Talk:Peet's Coffee

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



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of uncited text[edit]

I have a removed an uncited and unverifiable claim about a merger from this article, Mondelez International, Keurig Dr Pepper and Jacobs Douwe Egberts. Another similar edit by the same user on Kraft Heinz has already been reverted for the same reason. Feel free to restore if you can find a reputable source. DDFoster96 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi history of parent company[edit]

Numerous credible sources have reported on the Nazi history of Peet's parent company, JAB Holding. I added a couple neutral sentences describing this controversy. The user Calton has reverted this several times stating it is not relevant to Peet's. However, controversies involving a parent company are clearly relevant to the companies owned by them. This is evident by the number of reliable sources that have reported on this controversy. Here are some examples:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/food-dining/2019/06/04/peet-coffee-wake-call/XrJtIiY5MPYCycCGxglaSK/story.html

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/family-that-owns-krispy-kreme-panera-peets-coffee-acknowledges-nazi-past/159805/

https://emorywheel.com/peets-must-make-amends-for-nazi-past/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/food-dining/2019/06/18/company-behind-peet-and-panera-atones-for-nazi-past-with-new-foundation/CYgYNGBx8s2dls1p6oq4bK/story.html

https://www.jweekly.com/2019/03/25/wealthy-german-family-owners-of-peets-to-make-amends-for-nazi-past/

Instead of simply censoring this content, it would be nice if Calton could try WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.

Here's the text in question:

In March 2019, a German newspaper revealed that ancestors of the Reimann family, owners of parent company JAB Holding, were enthusiastic supporters of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party well before they took power and profited from forced labor in their industrial chemicals company in southern Germany and in their own home.[51][52][53] The revelations sparked ethical questions about consumer support for companies that owe their success in part to the historical use of forced labor.[54][55] The Reimann family has vowed to give €10 million (US$11.3 million) to charity.[56] Anaxagoras17 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If this content should be included, then it should be included in every other JAB subsidiary article. As that is not the case, it is undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to add this information to other articles. But the fact that something is not mentioned in other articles, does not in itself mean it is not relevant to this one. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This history of the parent company has no bearing on this one, esp as it was acquired less than a decade ago. Zaathras (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, it really has no bearing on this company.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that inclusion of this information in this particular article would be WP:UNDUE. It's not as if Peet's Coffee itself has this history. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So why have the Boston Globe, NBC, New York Times, Jewish News of Northern California, and other reliable sources all published stories about this issue mentioning Peet's Coffee? Because financing with a dirty history raises ethical questions. This is why a Boston Globe reporter wrote an article called, "I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it?" (https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/food-dining/2019/06/04/peet-coffee-wake-call/XrJtIiY5MPYCycCGxglaSK/story.html) If you have reliable sources supporting your point of view, please cite them. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather apparent that you are not reading the story that you are pushing. The writer points out the German tabloid Bild Am Sonntag reported that the family behind Peet’s parent company JAB Holding had been staunch supporters of the Third Reich, indicating that the actual thrust of the story has to do with JAB, not Peet's Coffee. The writer then goes on to point out the variety of holdings under the JAB umbrella, JAB’s large portfolio also includes Stumptown, Intelligentsia, Keurig, and other coffee companies, along with Panera..., further reinforcing the notion that the Nazi-supporting past is relevant to the parent company, not subsidiaries that it acquired in the years and decades post-WWII. Zaathras (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? Peet's is mentioned in the second and third paragraph. Why would the author mention the subsidiaries if it is not relevant to them? Anaxagoras17 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again...are you actually reading the source you are citing? It really seems like that you are not doing so, but rather simply counting on your fingers the # of times "Peet's Coffee" appears in the article. The mention in the 2nd paragraph is in regards to the author's favorite cup of coffee. The mention in the 3rd paragraph is to point to the parent company, JAB Holding. Neither paragraph supports a linkage of "Peet's Coffee" to "Nazis". Zaathras (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read the article. Let's start with the headline: "I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it?"? In para 2, the author makes clear that her "favorite coffee" is Peet's coffee. She then poses questions about the ethics of consuming goods "that exist[] due to circumstances we find morally reprehensible" (para 4). She then examines the ethics of boycotting these subsidiaries even though the culpability is with the parent company. Yes, the main thrust is the parent company, but it is also the ethics of supporting the subsidiaries. She focuses primarily on Peet's. Where companies get their money is important. If the source of that money was war crimes, even if they occurred in the past and the subsidiary had nothing to do with them, it raises ethical questions. This is what the author is writing about. It's right there in the headline. And this is just one of several articles. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Several". Right. It's clear that you simply Googled "Nazi Peet's" and threw up everything you could find.
Instead of simply censoring this content...
Instead of inventing insulting and self-serving rationalizations to personalize the issue, perhaps you should take note that not one editor -- not one -- has agreed with you that this has any weight at all. So there's an obvious consensus, and you're on the wrong side of it. All the rhetorical strategies and rules-lwayering in the world doesn't change that.
But the fact that something is not mentioned in other articles, does not in itself mean it is not relevant to this one.
Actually, it is: the fact that all of your (frankly bogus) arguments apply equally to the other companies in JAB's portfolio ; yet, you, in your 28-edit Wikipedia career, haven't touched any of the articles, instead straight-up edit-warring and obsessively arguing on only one company. It's not hard to believe that you're on a crusade, and aren't here to improve an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for edit warring. Nevertheless I think information about the parent company is relevant. I have added more neutral language about the acquisition of Peet's in 2012 and a mention of the controversy previously cited about the parent company. I have included a mention of the other companies also owned by JAB Holding. The wording is factual and supported by numerous credible sources. I hope this is a good compromise. If people still find this objectionable, I hope you can propose alternatives per WP:PRESERVE and avoid ad hominem attacks. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly a year later at this point... Pinging previous participants @Calton:, @Zaathras:, @Slatersteven:, @Shibbolethink: in case they want to restate their opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I urge all participants to examine how this language is different from the previous and avoid knee-jerk reactions. I will not revert again before seeking dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaxagoras17 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no significant differences between last year's text and the current one you're trying to jam in. I really think it is time for you to find anther topic area to invest in, lest you get banned from this one. Zaathras (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The language is different. Looks like you haven't read it. How can you honestly argue that acquisition by another company and controversies about a company's financing in 5-6 reliable sources are not relevant? WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Anaxagoras17 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only "problem" here that needs "fixing" is an obstinate editor who has apparently never read WP:CONSENSUS. IMO It's questionable if it is even relevant to the parent, JAB Holding Company, but at least there there's slightly better footing in terms of relevance. I see that you added it there last year, and thus far it has not been challenged. Be grateful for that, for now. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again you engage in ad hominem attacks rather than focusing on content (WP:FOC). The fact that you would find this questionable to include in a page about the parent company itself is indefensible. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "ad hominem" here, a lone single purpose account that hyperfocused on a narrow topic, that edit-wars over the span of a year, is by definition obstinate. I and others here are also quite focused on "the content", which is the insistence, by you, on adding content to Peet's Coffee that n reality has nothing to do with Peet's Coffee. Zaathras (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You argue that ownership by a parent company has "nothing to do" with a subsidiary, but practically every WP company article says something about ownership, including this one without my edit. I have cited 5-6 reliable sources that disagree with your viewpoint in this particular context; you have cited none. If you feel strongly about this, why not find a reliable source that supports your argument that controversies surrounding a parent company have nothing to do with their subsidiaries and add a sentence supported by that source? (2) This is not a single purpose account as I have an edit history prior to this issue. (3) I have not edit warred in the past year. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure what real relevance this has now. Lots of Germans companies had Nazi ties, we do not mention it every time they buy out another company. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These revelations occurred in 2019 and numerous reliable sources reported on the connection. If it is was not relevant, then why did the Boston Globe, NBC, New York Times, Jewish News of Northern California all report on it and mention Peet's? Anaxagoras17 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any number of reasons, slow news week, they found it interesting, They were asked to by a mate who owns a rival. We do not know why they choose to run stories. The problem with this content is it tells us nothing about Pete's coffee, literally nothing. This article is not about the parent company.Slatersteven (talk)
Good lord, this is getting tiring. From the NBC citation, "Family Who Owns Krispy Kreme, Panera, Peet's Coffee Acknowledges Nazi Past". It is of possible notability to the family and the parent company. Not to the subsidiaries purchased by the holding company decades after the fact. Zaathras (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the subsidiary mentioned in the headline?
As for Slatersteven's argument, if we can dismiss six reliable sources because it may have been a "slow news week," WP:RS would mean nothing. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Peet's_Coffee Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is the subsidiary mentioned in the headline? Because it is simply, um, informative? If an article about Joe Biden mentions he likes the color blue, it doesn't justify creating Joe Biden's favorite color. Zaathras (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is also supposed to be informative. But this is not just some detail mentioned in passing. When the Boston Globe writes, "I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it?" she is drawing a clear connection between alleged dirty money and the product it is financing. If you disagree, why don't you find a quote or a source that supports your point of view rather than just deleting? You could add, "Some commentators disagree that the origins of this financing are relevant to the subsidiary," or something like that. WP:BADREVERT WP:ATD WP:COMPROMISE Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let the DR run. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DR does not preclude discussion on the talk page. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since one concern is there is not similar language on the pages of other companies, what if similar language was added to those pages? Peet's is singled out in several relevant headlines, but trying to reach a compromise here. (I already attempted this by mentioning the other companies in the section but apparently this has not gone far enough.) Anaxagoras17 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK DR over, can we now draw a line under this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about my proposal to add a similar section to other wholly-owned subsidiaries? Here's one of many more articles about other subsidiaries. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Has nothing to do with Stumptown, same as here, it is just being mentioned as part of a larger story on the parent company. Y'know, JAB Holding Company, where this is already covered. Zaathras (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with Stumptown? The company is mentioned 10 times in the article. The journalist solicited a comment from the company and their response comprises the last five paragraphs of the article. You are right that some articles just mention these companies in passing, but there are others that focus on the reputational implications for the owned brand. I could add this section to all well-known brands, not just the coffee companies (e.g., Krispy Kreme, Einstein Bagels, Pret a Manger. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all of it is relevant to the parent. I think we're done here. Zaathras (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it is still not relevant to them either. The DR was clear, drop this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SunshineANDSmile (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bananannah02.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peet%27s_Coffee&oldid=1210026647"