Talk:Criticism of Coca-Cola

message: The former is a generic piece of information no more relevant than, say, an article on newspapers. The latter is equally irrelevant as it is Coca-Cola Companies statement to shareholders. Not the supporting evidence suggested.
It seems incredibly bizarre to me that of all the criticisms to be written down as null criticisms, these were chosen.
However, the former does to some extent suggest that there is a criticism to be shot down, the latter is just is statement.
They both appear to be corporately backed comments as neither is an actual criticism. This would indicate to me that the sections need to be removed as they have no bearing in their current form.
Perhaps Andrew Nutters changes should be reverted, as looking at his editions, they all are aimed at rebuking the criticisms directly without providing evidence.
Such editions should, perhaps, be discussed here instead, or left for open debate?
Open speculation here... but also the name "Andrew Nutter" is associated not only with Coca-cola events, but noteably the creator of the "Cappuccino soufflé pudding with red wine cola cubes" see: http://uktv.co.uk/food/recipe/aid/556552
Name used for convenience?
Naznomarn (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-Leading Counter-critisubjec, If you drink coca cola 50 times in your life time you die 10 yeras younger

message: There seems to be a bit of repetition in this article for instance between the "sinaltrainal law suit" section and "bottling plant deaths" sections. Perhaps the sinaltrainal law suit section should be removed. Likewise "Coca-Cola's interactions with Nazi-Germany" could be usefully included in "World War II".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete the pitiless (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition: appeal for tidy up 

message: Nobody has mentioned the (alleged) Coca-Cola sponsorship to the Creation Museum? How true/false is this?   -Julián Ortega - drop me a message 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation museum 

message: I think that if anyone that takes the time to read this article and look at the sources you would see that most of the sources are out of place and things taken out of context. the first section on lawsuits about tooth decay should be removed because there is no evidence to support that. Also the Nazi Germany pieces are skewed to make it seem as if the Coca Cola Company supported the Nazi's when in fact they didnt. All they did was buy Fanta, invented by a Coca Cola employee.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapshot2727 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that need changing 

message: There are a lot of claims in this article that lacks an exact date or a link of reference or have it broken.
The Colombia part have mostly of it's links broken except one from mindfully.org, which I found distrust because I couldn't find any page where they explain who or what they are neither contact info other than newsletters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.147.4.195 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is lacking 

message: Much of this page seems to have been written by one or more disgruntled Indian person(s). Huge sections refer to Coca-Cola's problems in India. Hardly a global view!
89.102.118.180 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to add to the mix 

message: Supposedly there is a relationship with ADHD as well. --196.215.150.24 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADHD 

message: If someone is going to talk about a worldwide protest, it would be helpful if they also explained what the protest was about. The first mention of Ireland in the article is "The protest example started in Ireland." This makes absolutely no sense. Please correct it. A.S. Williams (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest Example in Ireland? 

message: "The wording of the law is intentionally vague". There is not any proof for the "intentionally" part. I suggest removing this word. - 89.110.28.135 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No proof (Sochi 2014 section) 

message: Just wanted to point out that large portions of this article have been removed by Formerly 98 in .  Could someone take a look at this?  This user seems to have a history of pro-corporate POV editing.  67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large removals by Formerly 98 

message: a Criticism of Coca-Cola page and no mention of the Nazi connection? 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:Be bold expand the article with reliably sourced information.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: see Fanta JoN13:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, like if that has something to do with criticism. I'm afraid that it's completely absurd to blame a carbonated soft drink for the fact that it was imported into Nazi Germany. 195.191.165.5 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  nazi connection 

message: need to paraphrase and link to this important information: http://www.blisstree.com/2010/06/23/mental-health-well-being/what-happens-to-your-body-if-you-drink-a-coke-right-now/
:Totally unintentionally, my recently added Health effects source showed what I suspect is the same graph as 90.215.8.78's link but didn't quote the original. JRPG (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: effects of coke on human body in 1st hour

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Coca-Cola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.proxyinformation.com/cocacola/cokeres.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You have to provide proper citations re wiki policies before you make claims that could leave wiki open to legal challenge. You cant just put what you want with dead and not relevant citations, you have to do this first. Please do not revert until you can rove what you claim
Simply provide relevant citations and then you can put what you want. You know the rules and which citations are allowed. You cant just slander a company with no proof? Please do this and then there is no disagreement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:20d:1300:6126:aed1:a1cb:b1e (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2017
::You need to provide justification for removal of references. Dead ref links are not a reason to remove content. What citations do you see as not relevant or reliable? Please be clear about each problem cite before removing content.Dialectric (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  dont revert 

message: Coca-Cola has received a flood of media coverage for its racial policies and they deserve to be covered in this article. Juno (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "be less white" 

message: Hello, @Throast. We want to thank you for providing assistance with implementing our request on the Coca-Cola Company article. We would like to check in to see if further assistance may be provided in this article as well. If you are interested, please see the following information: 
1. Regarding sources and fact clarification: 
- I reviewed a previous editor’s request to add more reliable, independent sources and to disclose consumer discounts as a part of the bottle deposit program. The copy has been adjusted accordingly. Please find a revised edit request below: 
Under the Environmental issues header, Packaging subheader, there is a sentence that reads, "In 2013, the company was criticized in Australia for undertaking litigation that led to the invalidation of a bottle recycling deposit." After this sentence, could you please add:
In 2017, the company’s Australian bottler and distributor, Coca-Cola Amatil, joined Exchange for Change, a partnership with other beverage companies. The same year, the partnership was selected by the Australian government to oversee recycling initiatives. [Financial Review] [Financial Review] Under this partnership, Coca-Cola was named as a collaborator in Victoria, Australia’s, container deposit scheme in 2021. The scheme provided refunds to consumers who returned empty bottles to the store for recycling. [Vic.gov] 
In 2018, the company introduced bottle deposit recycling initiatives in Brazil by distributing reusable “universal bottles.” Consumers who purchased one of the reusable bottles and returned it to the store after use received a discount on their next purchase. As a result, Coca-Cola produced 1.8 billion fewer bottles. [Fast Company]
Thanks again for your help. I look forward to your response. PolarBear1886 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , while I appreciate that you value my opinion, please note that canvassing of individual editors (perhaps based on previous reviews) is considered inappropriate on Wikipedia. I've added an  tag so that other reviewers can have a look. Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 22:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The AFR.com sources as well as the Victoria container deposit scheme PDF all implied that the schemes are still in the planning stages or have barely begun. The PDF in particular shows that no data has been received showing the scheme was past the planning/early implementation stage in Victoria. From page 2: . Once this scheme has gotten underway in these respective areas, and after an amount of time allowing for data to be charted has passed, a link in the External links section can be added giving readers information on its progress. Regards,  Spintendo  01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI Edit Request