Talk:Starbucks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about or directly concerns enterprises. It is proposed that the guidelines laid out in articles about ongoing enterprises be adhered to. Accordingly, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s) and should be removed without hesitation.

Archives
2004 – 1 May 2006 June 2006–January 2007

Contents 1 too much criticism? 2 Headquarters building? 3 Union once again 4 partners versus employees 5 Double Cup Policy? 6 Mice 7 What happened to the Logo section? 8 Frappuchino Accreditation 9 Coffee Master 10 Reorganization

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[1]] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?--EveRickert 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.--EveRickert 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.--EveRickert 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> 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."[2] 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)

[edit] 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.--EveRickert 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)