Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 6

message: Regarding the below section, moved here from the article. I don't think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It is trivia and of unending scope. All we need to say is something along the lines of, Coke does product placements, and give a few examples. A paragraph at most, 2 or 3 sentences. More interesting would be Cokes policies on product placement, how much money it makes, it's history, when it started, etc.. but listing every product placement is irrelevant and lengthy trivia in an article that is already very long. In addition the way this is worded is clearly a criticism "had its share of product placement". -- Stbalbach 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product placement 

message: Should lobbyist content be in a separate section of wikipedia, if in any? This surely would not be an unbiased opinion.  Authors who confirm they do not work for lobbyists, yet do, could be considered frauds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.153.29  (talk • contribs) .
:Which editors do you think are lobbyists? -- Stbalbach 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further debate for wikipedia 

message: I removed the following as 1) revealed to be a publicity stunt in  June 7, 2005 WSJ article 2) Not in main text (this section is just a short summary)
But worst of all several Indian newspapers reported that in the state of Andhra Pradesh several cotton farmers use colas as pest a pest control devise citind they are cheaper than teh regular pest control chemicals.
.This piece of news was published in all major Indian Newspapers including the news agency Reuters even prompting the Atlanta based Coca-cola's spokesman to give a press brief. Jvandyke 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text on proported use as a pesticide

message: Just noticed that clicking the Frank Robinson link under history in the main article leads to baseball player Frank Robinson who I doubt was the one and same the article's refering to.
I would change it but I have no idea how. Although I'm a hardcore lurker, I'm still an editting newbie.--Hunter85014 22:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I seemed to have figured it out anyway by just removing the link tags around it. I don't know if Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the real Frank Robinson that the article refers to, but yeah, the one it was directing to wasn't it.--Hunter85014 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Robinson 

message: I moved: "Reportedly, Coca Cola has been credited/blamed for the commercialization of Christmas and for the invention of the modern day Santa Claus, as a picture of Santa Claus was featured on an advertisement for Coke sometime in the 20s, and it continued up until they sponsored the Peanuts special A Charlie Brown Christmas.  Coca-Cola still, to this day, sells memorabilia featuring Santa Claus."  as Coca-Cola's role with Santa is already detailed in the 'Advertising' subsection.Jvandyke 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coca-Cola and Christmas

message: I'm moving the following as it is incorrectly sourced (killercola.org doesn't exist; I suspect the author meant the anti-Coca-Cola site killercoke.org), misleading "20000 bodies" or more appropriately addressed on Criticism of Coca-Cola as has been detailed here previously: 
Listed below are union leaders at Coca-Cola's Colombian bottling plants who have been murdered. Hundreds of other Coke workers have been tortured, kidnapped and/or illegally detained by violent paramilitaries, often working closely with plant managements.
1989 Avelino Achicanoy  
4/8/94 Jose Elaseasar MancoDavid  
4/20/94 Luis Enrique Giraldo Arango  
4/23/95 Luis Enrique Gomez Garado 
12/5/96 Isidro Segundo Gil  
12/26/96 Jose Librado Herrera Osorio 
6/21/2001 Oscar Dario Soto Polo  
8/31/2002 Adolfo de Jesus Munera Lopez
source- www.killercola.org
There also have been mass graves with upto 20000 bodies in, these were carried out by paramilitaries with links to coca cola
source-Channel 4 news Jvandyke 03:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coca-Cola and Colombia 

message: We do need a cocaine cola beverage {cocaine cola beverage} article.
Pertaining to the previous message,
which sort of "coke" causes more murder?
Thank You.
hopiakuta 18:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We do need a [[cocaine cola beverage]] {[[cocaine]] [[cola]] [[beverage]]} article. 

message: What is the recommended retail price for Coke in all the countries in the world? Local Currency!
UK = +-50p
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.13.91 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I doubt this is viable. An issue just to start is what size/packaging does your question refer to?  Fountain or prepackaged retail?  Cans, PET bottles, glass bottles?  12oz, 20oz, 1L or 2L? AUTiger ʃ talk/work 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price for Coca-Cola everywhere in the world 

message: According to 2L bottles in Canada, they now only say Coca-Cola, instead of Coca-Cola Classic. Is this the same elsewhere, namely the US?
:Dear Whoever, in Australia it's all just Coca-Cola. I happened to be in the US when the New Coke / Classic thing occurred and was mightily amused (the 'New Coke' tasted like Pepsi to me, but I don't claim to be an expert). In fact I'm struggling to recall 'New Coke' and/or 'Classic' ever being used in Oz... Cheers, Ian Rose 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about forgetting the name, but Canada had New Coke as well, and the drink was called Coca-Cola Classic since 1985. I have found Canadian bottles without the Classic labelling, and it might be the same in the US. I am guessing that it is back to Coca-Cola in these countires. 24.78.100.28 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Classic' removed in Canada 

message: i haven't been following this page much, but looking at the July 2006 wikipedia (en) mailing list discussion starting here and the wikiturfing neologism, it's clear that some people are concerned about propaganda companies, a.k.a. public relations companies, trying to remove and/or hide criticisms of corporations. As is mentioned above, criticisms of an organisation should best be integrated into the article, not separated.
However, given that in this case a separate Criticism of Coca-Cola article exists, the minimum we can do to retain NPOV is to include a summary of that article here - a summary of a few paragraphs as a section here, and a one or two sentence summary in the article summary. So that's what i've tried to do. Essentially all the content i've just added is links to the headings of Criticism of Coca-Cola but converted into summary/sentence form. If someone thinks that one or more criticisms are less valid and not important for summarising, then please NPOV that on the Criticism of Coca-Cola article rather than here. Boud 22:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read through this talk page and the talk page for The Coca-Cola Company, you'll see that this has been discussed more than once before. There are not many criticisms of Coca-Cola the drink, other than the health concerns which are already discussed in the article. Criticism of Coca-Cola relates more directly to The Coca-Cola Company. I removed the paragraph you added to the introduction to this page, because I don't think that criticisms of Coca-Cola's business practices relate to the drink itself enough to be listed so prominently on this page. Philbert2.71828 23:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, there needs to be a disambiguation warning - most people will not immediately realise that this article concerns the drink rather than the company. Done. Boud 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticisms NPOV summary added; wikiturf warning 

message: "In Norway they have a very big competitor to Cola. Tissemann Cola. This is an old formula, used by generations."
This if certanly not right, probably somebody have just wrote it for fun, because there is no such thing as Tissemann Cola in Norway. "Tissemann" itself actually means a bad word...
Somebody's had fun here!
:Good catch. I removed it. Philbert2.71828 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG! 

message: I remember doing an experiment on this at school, and it *did* dissolve a tooth overnight.  Now, they were milk teeth and smaller than adult, or perhaps the teacher removed it as an 'example' of how bad fizzy drinks are supposed to be?
:I suspect that your teacher (or someone else) removed the tooth. It wouldn't be hard to repeat the experiment, though, if anyone happens to know someone who is expecting to lose a tooth soon. I don't know of anyone though. Philbert2.71828 14:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely true, albeit it takes a few days rather than overnight.  I know because I tried it myself when I was a squid. To be fair, I used a "no-brand" cola. No original research is allowed on Wikipedia however so this is merely anecdotal and not for the article.  (You can even use cola to help remove the oil stain from your driveway: pour, wait a few hours, then scrub with a metal brush!) -- Delsource (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolving Teeth 

message: The Great Depression, however, also saw a setback for Coca-Cola with the arrival of new competitor Pepsi; by offering twelve-ounce bottles for the same price (five cents) as Coca-Cola's six-ounce bottles, as well as a musical jingle in its advertising campaign, PepsiCo succeeded in becoming a challenger to Coca-Cola's dominance of the American market, with its profits doubling from 1936 to 1938. [HERE] to enter the(...)
I believe that something is missing in that paragraph (where noted with HERE). Maybe it would be good to check previous versions of the article and find it.
.-Zingazin 03:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is missing 

message: This article is SO advertising Coca-Cola. It's full of how Coca-Cola is so damn popular and it's got a great shape, and I just got a damn warning for editing a sentence at the top - okay, I was a little bit bad, but it wasn't like I replaced the article with a picture of a huge ass, which I might as well have done for the reaction I got. 86.17.163.37 17:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not vandalize it doesn't help. -- Stbalbach 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon's post-vandalization comment

message: I believe that the number one ingredient of a soft drink is very pertinent to the introductory paragraph about that particular soft drink.  It is as important as stating that it is carbonated.   While high fructose corn syrup never does flow well it would be inaccurate to claim it is high in sugar since high fructose corn syrup is neither a sugar nor is it corn syrup.  Moreover I find it offensive that you labeled my comment as being vandalism when it was neither obscene, inaccurate, or irrelevant to the subject matter.  While reasonable men may disagree as to whether my comment belongs in the opening paragraph I find it outrageous that it has been classified as vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laspakis (talk • contribs) 
:I did not mean for my edit summary to suggest your edit was vandalism. I was refering to the edits by User:67.173.72.143, who deleted a large section and replaced it with "Coke was made cause people copied it from Pepsi." I removed the edit because its tone did not fit with an informed, succinct, intro for the layman. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High Fructose Corn Syrup

message: I heard that the early color of Coca-Cola was green. Can any one confirm it?
Coca Cola Syrip is Green, once they put the colouring in it, it turns the black colour we see it as, they changed the color to clear once and people said they caould taste the difference so they pulled it
:Coca~Cola was never green. Prometheus-X303- 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Color of Coca-Cola 

message: Just to start, fix all the issues in the FARC list if you haven't already, all citation needed tags need refs, the external jumps need to be refs, and the list should be prose. Rlevse 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add, that five references aren't formatted properly, there is spacing between punctuation and references, ex . [1] [2] should be .[1][2]. The article lacks sources try get at least one for each paragraph. Also something happened to the bottom of the article, someone should try fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA tips

message: I think I created a FA class article on Coca-Cola at User:Natl1/CokeSandbox. I created it based on the current article and past versions. However, I have not replaced the current article with it because I am not sure that it is FA class. Leave me a message below or at User talk:Natl1.--Natl1 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have not read the entire thing, but I have to disagree with the few things I have read. For example you wrote "shrewd businessman Asa Griggs Candler, whose aggressive marketing tactics" - this is clearly POV and was long ago fixed, why bring it back? Also, your criticisms section has been expanded on specific topics and left other topics out entirely - we already agreed long ago the critic section is supposed to be a summary of the criticisms article and not go into too much specific details - a lot has changed for the better since the old FA was in place. Also, your new version would not now pass a FA, the entire article needs to be footnoted from top to bottom (with no external links in the middle of the article), the requirements are much higher than they were when this article originally passed FA. -- Stbalbach 01:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed all the things listed above. What do you think of it now? Leave me a message below or at User talk:Natl1.--Natl1 13:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The local competitors section is a list -- prose is preferred for FA.  More references might be requested, too -- "World War II" and "New Coke to the present" are both without citations, and so are a couple of other subsections.  On the whole, though, it's looking good.  I think it'd pass GA, at least, and I'd encourage copying it over. Shimeru 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, it may be my browser, but some of the Chinese characters in the "International Appeal" section aren't displaying properly for me.  Just in case it's not me. Shimeru 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Class Article

message: I noticed that in this article, it mentions that flavouring is still done with the kola nut.  Yet in that article, it says most mass-produced beverages use artificial means to achieve their flavouring.  Maybe this little contradiction could be sorted out?  I would assume that the artificial flavours are used in Coca-Cola today.Γ
DarthShrine 05:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavouring method...? 

message: If you support rewriting the section in prose place your vote underneath in the following format "#~~~~".
# Prose, obviously. -- Stbalbach 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite the section in prose

message: It has been suggested on the Peer Review that the Coca-Cola formula section be expanded. However, the section does link to a main article, Coca-Cola Formula. Do you think the section needs to be expanded?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Proposal 

message: Would it be reasonable to create an article about My Coke Rewards? After all Pepsi Stuff has its own article and it's of the same animal. Input?
mycokerewards.com
MrBucket 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit late in coming, but the article has been created. -- MisterHand 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Coke Rewards 

message: The information is quite controversial, and it's based on only one source. If it is to stay, more independent sources should be provide.
130.225.96.2 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources to support your position. -- Stbalbach 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you understand the above? The information appears highly opinionated and it is based on a sole source - therefore, I find it hard to believe that it is generally accepted knowledge. 130.225.96.2 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal. It's a POV section.--Jeff 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still only one source. It doesn't matter if it's a book, a paper or a coke can. I'm not saying anything about whether it's true or not, it's still only one source - and Wikipedia's policy is no original research. If you want it to stay I suggest you find other sources that claim the same (and that doesn't just refer to the original source). If it is to stay in the criticism section, I think it should be reworded so that it is clear that it is only one man's opinion. 130.225.96.2 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please deal with it at Talk:Criticism of Coca-Cola where it currently resides, it was re-worded. -- Stbalbach 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II section should be removed