Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 5

message: CocaCola in its Coca Cola Zero advertising campaing has been caught spamming and worse of all, creating a false blogg. This deceitfull, cheating and degrading behavoiur on the part of Coca Cola means we can expect anything and everything from them, and Wikipedia, with its open edit policy and its huge following (16th most visited website in the world) is a prime candidate for their vandalism. I strongly recommend administrators to take this appaling behaviour into consideration and take drastic action, possibly blocking the open edit on this article.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably this is what was referred to as "people thinking that this article is biased towards Coke"?  If there's any danger in this article's balance, it is that it is being hijacked by anti-Coke protestors to make a point.  Remember that we are attempting to get a neutral point of view - that is one the does not favour any side.  Anything that is not verfiable and referenced is not wanted.  DJR (Talk) 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All well and good, but none of it matters as it infringes WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.  Blogs are not even close to being a reliable source of information and an accusation of lying, regardless how many blogs suggest it, does not constitute lying unless proven as such.  Furthermore, the example you state seems to be unimportant, especially in the grand scheme of things.  Lying over a date?  If all companies were called to task for this then the world would not exist as we know it.  "Following the links in the article I have found a huge number of bloggs and pages critizising Coca Colas Astroturf campaign, abusing the confidence we place on bloggs" - this just sums it up.  A blog is not a reliable source.  Criticism does not equal lying.  Dodgy advertisment campaigns do not abuse "the confidence we place on blogs", because as Wikipedians, we place no confidence in blogs.  It is that simple.  DJR (Talk) 22:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't violate policy plz kthx. Johnleemk | Talk 04:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch out for Coca Cola's minions!!!

message: Since it's been agreed that we won't be including any criticisms of the Coca-Cola Company that are unrelated to the drink, I don't see a point in listing Criticism of Coca-Cola as a main article for the health concerns section. The article's tone and content are obviously confined to Coca-Cola the company, not Coca-Cola the drink. (The few exceptions are material that was initially expunged from this article.) Also, I will strenously oppose any attempt to cut down the section on health issues as Stbalbach implied he planned to do in this edit summary. The content of the article at the time I write this is not excessively detailed, and avoids delving into the obscure concerns of Ashkenazi Jews and other similar excess detail that was pruned from this article. There is no reason to reduce the size of this section when it has already been trimmed of irrelevant cruft, and deals broadly with the most common health concerns related to Coke. On another note, for the last time, please don't add  to the introductory paragraph of health criticisms. An introduction does not need footnotes when the same material is dealt with in greater depth (with complete referencing, I might add) a few paragraphs away. Johnleemk | Talk 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:main|main]]}} versus {{tl|see also}} and other issues 

message: Removed the following because of http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/carbonate.asp
Although Pemberton intended it to be mixed with still water, it was sold at soda fountains (popularized at the time by the belief that carbonated water was good for the health). It was first mixed with carbonated water when a customer at Jacob's pharmacy came in with a bad headache and bought some Coca-Cola syrup and asked Willis Venable, the soda fountain man, to mix the syrup with (regular) water so the customer could take it immediately. The tap water faucet was at the other end of the counter, however, so Venable recommended carbonated water instead of plain and the customer agreed and said it tasted much better, and within weeks several other drugstores began mixing Coca-Cola with carbonated water.  --Espoo 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  carbonated accident legend 

message: I propose to move the history and production to their own articles, history of Coca-Cola and production of Coca-Cola. Presently, this article is too long which is said when you start editing this page. Any objections? Helicoptor 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that if we provide good enough summaries of the respective articles it would be ok. I dont think that the article is too long per se, given that coke is the most popular commercial drink world wide. By the way, I'm about to rewrite parts of the Criticism - Health section to briefly but clearly note its high sugar content, 106g/litre, the WHO recommendation of limiting sugar content to 10% of the diet which means that we should not drink more than one can 330ml of Coke a day. (2 cans would be 660ml, equivalent to 277,2 sugar Calories, that is more than 10% of the recommended dayly calorie intake of 2000/2500 calories for women and men respectively). I have sources for all this information.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is currently featured, so I'm hesitant to split it up unless theres more than enough content for those indiivdualarticles to stand on their own. I say sandbox the dinivudal articles first and then split--larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article length is ok as it is. It seems like it was pretty long a couple months ago, and if it grows too long again, we could perhaps split the history to its own page. I don't think there's enough information about production of Coke to warrent a separate page for that at the moment -- the section is only a few paragraphs long. Philbert2.71828 01:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it should be split, the article is featured, it's supposed to be long. If it is split than I would seriously question its featured status, the main material would be gutted along with most of the footnotes. -- Stbalbach 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the article up 

message: This has been recently in the news.  It's basically a story on three people who stole secret files from Coke and tried to sell them to Pepsi.  If it hasn't been added to the article then I think that it should be added.  Mr. C.C. 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three charged with stealing Coke secrets 

message: I think that there is some unnecessary whitespace in this article, caused by right-aligned images pushing text sections down the page. Specifically, I'm referring to the first section (the introduction) and the "Advertising" Section. Can this be resolved without editing any actual content, or would the pictures have to be resized? It just looks less clean than I think it should.
James Somers 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitespace

message: The featured article review for this (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coca-Cola) is up for closing and based on the comments it should lose its FA status. However, I notice changes have been made. If anyone wants to add additional comments to the review please do so soon. Marskell 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the review 

message: This might seem insane, but I'm looking for a song. It is featured in a Coca-Cola commercial sometime back in May 2004 and I cannot find it anywhere. I've been looking for it for awhile now and the best info I could come up with is from this website's archives. 
http://www.geminigirl.net/archives/000324.html#comments
Check that out and see if you recall any such exchange and get back to me. :) TommyBoy76 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, no not that one. I know that tune already-- Harry Belafonte, isn't it? Plus it was at the end of Reservoir Dogs; the credits, I mean. I thought the articles above might have helped... Thanks, though. I'm glad someone responded, at least. I'd appreciate it if anyone else knew anything. Even a no is fine. --00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No "no"s huh? Hmm... well thanks anyway. I guess. TommyBoy76 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desperate 

message: Does anyone else think that this talk page should be archived? Some of the discussions are over two years old, and the page is currently too long for certain Internet connections. Does anyone else feel the same way? Ajwebb 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Why is Coca Cola one of the most well known and popular sodas?  If you ask me it's also one of the worst tasting ones...  DR. PEPPER IS THE KING.--Tainted Drifter 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a POV comment. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Nasty 

message: Criticism of Coca-Cola is a POV fork which should be merged into the main article. 72.60.227.118 06:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't we been through this a million times already? It's not a "POV fork", it was done for practical reasons 1) The length of the criticism section far outweighs its importance in the main article, it had taken over the article, its length is a distortion making it POV 2) the criticisms are easily long enough to warrant its own article 3) multiple articles discuss the coke critically, this aggregates them all into one location, before we had a mess of duplications across multiple articles 4) There was a very public article in the newspapers about how the Wikipedia Coke article was majority negative material attacking Coke. The "POV fork" people have not provided a rationale for why it is a POV fork, or even what that nebulous term means, and have not addressed the pragmatic reasons why this was done, nor the public embarrassment Wikipedia suffered as a result of the previous version of the article and how to prevent that from happening again. Basically, it looks like a bunch of anti-coke activists who are unhappy about being segregated. Wikipedia is not a site for activists to take over articles with negative material, it needs to remain a balanced set of articles. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose the merger for all of the reasons that Stbalbach already listed. The Coca-Cola article already has a section on criticisms. The full list of criticisms is just too long to have in the Coca-Cola article. Besides, this article is supposed to be about the drink itself, not the company. The criticisms article deals with criticisms of the company, not the drink. Philbert2.71828 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then split it company/drink, not drink+company/criticisms. That makes sense. Stevage 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too difficult, it is not that clear cut. Can't talk about one without talking about the other. A single place to talk about criticisms of the product and the company makes the most sense. In fact the way it was before was split, and that record shows a mess of duplications. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I will echo the comments I made on the talk page of Microsoft.  It's not against NPOV policy, please read WP:POVFORK.  There is a proposed guideline for the removal of criticism articles and even there, the discussion has been moving to keep them so long as they meet NPOV themselves (by allowing rebutting points and discussing the fact that notable criticism exists and not participating in the criticism directly itself).  As you will quickly see from the consensus on Microsoft and this article, these articles do not violate policy and will most likely stay in place as they are.  Please do not continue adding merge headers to every article with a "Criticism of..." splitout.  It would be considered vandalism to edit an article to prove a point.  ju66l3r 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Too difficult, it is not that clear cut. Can't talk about one without talking about the other. A single place to talk about criticisms of the product and the company makes the most sense. In fact the way it was before it was split like you suggest, and that record shows a mess of duplications (ie. trying to talk about the India problem from only the perspective of the coke product and not the coke company results in a mess of duplications and confusion of material across different articles - basically an explosion in the amount of criticism material). Besides, we have a summary section in each article of the criticisms, it's not a POV split, it's simply a way of keeping the article in balance in terms of sheer mass of material. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger