Talk:Coca-Cola

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

Coca-Cola is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 8 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

1 Santa Claus

2 Rude posters recalled

10 More on Peruvian Kola

11 Text removal

12 Coke Brands

13 Differences between french and english articles about coca cola

14 Coca-cola union abuses in Columbia

15 The "Chinese Name"

16 Dear editors of this article

17 Coca-Cola is a junk food?

18 Coke is unhealthy

19 NPOVness of comments regarding Coke possibly being held as American

20 200 countries?

21 "Small time vendor"?

22 Silly, but CIA connections?

23 Phosphoric acid and its effects on bone calcium

24 Turn of the century (1929)

25 The various controversies surrounding Coke

26 Splitting The Coca-Cola Company from Coca-Cola product

27 coca leaves still in use for Coke, albeit without coccaine

28 ODP

29 Splitting The Coca-Cola Company from Coca-Cola product, Part 2

30 Caramel ingredient?

31 Over two hundred countries

32 coke II pictures

33 well sorry!

34 Removal of content on environmental abuses

35 Israel

36 Correction of Coke II / Coke C2 confusion

37 Advertising / Branding

38 "Human rights abuses"

39 "The Company" versus "The Drink" -- Excuses from Johnleemk

39.1 Proposal to reunite contents of two articles

40 Link to Hebrew missing

41 ...

Santa Claus

Is there any mention in this article of modern image of Santa Claus being derived from an adversiment coke ran, I would put what I know in but I am not sure how correct and accurate it is thanks.

There are two mentions of the Santa Claus thing in the article now -- one under Advertising and one in its own section. One of these should be removed.

Rude posters recalled

Why is there no mention about the mid 80's posters that were part of an ad campaign that was cancelled because of the hidden rude picture? see [1] (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/poster.asp)

Slogan

Is one of the logos "Coke is it" or "Coke it is"? I think it's a mistake, but I don't dare change it. Cluster 18:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Coke is it" was used in advertising.Pedant 03:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anniversary

On Template:May 8 selected anniversaries

Addictive

Coca-Cola is known to be addictive due to the caffeine in it.

Just because it contains an addictive chemical, that doesn't make it addictive; is there some other reason to think it's addictive?

The sugar in the drink also contributes to diabities and other physical complications.

I don't know what the point of saying this is, in the context of the article. All sugar is dangerous for diabetics.

Recent studies have shown that the caffeine accelerates the body for a short period of time.

What does "accelerates the body" mean?

This acceleration extends to the brain as well. Learning has been known to increase while drinking the soft drink.

This chemical is the element human brains work on. In essence, it's brain food. It has been known to cause headaches, though.

???

--LMS

If there's a place for this rot, it's under caffeine, not Coca-Cola.

BTW, why we don't we specify the amount of caffeine it contains? According to their site it contains 23/85 = 27% [2] (http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/faq/ingredients.html) of the caffeine in a coffee "brewed, drip method". So, a 500 ml bottle contains as much caffeine as an average coffee cup. (135 ml) Bogdan | Talk 11:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

the formula changes too, can't specify how much whatever is in it. trade secret too, so not allowed to state ingredients beyond what is published by coke. Cal Torrance former minister at Northridge United Methodist Church, Northridge California was 'addicted to coca-cola' though he could get by on other similar cola drinks. Could it be reasonably claimed the he was not addicted to coke, because Royal Crown cola could substitute?Pedant 03:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False information

This page has some false information. Here are some examples.

Shortly after the turn of the century, cocaine was removed from the coca leaves by processing (leaving a physiologically insignificant trace), and extra caffeine was added.

Actually, a significant amount of the caffeine was removed.

The drink and its advertising campaigns have had significant impact on American culture. The current American image of Santa Claus, for example, as a fat jolly bearded old man in a red and white suit comes from a Coca-Cola advertisement.

Urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp

this is more a bad formulation than a false one,the drink and its ads do have significant impact on american culture and others, and do played a significant role in the propagation of the santa image (not created it thought). User:Izwalito:Izwalito

However, the company did take the opportunity to switch Coca-Cola Classic from using cane sugar sweetener to the less-expensive corn syrup sweetener.

Five years before the "new coke"-debacle, half the sugar was already switched. Six month before, all of it was. So, the sweetener replacement was done before new coke. See http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages -- Zoe

Cocaine

To our anonymous friend, please see, for example, [3] (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp) on the cocaine thing (and please do not remove that info from the page again). --Camembert

I added a couple references to the cocaine thing... (snopes and one other one) I hope that's okay... Evil saltine 01:25, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've protected this page. RickK 01:32, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) There is a big difference between cocaine and coca extract. Cocaine is a drug that uses different chemical components besides coca and causes adiction. On the other hand, Coca extract is different and has no dangerous effect on health. Coca tea is very popular in Peru and Bolivia and it's part of the culture of those countries. Coca Cola used coca extract, not cocaine.

More on cocaine

I reccomend this:

In the original formula, it is often alleged that cocaine (occurring naturally within the coca leaves), as well as kola nut caffeine, provided the drink's stimulating effect; such theories generally note that the modern formula only contains trace amounts of the drug. The Coca-Cola Company denies that their product contains any cocaine whatsoever, stating, "Coca-Cola does not contain cocaine or any other harmful substance, and cocaine has never been an added ingredient for Coca-Cola".

Pizza Puzzle 12:46, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There's no need to perpetuate disinformation, if Coca Cola is obviously wrong, that can be stated as such.—Eloquence 13:26, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Coca-Cola cannot be "obviously" wrong because they are a multi-billion dollar corporation who has more scientists backing their opinion then you have ever met. That doesn't mean they are right; but, it does mean that, in an article on THEIR product (produced by THEIR secret formala) and which you have never personally investigated -- we cannot act as if we are absolutely correct and perfect (even if only on this one point). Pizza Puzzle

anyone can be obviously wrong, no matter how many dollars and scientists backing up the lie (ever heard of the story of flat earth with the sun revolving around it?)Izwalito

The point is, if all they say is "We've never had cocaine in Coca Cola" then we will report that claim dutifully, but will also point out that no substantial counter evidence to the cited facts has been provided. If they say "We've never had cocaine in Coca Cola, as documented by this company history and declassified recipes and ..." then that's a different story. But obviously wrong (or unsubstantiated) claims can be treated as such, there's no need to tone down our language to "many people allege", instead we should report, neutrally of course, what the evidence from both sides is. Facts matter.—Eloquence 16:24, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Coca-Cola says they have never had cocaine in Coca-Cola. What proof do you have otherwise? "Many people allege" is not a toning down -- it is presenting the truth, may people do allege this and Coca-Cola says its not true. Have you personally tested Coca-Cola for cocaine? What proof do you have??? Pizza Puzzle

It's not a subject that particularly interests me, but I would expect sources regarding the 19th/20th century cocaine controversy as well as references to chemical analysis that has been carried out in Allen's book [4] (http://www.snopes.com/sources/cokelore/secrform.htm).—Eloquence 17:00, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

According to the article right now, Coca-Cola do not say that they "never had cocaine in Coca Cola" (or at least, if they do, I've not seen it), they say that "cocaine has never been an added ingredient", which, as the article notes, is completely consistent with it being naturally present in coca leaves. They also say (again, according to the article) that there is no cocaine in the drink now, and I don't think anybody disagrees with that. So I don't see what the problem is. That said, looking around on Coca Cola's website for the comment in the article, I can't find it - does anybody have a link to a specific page? --Camembert
- Yes, but Eloquence is arguing that there is cocaine in the Coke, now. Coca-Cola disputes it and Eloquence believes they are "obviously wrong". Pizza Puzzle
- Here (http://questions.coca-cola.com/vrep/NSREExtended.asp?WhatUserSaid=cocaine&VRepTalk.x=14&VRepTalk.y=11) is the comment from Coca-Cola. Evil saltine 19:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  - Thanks - I'll add that to the article. --Camembert

No, Pizza Puzzle, I have never argued that Coke contains cocaine now. That's simply wrong, and if you had read my comments, you would know that.—Eloquence 06:53, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
You appear to be saying it by arguing that it is "obviously wrong" to disagree with the article, "cocaine was removed from the coca leaves by processing (leaving a physiologically insignificant trace)". Pizza Puzzle
- No, I have never expressed disagreement with that part of the article. I disagree with your proposed wording above, "it is often alleged that ..". This is an unnecessary toning down of facts as "theories", the "obviously wrong" referred to Coca Cola's denial that Coke had ever included cocaine, although, as the article in its current form correctly implies, the PR statement is not really wrong but just misleading.—Eloquence 13:55, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

Peruvian Kola

I read that there is a Peruvian brand that is more popular there and also sold in Mexico. It is something-Kola but not Inca Kola. Do you remember the name?

Kola Real from the numbers I see is an competitive newcomer, but not the leader (still) -- Error 02:21, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Inca Kola is a Peruvian soft drink that holds the honor to be the only national soft drink that has beaten Coca Cola around the world. This soft drink has a distinctive color (gold) and flavor that makes it the favorite in Peru. It has been produced since the mid 1930's. In 1999, Coca Cola purchased and interest on Inca Kola and right now, the Inca Kola group manages Coca Cola businesses in Peru.

In the late 1990's a new competitor enter the soft drink market in Peru: Kola Real. The marketing strategy was a bit hit and right now Kola Real is the third major soft drink in Peru. Kola Real has now extended its business to Ecuador, Venezuela and Mexico and has a 7% of the Mexican market.

For more info see www.incakola.com.pe

More on Peruvian Kola

The Inca Kola page says:

It is the only one local beverage in the world that outsells Coca Cola in its origin country.

but the Coca Cola page says:

Coca-Cola is the market leader for soft drinks in all countries of the world, except Scotland, where the locally produced Irn Bru is more popular, and Quebec, Canada, where Pepsi is the market leader.

At least one of these is mistaken and should be corrected.

-- Dominus 18:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Coca Cola bought interest in Inca Kola in 1999, and right now the Inca Kola brand is considered as their own by Coca Cola. Therefore, Coca Cola can affirm that they have "won" the competition in Peru.

Text removal

I removed this:

The non-governmental organization Greenpeace could also have found a rate greater than the standard criteria and asked for the closing of the production site.

Surely they either did, or they didn't. If their methods are that vague that they're not even sure what they've discovered then I don't think this sentence belongs in the article. -- Ams80 10:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

agreePedant 06:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Coke Brands

Some of the brands listed are not Coca-Cola brands. I've already removed Schweppes, which is a Cadbury-Schweppes brand, but others listed on this page appear on Cadbury-Schweppes as their brands. If anyone is sure who owns the brand, could they sort this out? I think the confusion arises because in some countries, brands like Schweppes are distributed by Coke bottlers (e.g. Schweppes is distributed by Coca-Cola Enterprises in the UK).

The system seems a little odd, but basically companies that bottle and distribute Coke are not the same as the Coca-Cola Company itself. See [5] (http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/bottlingtoday.html). Tjwood 12:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The list seems to be a copy of the information found at http://www2.coca-cola.com/brands/brandlist.html, and it does list Schweppes. It also lists A&W and Dr Pepper, also brands that are Cadbury-Schweppes brands. If from that page one follows the "print version" link, we reach a different page with the same brands, but with the disclaimer Listed below are the brands included in our 2003 unit case volume. Some are licensed and many are sold only in select locations.. I guess this means that the Coca-Cola company licenses Cadbury-Schweppes brands in one or more countries. It also means that the list as given is polluted, and less useful than it might appear. I'll put in a disclaimer on the article page. Abigail 13:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OHO! Smellum heap big rat here. Is it just possible that counting these other brands that are distibuted by some local Coca-Cola bottlers but have no other connection (and may even be rivals) helps to boost the claimed popularity of Coca-Cola? Andrewa 21:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Differences between french and english articles about coca cola

why is it that the english article doesn't mention the period of relationships of coca cola with the nazi government? I'd be interested to read that, if a translation's available. You could post it on my talk pagePedant 06:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It used to. Someone deleted it. Personally, I think it's relevant to an in-depth discussion of the product and its history, and certainly a topic that should be covered by an encyclopedia. - Jel 09:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Coca-cola union abuses in Columbia

added a little info and a link at bottom it would be nice for the article to talk about what is going on in Columbia and not just mention in reference to US court action

This section is clearly NPOV, since it's based on accusations made by trade union in which several leaders are suspected of having connections with the FARC and ELN guerrillas, so I'd put a POV alert on this, or remove it altogether!!!

The "Chinese Name"

The part about the translation being "Bite the wax tadpole" is incorrect. (even the link the author placed says it is discreated it.) It is like the old "Nova" car myth- the translation was always correct.

Thanks for pointing this out. It was me who had added that part in the article. I guess when I added it the "[Discredited at Bite the Wax Tadpole]" wasn't there in the site or I plain didn't notice it ! I guess the section can be removed from the article then.

But the snopes site just says that the description is untrue, it doesn't provide any evidence why it is untrue or any origins of the legend if it may be called so. So unlike snopes ! Does anyone here understand any Chinese ? Jay 15:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to me so quickly. As it happens, I speak Mandarin. The Chinese translation is K'o-K'a-K'o-Ler The Following is in Pinyin and Wade-Giles (I think- I don't know WG very well) transliteration. Ke(rising-falling tone)K'o- to be able to Kou(rising-falling tone) K'ou-Mouth/hole Ke (rising-falling tone)K'o- to be able to Le (Descending tone) Le- Happyness, to laugh/rejoice Or, "Allow (your) mouth to be happy/rejoice"(To allow/mouth hole/to be able to/rejoice). It sounds silly but it perfectly sound (albeit clunky) in Chinese. I am sorry that I can't help you with the Wu, Yue(Cantonese), Jin, or Min Nan tounges.

Well someone already removed the Chinese section from the article. Maybe someday Wikipedia will have articles having mention of all urban legends and then your explanation would be helpful. Why don't u sign up as a regular user and make edits. You'll get a talk page of your own. Jay 21:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear editors of this article

Forgive me if this discussion is already over with, But I request you all to project this article as neutral peice of information regarding a widely consumed liquid product rather than promoting idolatry. No one, as far as my superflous skimming goes, has mentioned about the serious health warnings obviously missing from its label which are hotly debated only in the medical world. So, I have added them in the introduction and deleted all those ticker symbol stuff. If those stuff deserve mention, then please create a new section highlighting the corporate structure of the company, the financial status, the number of workers and other management related material (ironically, I find this obviously missing - again I am too superflous). --Drbalaji md 09:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is conspiring to write a POV article here (at least, not as far as I know). I don't see where we are promoting idolatry. I believe we've given sufficient coverage of Coke's medical risks.

Closed mindedness.

I wasn't saying you shouldn't be fleshing it out. I was saying I feel we have a minimum sufficient coverage of Coke's medical risks already — it's been indicated that Coke used to contain cocaine but does not any more (if it does, I presume you think the US government is allying with Coke to cover it up?), and that it does contain caffeine, and even how much of it is inside, compared to non-decaffeinated coffee. Nobody has ever tried to claim that there are other unhealthy ingredients in Coke — all the court cases I've seen focused either on cocaine or caffeine. Again, there's things in theory and in practice. I've never seen anybody drop dead from drinking Coke like millions of fanatics have done. If you believe that there is some conspiracy to poison us with Coke, then please, do mention it. But mentioning such an unproven thing in the header — something not proved by any court evidence, something not even proved by anecdotal evidence — is just folly. If it is true, the least we could have is a citation from an acknowledged medical journal about this.

There's a policy of avoiding weasel words; show incidents that have happened and leave the reader to draw their own conclusion, not promote your own conclusion. This is to avoid POVing articles, and anyway, last time I checked we aren't supposed to be a source for critical medical information.

gibberish! would you not mention cyanide as a poison??

But does Coke contain cyanide? There is no proof that Coke contains anything more dangerous to your health than caffeine, which is definitely dangerous in some way to pregnant mothers and children, which is why I left it in the article. Until I see definite proof that Coke contains something more poisonous than that, I will not be accepting your half-baked claims.

Also, please provide sources for your claims, as I have Mark Pendergrast's "For God, Country and Coca-Cola" and it has mentioned lawsuits regarding Coke's caffeine content, etc. but if there's any discussion in the medical community about the dangers of Coke beyond some conspiracy theorists, I have yet to hear of it from any credible source, nor from Scientific American.

Sheer ignorance. I have been in this medical profession for a little more years than you have been on planet earth (just a comparison, nothing personal your highness). I have never encountered such a weak and ignorant argument.

I am not implying you are not a medical professional. But that's like Dubya barging in and going to war with Iraq, and then when asked why, he claims it based on political experience, and does not provide credible proof that there are any WMDs in there. To me that's what you're doing. There may or may not be WMDs (unhealthy ingredients) in Iraq (Coca-Cola), but as long as there are no satellite photos (medical publications) proving otherwise, the burden of the proof is on you to prove it.

So, you don't care about people dying in Iraq (Coca-Cola). What all you care about is satellite images (medical publications)? Why can't everyone here reseach on this issue, with an open mind, and provide a correct view? Several times, while drinking coke, I myself have engaged in debates over WMDs (unhealthy ingredients). And I certainly hope that I am not alone. There could no smoke, without fire. There could be no doubt, without fault. And that is the same reason why you doubt Dubya, without any proof that he is wrong.--ganesh 16:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because there are no sources. That's "research", not just going out and stating in the opening paragraph that "nobody knows the exact ingredients, so obviously Coke must be dangerous" and bolding it as well — I don't see how that's NPOV at all (we don't fight POV with more POV — we correct the original POV material). Until we see something credible about a mysterious ingredient in Coke that causes people to drop dead, I'll stick to my guns on just mentioning that Coke may cause problems for young children and/or pregnant women, because caffeine is indeed hazardous in copious amounts, moreso for those groups at risk. Coke may be dangerous in India, but generally in the U.S. it conforms to the FDA's standards, and here in Malaysia, I haven't heard of anybody dying of a Coca-Cola overdose. "But there's no full list of ingredients!" is not a valid excuse. A lot of soft drinks and junk food you and I consume just puts us off with "and other permitted preservatives/flavouring" and not list what these are. Do we avoid them because they may be dangerous? Christ, Coke is more than a century old and approved for consumption in more than 200 countries around the world. If there's anything more dangerous in it than caffeine, I'd like to see how Coke got away with bribing various governments for more than a hundred years (of course, a credible source would probably be more helpful — that's mainly what I'd like to see for various claims that Coke poses a definite health hazard. Vaguely stating that it is "widely debated in the medical community" is not citing a source. See weasel words for what I mean.). Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see that this article on Coke has a reference to Junk food at the end, where there is a reference to certain medical complications. So, by the rule of transitivity Coke poses medical concerns, that need to be addressed. Since health issue is the most important of all, (wikipedia is only for healthy living beings) mentioning it in the introduction is nothing insensible. I am just going to wait and see if this wikipedia passes this test of open-mindedness. --ganesh 23:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have revised the introduction again and moved some credible information to other sections, and deleted the stuff that I think requires a source or is unencyclopedic. Also, I have trouble believing that you've contributed to Wikipedia since its inception — if you have, I'd like to know what articles you've seen that have a dividing line between the opening paragraph and the rest of the article, nor any article that is so blatantly POVed by bolding text, which regardless of its veracity, could be construed as frightening people away from Coca-Cola. This is for the sake of POV; I myself don't give a shit about Coke. I just think that much of your edits are blatantly POV in their manner. You attempt to emphasise Coke's downsides.

moronic. Do you mean to say, Mr. Know all, that Iam lying?? If so, I think we have to teach you basic etiquette. I have never received such an childish response.

I am not saying you are lying. I think you are the one who is being childish. I'm just asking for a source. Yes, saying that it is "widely debated in the medical community" is a weasel word. At the very least, you could cite a medical journal which has discussed Coke before. I'm not stopping you from adding content to this article. I'm upset that you continually promote your own POV by introducing unnecessary, uncited text to the introduction, and emphasising it by bolding it. We are not a critical guide for people to drinking Coke. There is no need to highlight the dangers of Coke in the introduction beyond a one or two sentence summary like the mention of controversies we have now.

Let's remember that there's things in theory, and things in practise. If there's anything hazardous in Coke beyond caffeine, surely the FDA would at the very least force Coke to have a warning label. At the very least. Keep in mind Coke has been in existence for more than a century and the recipe has not changed much beyond the removal of cocaine, since its inception. Coke fanatics like Robert Woodruff lived to a ripe old age (but I'm sure you'll counter with Roberto Goizueta). Anyway, I don't want to talk too much more, since I'm afraid I'll just end up saying things I don't want/mean to say. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pointless. Please don't assume things. By the way, I am going to stay away from sharing my knowledge regarding this drink or anything else(as you pleased, your highness). I do not have enough time to argue with idiots (in general). The trace of nobleness I had, to contribute without expecting anything in return, has vanished today. Wikipedia is never going to become an authoritarian source, this I can assert with confidence. It will become a big collection of POVs from 'enlightened ones' like you. Your response is the epitome of idiotism. --Drbalaji md 00:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm so sure we need people who refer to everyone else as dumb idiots, and to administrators as morons. I love how you twist my words and make it seem like I'm the one at fault when all I did to deserve this was to explain to you why I was changing the opening paragraph again. Goodbye, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Johnleemk, In wikipedia, profanity is prohibited. I strongly condemn your mannerless last sentence. Your arguments are indeed weak and looks like you are at fault. Besides, there is no place for your personal hatred in a specific talk forum. I do not see any mention by the author drbalaji_md which implies a personal attack against you, as you mentioned in the last paragraph. I expect a prompt apology from you. I also do not know why you bring unnecessary and dersivie terms like dubya, which is a direct caricaturing of a person holding a nation's presidency - this is a serious issue. I deferred from mentioning it earlier. We in wikipedia do not want to loose any legitimate contributors, but would be happy to loose persons like you without wikiquette. I would suggest the author drbalaji_md to forgive and forget these fleabites and continue his valuable contributions. I am also planning to take this issue to other aministrators, If I do not receive a satisfying explanation from you. --ganesh 19:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My arguments being weak is subjective to your opinion. If mine are weak, Drbalaji's are weaker. He decries some of them using one or two words, i.e. "closemindedness" and does not provide anything to back his arguments up. I have no problem at all with mentioning Coke's possible health problems. I do have a problem with someone adding unfounded information not borne out by more than hundred years of lawsuits and complaints against Coca-Cola. His biggest reasons for stating that Coke may be hazardous in the opening paragraph were:

There's no full list of ingredients (already refuted by me earlier; surely you don't expect every company on earth to open their recipes for public viewing, do you?);
It's widely debated in the medical community.

There's no evidence for either of the two beyond his word. If it is widely debated in the medical community, surely some magazine or medical publication would have carried an article on this. I am not denying Coke can and does have detrimental effects on a person's health. What I have a problem with is that Drbalaji promoted this POV heavily by:

Including this in the opening paragraph using heavily negative wording;
Bolding the text as well.

If it had been worded differently and not bolded, I would not have cared about the edit too much. But I find it difficult to defend such POV editing. I understand that we are all human and have our faults; I'm sure Drbalaji has contributed to other articles (I've thanked him on his talk page, if you haven't noticed) with good content. My issue was with how he contributed to this one. In case you haven't noticed, the only edits of his that I persisted in changing were those to the opening paragraph. I do not have any personal hatred for him — as a matter of fact, he barged onto my talk page and was the one who started the name-calling, labeling all admins as morons, and decrying me for acting like royalty, when I find little at fault with my behaviour to him before he started this. Calling people Dubya is a matter of opinion. I don't have much of an opinion on Georgie boy compared to some other liberal contributors to Wikipedia. As this is a Talk page and not an article, I see nothing wrong with expressing my own POV here. I won't defend my use of profanity, and that's the only thing I'm willing to apologise for — as I said earlier, I was afraid I would end up saying things I shouldn't be saying. My only regret from this whole fiasco is that Drbalaji would not accept others' criticism of his edits — see WP:FAC's section on Air India, where he again uses one or two words to rebutt some others' comments on the article. I feel that if he did not use such abrasive language in communicating, he would become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Regardless, there's no use crying over spilt milk/ Oh, and as for bringing this up with other admins, I have already begun this a few days ago at WP:RFC. I felt rather angry at the time over Drbalaji's apparent vendetta against admins, decrying us as morons. I feel he would not have been so harsh on me if I wasn't an admin, because he seems to think that admins have a superiority complex over ordinary users — this is exactly the attitude which we are not supposed to encourage, as Jimbo himself has said that having admins should be no big deal. I don't understand why Drbalaji was so harsh on me. He seems to have thought I was being allowed to get away with challenging his edits because I am an admin, when the same thing would have happened if I was an ordinary user. Overall, I remain confused over this whole incident, which shouldn't have happened if not for a huge misunderstanding on both sides. Johnleemk | Talk 07:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and here are some links to enable you to follow this a bit more easily:

User talk:12.221.86.216 - where it all began with me informing Drbalaji why I was changing one of his edits back, in accordance with Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version#Explain_reverts.
User talk:Johnleemk#Dear Mr.King... - where Drbalaji responded with calling admins morons, accusing me of elitism. I responded as best as I could on User talk:Drbalaji md in accordance with Wikiquette's first rule — always assume that someone has the best intentions.
Coca-Cola's History. Drbalaji made this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=4525576&oldid=4525536) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=4528470&oldid=4525576) edits. I only changed his edits to the opening paragraph and left the rest of them untouched.
Then on this page, Drbalaji created this section. I responded to him, and again explained in accordance with reverting policy, why I was changing parts of his recent edits to this article. The discussion continues till now.
As for personal attacks and profanity, as you can see, it was Drbalaji who began personal attacks with calling the majority of administrators on Wikipedia morons, which, as it was on my talk page, seemed to be a thinly veiled attack on me. As for profanity, note that the policy applies only to articles and not to talk pages. Likewise with my Dubya comment, as it is on a Talk page and not on an article, I see no reason to apologise for either. Regardless, I will apologise for the profanity, but I do not see much need for apologising for anything else. Drbalaji may have been driven off by me, but he certainly contributed a lot to it by being unable to accept that his edits can and will be changed as well as critiqued by others. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk, I do not know why you are jumping up and down while drbalji has written only a few sentences. I also do not know why you use bad words. I see nothing wrong in his appeal to the editors of this article. As to your anger about drbalaji mentioning you as morons, don't you call a president by some bad names in a public place like this? i did see the concerned talk page and i do not see a direct attack. It is his opinion and anyone can have their own opinion. I appreciate his high class language skills. I myself being a strong GWB supporter, felt so bad on seing your comments like dubya, georgie boy...what is all this? Do you think you are the president of the world? There is a limit for everything. Somebody do something to teach this guy some manners. I may be a newbie here but I have been an american for 50 something years. --Flagfanatic 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A few sentences, but according to Wikiquette, calling somebody a moron, let alone all administrators, is construable as a personal attack. The only bad word was "ass" and I apologise for it. I see nothing wrong with his appeal as well. I am not jumping up and down about that. I merely replied giving my opinion on the current (at that time) state of the article's NPOVness, and why I was reverting his edits, again in accordance with Wikipedia policy. He in turn replied with rebuttals consisting of one or two words, i.e. "close-mindedness". His rebuttals contained no substance. In serious discussion, replying to someone's opinions and arguments without providing any real substance can be defined as internet trolling. Drbalaji is the one who first made a mountain out of a molehill with his name-calling on my Talk, claiming I act like some stuffed-up royal, when all I did was (need I remind you, in accordance with Wikipedia policy?) inform him why I was rolling back an edit of his to the opening paragraph. I feel his personal attacks on me and other admins are undeserved, and he somehow seems to feel slighted by admins in some manner. And for the comments on Dubya, etc., these are personal opinions too. The difference is that calling someone Dubya is a joke — a bad one maybe, but a joke, regardless, and definitely not a personal attack on anyone on Wikipedia. It's a personal opinion (but as I said before, I really don't care much for fanatics like Bush and Moore — they're fun for making jokes about, but I don't really care about their political stances). Calling all admins on Wikipedia morons, however, is something else. This is an international site, by the way, so I can disrespect whoever I want. Would you have reacted as strongly if I dissed "Al-goreithm" or the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? This is getting rather off-topic for Talk:Coca-Cola, by the way, so perhaps it would be better if this discussion either ended or returned to the original point, which I think has already being ended. I have defended my position, Drbalaji has not responded, so if this discussion is continued, it will probably be at mediation or arbitration. Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a sudden reference to "Woodruff" without any explanation of who it is. Is it even necessary to discuss this incident in the article.

Clarified who Woodruff was. The depth of discussion on New Coke is borderline in my view. It was a hugely significant moment in the product's history however. Autiger 15:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Coca-Cola is a junk food?

User:Chocolateboy says, "The drink is banned in India on health and environmental grounds". Any references ? Jay 09:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I remember reading about it in the news a year or two ago, but don't have any online sources. Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, Jay.

I added that as a bargaining chip to "buy" the removal of an unsupported generalization from the intro: "Coke is junk food". It was taken from the Coke in India section of the article. I'd assumed that that section wasn't in dispute.

However, I can't find any evidence to suggest that Coca-Cola has been banned in India. I can find evidence that it has been banned from cafeterias in the Indian Parliament [6] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3458365.stm), and even by a "number of Indian states" [7] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/21/india.drinks/), but that's not what the Coke in India section - or, as you rightly point out, the abovementioned sentence - says.

chocolateboy 13:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you're right. I only read that studies showed that Coke and Pepsi contained an unacceptable amount of poisons (to be more specific, pesticides). I don't recall reading that it was strictly banned. The article (before it was nominated for featured status) originally said that the government asked for the removal of Coke from Indian markets, if I recall correctly, although that could be construed as a ban. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hiya.

Requesting a ban could no more be "construed as a ban" than requesting a date could be construed as dating :-)

The only evidence of "bans" I can find are:

the Indian Parliament's cafeterias
Coca-Cola's biggest Indian plant (in Kerala) has been closed due to fears over its environmental impact [8] (http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2004/06/23/ap1429784.html)

Note: the latter is actually a ban on the production rather than the consumption of Coca-Cola. There are still 26 other plants in India. As of September 5, 2003, almost a month after the alleged "ban" was imposed, India was still being described as the "fastest growing market" in the world for Coca-Cola [9] (http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/september2003/the_joy_of_toxic_cola.htm)

chocolateboy 15:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I too thought the line, "coke banned in india", is not the right wording. I too vaguely remember a news that said it was banned, but I am not sure if the ban is still there. For sure, it has been banned in certain places and people are still fighting for a complete ban. I don't know who wrote that line. But the line, "coke is a junk food", in introduction was written by me. It was not written based on the controversies in India. Coke is in fact considered junk food in US. There is also a link to junk food in the see also section of this article. --ganesh 16:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi.

"The drink is also often considered to be junk food" is either a pleonastic non-sequitur ("Madonna is a carbon-based lifeform") or a criticism. The fact that the article links to Junk food doesn't prove it's junk. The Junk food article lists neither sodas nor Coca-Cola, which is why I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=4552950&oldid=4550175) edit summary somewhat cryptic. Unlike the Nazi allusion and the (inaccurate) description of a "ban" in India, the "junk food" criticism is not expounded in the article.

Junk food was added by Fred Bauder in 2002 [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=130683&oldid=122871). No "proof" of Coca-Cola's classification as junk food was proffered.

I too thought the line, "coke banned in india", is not the right wording. [ ... ] I don't know who wrote that line.

That would be Guppy, Johnleemk, you and me:

Guppy: On August 6, 2003, India asked for the withdrawal from circulation of Coca-Cola and Pepsi products. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=1449207&oldid=1449199)

Johnleemk: On August 6, 2003, India asked for the withdrawal from circulation of Coca-Cola and Pepsi products, effectively denying the two companies excess to a consumer base approaching one billion people, or about a sixth of the world's population. [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=4469610&oldid=4469446)

ganesh: Subsequently, on August 6, 2003, the Indian government ordered the ban of Coca-Cola products within India, effectively denying the company access to a consumer base of over a billion people, or about a sixth of the world's population. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=4485479&oldid=4484933)

chocolateboy: On August 6, 2003, the Indian government imposed a ban on all Coca-Cola products within India, effectively denying the company access to a consumer base of over a billion people, or about a sixth of the world's population. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=4531338&oldid=4531302)

chocolateboy 18:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I reworded the "withdrawal" to ban, but not the original writer of the sentence. BTW, in junk food I clearly see soda (soft drinks). And coke is the epitome of sodas.... --ganesh 18:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The first version is half-accurate. The last three versions are completely inaccurate.

BTW, in junk food I clearly see soda (soft drinks). And coke is the epitome of sodas

You clearly see "soft drinks", not "soda". (Carbonated, sweetened) "sodas" are a subset of "soft drinks".

I was taught in my high school that whatever applies to superset applies to its subsets as well. Ah, now a (mathematical) proof exists for the statement "coke is a junk food".--ganesh 20:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By that token, what inaccurately characterizes ("junk food") a superset ("soft drinks") also inaccurately characterizes its subset ("soda"). chocolateboy 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The proposition that all "soft drinks" (nonalcoholc beverages according to the article) are "junk food" is clearly debatable, as this category includes a whole dietary dimension of "smoothies", "juices" and "nectars" that pride themselves on being the exact opposite. Presumably, this is why the soft drinks article doesn't refer to "junk food".

The point of talk is coke. Defending by pointing to other (alleged) offenders is not valid.--ganesh 20:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph above does not identify "other (alleged) offenders". It identifies several refutations of the proposition that "soft drinks are junk food". chocolateboy 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The only authority for the connection between "junk food" and "Coca-Cola" appears to be a link added by a kindly Wikipedian [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=130683&oldid=122871). I'm sure it was in good faith, and I don't particularly disagree with it, but that doesn't justify elevating this criticism to the status of a controversy, which is the role that comment plays in the context of the intro.

chocolateboy 19:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good. Finally there is a soul (apart from me) which agrees that wikipedia is not incontrovertible.

The point of talk is coke. [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=0&oldid=4563968) chocolateboy 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I originally meant, 'Finally there is a soul (apart from me) which agrees that wikipedia is not incontrovertible for coca-cola issues'. I am sorry for being precise.--ganesh 00:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me. I was merely quoting you (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=0&oldid=4563968)! chocolateboy 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As long as it is in that state, I can contradict any wikipedia statement. And so you can too. BTW, the following are the top 3 links I got in google when I searched "junk food coca cola".

[17] (http://www.cspinet.org/new/saveharry.html)
[18] (http://www.whpress.com/mecca/)
[19] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9829-943252,00.html).

I would be glad if you say google is not authoritarian too. --ganesh 20:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The British Harry Potter/schoolkids discussions look like perfectly reasonable additions to the controversy section. The second link "Junk Food Mecca" treats "junk food" as a term of endearment rather than a criticism, and, as such, isn't a very good defence of the junk-food-as-controversy position, which is what we're discussing.

However, without supporting material in the article and an indication of why this "fact" should be juxtaposed with the controversy of the Coca-Cola corporation's Nazi links, the "junk food" exclamation looks like a disgruntled non-sequitur. As noted before, this is the only criticism in the intro that is not discussed or defended in the body of the article.

I argue only for one point "coke is a junk food". Nazi et al is not what I care for. Atleast, you have partly accepted the fact (that coke is a junk food) now. And I think for every living being from every part in the world, google will give the same answer ( if you search for coke is a junk food). I have presented the facts as far as I can and it's up to every one else to endorse or reject it (coke is a junk food), but only with reason(s). I have no more time to invest on this issue (coke is a junk food). As I told earlier, this is just a test for wikipedia's open-mindedness (on this issue coke is a junk food). --ganesh 00:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point of talk is coke. [20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=0&oldid=4563968) chocolateboy 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did I talk about HIV then? Now see above (my replies). Do you agree that the point of talk was indeed coke? --ganesh 00:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. Do you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=4570640&oldid=4570565)

chocolateboy 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

say google is ... &c.

The point of talk is coke. [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=0&oldid=4563968)

chocolateboy 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I originally meant to say, 'I would be glad if you say google is not authoritarion too for coke (sorry coca cola)'. I am sorry for being precise. --ganesh 00:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You would be "glad" why? I'm guessing that "authoritarion" means "authoritative". I'm still not sure what this has to do with "junk food" and "controversy"...

It's because you said that the only authority for connection between coke and junk food bla bla bla (see above), which meant you did not take that source as authority. Or you want more than one authority. That's why I said wikipedia is not the authority, which is what I believe. I am free to belive and say anything non-offensive. --ganesh 00:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point of talk is coke. [22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=0&oldid=4563968) chocolateboy 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that Drbalaji md uses "authoritarian" in the same way as you [23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=4536812&oldid=4536796). And he/she shares the same IP address... [24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=4541874&oldid=4536891) [25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=4545812&oldid=4545288)

So? Is it a crime to use same IP or are you a wiki investigator? You are diverting the attention from "coke is a junk food". --ganesh 00:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry for being precise. [26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=4570120&oldid=4565652) chocolateboy 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr. chocolate, I appreciate your computer skills. But, unfortunately, the real world is not as linear as you assumed. Do you mean to say that the user ganesh and me are the same? If so, I can hardly contain my laughter. Thanks for entertaining me :) By the way, are you in anyway related to Sherlock Holmes? (Because I could see his genius running in your blood!) Thanks again. But, all these great endeavours prove my hard-held beliefs about wikipedia. I take this opportunity to thank vbganesh for endorsing my views. I strongly belived that there is one intelligent individual for every 10 morons (in the universe) :)--Drbalaji md 03:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Same IP. Same inability to format discussions. Same inability to stay logged in. Same misuse of the word "authoritarian". Same sarcasm. Same ad hom. Same agenda. Same articles. Same difference.

chocolateboy 03:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But different individuals :) If you can provide this type of entertainment, I will stay logged on for ever :) --Drbalaji md 03:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

;-) chocolateboy 04:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am again glad that there are imitators of me. --ganesh 00:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point of talk is coke. [27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=0&oldid=4563968) chocolateboy 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

chocolateboy 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am again glad that there are imitators of me in the article coke. --ganesh 00:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear vbganesh, it is your fault. You should have copy righted or given GFDL for your quotes :) --Drbalaji md 04:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hm.... I thought something was odd. I didn't bother to announce my suspicions, though, as there isn't any definite proof. I wanted to compare IPs, but I wasn't too sure how. It's strong evidence, but possibly not strong enough. As they've voted in WP:FAC, if one of them is a sockpuppet, isn't it illegal? Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Flagfanatic's first edit was to this page. Another sockpuppet? Johnleemk | Talk 08:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can prove that I am genetically, physically, legally different from User:drbalaji_md. Then, will you agree that imposing baseless allegations are illegal too? I can also charge you for supression of facts and trying to speak pro-coke. So far you have not agreed that coke is junk food; neither you have searched in google nor any good source, but have argued against it and also "censored" those lines. Now there is some evidence for that fact (coke is a junk ... ). Isn't it misuse of your power as sysop(s)? ( I am not just talking to Johnleemk)? --ganesh 15:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright. Let us end this investigative business. We both often use the same computers, we do meet in person and discuss issues. Hope this puts an end to all the budding Sherlock Holmes!I think you have a bright future in investigative journalism than in building an embodiment of world knowledge (My humble POV). As to the misuse of powers by these self-styled kings, I have already expressed my valuable opinion about them vbganesh :) . --Drbalaji md 06:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I have had enough of your misrepresentations of me and your careless personal attacks. I am placing you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Any further discussion related to this but not Coca-Cola should be conducted either at the relevant subpage there or its Talk. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Coke is unhealthy

Coke is unhealthy. It's soda. all soda is unhealthy. everybody knows that. most people know, also, that coca-cola is especially bad.

And btw, the coca-cola company has a lot of human rights violations. in their factories in columbia they hire the paramilitary to kill union leaaders there. The atmosphere is not unlike the situation with unions in America right after we industrialized. Kevin Baas 15:10, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

"Coke is unhealthy/junk food" (cf. Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp): "Coca-Cola is harmless") is either a truism or a criticism. Wikipedia doesn't propagate truisms ("Madonna is a carbon-based lifeform"). It does expound criticisms, but not as uncredited editorializing. The original statement belonged to that category. The current version attempts (it still needs to be addressed in the body of the article) to credit the all-important source of this criticism.

As for your other point ("btw ..."), it's spelled Colombia, not Columbia, and I'm not sure why you bring this up when it's covered in detail in the article.

Thanks for the spelling correction, but I think it would have been more civil for you to put it in parenthesis. (unless you want it to be construed as part of your point, whereas if this is so, I don't see the relevancy.) I wrote my comments before I looked at the article. I wanted to respond to the nature of interactions between the people, so I didn't want to be distracted or prejudiced by the article, in aim for a NPOV. I stated it because i thought it was an important fact deserving attention. I like the section regarding this on the article right now, though i think it could benefit from some internal and external links, so that people interested can find out more. Kevin Baas 00:08, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

It would be more "civil" for you to adopt rules of punctuation, grammar and orthography that minimize ambiguity. The "relevancy" is that your comment was redundant and patronizing given the lengthy discussion of this issue in the article. Common sense suggests that you might have perused this before endorsing comments which, as you well know, are currently the subject of an RFC.

chocolateboy 17:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As is clear from what I wrote, my question regarding relevancy was about the spelling of colombia. I am unaware of a lenghtly discussion about the spelling of colombia, but FWIW, I just did a google on it, and Columbia refers to a place in North America, whereas Colombia refers to a place in the South America. I hope this saves you the trouble of more lenghtly discussion.

beyond that, i find your acrimonious tone of voice and attitude obstructive to constructive discussion, and therefore contrary to my goals, as well as, as i understand, the goals of wikipedia. Kevin Baas 18:06, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

The "relevancy" is that both Columbia and Colombia are discussed in the article. If you'd taken the trouble to read it before spreading a little acrimony of your own ("chocolateboy's stubborn refusal") we could have both profitably bypassed this part of the discussion.

i find your acrimonious tone of voice and attitude obstructive to constructive discussion

Kevin Baas: Is the sugar in orange juice and colas the same? (http://www.bcm.edu/cnrc/consumer/archives/sugar-drinks.htm)

Chocolateboy: Nice link (I'd like to see both the Coca-Cola claim and the counterclaim in the article)

chocolateboy 20:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is for projecting these facts that we (me and dr_balajimd) have run into trouble with the self sytled sysops. --ganesh 15:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. I fully support any reasonable attempt to increase the value of the page. Of your and Drbalaji's edits, I rolled back, at the most, 20% of them (most of them were Drbalaji's edits to the opening paragraph). Drbalaji's edits were not NPOV — they may have been an attempt at it, but we do not fight POV with POV. NPOV is not presenting two ridiculous viewpoints and contrasting them — that is not Wikipedia's policy. Secondly, the only sysop involved here is me. Thirdly, I am not self-titled. I was elected with 14 votes supporting, 2 opposing and 1 neutral. Now please, bring this discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drbalaji md if you are going to avoid talking about Coca-Cola. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking back through this discussion, I see that it is primarily the statement that "Coke is a junk food.", and choclateboy's stubborn refusal to acknowledge this simple fact. I haven't looked at the edit history, though, so i have as yet no comment on that. Kevin Baas 16:11, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

stubborn refusal ...

The only authority for the connection between "junk food" and "Coca-Cola" appears to be a link added by a kindly Wikipedian [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Coca-Cola&diff=130683&oldid=122871). I'm sure it was in good faith, and I don't particularly disagree with it, but that doesn't justify elevating this criticism to the status of a controversy, which is the role that comment plays in the context of the intro.

to acknowledge this simple fact ...

junk food: "A high-calorie food that is low in nutritional value." [29] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=junk%20food) (cf. C2 (http://www.casualhex.com/archives/2004/05/05/c2-low-calorie-coca-cola-to-launch/), Diet Coke (http://www.answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=231712))

food: "Nourishment eaten in solid form" [30] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=food)

"junk food and soda/pop": 630 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22junk+food+and+soda%22+%7C+%22junk+food+and+pop%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N)

"junk food or soda/pop": 102 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22junk+food+or+soda%22+%7C+%22junk+food+or+pop%22&btnG=Search)

"junk food such as coke/coca-cola": 2 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22junk+food+such+as+coke%22+%7C+%22junk+food+such+as+coca-cola%22&btnG=Search)

"coke/coca-cola is junk food": 2 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22coke+is+junk+food%22+%7C+%22coca-cola+is+junk+food%22&btnG=Google+Search)

"An 8-ounce serving of Coca-Cola classic, for example, contains no more sugar and calories than 8 ounces of orange juice, and less sugar and fewer calories than 8 ounces of apple juice or grape juice." [31] (http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/faq/ingredients.html)

Is the sugar in orange juice and colas the same? (http://www.bcm.edu/cnrc/consumer/archives/sugar-drinks.htm)

Nice link (I'd like to see both the Coca-Cola claim and the counterclaim in the article), but seven points and one counterpoint suggest the "fact" is not so "simple".

Seven points and one counterpoint suggests eight facts. Kevin Baas 18:06, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

It suggests that Wikipedia is better off reporting the "junk food" criticisms Googled (by ganesh) above - as well as the Coca-Cola counterargument - instead of trying to prove or endorse the "simple" "junk food" "fact". It is not susceptible to a proof by algebra, as your arithmetic ("eight facts") confirms.

chocolateboy 06:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

&c.

chocolateboy 17:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Authority lies in the ingredients and the simple and well-understood concept of junk-food: low in nutritional value. junk as in throw-away or worthless, nutritionally. Regarding "food": the word is not to be taken literally. milk is considered to be in the dairy group of the four food groups. Fruit drinks are in the fruit group of the food groups. The "fifth" food group is junk food. coca cola does not fall into the other four food groups. It is low in nutritional value. Is any of this in dispute? Kevin Baas 00:08, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Authority lies in the ingredients

Again, this suggests a striking unfamiliarity with the article, which makes it clear that the ingredients are unknown.

The vast majority of the ingredients are well known, and i recall encountering a book in my local library when i was in middle school that disclosed the ingredients to coke. I'm sure they were slightly modified since then, though.

If you have evidence to suggest that the ingredients of Coca-Cola are not secret, I'm sure the Indian Government would be interested. Please add them to the article.

chocolateboy 06:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't personally own the book. As I recall, it told about how pepsi got a hold of the early formula to make the syrup. I'm sure there are some company secrets to the subtleties of their particular products, (which have changed throught the course of the product (for instance, "coke 2"), and are likely to change in the future) but there are many different cola drinks out there - the basic formula is well known, which probably constitues at least 95% of the ingredients. Again, I don't have the book with me. Unfortunately, i don't remember it's title, either. Kevin Baas 18:06, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

the simple and well-understood concept of junk-food: low in nutritional value.

The terms "food" and "junk food" are unambiguously defined in the dictionary definitions given above. Neither of them conform to your unsupported "simplification". Water is "low in nutritional value". Is water "junk food"?

Water is quite high in nutritional value, as evidenced by the fact that if you don't drink it, you die. Water is a nutrient. It's nutritional density is 100%.

the simple and well-understood concept of junk-food: low in nutritional value. [32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=4619161&oldid=4617258)

Water is a nutrient. It's nutritional density is 100%. [33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Coca-Cola&diff=0&oldid=4622650)

Can soft drinks be part of a healthy diet?

Soft drinks contribute to the diet in two ways. Because they are predominantly water, they can help quench thirst and meet the body’s fluid requirement -- about two quarts of liquid a day. In addition, soft drinks sweetened with sugar provide carbohydrates, which are readily available to the body for quick energy. Although soft drinks make these nutritional contributions to the diet, the Company markets them as a source of simple refreshment. [34] (http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/faq/ingredients.html)

chocolateboy 06:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is any of this in dispute?

Only your definitions of "food", "junk food", "authority", "simple", "well-understood" and "food group".

chocolateboy 01:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Consult your local high school health class - or curriculum book, for that matter. Kevin Baas 04:48, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Which matter? There are six disputed terms. You've only defended one. The fact that "food for thought" doesn't refer to solid comestibles doesn't change the fact that "food" and "junk food" do. The fifth food group is "fats, sweets and alcohol" [35] (http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/health/digest/dcd75-1.asp?page=5), not "junk food". Avocado (fats), apple juice (sweets), and wine (alcohol) are not "junk food".

chocolateboy

For all the disputed terms, of course. Take your argument up with the people who wrote the books and the companies that published them. I'm tired of this conversation, it's getting nowhere because you're being completely unreceptive. Everyone that i've asked the opinion of on this says that coke is a junk food, without question. I don't know why you are so acutely and vigorously anomalous on this issue - it seems quite out of proportion. Kevin Baas 18:06, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so acutely and vigorously anomalous on this issue

Let me remind you:

Coke isn't "food" or "junk food" according to the dictionary definitions of those terms, which clearly indicate that both refer to solids. As a consequence, although "junk food" and Coke are often lumped together, Coke is distinguished from (and juxtaposed with) "junk food" more often that it is identified with it.
Snopes, the Internet's most cited debunker of urban myths, explicitly states: "Coca-Cola is harmless" [36] (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp). It also points out that Coke is a notorious attractor of fanciful calumnies: "Don't believe all those Coke stories you hear." [37] (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tooth.asp)
The Coca-Cola corporation (unsurprisingly) refutes the claim that Coke is a high-calorie/low-nutrition drink by pointing out that a) it is mostly water (which you claim is 100% nutritious) and b) the calorie content of its non-diet drinks is still lower than that of many fruit drinks, which are not considered to be fattening or unhealthy. Additionally, the calorie content of C2 and Diet Coke in particular are not consistent with the dictionary definition of "junk food", even if it were extended to include drinks: "A high-calorie food that is low in nutritional value." [38] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=junk%20food)

I'm not suggesting that the article should say: "Coke is emphatically and demonstrably not junk food. Yay Coke!" I'm suggesting that the "junk food" argument is merely that: an argument, not a "simple fact". It should be reported as such - there's no shortage of documented controversies to support this criticism if, as seems to be the case, you are hell-bent on prosecuting it. With a few measly words ("denounced in the UK for weaning young children onto junk food") I've done more to expound this complaint in the article than all the "Coke is junk food" advocates combined.

you're being completely unreceptive

Only to the unqualified POVism "Coca-Cola is junk food" [39] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Coca-Cola+is+junk+food%22+%7C+%22coke+is+junk+food%22&btnG=Google+Search). Certainly not to an elaboration of the Harry Potter [40] (http://www.cspinet.org/new/saveharry.html) or school vending machine [41] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9829-943252,00.html) controversies. Wikipedia is not a bully pulpit, nor is it a forum for the publication of "original research".

chocolateboy 20:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From what you've said here, you've convinced me that there is sufficient dispute/doubt so as to render any objective statement in the article such as "Coke is a junk food" inappropriate. I concede. However, I think a concensus could have been arrived at quicker if your debating techniques stuck more to relevant facts and clarification of your meaning, made more acknowledgements, and were less extraneous - and would thereby be more direct and cooperative, and less coercive. By unreceptive I meant that you didn't seem to think that i had anything valid to say, or seemed to have a prejudice against it. However, just as 7 plus 1 points make 8 points, i think we both made some valid points, that still remain valid, although both of us, no doubt, made some errors. In the end, the logic of these points add and divide up to the current state of the page, in my opinion. Kevin Baas 22:41, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

(btw, please don't use so much emphasis. i find what you wrote to be harder to read because of all the emphasis.) Kevin Baas 00:08, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

btw, please read the article ("I wrote my comments before I looked at the article" ... "I didn't want to be distracted or prejudiced by the article"), the entire discussion and the edit history ("I haven't looked at the edit history") before flaming ("stubborn refusal") edits and discussions that have ultimately served to clarify, rather than censor, the "junk food" critique.

chocolateboy 01:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOVness of comments regarding Coke possibly being held as American

People generally seem to disagree on a comment that used to be in the introduction, namely "Coca-Cola is generally held as synonymous with the United States" or something like that. How is it POV, exactly? I'm rather curious, because Coke has a strong fan-base in America (the New Coke scandal anybody?), and is generally something as "American as apple pie". It's a part of American culture, at least as far as I can discern from Mark Pendergrast's "For God, Country & Coca-Cola". Non-Americans seem to agree, i.e. Mecca Cola. Pendergrast's book cites examples of non-Americans holding Coke as an American thing, synonymous with them. There's no doubt the sentence in question can appear as POVed. The question is, is it really POV? I find it difficult to believe. It just states that America is generally viewed as a part of American culture. Perhaps a rephrasal is due, but I think the article is rather sparse without an explicit explanation of how deeply Coca-Cola is ingrained into American culture. It's implicitly declared through the New Coke controversy, but to get an idea of how much Coke's viewed as American, in the 60s and 70s, families serving guests poured Pepsi into cups and promptly served them as Coca-Cola. It was viewed as unAmerican to drink Pepsi. So, can anyone please show me how that part of the article was POV? I'd be glad to be corrected, as I'm really scratching my head over this. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Johnleemk.

This poll (http://www.cbc.ca/news/america/poll.html) (cited in the George Bush article) suggests that most people (76%) don't think "Coke" when asked to name an American product:

'24%'

Percentage of overall respondents who named "Coke" when asked to name an American product. Next in line was "McDonalds" with 10 per cent.

chocolateboy 16:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are quite a few notably American brands and the more there are, the smaller the percentages for any single one of them will be. The figures quoted above tell me that Coke is almost two and a half times as likely to be recalled as being American as McDonalds (itself a pretty American brand). -- Derek Ross | Talk

Instead of

Coca-Cola is generally held as synonymous with the United States

...how about

Coca-Cola has a high degree of identification with the United States itself, being considered an "American brand" or to a small extent as representing America (compare Mickey Mouse).

Ed Poor

I'm not sure why we need to repeat the point - after all, it is made later; twice in fact:

by the time of its 50th anniversary, the drink had reached the status of a national symbol
The popularity of the drink exploded in the wake of World War II as American soldiers returned home, more grateful than ever to partake of a beverage that had become synonymous with the American way of life

The figures quoted above tell me that Coke is almost two and a half times as likely to be recalled as being American as McDonalds (itself a pretty American brand).

Is there a spin doctor in the house? :-) Three out of four people don't think Coke is synonymous with America. Unless someone can provide another citation which refutes this, I would suggest that the two references to the "special relationship" between Coke and the US in the body of the article are sufficient.

chocolateboy 21:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

200 countries?

The article says:

Today, Coca-Cola is one of the world's most recognizable and widely sold commercial brands, available in over 200 countries.

Can this be made a little more precise? I'd love to know how Coke manages over 200 countries when according to the list of countries Wikipedia only acknowledges the existence of about 199. :) If Coke is in every country in the world by now, it would be good to say so, and if that's not the case, the numbers seem high enough that a list of countries in which it is not available and an explanation of why might be in order. —Muke Tever 01:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While the UN only lists 191 member states, [42] (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html), there are 202 National Delgations [43] (http://www.athens2004.com/Files/pdf/NOC_marching_order.pdf) participating in the Athens 2004 Olympics, although the Greeks seem to have counted themselves twice. Autiger 03:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are the "3 countries" where it isn't no. 1? (Is Irn Bru no.1 in Scotland? I'd heard such before, and the article here also claims this)

"Small time vendor"?

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)

Silly, but CIA connections?

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)

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)

Phosphoric acid and its effects on bone calcium

This new addition is clearly written, but it's by no means specific to Coke--it applies to most all soft drinks. I'm suggesting that the section be removed; it might go better in the "soft drink" article with a "see also" if it's that important. Elf | Talk 04:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dittoed. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Autiger 06:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not a soft drink issue - it is a Phosphoric acid issue!. Many soft drinks do not contain this bone dissolving industrial chemical! Sooner or later it will be banned in foodstuffs! Leonard G. 05:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not a Coke controversy. And exclamation marks are not citations.

From Cokelore (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp):

Coca-Cola does contain small amounts of citric acid and phosphoric acid; however, all the insinuations about the dangers these acids might pose to people who drink Coca-Cola ignore a simple concept familiar to any first-year chemistry student: concentration. Coca-Cola contains less citric acid than orange juice does, and the concentration of phosphoric acid in Coke is far too small (a mere 11 to 13 grams per gallon of syrup, or about 0.20 to 0.30 per cent of the total formula) to dissolve a steak, a tooth, or a nail overnight. (Much of the item will dissolve eventually, but after a day or two you'll still have most of the tooth, a whole nail, and one very soggy t-bone.)

Besides, the gastric acid in your stomach is much stronger than any of the acids in Coca-Cola, so the Coca-Cola is harmless.

The stomach acid is not harmless if in other than the stomach - for example, acid reflux disease (heartburn) can lead to pre-cancerous esophogeal lesions. The statement above is not a logical conclusion. The largest harm to teeth actually comes from acids formed by mouth bacteria from residual sugars in the mouth in the twenty minute period after ingestion. If you drink or eat, allways immediately rinse with fresh water (if it is not convient to brush). By the way, the best dentifrice is simple baking soda - it neutralizes acids, is toxic to bacteria, contains no artifical colors, or flavors and contains no sugar. The principle issue is not the ph (acidity) of phosphoric acid, although that is not helpful to tooth preservation, but the phosphorous ion that is ingested. See the phosphoric acid section concerning junk food.

chocolateboy 15:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

----

"Coca-Cola is harmless (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp)" [44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coca-Cola#Coke_is_unhealthy) [45] (http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/myths_rumors/ingredients_osteoporosis.html); the phosphoric acid "controversy" belongs (at best) in the urban legends section; and this article isn't a soapbox or a forum for original research.

chocolateboy 18:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For now I've simplified the Suspected adverse long-term health effects section to — Some nutritionists asserts that the phosphoric acid component of Coca-Cola and other similar soft drinks, may be deleterious to bone health in both men and women. For more, see phosphoric acid in food. — I hope that is acceptable to all. -- sabre23t 02:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, sabre23t.

Nice edit. I've tweaked it to add some actual facts, something the original contributor has consistently failed to do (the linked phosphoric acid article doesn't count as it's a clone of the unsubstantiated material that was hastily removed, by consensus, from this page).

chocolateboy 15:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Turn of the century (1929)

Somebody should rephrase this sentence: "Shortly after the turn of the century (1929), cocaine was removed from the coca leaves... ". English is not my mother tongue

Calling 1929 "Shortly after the turn of the century" is stretching things, in my opinion. Any year more than +/- 5 years away from 1900 would. For that matter, I do not consider today (august 27. 2004) as at the turn of the century.

The various controversies surrounding Coke

We really need to decide how to handle this. I have no doubt a lot of the stuff there could be better worded — I wrote quite a bit of it myself. The problem now is, some people are removing everything, which is a blatant cover up. Last time round, we nearly had an edit war over the overemphasis of the controversies surrounding Coke (one user put a bunch of them in the lead section, and bolded them as well, at that point). As Elf has said, at least one subsection there is really more relevant to all soft drinks, not just Coca-Cola. And we really need to rephrase almost everything in this section. Volunteers? I'm not very well-versed in tactful writing. Johnleemk | Talk 19:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It really sounds like someone has decided that all bad things about coca-cola are just crackpot conspiracy theories and in reality everything is just fine. coca-cola is a ruthless company and this page seem to downplay that aspect as much as possible. A feature article can't look like that so I volunteer. Eric B. and Rakim 21:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here's what has to happen. (IMHO, but I think you'll see it makes sense.) There are 2 categories of things in this section: stuff having to do with *Coke*, which is what this article is about, and things having to do with *the company*, which is in a separate article. We shouldn't be mixing them. (Bummer this got to featured article w/out someone realizing this before--oh, well.)

When somebody makes accusations we don't hide them. We mention them, but also mention that they are accusations. If they were misreported as fact, change the attribution. Don't remove them. That's a clear cover-up. Anyway, I've moved several chunks of text to the Coca-Cola Company, so have fun ferreting out the rest, guys. Johnleemk | Talk 03:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about an incident where Coke spent $10,000 to up sale of frozen coke in Burger King premises. The later then spent $65 millions (apparently for making frozen coke). Their CFO outed them in July 2003 and they settled by paying burger king $21 million.

Splitting The Coca-Cola Company from Coca-Cola product

Refactor from above section, rising after "Here's what has to happen ... 2 categories of things ... stuff having to do with *Coke* ... things having to do with *the company* ..." -- sabre23t 06:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SOoooo I suggest this: create a new section in The Coca-Cola Company titled "Controversies surrounding the company" and move in the stuff about unions, about India, and the items in the Urban Legends section about who they're rumored to be supporting. And, obviously, move the phosphorous discussion to soft drink. We could then have 2 main sections in this article: urban legends, which contains stuff ONLY about the Coke soft drink, and something like "Controversies related to Coca-Cola", which could be just about 2 sentences, one summarizing the phospohours thing & pointing to soft drink and one summarizing the other political things & pointing to the company page. That way the issues are still pointed out in this article, because the soft drink and the company are (obviously) often considered to be one and the same, but the content goes where it really belongs. Elf | Talk 22:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Elf, your suggestions are quite reasonable and a good way to approach things. Additionally, some (a lot?) of the information in the History section needs to be relocated to the Company page as well. Separating the two concepts is going to be a little messy at least initially.

Eric, the page doesn't downplay anything, it simply seeks to discuss the product and company fairly and with a neutral POV. e.g. Placing the phosphorous issue on the Coke page unfairly singles Coca-Cola out if it is something that affects other products as it does. I'll tell you that when I first read the article a couple of weeks back, I thought it had a negative slant to it. I was even considering adding in some information about the company's (and its founders'/key players') considerable philanthropy to help balance it. It's clear that you (calling the company ruthless) are approaching the topic with a specific (negative) POV. Autiger 23:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think negative criticisms of the company need to be separated from the rest of the history/background. It's actually an accurate portrayal to depict the good with the bad -- just because there are negative aspects of what Coca-Cola does doesn't mean you have to cut them out. Part of the reason why this article might be slanted against Coke is because of the overwhelming saturation of positive PR that Coke has cultivated. People seek truth, which includes failures as well as successes. Guppy 07:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians are welcome to write more positive pieces on Coca-Cola. Maybe the part about its advertising campaign could be fleshed out into a piece on the company's successful marketing plan. Guppy 07:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, after I posted, I skimmed back through the article and noticed the same thing that you did about company info being interspersed. Of course, then, maybe it should've been the company article that was a featured article--except it didn't exist at the time. :-) Well--OK--so onward to creating a really good The Coca-Cola Company article that could be nominated for FA itself! ;-) Elf | Talk 00:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of having an article about the company, but at the time there was a near edit war and this was on FAC, so I was afraid I'd piss off too many people if I made any drastic removals from the article. I really like the idea, and think it'd work much better than the current article. And yes, the article is quite slanted against Coke. The problem is, it's harder to find good publicity instead of bad about Coke. Most people who have edited this article are rather anti-Coca-Cola, so that doesn't help. Let's get this thing started. Johnleemk | Talk 03:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

coca leaves still in use for Coke, albeit without coccaine

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)

ODP

Seems this article is appropriate in ODP Recreation Coca-Cola category (http://editors.dmoz.org/Recreation/Collecting/Food_and_Drink_Related/Soda/Coca-Cola/) 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)

Splitting The Coca-Cola Company from Coca-Cola product, Part 2

Was called ==What in the hell happened?!== -- sabre23t 08:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What *was* a featured article has been turned into this crap. This article doesn't even mention new coke now! Moving the content off this article was a *TERRIBLE* idea -- can someone name me a single major other product of the Coca-Cola company besides Coke? No - the content obviously belong here. I am going to revert unless someone gives me a good reason not to. →Raul654 05:07, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree contents about Coca-cola as a product should be here Coca-Cola, including its product history, its product advertisement and derivative products such as New Coke, Vanilla Coke. The Coca-Cola Company should be about the company's business similar to IBM article on the company, constrast that to the article on the product IBM PC. -- sabre23t 05:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that just moving the history in its entirety to the Company page was too blunt an approach. It's going to require some re-writing to extricate the pieces and parts and make it flow correctly. This is why I said up above that it would be messy in the short term. And yes, the IBM/IBM PC analogy is pretty good. Raul654, have some patience while things are worked out. Btw, Sprite, Diet Coke, Tab, Minute Maid... Autiger 05:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Autiger, noted your request for "patience". No problem, my name means "my patience". ;-) I've refactored the talk section above, now called Talk:Coca-Cola#Splitting The Coca-Cola Company from Coca-Cola product, so it's easy to see where you are coming from in your current series of edits on this article. Though personally, I'd prefer duplicating instead moving as the first step of the splitting process. -- sabre23t 06:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been making the major edits (i.e. mass moves); that was User:Johnleemk. I knew that I didn't have the time tonight to devote to rewriting the history appropriately. Autiger 06:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive and helpful suggestion, Autiger. I moved it all back, complete with the stuff that Johnleemk had moved out. So now we have a nearly-duplicate page at The Coca-Company. :) Guppy

Okay, I've done some first cut clearing of non-product specific contents from the History and Controversies and Criticism sections, that have already been duplicated in The Coca-Cola Company. The Other products section, yet to be cleared. -- sabre23t 08:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What the... I take responsibility for chopping up the article — I intended to fix it up later, especially the lead section, but was in a hurry at the time then, as I had to make a trip to Singapore. I definitely didn't chop out the New Coke part — as you can see, I made only one edit. It was rather drastic, and I was hoping someone would spruce it up. I was just getting the process started, as I didn't have the time to properly rewrite both articles to make them flow. Removing New Coke was definitely a step too far (one which I did not make, just for the record). Splitting the articles properly is going to take some time. Just making a statement so people won't think I hacked the article and ran away. :-p Johnleemk | Talk 07:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caramel ingredient?

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)

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)

Over two hundred countries

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)

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)

coke II pictures

Someone added two images for Coke II, Image:Coke_II_side.jpg and Image:coke_II.jpg. I removed them because they were just sort of shoved uglily into the middle of the article, but if someone thinks they'll look good somewhere they should put them back in how they wish. (Also, the images have no copyright info.) Pyrop 16:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

well sorry!

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.

Removal of content on environmental abuses

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: [[46] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3125520.stm)]

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: [[47] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3126519.stm)]

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)

I agree, that there is a censorship of the original Coca-cola article by creating a "new" page for negative coverage of the company. The actions of the Coca-cola company during WWII (distributing the drink to American soldiers) are described in the original page, but the part about collaboration with the Nazis is moved to the other page. Guppy 06:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel

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)

Correction of Coke II / Coke C2 confusion

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 (http://www.bevnet.com/reviews/cocacolac2). 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)

Phil Dobson Because Coke in Atlanta told me it is the same secret formula with NutraSweet added.

Phil, please see 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)

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)

Phil Dobson Hi John, Thanks for the message I am sorry for the confusion also.

Sure, no animosity felt. Have fun editing Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 12:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Advertising / Branding

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)

"Human rights abuses"

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)

The information about Coca-Cola's human right abuses should still be on there! ]

"The Company" versus "The Drink" -- Excuses from Johnleemk

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)

Proposal to reunite contents of two articles

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)

Link to Hebrew missing

Hi, the link to the Hebrew article is missing. Don't know how to add it, since en: is not in UTF-8. Yann

...

Coke is pretty awesome.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Coca-Cola"