Talk:Starbucks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Starbucks article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 – 1 May 2006
  2. June 2006–January 2007
  3. February 2007 - December 2007

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Calories

Best way to add this report into the article? [1] - 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Starbucks in popular culture"

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Discontinued products

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

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

[edit] History & current lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Starbucks in Seoul - the only one with a translation?

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

[edit] Clear error regarding CEO History

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

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

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

[edit] Biased

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

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

[edit] Competitors Section

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

[edit] Recent Threatened boycott

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

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

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

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

[edit] Only on Wikipedia

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

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