks coffee(s), some don't.  This isn't an earth shattering fact nor do we need to state the obvious in this article.  Mr Christopher 14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll add one more obvious fact - Starbucks offers several types of rosated coffee, not all are dark roasts. So to suggest Starbucks over roasts their coffee is to suggest you have no idea what kind of coffees Starbucks sells.  If you want light, get Break Fast Blend, if you want dark go Espresso.  It's that simple and I'd be in favor of mentioning Starbucks carries a variety of blends and such in the article, but I am opposed to making speculative statements regarding personal coffee preferences.  Again, anonymous ip person, start a blog and you can say anything you want about Starbucks, but we're bound by Wikipedia policies and standards to write this like an encyclopedia, not a blog or message board.  Mr Christopher 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Mr Christopher is the one who seems to have no idea about Starbucks sales practices. I have been to coffee shops where you can choose which coffee you want to drink; Starbucks (at least the stores I've visited, in six or seven countries) offers a choice of at most two for brewed coffee and one for espresso at any one time (not counting decaf).

Skeezix1000 says "Unless you do an audit of the entire internet, you cannot reliably say that how widespread this opinion is held". As it is not feasible to do such a widespread audit, you seem to be saying that no reference to opinions can ever be made in Wikipedia. With respect, I have to say that is nonsense.

Actually: Starbucks' own employee training handbooks identify their "Starbucks Roast" as being darker than a French or Italian roast. And the consistency that's achieved is that it masks the fact that they basically make their espresso from whatever beans they have lying around, meaning its exact composition can never be guaranteed. This doesn't mean that all the coffee sold under the Starbucks label is overroasted, just that 85% of the coffee that people consume in the store is. ((Former Starbucks Barista)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.19.232 (talk • contribs)


 * The above comment is false, and granted I am a current barista. I ask that you enter any Starbucks and ask to see a 'bullet' of their Espresso and Decaf Espresso they use in the common drinks. It is totally different than the whole coffee beans. In addition, company policy says that in peak morning hours 3-4 coffees should be available as brewed coffee (including 1 decaf).  After around 12 or 1pm, one decaf and one regular brew is a standard offering. This isn't hidden information, JUST ASK a Starbucks manager or barista instead of making up stories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.187.174 (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of unsecured wireless problem
The unsecured wireless at Starbucks has been documented as a problem by multiple sources including theNew York Times and many more credible sources. Thousands of users daily are affected. Too many people are not aware of the risk, including those that continue to delete this section. Stop it.

15 April 2007 (UTC)aeonsafe


 * Well, I'm one of the people who's deleting it, mostly because it's not relevant to the scope of this article at all. This article is about Starbucks, but this information about unsecured wireless networks isn't a Starbucks-only problem, and none of the sources you've cited for it criticize Starbucks or single it out as the biggest offender.  It's also not controversial, and thus doesn't belong under the "Criticism and controversy" section.  Given that you've signed your post with the username "aeonsafe" and given that that's the name of the company whose wares you're hawking, you don't exactly seem like a neutral editor here. Esrever 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, it doesn't matter if "too many people are not aware of the risk." Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Esrever 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And not to gang up, but the NYT blog you referenced is actually a link to your web site. I also verified that other edits made by your IP address contain similar advertising on other pages. Please remember that Wikipedia is not for self-promoting, and your edits may be considered a conflict of interest. I would encourage adding verifiable information from a neutral point of view. Jake 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific link to the New York Times has been added. This thread and the articles from experts is testimonial to the controversy.

Starbucks is the largest provider of unsecured services. Just like the fair trade issues, Starbucks is not the only coffee buyer, but it is the largest.

We post under aeonsafe. Is it better to hide potential conflict of interest by hiding under an alias???

I'm shocked that Wikipedia would condone censorship of information from the New York Times, San Jose Mercury, and other sources. I invite those who favor our constitutional right to free press to revert the deletion - regardless of any few member's interpretations of Wikipedia policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeonsafe (talk • contribs).
 * The issue is not censorship; the issue is your attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising. Once again, see WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Starbucks is not the only coffee buyer, but it is the largest." You need to check your sources.  I'm not sure where you heard that, but it's completely untrue, as can be verified from the publications of even the most ardent fair-trade supporters (e..g. Oxfam).  The biggest coffee buyers are Kraft, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, Sara Lee, and the German roaster Tchibo (Gresser, C., and S. Tickell. 2002. Mugged: Poverty in your cup. 60 pp. Oxfam International, Oxford, UK.)  While it may be the most visible roaster, Starbucks controls roughly 2% of the world's coffee supply, buys no coffee at all on the exchanges where the vast majority of coffee is traded, and supports an international price-and-quota treaty in the style of the ld International Coffee Agreement, which unlike Fair Trade, would apply to all coffee buyers and sellers.


 * Regarding your specific edits, it is not a question of "censorship," it's a question of how much information should be included in relation to the other information in the article to maintain an encyclopedic and NPOV tone. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.


 * That said, I don't think it's wholly inappropriate to mention that the wireless conneciton is unsecured, just not to go into a whole lot of detail about it. As a compromise, why don't we say this where wireless access is crrently mentioned:


 * Replace: "(In some stores the access is free of charge, in others it is not)." (Which is grammatically incorrect anyway...)


 * With: "The connection is unsecured, and the charge for access varies by location."


 * I'll make the edit, and we'll see if it stands.--Margareta 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A huge improvment, Margareta. The previous POV pushing was simply awful. I was staying at a hotel last week and they had wireless. It is not secured either.  This is pretty common and I fail to see why it's noteworthy.  Wiki scope does not include hyping risks or warning readers of perceived wireless risk.  Finally, Wikipedia is not the press, we're an encyclopedia.  If you're losing sleep worrying about T-Mobile users at Starbucks then call the press and let them know you cannot sleep knowing the T-Mobile wireless network is not secured.  Mr Christopher 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pricing Section
is anyone in agreement with me that this section can be written a little better? certain sentences such as the comment about reputation for pricey drinks and the one about the price of a tall cup of coffee covering the whole pot of coffee seems quite biased and poorly cited. this is just an observation but it seems that it can be researced more carefully and reworded to show facts and nothing that concerns an opinion such as being more expensive than another brand or cheaper than another brand. we must also eliminate such assumptions such as costs and what the price makes up for. the reason i dont change anything is because of the fact that i do work for this company and would not like to stir controversy with editing it like certain matters highlighted by the media about a certain company in recent history... Viperbui 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this section could be improved and yes the "reputation for pricey drinks" is unsourced and should go. You are welcome to edit the article, there is no rule that says someone who works there cannot contribute to the article.  Your edits could be scrutinized more than those who don't work there but as long as you abide by Wiki policies everything should be fine.  Mr Christopher 17:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * More - after reading that section a few more times I'd be for deleting it altogether. Starbucks charges more than some and less than others?  Is that noteworthy?  I think not.  Starbucks raised prices by $.05?  Is that noteworthy?  I think not.  One of the biggest problems with this otherwise good article is the amount of information that serves no purpose, is not noteworthy, and just takes up space.  We don't even mention 5% of the public works and charity that Starbucks does.  Where the heck do you put it when half the article is about cup sizes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Christopher (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC). Mr Christopher 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just nuked the whole section. Removing the original research/opinion was easy, the note about Starbucks being cheaper than Dunkin' Donuts is meaningless, the note about Starbucks raising prices a year ago by $.05 is not only dated but hardly noteworthy.  Companies raise prices every day.  If someone feels some of this information is noteworthy feel free to add it back, in a NPOV manner.  Mr Christopher 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and info, mr. christopher! i wasn't too sure if it was a good idea to edit just to be safe. but yeah i agree that you elminating the section helps to keep the site as factual as can be without any bias. and yes i agree about the price increase of a nickel having a lack of noteworthiness. every company raises it's prices to accomodate costs and the result of the price increase meant higher pay for the partners and the capability of investment in the in store warming program. Viperbui 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Venti size
I removed a bit of text from the article where editors were arguing over the size of the Iced Venti cup. Could someone verify the size, whether it is 24 fl oz. or 26 fl. oz? Sbrools ( talk .  contribs ) 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In US company-owned stores, it is 24 oz. DagnyB 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS This can be confirmed here for those willing to fiddle with the selection and recalculation thingies.  DagnyB 19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here in Québec, it remains 24.

Schiphol
Does anybody know when Starbucks started at Schiphol Airport?

BillHicksRulez 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * June 25 2007. According to the Dutch language Wikipedia at least. SergioGeorgini 10:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

History
This is contradictory. It says that the first Starbucks was "in Pike Place Market," and it says that the first Starbucks "was at 2000 Western Avenue." Which statement is true?

"The first Starbucks was opened in Seattle...in 1971 by three partners...inspired...to open their first store in Pike Place Market [1531 Western Avenue]...The original Starbucks location was at 2000 Western Avenue from 1971-1976. That store then moved to 1912 Pike Place [across from Pike Place Market]."

POV pushing
this version of the article has been held up as an example of how to obscure unfavorable information about an organization and basically fly under the radar of Wikipedia's NPOV police. Rklawton 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the "how to slant" column endorsing obfuscation was What To Do When Your Company Wikipedia Page Goes Bad. It's a reasonable approach if wobblies are intent on trying to make people puke when thinking about drinking your coffee - covert (rather than overt) warfare between fanatics. My opinion is that if Starbucks could keep house blend stocked it wouldn't matter if the wobblies won in Wikipedia article space - the company would prevail in The Real World. - 207.229.151.91 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here the discussion at the Village pump.--BMF81 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And, am I the only one who gets suspicious when all the statistics cited in the "Critiscisms" section are those posted on the official Starbucks website? Can we get independent verification of a few of these things? I have a hard time accepting a defense of a criticism based on numbers derived by the company itself, but that's probably because I work in the social sciences, and spend the better part of each day convincing fools that the numbers they came up with have exactly zero basis in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.19.232 (talk • contribs)
 * You make a good point. The issue is that generally outsiders don't get direct access to a company's internal business dealings aside from stuff that the business chooses to report or is compelled to report by things like the SEC. If you have any good ideas of where else to get numbers about Starbuck's sales, fair trade etc that doesn't ultimately end up back at information that Starbuck's reports, I'd be interested to see them. Lot49a (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As Starbucks is a publicly traded company, they have to come out with business reports every quarter - the reason this whole Pike Place thing, original logo cups, will only last a few months, and then they'll determine if they should continue that or do something different (again). These reports are listed on the website because thats the easiest place to find them.  Regarding fair-trade certification, all of the bagged coffees that are fair trade, which are only a few, are stamped with the certification logo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All coffee that is 100% certified Fair Trade has been stamped with the logo. That said, Starbucks does purchase and blend Fair Trade coffee into its other blends, it just isn't 100% and therefore cannot carry the Fair Trade seal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.236.221 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Format of article
While I disagree with the above about the article being structured as "POV pushing," the linked URL does bring up a couple of good points about the format of this article. First, it has way too many pictures of the same thing: Starbucks storefronts. Unsurprisingly, a Starbucks looks pretty much the same in Leeds as it does in Brisbane or Montreal. Why don't we remove a few of those to give the article more impact?

There's also quite a bit of stuff in here that's not really encyclopedic. Cup sizes, flavors, options, hot sandwiches: none of this really adds anything of note to the article. It's mostly fanboy fluff (mind you, I consider myself a fan). Does anyone have any objections to removing the stuff that's not really about the company itself? Esrever 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me - only I think the cup size information might be useful. I never really understood their vocabulary.  Back when I drank coffee, I usually just pointed and grunted.  Rklawton 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I third this motion. Cut the fluff. But Rklawton has a point about the Starbucks cup sizes being confusing, and people may actually come to this page for that info, so I say leave it in.--Margareta 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about the company, first and foremost. Minutiae about product specifications deserve passing mention, if anything.  Most of the stuff under the "Beverages" and "Stores" headings could and should be excised.  There's also a lot of cruft under "Present Day," "Name," and "Logo."  This article is approximately 60% encyclopedic information and 40% soft fluffiness, regardless of whether it's due to corporate masking attempts or simple editorial accretions.   --Dynaflow   babble  05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I noted in the edit summary, I moved "Criticism and controversy" below the information on "Stores." While I agree with the original premise, i.e., that it shouldn't be buried, it doesn't seem to fit best directly under "Present day." I've reorganized some of the information in the article, reduced the total number of sections, and whatnot. It still feels "visible" to me, but within a better organization of the text.  Thoughts?  Disagreements? Esrever 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "present day", given that it is a summary of where the chain currently is along with hints of future plans, belongs at the end of the article, right above "External links". That puts the article in more of a chronological order.  Rklawton 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I was looking at it as most important in the context of the article (history, overview of the company's operations) to less important (criticisms) to least important (history of the name and logo). Esrever 03:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam
Just noticed the following in the External Links section; they look like linkspam to me. If they have content that should be cited in the article, then they should be in put in as citations that will show up in the Footnotes section. But they seem a bit nich-ey for External Links:


 * TIME Magazine article on the expansion of Starbucks
 * Starbucks Corporate Strategy Analysis
 * Coffee Klatch: Dunkin’ Donuts vs. Starbucks

--Margareta 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well no one objected, so I cut them.--Margareta 14:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing
This article was specifically mentioned in an article on astroturfing that was brought to the attention of Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents: What To Do When Your Company Wikipedia Page Goes Bad. Specific tactics mentioned are filling the article with images to distract readers, adding large amounts of company history and other content to the top of an article to push unfavorable information "below the fold," and burying negative copy in "noise." Per the article:
 * Wondering how to expand your page? Include the company history, top clients and anything of interest. The Starbucks page is a good example of how you can expand the company Wikipedia page—they talk about the sizes you can order, the logo, various locations and more. Don’t forget that what you add must be unique content. The marketing and public relations departments often want to copy and paste from existing materials.

This article should be watched very carefully for attempts to implement the article's suggestions and other potential WP:COI edits. Thanks. [EDIT:] I see everyone's already on the ball. There's a thread on the Business.com article going on at ANI here. --Dynaflow  babble  03:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rklawton (section ) was the first to bring this here, then me (reverted myself), now Dynaflow. Maybe we should make it clear for any other bypassers that the astroturfing link http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php is already here. —AldeBaer (c) 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, MyWikiBiz has made his way there (from wikipediareview.com I would think). Viridae Talk 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the bright side, the attention has resulted in huge improvements to the article. Thanks Dynaflow and Esrever!--Margareta 14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's sort of interesting that the SEO article has prompted such a major overhaul of this article. By publicizing what they were doing, they shot themselves in the foot, at least as far as Starbucks is concerned.  Given the recent interest, it seems like we could very easily harness the fervor and turn this into a GA-class article. Esrever 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note the first comment in the original article's comment section: "Jees, what did Starbuck ever do to you?" Rklawton 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the SEO article was written or contributed to by Starbucks, just that the author picked this page as a good example. And I didn't read the SEO article as saying that Starbucks was intentionally doing this to their WP page, just that this article was what you'd want it to look like if you were trying to astroturf. Lots of articles pick up tons of fluff through "editorial accretion," as someone so nicely put it, without being particularly controversial. The problem is that everyone wants to add their pet topic, and people are reluctant to delete content once it's there. Anyway, the whole thing just underscores the point of trying to maintain high standards in all the articles, whether or not there are any controversies involvedd.--Margareta 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Touché! Esrever 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm bothered, though, by the length of the 'stores' section... it seems to go into minutae a lot, and almost reads like copy written by Starbucks in a few places...  especially in the section on 'The Third Place'.  Whether it was or wasn't, that should probably be fixed.  --Aquillion 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That section is mostly unreferenced, and any unreferenced content is certainly fair game for deletion.--Margareta 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe Muggs Wikipedia Link
The Joe Muggs wiki keeps being reverted to direct to the Starbucks wiki. This is a perfect example of the potential problems with Wikipedia, I think it is important that the Joe Muggs page be locked or permanently not a redirect page. Any thoughts? Wattssw 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's apparently been taken care of.  --Dynaflow   babble  00:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh but potential problems are actually easier to fix than they are to create. Cheers, Rklawton 03:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sizes/Notability
I see that there used to be info on the cup sizes (info I actually came to the page looking for) that was apparently removed for "notability" issues. Considering that Starbucks basically coined the use of "Tall," "Grande," and "Venti" in place of "normal" cup sizes like, "Small," "Medium," and Large," wouldn't this info qualify as notable? moreover, if anyone knows where/when/why these usages were coined, I think it would make sense to go into the article, since anyone who wanted to understand what "Starbucks is" would clearly have that question on his/her mind. The sizing conventions of Starbucks are important enough to be parodied by various sources (including its main rival, Dunkin' Donuts), of course they're notable enough for inclusion in the article. ChrisStansfield 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Starbucks sizes tall, grande, and venti are the Italian equivalents of small, medium, and large. They are used mostly to set Starbucks apart from other coffee retailers. ClioQueen (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Present day
I think a country count would suffice. Do we really need a full list? Rklawton 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. I agree that a running tally would be more than sufficient.   --Dynaflow   babble  03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Starbucks sites as external links
I recently deleted an external link labeled "Comprehensive anti-Starbucks article from PickyGuide," along with another anti-Starbucks link and a pro-Starbucks link of questionable relevance to the article. The first link was re-added today with the edit summary "Added a link that was formerly removed. (By starbucks)." [cough] Anyway, to what extent does everyone here think we can include external links to sources that are avowedly hostile to an article's subject without running afoul of WP:NPOV? --Dynaflow  babble  03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At a rough guess, a critical site is worth adding if it's reliable - that is, if it cites news sources etc. A site that goes "starbucks is evil and gives you cancer" or whatever would be definitely out. Another point is that the article shouldn't be overloaded with critical sites. One or two is enough. The main thing is that they should be reliable and well researched. Totnesmartin 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Now that the PickyGuide link is working well enough for me to be able to read all the way through it, it seems like a decently well-researched critical source.  Alongside the Wobbly site, the PickyGuide link should help maintain balance in the ELs vis-à-vis the corporate website.  However, the ihatestarbucks.com link which keeps reappearing, while containing some good information, puts it together in such a way that it's utterly incompatible with NPOV ("The Neanderthals at Starbucks have begun sending shills to the site. They have started shouting in all caps all kinds of bologna. I've been saving their entries in this special section of the site," etc.).  I don't think it should be added again.    --Dynaflow   babble  21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance?
Is it really at all relevant to Starbucks as such that some of its employees have posed for Playboy? Does every company, any of whose employees posed for the magazine, get that fact mentioned in its entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Fast Food
I recently edited the main article to define Starbucks as a fast food restaurant. This was later deleted. I think Wikipedia should classify Starbucks as a fast food restaurant. Can anyone explain their logic of how and why Starbucks should not be included under such a category? 68.81.58.16 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one who reverted it, but I agree with the reversion. Starbucks doesn't really seem to be in the same class as unambiguously fast food places (other than by way of its allegedly predatory business practices, the fact that that it's a gigantic chain of extremely-similar outlets, etc.).  I haven't seen much in the way of multiple major sources calling Starbucks a fast-food joint, and first-hand observation (WP:OR, I know) confirms that Starbucks doesn't really do fast food.  Their shops make coffee about as fast as a "normal" coffeeshop; they have pastries like a "normal" coffee shop would have, and sometimes they have deli-type sandwiches, but always as an ancillary to coffee selling.  Adding that Starbucks is a fast-food establishment might be seen as making an implicit perjorative comparison to certain other food-service chains with similar "reputation problems," which would be problematic in light of the Neutral point of view policy.  My apologies if I'm reading too much into it, but I just don't think that addition will fly, at least not without substantial sourcing.   --Dynaflow   babble  05:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying so clearly and constructively. I agree with much of your explaination but I do have my reasons for the edit.
 * I initially edited the article after returning home from a local Starbucks. My reason for considering them fast food was not intended to slander them from a non-neutral point of view.  They offer much more than just coffee, and looking at the in-store advertisements, certainly market themselves that way.  I noticed that everything in the restaurant was pre-packaged & pre-portioned into disposable containers and, of course, very streamlined in its preperation.  With the addition of the restaurant's breakfast sandwich line, it is hard for me to believe that it isn't a fast food restaurant.
 * I also believe that not categorizing Starbucks as a fast food restaurant is offering the restaurant preferential treatment, which is deleterious to those that are commonly regarded as fast food (and may or may not suffer said reputation problems as a result).
 * Based on the lack of source material, as you note, I will leave the article as it is. Modus 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, without sources, all of our opinions and anecdotes won't fly in the article itself, but I'd still like to add my thoughts to what's already been said here. I'm of the same mind as Dynaflow.  Yes, Starbucks has pre-packaged materials and streamlined preparation, but it differs from other fast food restaurants in that Starbucks doesn't really want you to leave.  A Burger King, for example, wants you in and out; Starbucks, as the article already notes, considers itself the "Third Place."  Starbucks sees itself as a place for people to meet and socialize, rather than simply as a place to get a quick meal or a quick cup of coffee.  That's a big distinction I think. Esrever 04:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I work at Starbucks, and I want you to leave... Anyway, There are many similarities between Starbucks and the fast food industry, but you'll need sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.149.200 (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Union information under Crit?
Why is the Starbucks Union information under Controversey and Criticism? Why would the Union existing at all not have it's own section instead of under Criticism. I don't think of having a Union as a criticism or controversey. It's quite normal, and there are laws to protect them. Why the bias? Thanks q 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't perceive it as a bias against the union at all. The subject of the article is Starbucks, though, and vis-à-vis Starbucks the attempts at unionizing were controversial and reflect a criticism of the corporation. Does that make sense?  Esrever 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes sense logically what it's meant to reflect, it just doesn't work in my mind. An example would be, at what point does it change from a controversy to a normal section? What percentage of stores would need to be unionized? Would it require consent from Starbucks? Conceptually it comes down to a section header being the most neutral way of expressing the information. It should not be at the top of the page obviously, but indicating it as a criticism is biased, and as a Controversy is only relevant for a short period of time. Further, as the normal ebb and flow of unionization exists, it would always be a controversy to the corporation who is attempting to block it, in that they will not actively participate in their own unionization. Thus the word doesn't fit. It's not controversial, it's just that the corporation chooses to be adversarial. Does that make sense? Even still, because of dropping unionization, and the fact that every store is not unionized I can see how it's priority would be lower than other things, but words that indicate it's something negative, or even a "criticism" don't work. Is that clear and reasonable? q 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say when more than 1% of the company's workforce is unionized, then it might be time to consider moving it to a "normal section". But the fact remains, the "Starbucks union" was borne out of controversy and criticism of the company and its policies/practices, so it belongs in that section. Creating a separate "Starbucks Union" section would be giving that subject undue weight (tilting the POV balance) in an already bloated article. Regardless of one's opinion on unions in general or the IWW in particular, the subject really is insignificant in the day to day operations of a multinational corporation and isn't relevant to the vast majority of employees or customers, and should be treated accordingly in an article focused on Starbucks Coffee Company. Diego Gravez 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Predatory pricing
The article claims predatory pricing (claiming that after competitors are driven out, Starbucks "sets its own price"), but the reference does not support it. The reference claims that Starbucks is predatory by locating its stores near existing cafes, but says nothing about pricing. I've personally never seen a Starbucks location price below their standard price (some "premium" locations such as airports price higher), but of course I've not visited every location.

Is there a valid reference for this claim, or should it be narrowed to alleged "predatory practices" (not "pricing")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.72 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment q 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking a second look, even the reference that is there is not authoritative at all. Its some kind of unreferenced student paper.  I would now suggest that unless someone can come up with a better source, the claim that Starbucks is predatory should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.72 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, the type of "predatory pricing" being described (i.e., raising prices in the absence of competition) is not really "predatory", it is simply economics. For most highly regionalized companies that produce consumer goods and services, pricing (along with wages) is determined by market conditions. It's not that Starbucks raises their prices when there is no competition; they actually lower them in geographical areas where competition is intense. For example, in Indiana, where Starbucks has virtually no major competitors, drink prices are considerably higher than in Boston, where several major competitors compete for Starbucks' business. The coffee market in Boston has effectively determined what Starbucks can charge for drinks, and despite the fact that wages, store leases, and utilities are more expensive in Boston than in Indiana, profit is limited by market conditions. As a publicly traded corporation, Starbucks has a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits when possible, and this includes using market conditions to determine drink prices. -Diego Gravez 06:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be removed. At best, the quote in the reference is a second hand account by a member of some think-tank.  For such a serious claim, there needs to be much greater evidence.  At the moment, I'm going to add a dubious tag to that part, but I think that if no one disagrees within a week or so it ought to be removed.Ricree101 06:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick five minute stop at the local book store yielded a citation for something along these lines. I'm sure if I spent more time I could find some more.  I did change the word "policy" to "practice" though.  While certain branches do things like opening up a block away from a competitor and giving out free gift certificates in a competitors establishment, this doesn't mean that the company as a whole encourages, endorses, or even knows about such behavior.  Besides, even if it were policy, I doubt Starbucks would make it public knowledge.Sbacle 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look that up and provide a referenceRicree101 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Made to order?
Are the breakfast sandwiches actually "made to order" anywhere? In the stores I've visited, they are premade and warmed-to-order in some kind of oven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.72 (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The breakfast sandwiches are shipped to stores frozen, thawed for 24 hours, then warmed (toasted) to order in convection ovens. This applies to all stores currently participating in the test-marketing of hot breakfast sandwiches. -Diego Gravez 06:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rumor relating to StarBucks particpation with Nintendo
I heard rumors that StarBucks was doing some promotion with Nintendo, where if you used the Mystery Gift option in [Pokémon Diamond, and Pearl] in a StarBucks, you receive either Oak's Letter, or a Pikachu with Surf, true, or is this just a bogus rumor?--66.233.13.77 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit "Burger Kingish" to me. Then again, Starbucks seems to be inching closer to a full-fledged fast-food joint with each passing year. -Diego Gravez 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Put in that the iphone can be used at strarbucs.
the iphone can soon be used at starbucks to download from the starbucks musik stor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.161.18 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BBC News article

 * I have a point that may be worth mentioning in this article. I'd be interested in people's opinion. I can't remember the source, but it can probably be found online. It was definitely in the mainstream UK press. Starbucks entered the UK market and expanded rapidly whilst making losses. It continued to buy up premises in areas with high rents, sometimes former locations of other coffee bars. In some cases it has placed many Starbucks bars in one ares, within walking distance. For example Upper Street in Islington. Starbucks can afford to do this due to their profits from their home market. A cynic would suggest this behaviour is anti-competitive as other smaller companies and independent coffee bars cannot afford to compete. Starbucks has not even profited from the UK market (at the time the article I read went to press) and so may seem to be simply pushing out all competition from the market. It has aided in homogenising some of London's high streets that previously had a number of independent businesses. Starbucks isn't the only company to do this, but it is certainly a prime example in recent times.

If I locate the source I will post a link up here for editors to read.

81.106.85.11 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3086727.stm
 * This would appear to be the source I was referring to in the above paragraph:

See also: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1273688,00.html

I think it's important this page reflects a balanced view and does not make Starbucks out to be all good. There is evidence and belief, in the UK at least, that they are anti-competitive and are aiding in wiping out independent (and sometimes historical) cafes and coffee bars. 81.106.85.11 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of neutrality is to ensure that the "balance" presented reflects the actual influence, without giving undue weight to minority opinions. The source you referred to is definitely a reliable source, but I'm having trouble seeing the criticism in it. I would argue that owners of coffee shops that Starbucks "put out of business" have a clear axe to grind and are definitely a minority opinion. Why does no one fault the customers (the ones who flee their hometown shops in favor of Starbucks)? Aren't they just as much to blame as Starbucks for the misfortunes of independent coffee shops. People who are critical of Starbucks' rapid expansion fail to recognize an essential point: Starbucks offers a superior product. If they didn't, their competitors would have had nothing to worry about. If Starbucks had moved into town and customers from local coffee shops found Starbucks coffee to be absolute crap, they would not have returned. They would have rejected Starbucks in favor of their local coffee shops, which would still be in business today. But that didn't happen because Starbucks sold a superior product. Without a superior product, no amount of anti-competitive real-estate practices could have made them successful. If Starbucks "stole" customers from local shops, it was because they were better. Besides, operating at a loss when entering a new market is not "anti-competitive", it is the reality of growth in any business (expansion is fueled by existing capital). If a new bank opens accross the street from my bank and pays 1% more in interest on a savings account in order to attract new customers, is that anti-competitive? No. Because (a) the customer benefits by receiving better products and services, and (b) the old bank has the option to raise their interest rates in response. It is important to realize that customers actually benefit from Starbucks "anti-competitive" tactics. In areas where other coffee shops existed pre-Starbucks, some have gone out of business, some have remained, and many new independent shops have opened up to fill a new demand for specialty coffee that Starbucks has actually helped to create. The shops that survive in competition with Starbucks are those that actually sell good coffee and are able to differentiate themselves in some way. Everyone benefits with better coffee and lower prices, except those local shops that could not compete on quality or price. Is that really such a terrible loss? I'm not denying that some companies are clearly anti-competitive (they engage in predatory pricing, pay low wages, and generally lower the quality of life in comunities), and if there was any reliable evidence that Starbucks actually engages in predatory pricing, (we know they don't pay low wages and are generally a good company to work for) I would feel differently. But lets face it, Starbucks is not Wal-Mart or McDonald's. They have always had a committment to progressive social policies and sustainable practices. Starbucks sells good coffee at a high price, and when other companies are able to do this as well or better than Starbucks, they thrive.


 * Basically, I think the majority of these "anti-competitive" practices are simply good business. If you wanted to open up a coffee shop, where would you located it? Wouldn't it make sense to locate your shop in an area where your potential customers are, as evidenced by existing coffee shops. It is really irrelevant whether the existing coffee shop is able to compete. As I mentioned above, if they can beat your shop on service, product quality, or price, they will probably do just fine (the fact that there are more independent coffee shops now than before Starbucks starting expaning supports this assertion). The article mentions that there were almost no independent coffee sops in the UK until a couple of guys from Seattle started Seattle Coffee Company. Starbucks has been around in Seattle since 1971 and has been operating espresso bars since the early 1980s, so it is quite possible that the Seattle Coffee Company was actually inspired by Starbucks, as so many other independent "competitors" were. I realize that Starbucks is a very visible symbol of American cultural hegemony and corporate globalization, and those are concepts worth debating, but I just don't think the Starbucks article is the place to do that by inserting "criticism" that is only voiced by a tiny minority. And I don't think the article is the place for general anti-corporate criticism that is not unique to Starbucks. —  DIEGO  talk 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Diego. You do make some good points there. Possibly I myself am biased by the very visible presence of Starbucks in London where I live. This might be irrelevant waffle here so my apologies in advance, but just to give you an example: On Upper Street, there are (I believe) 4 Starbucks coffee bars. It's quite sad for a Londoner like myself to see independent businesses closing down and being replaced by identikit Starbucks shops. If you take, say McDonald's for instance. There's only 1 of them on the same street. No other business has 4 outlets on the same street. This is a high street where coffee bars and cafes are very popular. By opening 4 near identical shops, Starbucks may be doing good business but they are also homogenising the area.


 * Ah - now here's a thought. Maybe anti-competitiveness was the wrong criticism. Actually it's the homogenisation of cities (London in particular) that is the criticism. I suppose that's actually what the article I quoted above was getting at too.


 * Finally, I have to point out my objection to the description of Starbucks as having the better product. In one sense it could be argued as true, but it is really quite simply not the case. As a connoisseur of coffee myself, and having worked in the coffee industry, it has to be said that Starbucks do not offer a superior coffee drink (their prime product). I could find probably a dozen articles to back up my point: reviews from London and the UK's leading food and drink reviewers in the mainstream press. Winning over a market does not always occur because of a superior product. That's a simplistic argument. Often the superior products are put out of business by large businesses offering inferior products cheaper, for example. I would be surprised to find any food critic or chef describe McDonald's as having the best hamburger on the market. Yet look at their success.


 * In conclusion, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and am very cautious about editing an article without discussing it first. That's why I posted on the Talk page instead. I hope I've given some food for thought in any case and made some points that may not only be minority opinion. I look forward to further responses and any thoughts or ideas anyone may have.


 * 81.106.85.11 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was shooting down your argument. You have a valid point, and the majority of my response was simply rhetorical (and admittedly off-topic). I was trying to put the criticism of Starbucks vis-à-vis independent competitors in a wider context (i.e., no single company, group, or state is responsible for the advance of American corporate cultural hegemony, and many of us share in the "blame" by buying their products). I agree with you 100% on the homogenization thing. It's just as bad here in the U.S. (In fact, I think it is probably much worse from an aesthetic perspective — I'll take an historic British high street over a suburban U.S. strip mall any day). I just don't think this article is the place for a detailed analysis since the broad complaint applies to so many other corporations, from McDonald's and Burger King to The Body Shop and The Gap. I'm sure there actually is an article on this subject somewhere on Wikipedia (some people actually claim that this sort of corporate homogenization is good).


 * Also, thank you for finding a reliable source. I actually did use the BBC source and rewrote the "anti-competitive practices" subsection so that it reflected the actual sources cited and used the BBC story as an example. The practices described in the article are a prime example from a reliable source of "clustering", as described in Klein's No Logo (a ref used in the section). So thanks for that. Your comments, along with the source you provided, led to what (in my opinion) is an improved section with no dubious references (see "dubious" section below).


 * However, regarding my "superior product" argument, I don't think your Starbucks-McDonald's product comparison is really fair. I agree that no one (I hope) would claim that McDonald's has the best hamburger on the market. McDonald's is successful because they compete on price and speed-of-service, clearly not on quality (my apologies to any McDonald's fans). In contrast, Starbucks is definitely not cheap and makes no attempt to compete on price. For example, in my city, they serve the most expensive coffee. They are not particularly fast either, since one can get a much faster cup of coffee at a gas station or a McDonald's drive-thru. So, unlike McDonald's, they compete on product quality and image (i.e, the perception of quality). It is definitely debatable whether their coffee is the best and many people think it is actually bad. I won't argue that point since it is essentially a matter of personal taste, but there is a widespread perception (whether true or not) that Starbucks coffee is of high quality, which has been a factor in their success.


 * Also, don't let being new to Wikipedia dissuade you from editing articles. While it is sometimes a good idea to discuss changes first if you know that they will be contentious, usually no harm will be done if you just go ahead and be bold and make your edit. Usually one of three things will happen: 1) your edit will stand, 2) it will be immediately reverted, or 3) someone will tag it, indicating that you need to find a reliable source so that readers can verify your statement. Either way, if your edit is a problem, it can be discussed on the talk page after you make it. And if you plan on sticking around at Wikipedia, I would recommend reading the policy on neutrality (it is the only really important policy, in my opinion). I would also recommend becoming a registered user, since there are a few distinct advantages to having a username that make editing articles and participating in discussions easier (for example, you couldn't have edited the Starbucks article because it is locked to anonymous users and brand new registered users (semi-protected) due to frequent vandalism. Have fun editing. Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 03:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great stuff, thanks!
 * 81.106.85.11 02:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tags on refs
[This is no longer an issue. The section has been rewritten. However, if someone can find a WP:RS that mentions "predatory pricing" and feels it should be included (briefly) in the article, feel free to work it into the section. "Predatory pricing" was the only major issue that was dubious and not covered by the tagged references. A quick LexisNexis search doesn't turn up any reliable sources, but they could be out there, since this seems to be a common allegation.]

I inserted tags on the following statements:
 * Starbucks has been accused of using anti-competitive tactics to expand and maintain their dominant position in the market
 * The reference provided in support of the statement does not link to a reliable source. see WP:RS and WP:V. Certainly someone can find a reputable source for such a seamingly black and white statement. If Starbucks has been accused of anti-competitive tactics, surely that has been mentioned somewhere that people could agree is reliable (i.e., any daily newspaper or national magazine (even Mother Jones)).


 * Once the rival had left the area, Starbucks would then be able to set its own price.
 * The reference supporting this statement is Naomi Klein's No Logo, but I own this book and I can find no mention of pricing. Anti-competitive behavior? Yes. Predatory pricing? No. Pages 135-140 do indeed discuss Starbucks, but they only refer to the practice of clustering (i.e., self-canabalization) which the author acknowledges is no longer a practice that Starbucks engages in. If you feel that this book is indeed an acceptable source, please provide page numbers and quotes to support this assertion. Also, this book has a blatant anti-corporate POV, was not published by an expert in the field (either coffee or business), and was not published by an academic press (hence, not peer reviewed). How about a more neutral, preferred secondary source that has commented on Starbucks practices from an NPOV. I realize this is not necessary, but it would certainly help to support a contentious statement if it were documented in  the Washington Post, Time, or Newsweek rather than a book claiming corporate America is responsible for the impending downfall of Western civilization. A bit dramatic and sensationalistic, no?


 * For example, one reason that has been put forth for the success of Starbucks is their alleged practice of predatory pricing
 * Basically, this assertion sounds a bit ridiculous as phrased. Are intelligent people really expected to believe that Starbucks owes its success to charging 10 cents more for a cup of coffee after driving competitors out of town? Again, please respond with page numbers and quotes from Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole that specifically address and support the sentence above (i.e. that Starbucks is successful because of predatory pricing [cause = effect]). I can find no mention of the company's success being attributed to predatory pricing on page 246 of the book. Please don't simply look in the index of anti-corporate books and assume that whatever is mentioned under "Starbucks" will support any anti-Starbucks assertion that you wish to make. While this book was written by a professor, it has not been peer-reviewed, commercial publishers don't have a good track record of fact-checking claims, and it is still pure anticorporate POV with few reputable sources of its own listed. How about supporting the claim with a reliable journalistic or academic source? — DIEGO  talk 01:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove City with most stores comment
The line "Starbucks opened its first locations outside Seattle in Vancouver (which now has more locations than anywhere in the world)[citation needed]" is false, as verified with Starbucks store search. Within a 20 mile radius of Seattle there are 319 stores, while only 188 in Vancouver. The gap widens even further with a 50-mile radius. Use this link for further research: http://www.starbucks.com/retail/locator/default.aspx

76.22.0.91 09:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute, over fair-trade portrayal in the 'coffee bean market' sub-section
I personally feel as if the 'coffee bean market' sub-section of the Starbucks article is some what biased and not a very centered view. It seems to me as if it portrays Starbucks as being more fair-trade friendly than they really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slippycup (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific suggestions on how it could be improved? Are there innaccurate statements or just not enough critical information? Remember that any information added has to be verifiable and be supported by a reliable source. Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think starbucks edited this article. Time to hit WikiScanner. 72.68.200.35 00:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix the section if you don't think it is neutral. Just support your statements with reliable sources. Simple as that. — DIEGO  talk 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * This was posted in 2008 and in between then and now much of the article appears to have shifted the other way. I feel it should be mentioned that Starbucks offers highly competative part-time employee benefits, has offered same sex partner benefits since about the mid 90's and has been a strong supporter of maternal time off. These should probably be mentioned -somewhere- in the article. I frankly don't drink Starbucks coffee just occasionally their tea but this article has become weighted mostly to Starbucks history, protests against them and labor disputes. Dogsgomoo (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I meant to reply to this note on my talk page, but have neglected it. I don't think it should be included, mostly because it strikes me as trivia that's backed up by an unreliable source.  If Starbucks' use of kosher products is so noteworthy, where's the mainstream media coverage of it?  Without that, it's just random information assembled by some website.  I'm willing to leave it in until others have voiced an opinion, though (although I'm going to edit it to fix formatting and remove the overly laudatory tone). Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 13:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it needs its own section, but I think all of the information currently there can be summed up in 1-2 sentences as part of the main Products section.--Margareta (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That may indeed be the best compromise. Esrever (klaT) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * I'd probably start out at this article and go from there. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 06:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish that the idiot who keeps removing mention of the melusine logo would go hump a leg. It doesn't matter what anyone at Starbucks calls the thing. It *is* a melusine. Even if people call the image a picnic table, it's still a melusine. Nothing will ever change that. Just google the thing and quit vandalizing the page with your stupid mermaid crap. Obviously, they just randomly chose a cool looking woodcut to be the logo, thinking--quite erroneously--that it *was* a mermaid, but it isn't. It's a melusine. Period.Slagathor (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, find a source that says the Starbucks logo is a melusine, and you can put it back. Until then, we'll all live with the fact that there are a couple of sources in this article already indicating it's a siren.  In the meantime, take a look at Wikipedia's policy on civility.  Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As en ex-Starbucks employee the company refers to it as a siren. Their registered trademark even lists it as a siren.  As Esrever mentioned, if you can find an article that discusses the Starbucks logo as a melusine then feel free to add it and cite it. Bvlax2005 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what a Starbucks employee past present or future calls the thing. It's a Mélusine. It's like I'm staring at a dog and a bunch of people are saying: WE CALL IT A CAT. And I'm like... what's wrong with you, it's a dog. I don't need to cite references. It's a Mélusine. Anyone with even a halfway decent education can tell. It's even got it's own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.251.199 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly appreciate your position. But Starbucks chooses to call it a siren, so that's what this article refers to it as, too.  When you find a source that can offer up a different name for the logo, then you can add that to the article.  But the standard on Wikipedia is not "truth", it's verifiability. Esrever (klaT) 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying and I do agree that the logo does resemble a melusine. However, the company decided to call it a two tailed siren.  Just because a logo resembles something else does not mean that it is, in fact, that item. Bvlax2005 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what the company calls the image they use for their logo. What they call it doesn't change what it is. If I call a "chair" an "ostrich" that doesn't mean anything. The logo is an image of Melusine. Period. Just because Bush says that Iraq had WMD doesn't mean that WMD were in Iraq. Your logic is asinine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.97.187 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Here is a link to a source http://www.deadprogrammer.com/starbucks-logo-mermaid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack Brown (talk • contribs) 05:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If anything, that blog post seems to make it clear that the Starbucks logo is most properly called a twin-tailed siren. Esrever (klaT) 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who cares what Starbucks says, let's smear them because using Wikipedia to lead smear campaigns is fun and you get to meet interesting people who have similar values. Put it in the controversy section, mmmkay?  What about something like "Starbucks says their logo is a siren yet some critics maintain they are really promoting Satanism."  That seems pretty "neutral" to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's time to stop ranting. If you have a problem with the article, make a genuine effort to fix it.  Be bold.  Otherwise, stop complaining on this talk page. Esrever (klaT) 04:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish that Esrever would stop reversing the Melusine edit. He's just wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Just google the god damn thing. It's common knowledge. Reverting the edit is getting annoying and it's just plain freaking wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.148.130 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to be missing something. What part of the logo makes it a melusine and not a two tailed siren?  For that matter how does anyone differentiate between the two?  From the description in the Melusine articel and the Siren article it could be either one.  However, it was designed as a siren, not a melusine. Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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


 * I'll assume you're referring to me, since I was the one who reverted your edit. I'm not interested in an edit war or anything of the sort. Frankly, I don't care what Starbucks' logo is, be it mermaid or melusine. My concern about your additions to the article come down to this: Starbucks calls their logo a mermaid, and I've not seen any reliable sources that call that same logo a melusine. If you can find a source that says it is, I'm happy to see that material included there. But until then, your additions amount to original research: you're taking your personal analysis of something and publishing it on Wikipedia. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable? Okay, listen carefully. A refereed scholarly article is RELIABLE. An interview with a corporate shill is NOT RELIABLE. The word of a corporation is NOT RELIABLE. My contribution is not original research but a simple and well-documented contribution like any other. You're just irritated because it disagrees with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In simpler terms, Slagathor, if Starbucks claimed that their logo represented a highly-stylized bunny rabbit, then that is what we would be constrained to report, per the rather iron-clad policies of Verifiability and No original research. On a different front, calling other editors "dumbasses" and calling good-faith editing "vandalism" violates the No personal attacks policy, as well as basic, common-sense intersocial decorum.  Please stop.   --Dynaflow   babble  20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. If the US military claimed that it won the Vietnam war, we do not have to do more than document their opinion. Verifiable, third-party truth is independent of any corporate shill's word. Citing that the image that Starbucks expropriated is NOT in fact what they claim it to be hardly qualifies as original research. And yes, bad faith editing, eg deleting a perfectly well documented FACT does indeed qualify as vandalism. So enserver, or whatever he calls himself should stop being Starbuck's corporate voice--a criticism that has already been laid against him, and which he failed to address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the US military officially claimed to have won the Vietnam War, there are still plenty of other sources that will directly say that the US lost in Vietnam. Both assertions would merit inclusion.  The difference here is that -- using the "parallel" example -- we wouldn't need to go to some source that put forward a description of what a lost war would be like, extrapolate from that description and the US's situation in 1972, and declare in the Wikipedia article, "By this definition, we must conclude that the US lost the war."  That would be inadmissible original research.  Do you have a reliable source that directly states, "The Starbucks logo is a mesuline?"  If not, all we'd be doing is extrapolating from a definition to come to a new, synthesized conclusion -- which would be original research not appropriate for this article.  So -- do you or don't you?   --Dynaflow   babble  06:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to remind you that characterizing other editors' good-faith actions as vandalism constitutes a personal attack, about the consequences of which you have already been warned.  --Dynaflow   babble  06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that basic logic is being followed here. If you see a picture of a dog, and Starbucks says it's a cat. You don't need to cite a reference that directly states that Starbuck's dog is a dog. You merely need to show that a dog is indeed a dog. Starbuck's opinion of whether or not a dog is a cat is entirely irrelevant. Unless, of course, the person defending Starbucks is an employee. But that's not the case, now, is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.106.255 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)