Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  A few minor things 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The name "Coca-Cola" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Black Market

message: 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)
thread_title: Coca Cola Early History Original ingredients

message: 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)
thread_title: Coke Controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Coca-Cola drink vs. Coca-Cola company... again

message: 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)
thread_title: iCoke

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  npov check

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irn Bru Update 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mecca Cola 

message: 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)
thread_title: New article on varieties of Coke?

message: 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.  --  thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 14:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split New Coke Discussion Off? 

message: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269186/ <BR>
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 ...<BR>
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)
thread_title:  Coke gets slammed on Wikipedia  MSNBC - USA