Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Adverse long-term health effects

I'm restoring the vague statement that many nutritionists believe that "soft drinks and other calorie-rich, nutrient-poor food can fit into a good diet" because it's very plausible that this is true... but a source citation is needed, particularly given that it has quotation marks around it. (However it would still need a source even if it didn't). And that source had better be a nutritionist, not, say, a statement on Coca-Cola's website. If the origin of the statement is Coca-Cola, if it is to be in the article, it needs to be rephrased as "The Coca-Cola company claims..."

it is generally agreed that Coca-Cola and other soft drinks can be harmful if consumed to excess

Anything is harmful if consumed "to excess". It is a question what is excessive (any? 8oz? 12oz? 20oz? 1li? 2li? - all Coca-Cola sizes)--DragoonWraith 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

absolutely needs a citation. IMHO it would be sufficient to have one really credible source that says this; it's not necessary to prove it's "generally agreed." But you can't just assert that it's "generally agreed."

And in this case it strikes me as unlikely that this is "generally agreed". Some nutritionists may agree on this, but I can't imagine it is generally considered truth.--DragoonWraith 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some reports that Coca-Cola is addictive, although the veracity of these reports has yet to be established.

Again, we can't have this as it stands. At least one specific report needs to be cited.

If citations aren't forthcoming, these statements ought to be removed. verifiability is supposed to be our policy everywhere, but we really need to take it very seriously in any statements concerning health. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

---

it is generally agreed that Coca-Cola and other soft drinks can be harmful if consumed to excess

absolutely needs a citation. IMHO it would be sufficient to have one really credible source that says this; it's not necessary to prove it's "generally agreed." But you can't just assert that it's "generally agreed."

It's a tautology to assert that something consumed to excess is harmful - it wouldn't be 'to excess' otherwise. But I think the point should be made. I've removed the 'citation required' tag. Artbristol 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

--- I changed the paragraph from saying "While many nutritionists believe that "soft drinks and other calorie-rich, nutrient-poor food can fit into a good diet", it is generally agreed that" to saying "Most nutritionists advise" since I doubt the statement, and it's unsourced. If it can be sourced, feel free to put it back in. I also took out "The soft drink industry dismisses many of these criticisms as urban myths." because it wasn't true. The article cited is about Cocacola's use as a pesticide being an urban legend, not about caffeine. And I think everybody knows caffeine is addictive, although not dangerously so. Sarah crane 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A few minor things

Under "Early Years": "In 1885, after Coca-Cola moved, when Atlanta and Fulton County passed Prohibition legislation, Pemberton responded by developing Coca-Cola, essentially a carbonated, non-alcoholic version of French Wine Cola." I'll do something about the three consecutive prepositional phrases, but does someone know when, why and to where "Coca-Cola moved"?

There is also an entire paragraph about the operations of the company in the article's introductory section. Have we decided to what extent this article will cover the company, considering there is already an article that better suits this sort of information? A blurb about the details of the company's operations certainly doesn't belong in the introductory section of "Coka-Cola the beverage". Adhall 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is a relatively new program, as far as I can tell, someone might want to add/check out Camp Coca-Cola...seems to be a philanthropy project funded by Coca-Cola

Is "Coke" a synecdoche?

Is it worth explaining why the word "Coke" was eventually trademarked by the company? Is there a better term for its popular usage as a catch-all word for any cola product (like Kleenex is to tissue, Xerox is to photocopy, etc.)? Adhall 09:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in our discussion on my talk page, these are two separate issues. The trademarking of "Coke" in 1945 is highly relevant to the article, as are the company's prior attempts to steer consumers away from the word. It was notably the first dual trademark, ie, same product known under two trademarked names. The company trademarked the term "Coke" because people were using it to refer to Coca-Cola, not because (as your edit implied) they were using it to mean "soda" in general. Much of the early history of the drink, including this, has yet to be added to the article.

Furthermore, the present-day use of "Coke" as a generic term for any kind of soda is far from universal, being a U.S. regionalism; it might be worth mentioning lower down in the article. This is a sort-of example of synecdoche, so you can use the word there if you really want to. It just isn't important enough for the first paragraph, though. Cheers. ProhibitOnions 11:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Formulation

Coca-Cola has a different taste in Canada compared to the United States (tastes more like Pepsi in Canada, although it is still easily distinguishable).

How many different formulations are used for Coca-Cola ? The article should mention this.

India and Ingrediants

I would like to make a comment about the line blow.

"Critics claim Coca-Cola is less popular in other places such as India, due to suspicions regarding the health standards of the drink. However, these claims conflict with marketshare data. As an example, in 2004 Coca-Cola India's market share was 60.9%".

This sentence tends to give a wrong impression that the claims made by the critics are incorrect, while on contrary it must be noted that they only talk about market share, and hence there is only a comparison between the sales of Coca-Cola and other soft drinks rather than actual sales number, or the liters of coke sold in India compared to US or any other country. As infact, the paranoia as some might call it (not me) is about almost all the aerated soft drinks and not just coca cola.

What colour is Coke?

If the caramel colouring wasn't added to it, what colour would it be?

The name "Coca-Cola"

"Coca-Cola" obviously means "cocaine kola nuts". There's obviously no cocaine left any more, but is it still flavoured with kola nuts? Or has the name become entirely obsolete? JIP | Talk 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• See: Coca-Cola formula and Coca-Cola. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunno you tell me

Coca-Cola is still made with Coca beans and Kola nuts, but they extract the cocaine. 72.164.229.201 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out some other stuff

I took out this paragraph from the Coca-Cola's advertising:Recent history section. "Coca-Cola has a policy of avoiding using children younger than the age of 12 in any of its advertising as a result of a lawsuit from the beginning of the 20th century that alleged that Coke's caffeine content was dangerous to children. However, in recent times, this has not stopped the company from targeting young consumers. In addition, it has not been disclosed in exact terms how safe Coke is for consumption by young children (or pregnant mothers)." I looked and looked, and I don't think cocacola ever had a policy of not showing children in ads. And I doubt there was a suit at the early 20th century, back when there was no FDA or anything, would have done that. It sounds pretty modern to me. It would be awful hard to prove that coke targets young consumers. And any questions about safety should be in another section. Sarah crane 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention it seems odd to have this as a Coke-specific safety concern... if caffeine may pose a danger to children, that should be in the caffeine article and this article should link to that one explaining that Coke has a lot of caffeine and caffeine may be dangerous to children, not "Coke may be dangerous to children.... due to caffeine".

Coca-Cola in trouble?

I have heard that coca cola is currently suffering a decline in sales as well as a decline in popularity, is it true that the company, and the drink that is so quintessentially American, is facing difficulties? J Gez M, 17:32, 10 April 2006

Black Market

In the section titled "High Fructose Corn Syrup", there is a reference to a booming black market for mexican Coca-Cola. While the company is trying to block the import of mexico coke, it is not illegal and thus not a black market. Since it is officially licensed by the Coca-Cola company they can't have it blocked at the borders as being counterfeit, and retailers are not bound by the contracts between the company and their bottlers. For a reference, see the article below. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041109/news_1b9mexcoke.html

I reworded this paragraph, trying to make it more neutral. It could still use some references though. Philbert2.71828 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Coca Cola Early History Original ingredients

This needs to be reworded:

"His bookkeeper (and later lead marketeer), Frank Robinson, coined the name Coca-Cola, because it included the stimulant cocaine and was flavored using kola nuts, a source of caffeine."

Coca leaves have a unique flavor of there own and were included for the same reason as the kola nuts. Cocaine was first isolated in 1855, while caffeine was first isolated in 1819. Neither of these stimulants are included in there isolated forms in the original Coca-Cola, rather the plants are because of the perceived "tonic" properties of the plants themselves and because of the distinct flavors they imparted to the beverage.

This is admitted in the next sentence in the current article:

"Pemberton called for five ounces (140 grams) of coca leaf per gallon of syrup."

As it stands, the sentence I am taking issue with reveals a basic misunderstanding of the perception of natural ingredients at that time in history. Remember, this was long before coca/cocaine carried the stigma which it does today. Therefore, Coca-Cola was so named because its primary flavoring ingredients were Coca leaves and Kola nuts, not because it contained cocaine. Joharri 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Coca colas acidic properties

Coca cola is so acidic you can dissolve a LIVE!!! fish in it!! My science class did an experement on it. Would someone please edit the urban legend section it's really true.

Coke Controversy

I add a section from the criticisms of Coke page about acusations of labour abuses in Coke bottling plants in Colombia. I will work on finding NPOV sourc. If any one could help it would be nice, English isnot my first language so I have a difficult time doing the research. malatesta 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola drink vs. Coca-Cola company... again

Here are some parts of this article that I think should be removed from this article. I haven't removed them because I want to know what other people think:

1. The reference to "shrewd marketing tactics" in the second paragraph doesn't seem to be a neutral POV.

Coca Cola has been caught in Australia creating a false Blogg about its new Zero Coke. Possibly "shrewd" should be changed to "deceitfull" or "appalling"Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2. The first paragraph under "The Inventor of the Coca Cola" doesn't seem relevant to the drink. By the way, I just noticed, it should read "The Inventor of Coca-Cola"

3. The "World War II" section doesn't seem relevant to the drink. I think this should only be on the Coca-Cola company page.

4. I think the bullet points in the "Business practices" don't need to be listed here. I would leave this section, but end it after the first paragraph and remove the bullet points. Philbert2.71828 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph on Pemberton and renamed the section. I also clarified the importance of WWII for the drink -- without it, many people would never have been introduced to Coke by grateful husbands, fathers, brothers, etc. I'm not sure about the neutrality of "shrewd marketing tactics", because from what I can tell, nobody has ever questioned that Griggs Candler was shrewd in marketing Coke. He was very influential in its popularity during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Feel free to be bold and remove the bullet points. I think the section as a whole needs rewriting to keep the parts relevant to Coke the drink (i.e. the boycotts are relevant, but we needn't digress into discussion of what the Coke company does; I'm about to remove the stuff on the company's employment practices, etc.). Johnleemk | Talk 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that the word shrewd should probably never appear in a wikipedia article; it's just too vague. Successful or controversial (or both) might be better. Vessenes 05:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

iCoke

218.189.141.202 has added a link to http://icoke.hk on this page twice, and I removed it both times. He/she added it to the Coca-Cola company page now too. The site is in a foreign language and looks like it's just a promotional site for Coca-Cola. Even if we wanted to link to something like this, there are English language versions like http://icoke.ca. There's an http://icoke.com but the main page doesn't have anything much on it. I don't see any reason to link to these kind of sites anyway. Philbert2.71828 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Benzene update?

Should new benzene info be added following this FDA press release (and various similar international stories)? Stories moved on national wires the same week, but I haven't found them yet. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01355.html ... Posted May 3, 2006

npov check

read this coca-cola article and tell me it doesn't sound like the company could have edited it itself to make it sound rosy and fine? anyway, i think criticism of this and The Coca-Cola Company articles combined can be found on each talk page. i just don't have time to argue with people about why these two articles are POV. Guppy 12:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You've been constantly griping about this without ever attempting to provide a solution other than one that runs contrary to the consensus we reached on clearly defining Coke the drink as separate from Coke the company. You've also been accusing editors (namely me) of being biased Coke-lovers. Until you come up with something more substantial than "I want to conflate the drink and company because otherwise it's biased" (incidentally without ever proving why this is so through actual facts), I don't think you can hope to see the articles merged. If people are abusing the distinction between the drink and company to bias either or both of the articles, call them out on it and fix the bias. Don't bring up a peripheral issue (the distinction between the Coke and drink) and argue that the only way we can fix the neutrality problem is to merge articles on two separate entities. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Irn Bru Update

Cheers for the clarification on the sales figures of Irn Bru. I had no idea what the actual figures were so I had to tred very lightly! :) Pudduh 08:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mecca Cola

I plead for the removal of Mecca Cola from the 'Related product' list. This brand is not nearly as well known and can surely not be considered as a serious competitor. 1652186 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I also don't see a lot of point in listing Open Cola. Coke's only main competitor is Pepsi, at least in the US. Philbert2.71828 07:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm for the removal of Open Cola but not Mecca Cola. Mecca Cola appears to at least be a "related product," as it was created in large part as an alternative product to Coca-Cola for political reasons. Since the label isn't "competing products," just "related products," it seems like Mecca Cola deserves mention. Open Cola, being mentioned nowhere else in the article, should probably go. Lemonsawdust 06:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the label should be changed to "Competitors". And Coca-Cola sells 100 times as many servings per day in the US alone as Mecca Cola has sold worldwide ever, so it probably shouldn't be listed. --Jkonrath 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've substantially downgraded Mecca Cola's importance on the page, and put it under "Coca-Cola and Islam." I think that's a good place for it to go. We could now commence on whether or not we should have a Coke and Islam section. If we do want it, it should go near the bottom. Vessenes 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

New article on varieties of Coke?

Some articles about varieties of Coke are pretty short, and it seems like there's just not much to say about them. Also, apparently Coca-Cola Lemon (in addition to Coke Light Lemon) is available in France or will be soon (see the French Wikipedia's Coca-Cola article), and there's no mention of it anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Should we make a new article listing every variety of Coke, and linking to the pages for individual varieties that have enough content to warrent their own page? Caffeine-free varieties are hardly mentioned anywhere at the moment, and we could list those on the new page too. There's also Kosher for Passover Coke, which is sort of a variety of Coke, but isn't mentioned anywhere except somewhere in the middle of the Coca-Cola page, where it's hard to find. We could list all the varieties on the main Coke page, but that page is getting long already. I would be willing to create a new page titled something like Varieties of Coca-Cola, unless someone has a better idea for where to list the varieties of Coke. Philbert2.71828 07:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

The whole article is a big mess, in my opinion. The article has too many red links, uses improper citations and is formatted irregularly. And to top it all, a neutrality distpute tag has been on the article for many days now. Certainly not what one would expect from a featured wikipedia article.This notice is as per the wikipedia guidlines listed under the featured article removal nomination procedure. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 14:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody deleted the first paragraph, and now it seems to start abruptly without any kind of lead-in. Someone needs to put that paragraph back. (JDK77590)

Split New Coke Discussion Off?

I'm quite new at Wikipedia, but I have to say that the New Coke section is just too darn long for the Coca-Cola page.

• It's mostly about the company, not the drink
• It's a turning point for the COMPANY, but a sidenote in the drink's 100+ year history

Can I suggest the current section get drastically trimmed, and the whole long, sordid tale get moved to a New Coke Page where it can get the attention it deserves? Vessenes 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: A HUGE New Coke Page already exists. I'm going to trim down the current section substantially. Vessenes 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Update: Okay, the deed is done, and I'm tired now. The section reads much better in my humble opinion. I wish I had time to do something similar to some of the other sections on this page. I don't think we lost any essential information in my edits; the one exception might be the discussion on the formula changing from sugar to high fructose corn syrup. I think it's confusing to talk about the New Coke launch and the HFCS switch at the same time, and I'd say it would be better to talk about this under the formulation section. Everything else I cut should be available on the New Coke page for those who love New Coke. Vessenes 06:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Bears

Why aren't there any articles on the Coca-Cola Bears?! [[User_Talk: WPDude123 8:28, 6 June 2006

MSNBC article

This article appeared on MSNBC yesterday (11 June 2006)... I imagine the views expressed are more than relevant to the contributing editors of this article. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (Talk) 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really very simple. Edit for POV language, then isolate any and all criticisms to its own section called "Criticisms" and then demand verifiable sources. If the criticisms section is long enough isolate it further to its own article. This is not to say critics of coke should not have exposure, but they should also not be so severe as to taint the credibility of the rest of the article - this is an encyclopedia article, not an activists site. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the criticisms section to Criticism of Coca-Cola which already existed because of similar problems in the The Coca-Cola Company article. So now we have a single place for all criticisms instead of being replicated across multiple articles. I also got rid of the opening paragraph per Wikipedia:Lead section which says the lead paragraph should be a summary of the article contents, repeating in summary high-level format what is contained in the article body. It currently doesnt do that, but at least it's not an out of proportion bashing of Coke as it was before. -- Stbalbach 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to the claim that the lead was non-neutral. As far as I can tell, it did accurately represent the status of Coke the drink, in that it is undeniable that there are many urban legends (which is exactly what the lead called them) concerning Coke, and also that the rollout of New Coke was met with widespread denunciation. Was the lead imbalanced? Probably - it wasn't a good summary. But it was a start, and with a few more sentences added, would have been a decent lead.

More than anything else, this article needs someone with an eye on it. I've been sporadically monitoring and maintaining this article since 2004, but I can't do it alone or indefinitely. There are just too many additions to the article for one person to keep track of, and often a few slightly biased edits add up to a quickly very hugely-slanted article.

I also find it a bit ironic that (as the MSNBC article notes), people continue to claim this article is biased in favour of Coke when it is plainly not. The content is neutral, in my opinion - there is little that could be added in to balance it out. The main issue is style - because of Wikipedia's collaborative nature, as I mentioned earlier, a few only slightly biased edits can quickly turn an article into a cesspool of clear slant. (As an aside, I think that the advertising section is disproportionately big, and will be trimming some excess detail from it soon.) Johnleemk | Talk 09:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead section on how to write a lead section. It should be a summary of the entire article - in balance with the article contents - it should repeat what is in the article, but in a summary format. The old lead section contained original material found no where else in the article, and it did not summarize the article at all. -- Stbalbach 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are we looking at the same lead? The New Coke bit was there. So was the urban legends. Those are the only two things that were removed. And yet both were covered by the article! :{ Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm about to rewrite the criticisms section. I'm a bit annoyed by this, actually, because I did a lot of work referencing and factchecking the claims there, and they seem to have been chucked wholesale (except for adverse health effects, which is in the main article). For example, there's nothing at all on one of Coke's major competitors in the Araba world, Mecca Cola, but this appears to have totally vanished, despite being backed up with a reliable source. Still, I'll dig stuff up from old revisions and try. (Btw, DJR, sorry to intrude, but could you please remove the images from your signature? It violates the signature guidelines, and can be a bit distracting at times, which is why we have the signature guidelines in the first place. :)) Johnleemk | Talk 10:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know nothing was "chucked wholesale", it was moved to Criticism of Coca-Cola with a "Main article" link to that article. -- Stbalbach 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I must have missed that. My bad. Anyway, I've readded the bit about New Coke to the lead again because it is a defining moment in Coke's history. All accounts of Coca-Cola history that I've read devote a substantial portion to New Coke and the Cola Wars, so it's simply irrational not to mention it in the lead. The lead should be capable of standing alone as an article (the original rationale for lead sections was so we could produce a half-decent print version), and any self-respecting encyclopedia article on Coke would mention the Cola Wars and the New Coke debacle. I've since restored the apparently deleted bibliography section, and added a number of HTML comments in the history section referring to the Pendergrast book. I currently don't have it, so I can't cite the precise page numbers yet. Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Coke gets slammed on Wikipedia MSNBC - USA

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269186/
Coke gets slammed on Wikipedia MSNBC - USA By Ryan Mahoney. If you want to learn about The Coca-Cola Co., don't expect to find The Real Thing on Wikipedia. As recently as June ...
More: http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&hl=en&client=google&ncl=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269186/

--G-Spot 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That article has already been brought up in the section entitled "MSNBC article". DJR (Talk) 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)