Jump to content

Talk:Starbucks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Felsic2 (talk | contribs) at 04:47, 10 March 2016 (→"Gun controversy": r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

International expansion: contradictions.

None of the countries listed in the continent columns are referenced, and some listed in there are not colored on the map, e.g. South Africa. -- Jeandré, 2011-06-18t13:43z


Starbucks Evening stores

Why is there no mention anywhere that Starbucks has a new brand called Starbucks Evenings which is operated under the subsidiary Coffee House Holdings, Inc.? In New York the company has applied to the State Liquor Authority for licensure to sell beer and wine. They currently have two active locations the first inside Macy's Herald Square (see here) and on North 7th Street in Brooklyn (see here), one location that the license is inactive (see here) and finally 12 licenses pending at locations around the state (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Not sure if this is to be only an East Coast operation or whether it will be rolled out across the U.S. and Internationally. If someone happens to know more information please post it with appropriate references. YborCityJohn (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Quick question, please... I used to be a partner (employee) at Starbucks. I would position myself as slightly-pro Starbucks, but closer to a neutral position. I know many facts about the company from working there and on many of the projects specifically mentioned in this entry. I find it interesting that many of the positive facts that offset the negative perceptions have no reference articles.

I'm finding many sections very negatively biased. Is Wikipedia "perception based" that if the media only reports negative news as sources, that becomes the skew of the articles? (I'm not trying to be combative, curious really.) What's the right way to help get them fixed?

Examples include:

Products > Coffee Quality

- This focuses on someone reporting the coffee is burnt. Does not refer to Starbucks' reason for roasting dark. Seems one-sided. - It would seem Coffee Quality would focus on the quality of the beans purchased from farmers - good or bad. - This article concludes with an inaccurate description of how/why brewed coffee is promoted

Environmental and social policies > Coffee and Farmer Equity practices / Fair trade sections

Starbucks has always purchased coffee directly from farmers. They built relationships with their farmers to help ensure the quality of the coffee. Starbucks has traditionally treated farmers better and offered more than the Fair Trade pricing for coffee. For some reason, no one has cited that fact making the sentence seem dubious.

The Fair trade section makes it sound like Starbucks only started to be more responsible in 2000. Due to pressure to offer/serve Fair trade Starbucks did provide some Fair trade coffee. However, (this is a good point)... Starbucks has trouble finding enough Fair trade that is also high-quality. (I wished Starbucks never caved to serving Fair trade because it created this situation where the perception is the rest of their coffee isn't as good, however, they should have always promoted Better Than Fair Trade - that was opinion, I know

Thanks! - Paul IdeaSandbox (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Starbucks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Starbucks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Starbucks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gun controversy"

No explanation for this knee-jerk revert.[1] I wrote, "no one calls them that)". Check the sources and highlight the ones that call these guys "gun rights advocates". Mostly, they seem to be nobodies. But please dont just revert. Felsic2 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion was correct, and I have repeated it. They weren't just "opponents", they were self-described gun rights advocates, as clearly indicated in the source. General Ization Talk 04:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which source? THere are three. One is a dead link. Felsic2 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these include "gun rights advocates" [2][3] Do you have access to the dead Detroit News article? Please post the text that includes the term. Felsic2 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would you interpret the descriptions "2A supporters" and "the 2nd Amendment crowd"? What do you think that means? (If one supports the Second Amendment, what does one advocate if not gun rights?) The headline of the Detroit News article (though now a dead link inaccessible even at archive.org) was "Mich. gun advocates support Starbucks' open-carry policy". What do you think "gun advocates" means? General Ization Talk 04:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's use the term the sources use. Felsic2 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "gun advocates". Felsic2 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The text already says "as a sign of Second Amendment support", so that part is covered. Felsic2 (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Starbucks&oldid=709299506"