Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 3

message: Recently Vbganesh added an incident involving foul-smelling Coke cans. Can we have a source please? It doesn't have to be internet-based, just name where you got it from (I'm not quite sure, but I think gossip doesn't count), or if it's somebody you know personally who was involved. Secondly, "small time vendor"? Is this really encyclopedic? Not meaning to challenge it or anything, but if we reported every bad incident about Coke... Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Small time vendor"? 

message: I've read Coca-Cola was used by the CIA because they had world market penetration (one of the first companies to go international, like McDonalds today). Coca-cola had people in lots of countries so it was easy for CIA operatives to put on a Coke uniform and go into almost any country unquestioned. Anyone heard this? Got proof? Urban legend? Crazy theory?
On a side note, should it be noted that coke isn't bottled in one place in the USA. Coke just makes the syrup and sells it with the rights to their label. The individual bottlers mix it and use their trademark. Coke by any other name could well be coke. Sorry to interrupt, go on with your business... my 2 cents JoeHenzi 00:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. An example is the Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company, the 2nd largest bottler (by volume) of Coca-Cola - which operates in 22 countries. zoney ▓█▒ talk 02:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly, but CIA connections? 

message: This article doesn't mention that Andy Warhol designed the famous Coca-Cola logo. Someone said that he became famous for that logo in the 1960s.
Sandy June 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Andy Warhol

message: Excellent article, and I thought this point in particular was really interesting:
:: The coca-leaf processing is done at a licensed coca-leaf processing plant in New York City (see Federal Register Doc. 04-5476 (http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/reg/2004/fr031114.htm ). While this is probably the largest manufacturer, other chemical companies have obtained licenses for the import of coca leaves as well.
You see, I remember reading in newspaper articles in 1980 or so that coca leaves were still used in coke, but as far as I can tell *no one* knows this.  People look at me strangely when I mention it, to the point where I wish I had clipped out the articles on the subject.  
I have a (quite unsubstantiated) theory that this was one of the motivations behind the "New Coke" manuever: they were afraid of political backlash from the "War on drugs".   Does anyone know where these coca leaves are grown?  Isn't the United States supposed to be leaning on countries that grow this stuff?
:IIRC, it's linked in one of the many references from the article. In short, Coke uses decocainised coca leaves, so it's perfectly legal under American law. Johnleemk | Talk 03:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, doesn't that mean a lot of money is going straight from the Coca-Cola company to cocaine producers?? If not, what in the world to they do with the cocaine after they remove it from the leaves, do they just throw it away??? Keenan Pepper 20:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The coca leaves used are leaftovers from LEGAL cocaine grown in the US for prescription medications (cough syrups, local anesthetics, etc). The cocaine is removed and Coca-Cola uses the leaves. NO MONEY IS SENT TO ILLEGAL COCAINE GROWERS. Hope this answers your question. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A friend of mine has been fascinated by this question for the past few days. Can you give me any references with more details to back up these statements please? — Hippietrail 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coca leaves still in use for Coke, albeit without coccaine 

message: Seems this article is appropriate in ODP Recreation Coca-Cola category that directly list 42 sites, indirectly another 44 sites.
 Wikipedia: Coca-Cola - A collaboratively edited article covering history, 
 ingredients, advertising, and controversies regarding the soft drink.
-- sabre23t 04:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[ODP]]

message: I understood that Caramel was used to give the distinctive colour to coke (its natural state being virtully transparrent)  but there is nothing in the "What goes into coke" section on this.  Will someone please clarify this point one way or another? Dainamo 10:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the following sentence to that section; Other suggested ingredients includes sugar, caramel, caffeine, phosphoric acid, coca leaf and cola nut extract, lime juice or oil, and vanilla. More detailed recipe/formula in Coca-Cola formula. -- sabre23t 10:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Caramel ingredient?

message: Coca cola is sold in over two hundred countries and travels faster than speed of light.
but
There are currently 193 countries recognized by the United Nations. :-)
: Anon (68.165.56.84), our list of sovereign states totals 204 countries (208 listed including duplicates). Are coca-cola really sold in all of them? -- sabre23t 04:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, their website says over 200.   Obviously "country" depends on your attitude to Taiwan, Palestine and so on, but "country" is not eqivalent to "member of the UN"- Switzerland, for example.  How many countries do we know of where Coke isn't sold?  Maybe North Korea... Markalexander100 04:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over two hundred countries 

message: I thought I was trying to help people out,The other pics of cans are not copyright either. I did not know you "owned" the topic.
:Nobody "owns" these pages. This includes you. If it offends you to see your contributions edited (or removed), then Wikipedia will be a very frustrating site for you. However, if you are indeed interested in helping people out, perhaps you should review the Picture Tutorial and the Image Use Policy and address the concerns that were raised. Exia 05:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  well sorry! 

message: I want to know why content which I added to this page was removed. It was well sourced (containing a link to the news site which provided the information), and very important.
Who removed this content and why? If the content is disputed can we not discuss it rather than censoring information which is unfavourable to the Coca Cola Company.
Mainstream news is badly censored enough as it is by corporate control and the web is meant to allow free access to accurate information, not censorship.
Information:
Coca Cola challenged in Kerala 
 
Coca Cola has been facing a backlash in India recently 
Villagers, campaigners and a BBC radio programme have alleged that the plant in the state of Kerala is drying up local ground water and emitting toxic sludge. 
For its part, the soft drinks giant strenuously denies the allegations. 
link: []
The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) had said samples of Coca-Cola and Pepsi products contained more than the prescribed limit of toxic pesticides and insecticides. 
link: []
:It's a duplicate of a section at the Coca-Cola Company. The company commits these alleged crimes, not the drink, therefore expand the section there, not here. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content on environmental abuses 

message: This article states that allegations that Coke supports Israel are 'debunked' and 'rumours'. On the contrary, Coke was widely unavailable in Arab countries for years precisely because of its involvement with Israel - I am altering the the article to talk about 'perceived support of Israel'.--XmarkX 04:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: I corrected the following: "However, because Coke II contained less sugar and less calories than Coke Classic, it was re-labeled and released as C2, a low-carbohydrate and low-calorie cola, in 2004." Coke C2 is a different beverage that contains both sugar (corn syrup) and artificial sweetners. It's essentially a cross between regular cola and diet cola.
Phil Dobson, could you explain why you feel the "not to be confused.." sentence should be removed?  I'm not clear on your reasons. thanks -- sannse (talk) 13:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (or in other words, things that cannot be verified by a third party). Unless you can provide a citation from a source that this is true, such a controversial claim cannot be in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh, by the way, welcome to Wikipedia (and sorry for the seemingly harsh treatment). As a friendly piece of adevice, you can sign your name (with the time and date of when you signed) using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Johnleemk | Talk 10:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure, no animosity felt. Have fun editing Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 12:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of Coke II / Coke C2 confusion 

message: I don't think enough has been said about the Coca Cola branding strategy. In England many vending machines and paper cups are branded with the Coca-Cola logo.
--Joshtek 18:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising / Branding 

message: I have removed the following from the page for:
#Not complying with the NPOV policy
#Being on the wrong page; it is not the drink that commits any alleged crimes, but the company. The paragraph devoted to the accusation starts with the drink but segues into a POV decrying of Coke and the US government.
Here is the material I removed:
:The United States government has endorsed Coca-Cola beverages and their business practices by making it the official drink of the Pentagon. This step is one viewed by many as an acceptance and encouragement of the awful human rights violations of the transnational corporation. A boycott is underway to oust this beverage provider from K-12 schools and universities, hoping to send a message all the way to the headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia that consumers will not stand for the human rights abuses.
:For more information please visit www.killercoke.org
If this is at all a valid criticism of the drink and not the company, can we please NPOV this (if that's even possible)? Johnleemk | Talk 07:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Human rights abuses"

message: Johnleemk - could you please stop being an apologizer for the Coca-Cola company? Are they paying you to safeguard their version of history and their safely-guarded brandname? I would not be surprised.  Have you considered that the company's version is NPOV, and that they are not an innocent bystander in the wake of all these so-called "Controversies"? My experience editing with you is so frustrating that I have left wikipedia.org.  I do not want to have to fight online battles with editors that simply cut large chunks of articles without trying to neutralize them yourself. 
As for your excuse of trying to separate the drink from the company - that is such a sham. Anything that you label as "controversial" becomes something about "the company".  Meanwhile, on the page you say is about "the drink", you allow rosy company history, including who founded the company, and its advertising policies. At one point, one of the paragraph explicitly refers to "Coca Cola" as the company and NOT the drink ("In 1985, Coca-Cola,amid much publicity, attempted to change the formula of the drink"). History is something that has negatives and positives - but you are relegating the negative aspects of Coca-Cola's history to a ghetto article that barely gets updated.
Instead of cutting information completely, Johnleemk, please just neutralize it and incorporate it into the article.  You are not the editor-in-chief of this article, so there is not need to cut portions of it without discussing first.  Your POV is pro-Coca-Cola. Please acknowledge this before cutting - and learn to work with other POVs. ~ Guppy 12:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Company" versus "The Drink" -- Excuses from Johnleemk

message: I propose that either we reunite the contents of the two articles about the Coca-Cola Company ("Coca-Cola" and "The Coca Cola Company"), or completely remove company history, advertising policy, and "new coke" section as it stands in this article. For more background on this proposal, please see:  Coca-Cola Company Talk page
-Guppy 12:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to reunite contents of two articles 

message: Wasn't Coke driven out of India in '78 for refusing to reveal their secret formula?  Trekphiler 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm quite sure that's true. In my case, so they should have. KILO-LIMA 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India + Coca-Cola 

message: Anyone getting a problem with browsing this page with firefox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola ). It doesn't diplay all the page. It doesn't display the 'Criticisms' section to be more exact. Isn't that funny?
Radu Dragusin
:You must have some kind of problem, I see it fine using Firefox 1.5. Autiger 01:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section not visible under Firefox - but it's present under I.E. 

message: What happened to the first image on the article: :Image:Coca-Cola.jpg. It appears to have been deleted. Of course, since the change in policy, the history cannot be seen, thus I can't see why—and who—deleted it. KILO-LIMA 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First image on article 

message: :Today, the flavoring is still done with kola nuts and the coca leaf; however, the coca leaves used today are "spent" leaves - the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process - however, one cannot extract cocaine out of the leaf at a molecular level; therefore, the drink still contains trace amounts of the stimulant [citation needed].
What part of this sentence needs citation? That Coke is still made from coca leaves? That you can't extract cocaine from them at a molecular left? That they use spent leaves? // paroxysm (n) 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine all of it needs some kind of citation, that's not exactly common knowledge. However, the most likely points of contention (i.e. the things people may want to see sources on) is that there are "trace amounts of the stimulant" in the drink.--DragoonWraith 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What needs citation?