Talk:Starbucks/Archive 2

message: The article ~mentions~ the sizing slang of Starbucks, but doesn't make the obvious next step and tell where this comes from. Does "venti" have any history or is just made up?
: It's [supposedly] Italian for 'twenty' referring to the number of ounces in the cup. --Purplezart 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Venti hot cups are 20oz.  Venti iced cups are 24oz. --Iamvero 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venti History 

message: joke websites aren't a source Starbucks investor 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21387 Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup?] 

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

message: I'm curious about this statement:
:Starbucks baristas who don a black apron are known as "Coffee Masters"; their expertise in coffee growing, roasting, brewing, and serving is considered truly exceptional in the coffee industry, where Starbucks is the only company to train its baristas this comprehensively.
Coffee growing and roasting? Is there proof of this expertise? If I'm not mistaken, Starbucks coffee isn't roasted on site (and certainly not grown there). Also, I seriously question the verifiability of the premise that Starbucks is the only company to train its employees this comprehensively. ScottW 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starbucks baristas who don a black apron are known as "Coffee Masters". In addition to comprehensive training in coffee brewing and serving, they are educated in the growing and roasting aspects of the coffee industry.
Any thoughts or objections?  ScottW 14:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starbucks Barista/Coffee Masters 

message: Being a shift supervisor, manager, or assistant manager is not required in order to qualify as a Coffee Master; nor does it automatically entitle one to wear a black apron (the black aprons in question are clearly labeled "Coffee Master" in embroidery on the front). It is, however, an expectation that managers and assistant managers complete the Coffee Master program as soon as possible.
If noone comments I will go ahead and edit this section accordingly. --Purplezart 09:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information?

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

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

message: I removed this link because there is already a link to the Starbucks website:
*The Way I See It
I removed this link because I don't see how showing people creative ways to get FUCK OFF from the two words "Starbucks Coffee" helps a reader to enhance their understanding of Starbucks or coffee consumption:
*Starbucks Spoof Website
I removed this link because although the fellow proudly hates Starbucks his site does not lend any helpful understanding of Starbucks or coffee or offer any meaningful criticisms of Starbucks.  I don't think just because someone claims to hate Starbucks it somehow makes their web site relevant to an encyclopedia:
*Voice of dissent
And could someone explain the relevance of this link:
*SuperSizeMyPay.Com campaign website
Cheers! Mr Christopher 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the ihatestarbucks link *again* for the same reasons I posted above when I removed it originally.  And note their so-called "forum" is not much of a forum at all and any positive comments about Starbucks are deleted.  If the owner of that web site needs links and traffic to their site there are more appropriate ways of accomplishing that then trying to piggy back off of Wikipedia. Mr Christopher 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Deletions

message: The employee handbook has other rules for employees to ensure that the Starbucks customer experience is not compromised. For example, employees who work two jobs are scrutinized for conflicts of interests, and romantic relationships between supervisors and employees who work for them are moved outside of the workplace by transferring one or the other to a different store. Employees cannot accept gifts and invitations from customers except where refusal "may cause offense."
Probably every company in North America have similar policies.  And by "scrutinized" does the author mean an inquisition is held concerning the second job?  Don't offend customers, don't accept special gifts from customers, your second (or third) job should not conflict with your employment here, keep the romance (and drama) out of the office and don't date those who answer to you.  These are not unusual practices, they're very common and typical for a mature company, so I am scratching my head wondering what makes this noteworthy?  I assume Starbucks also has a policy where employees should wash their hands after relieving themselves.  Should that also be included in the article?  Mr Christopher 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. There's nothing really noteworthy about anything in that passage. Even if it weren't standard practice in most American businesses which bother to have an employee handbook, it's not terribly relevant. In fact, much of the content in the Inside Starbucks section has the same problem. It strikes me as a collection of unrelated, and often unimportant, facts. ScottW 17:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well how about we give it some time (early next week?) to see if anyone has a different opinion.  If no one objects we'll delete the section I referenced above.  And yeah, the article is a pretty good one but it could use a little improvement here and there.  I'll try and contribute as time allows.    Mr Christopher 20:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. I agree that the article is generally good. There are a couple of places, however, where the information seems pretty random. This article is not at the top of my list of things to work on, but if I get time, I might try to take a closer look at some of these sections. ScottW 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this really noteworthy?

message: Does anyone here have any plans to provide supporting evidence for these claims:
On July 22, 2004, the Retail Workers' Union IU/660 filed an unfair labor practice charge against Starbucks for allegedly making threats of wage cuts[citation needed], giving bribes[citation needed], and selectively enforcing no-distribution policies to alter the results of the barista's union vote[citation needed]. The IU/660 has also joined with Global Exchange in calling on Starbucks to purchase at least 5% of the store's coffee from fair trade certified sources. Currently only 1% of Starbucks' coffee is fair trade certified, although they claim to pay fair, above-average prices for all their coffee.
 
Starbucks in Tenmabashi Station, Osaka, JapanOn January 14, 2005, charges stemming from a march at the 2004 Republican National Convention were dropped against Starbucks' baristas' union co-founder Daniel Gross. Witnesses allege Starbucks' managers coordinated with the NYPD to single out Daniel Gross and another union activist from a crowd of 200 peaceful protesters[citation needed]. Witnesses also claim to have incontrovertible video tape evidence that shows the arresting police officer(s) fabricated evidence including filing a false police report[citation needed]. The dismissal charges came two weeks after the NLRB issued a complaint against the company [Starbucks] alleging that management made threats[citation needed], gave bribes[citation needed], and created an impression of surveillance in a failed effort to defeat the first-ever union of Starbucks café workers in the United States[citation needed].
I am not suggesting these claims are true or false, but without reliable and credible support, most of those claims are pretty fantastic and do not belong in an encyclopedia. I put the  tags on there a few weeks ago and so far it appears no one has made an attempt to provide any supporting evidence.  In view of this I think those sections should be removed.  I'm suggesting we wait until early next week for some supporting evidence.  If no one provides it then we can remove them.  Any opinions?  Mr Christopher 21:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a citation for the content in the first sentence in question. ScottW 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've added another reference which should cover a couple of the other statements. I think the sentence beginning "The dismissal charges came two weeks after the NLRB issued . . ." can be moved up to the first reference of bribes and retaliatory wage cuts. I believe they are referring to the same event. Someone with more knowledge of the issue may be able to correct me on that though. ScottW 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are much needed improvements, Scott.  There is an awful lot of he said she said in regards to the IWW union activity so I think it should all be well supported.  I'll try and dig in some myself when I get some free time.  Cheers! Mr Christopher 02:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree that these type of allegations need support. And thanks for bringing up the issue. If I get time, I'll try to find a citation for the fair trade numbers. I know I've seen the statistics somewhere (although it's really a much more complex subject than a percentage can reflect). ScottW 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I have attempted twice to add material on Starbucks and popular American culture, but it has been deleted without explanation. Since I am new to this, I would like to know how to edit in this material, or be told the reason for its deletions. Thanks. Wrklink 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to reply to the user. Iolakana|(talk) 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions on culture 

message: I renamed the cup controversy header since the cup issue as well as the Planned Parenthood "controversy" stems from primarily one Christian fundamentalist group and their criticisms are religious based.  It is not a cup controversy or a Planned Parenthood controversy, it is a religious organization who objects to Starbucks policy of inclusion and the value Starbucks places on diversity.  If you have a better title for the heading feel free to give it a go but this made sense to me.  Mr Christopher 21:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current content, this looks like a good change to me. ScottW 01:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism from the Religious Right

message: Anyone seen the website http://www.starbuckseverywhere.net/? A man by the name of John Winters is a Starbucks addict who travels the world taking pictures of every Starbucks there is (he even has a photo of the Starbucks in my town ... and I live in a small town!). Anyone think this would be worth adding to the article? I mean it does have pictures of almost every Starbucks in Canada, the US, England and several other countries. Decimal10 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that site used to be linked from this article, but I removed the link about a week or so ago while cleaning up the External Links section. I'm reluctant to support adding links to sites that are not the subject of content of the article itself. Is there evidence that the site is notable on its own? If not, then I'm not sure it would be good to mention it at all. While it may be an interesting site/feat, it's just not possible to include every Starbucks-related phenomena here. If this site is indeed independently notable, then I would be open to discussing ways of including a mention. ScottW 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally find the site notable because he is the only person I've ever heard of trying to attempt such a feat, whether it be with Starbucks, Burger King, Wal-Mart or whatever. He has also appeared on shows such as CNN Live, Inside Edition, and Fox and Friends, and has been mentioned in newspapers such as the Seattle Times, New York Post and Associated Press.  Not saying it's deserving of a section in the article, but an external link wouldn't bother me. (By the way, his name is simply Winter, not John Winters. BMetts 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starbucks Everywhere (the website)  

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

message: Yet another proposal from yours truly.  The criticism section has 4 subsections (6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4) and as a result the info box looks weird, as if half the article is crtiticism.  I propose we roll all of them into one section (yet the titles would remain in bold type).  The content and formating would be the same but each criticism would not have its own section, just its own title. Does that make sense?  Mr Christopher 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made the changes I proposed.  The info box looks cleaner and the headings are still bold, so the content and emphasis is the same.  Mr Christopher 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think it goes against the entire tyle guide, WP:MOSHEAD. Iolakana|T 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, thanks for the link.  Ok, we can do one of two things, revert my changes or remove the headings and try and make the criticism section flow better.  I am fine with either.  My motivation was primarily due to the info box had about 1/3 or more of it dedicated to itemized criticisms which seemed odd to me, especially since Starbucks is not a controversial organization, or at least not in mainstream circles.  So what do you think would server our readers better, revert my changes back to the itemized list or rework the criticism section with no headers and make it flow better?  I am open to suggestions. Mr Christopher 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Ok, I have failed twice now at reverting myc changes  :-)   Would someone else put the criticism section back like it was?  If not then I'll try again this evening. Mr Christopher 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that it now ;-) Iolakana|T 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes and thank you kindly. Mr Christopher 22:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: Converted all of the simple links (those that used ) to the newer ,  and . Let me know if there are any problems. Iolakana|T 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

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

message: It is notable that on Nantucket Island in MA there are a handful of "old Quaker family" names including the Folgers and the Starbucks. A Folgers from Nantucket went on to start Folgers Coffee in San Francisco. And it was from Nantucket that the Whaleship Essex was based (owned by the Folgers family), from which the story Moby Dick is derived, from which the fictional character "Starbuck" originates, from which the company is named. Curious connections. -- Stbalbach 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the founders were liberal arts types (English Lit and History degrees) I'm inclined to think they were aware of the connections to their competitor Folgers in naming it Starbucks. Probably serendipitously but when a name has so many connections it probably seemed "right".  -- Stbalbach 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name Starbuck 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support - Per above (nom) reasons. Iolakana|T 22:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The paragraph about the non-smoking policy is outdated. The Starbucks stores in Istanbul, Turkey contain smoking sections (and sometimes smoking is allowed in all of the store). I don't know if there are other countries that are exceptions to the rule.
--Durinmine 12:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Is there (for example) some sort of a law in Turkey preventing people from preventing smoking that might explain this?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-smoking policy exceptions 

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

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

message: Leaked letters, weasel words; not the place on an encyclopaedia. Iolakana•T 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A closer examination of the web site being cited for the Israel section reveals the site is primarily  an activist one dedicated to advancing a series of Fatwas http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-fatwas.html called by Islamic "scholars".  In essence they are calling for the boycott of any business who is doing business in Israel.  It's not even an article that is being cited, it is a call for action.  I've added the Enterprise link to the top of this page.  Perhaps the person who insists on dragging this article into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will take the time to understand what is appropriate for this article and what is not.  On their talk page I requested Nwe to stop adding the information back to the article and instead engage the other editors here and present reasons he/she feels the information belongs.  Mr Christopher 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Reverted. poorly cited and not notable. Caper13 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On top of that the idea that starbucks ever supported the israeli army is an admitted hoax perpetrated by a holocaust denier who pretty much hates all jews.  Mr Christopher 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel section

message: I added the enterprise template, someone removed it because it is not yet an official policy.  I added it back because Wiki seems to be sorely lacking in any enterprise related guidance and I think any guidance is better than none.  Does anyone have any opinions on it?  Has anyone had a chance to look it over?  Mr Christopher 04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enterprise template

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

message: In Starbucks' training material, it is claimed that the incorporation of the gas valve present on whole-bean and pre-ground coffee packs is what allowed Starbucks to expand as widely and rapidly as it did, by allowing coffee to be packaged and shipped long distances or stored for longer times without becomming stale. The valve is mentioned briefly in the Inside Starbucks section of the article, but I think it may warrent more substantial coverage, especially if these claims are true. --Purplezart 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with what you are talking about and they have a name for that valve but I can't recall it right now.  I know some folks who would know, I'll see what I can come up with. Mr Christopher 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure Valve 

message: This is a little nit-picky, I know, but as someone who has worked for a number of years at independent coffee shops I have often had to deal with customers using Starbucks terminology that is not true to traditional espresso-making, thereby causing unwarranted confusion and hassle.  I object to the over-use of the term barista in this article, particularly in the Inside Starbucks section.  A barista is a person who makes drinks--in the US, espresso drinks.  In Europe this term also refers to someone who makes alcoholic beverages.  All Starbucks employees are trained as baristas, yes, but it would be more accurate to refer to them as Starbucks employees or partners, especially in sentences such as: "Some stores might also have a barista at the Frappuccino bar or an inventory barista at the back of the store."  There is no such thing as an 'inventory barista'--that makes no sense.  You certainly wouldn't refer to all employees of Pizza Hut as pizza-makers, even if they had all been trained to make pizza.  I acknowledge that I have a long-standing grudge against Starbucks' indiscriminate changing of long-established espresso terms, but I think this is a legitimate case of an over-used and inaccurately-used word.  Thoughts?
:It is appropriate for the article to describe those who work for Starbucks and make espresso drinks as baristas, but I went and confirmed what you found and yes the term is being overused and yes there is no such thing as a "inventory barista".  I'll try and clean some of it up when I have time, or you can do the same if you wish.  You need not like Starbucks to contribute to the article, just keep your personal feelings in check and write from a neutral point of view NPOV :-) Mr Christopher 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barista Terminology 

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

message: Starbucks sued some Chinese coffee chains that used a logo strongly resembling starbuck's logo and also the name of the Starbucks in Chinese sounds the same as Starbucks in English.  The end result was that starbucks won the lawsuit. It might be worth adding.
::Can you find a reliable source for the info?  Mr Christopher 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversary in China 

message: I removed this:
''
Recently, Starbucks has started training Barista partners to take the name of the customer, and put it on the cup.  That way they can say "I have a Iced Venti, Sugar-Free Vanilla, Soy Latte for Steve", or Kamran, or Mike, or Winifred, or Jantzn, or whomever it might be for.''
It is unsourced and mistaken.  I have been buying coffee from Starbucks for 8 years (in a half a dozen states) and they have always (at least 90% of the time) asked my name and put it on the cup.  As a side note we need to provide support for claims regarding Starbucks policies and practices.  And there is no such thing as a "barista partner" that's like saying a barista employee.  Mr Christopher 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I work at Starbucks, and I was never trained to write names on cups; nor have I witnessed other partners doing it, neither in the store I work at nor at other stores, except occasionally by customer request. I think it must vary by region. --Purplezart 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've never witnessed it at any of the Starbucks' I've ever visited (mostly in Vancouver, Canada). Anchoress 09:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be regional then.  But until we have a reliable source (that we can cite, not original research) on the subject I think we should avoid claiming Starbucks has instituted a new policy.  Mr Christopher 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently... 

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

message: or is the formatting on the article page kind of bizarre?  The table of contents is down and to the far right and it just seems weird... I was just wondering if that is the way it is meant to be or if there could perhaps be a better way of formatting it? Wikipediarules2221 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes some of it does seem odd to me.  The info/navigation box on the right hand side seems odd, I believe the standard here is for it to be on the left (and possibly higher in the order).  I can assure you that if I try and fix it I'll wank the whole article.  Perhaps someone with more formatting experience (and famililarity with Wiki formatting standards) can help.  Mr Christopher 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, same with me.  I am not great with formatting and so I am not going to even try.  I am glad to see that someone agrees with me though :) Wikipediarules2221 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the TOCtemplate to restore the usual left-aligned, right above first heading TOC. Looks fine to me in 1024×768 in FF and IE. Hyenaste (tell) 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am satisfied.  Thanks a lot for your help! Wikipediarules2221 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it just me... 

message: I posted a request for help on this issue; if it's fixed to everyone's satisfaction I'll annotate the request. Anchoress 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am satisfied.  Thanks a lot for your help! Wikipediarules2221 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it fixed?

message: Seems like this article sees at least a few hit and run vandals daily and 99% of that comes from people without an account.  I've seen some articles that are protected from being edited by anonymous accounts but I'm not sure how or when something like that is implimented.  Are there any knowledgable folks here on the subject and does anyone think this article would be a good candidate for that sort of protection.  Or should we just continue to treat the wounds daily? :-)  Mr Christopher 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no way this article is being vandalised often enough to warrant page protection; they'd never agree. IMO. Anchoress 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Low level vandalism on an article like this with lots of editors watching and reverting is far from needing protection. I'll continue to monitor it of course. --Guinnog 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: is it just me or does this whole section sounds more like "responses to criticism"?
:Ideally a criticism section includes criticism and a response to it.  Do you have a more specific concern?  Mr Christopher 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: What is "Size Name Elsewhere" supposed to mean, really? Is this information relevant, important, or not obvious to anyone? The volume of each cup is clearly described, and many businesses have names for sizes of cups other than small, medium, and large. --Purplezart 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  And what is a 'traditional' espresso size?  Were they serving 20 oz espresso in Italy 50 years ago?  The Gomm 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starbucks cup sizes 

message: I removed this section. It appears to be a hoax. 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/starbucks.asp
--James Bond 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine Controversy 

message: I renamed this previously renamed section.   It seemed a little dramatic.  I'm not convinced the new sub-titles are keepers, feel free to revert or use/propose something better. I also tried to broaden some of the subjects a little. 
Also, we describe the amount of stores and store influence nicely in this section I think.  What seems lacking is anything regarding the scope of their grocery store and other venues of retail sales.  I'm not that familiar with those numbers and such but it's probably not difficult to dig up.  A sentence or two on the subject might round out the retail market paragraph.  Mr Christopher 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the name change on both.  I split them because they were so obviously unrelated to each other.  Perhaps the 'globalization' section should be eliminated, and the two sub sections (longer than many other subsections) promoted to sections withing the 'controversy' section.  The Gomm 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what do you think of the latest changes I made.  Mr Christopher 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your recent move was definitely a good one. I was scratching my head over why Starbuck's number of stores would be considered criticism.... Caper13 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retail market section

message: The link for that is dead. Please provide a valid link for citing worldwide coffee production and Starbucks' claim in it.
It would be nice if someone could do this preferably soon since I'm doing a case study on the company and need as many adequate sources as possible. Thank you! Kyuu 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World coffee production

message: The topic of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union has come and gone in this discussion so I decided to start a new topic.  I understand that citations may be difficult to find given that the starbucksunion website (which is the most consistent resource) is biased.  However, with a quick search I was able to pull up a number of New York Times articles and a New York Magazine article referring to the union:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E0D91531F930A35755C0A9629C8B63&fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/nyregion/08starbucks.html?ex=1167973200&en=c98efbde52ad596c&ei=5070
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E16FA3E540C728DDDAF0894DC404482&n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fCompanies%2fStarbucks%20Corporation
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/12060/
These articles refer to specific events such as the union petition, the NLRB complaint and the settlement.  There is already a Starbucks Workers Union page here on wikipedia with it's own credible references, however there does not appear to be a link or reference to that article on this page.  Complaints have been made that the editing to this article represent propaganda on the part of the IWW, and I agree that such phrasing has no place in an encyclopedia.  However previous references to labor disputes have been removed completely, rather than edited.  One could argue that bias on the other side is responsible for sponging out any reference to the Starbucks Workers Union in the main Starbucks article.  I am not an encyclopedia writer and am not comfortable editing this page with the appropriate citations.  But for the sake of honesty, I am asking that someone restore the information concerning these labor disputes to the article.
Any discussion about the Starbucks Workers Union can continue in this section. 146.96.19.112 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no recognized Starbucks Union. Only a small group seeking to organize Starbucks employees and apparently having little success. A union organizing drive by itself isnt noteworthy by itself even if it has ongoing theatrics associated with it. the Starbuck's workers union has its own page, but as it is neither affiliated with Starbucks nor recognized as a bargaining agent by either the government or Starbucks Corp, there is no more reason to link to it here than any other unaffiliated group that has a campaign against starbucks. Starbuck's Corporation may be noteworthy to the Starbucks Workers Union page, but the reverse isnt necessarily true. Caper13 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starbucks Workers Union

message: Recently someone made an edit to the effect that Starbucks is reformulating some or all of their menu items to remove Trans fats. This was reverted by someone else because it was uncited (and suspected to be false I assume). I have actually seen news stories about this so it is true. That being said, I still don't think it is particularly noteworthy for an encyclopedia article even if it did turn out to be true. Caper13 07:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true and very noteworthy (they are one of the very first).  I removed the previous entry only because it was unsupported.  Mr Christopher 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, its essentially a recipe reformulation isnt it. More of an item for Wikinews than an encyclopedia. I look at an encylopedia article as something that will still be relevant if read in 20 years and the story of the day (while might be in the news today) isnt going to be cared about later. I don't feel intensely strongly about it, I just think that it is a small issue in the big picture. Might be notable in an article about trans fats, but not so much for Starbucks Corp. Caper13 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trans Fats 

message: I am skeptical of the following (unreferenced) phrase: 
:". . . considerable influence in domestic coffee retailing and global coffee bean purchasing."  
I'll buy influence in domestic (do they mean U.S.?) coffee retailing, but how can Starbucks have "considerable influence" in global coffee bean purchasing when they only buy 2% of the world's coffee supply--and don't buy coffee on the commodities exchanges at all?
I'm deleting it; feel free to put it back if you have a reference.--Margareta 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considerable influence? 

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

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