Talk:PepsiCo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PepsiCo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Vital article

PepsiCo was a Agriculture, food and drink good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Food and drink: Beverages B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Beverages Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

New York (state): Hudson Valley B‑class

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Mid-importance).

Pro-life boycott section

I removed the biased reference, now showing that PepsiCo started a collaboration with Senomyx. The middle of the section the reference is not bias, it is showing that groups did boycott, and that PepsiCo responded but, less on the response more on that groups did call for a boycott. Also the section doesn't take a stance on the moral or ethical implications of this. Though this section and the following might be better in a new heading like on subways page titled "Controversies." Navstev0 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your claims, the section is biased. The addition has absolutely no reference to a single reliable source. Further, the mention of the boycott still requires a reason why the boycott was raised in the first place, which is circular because there still needs to be mention of the original biased allegations to support the boycott. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so your telling me that a PepsiCo press release is bias? Then please tell me what is unbiased in historical research? "reliable source" Also please tell me what sources are reliable. Because the sources I had were so. The section was flagged for neutrality, removal without resolutions was unwarranted and argumentative. Support the boycott came from pro-life groups, you can't call it biased if they are the ones reporting there own boycott. I am putting it back until you can tell me why my sources are unreliable, each one please. Navstev0 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a normal editor of this page, but do believe Wikipedia can be a great place. But hiding facts for corporations shouldn't be the goal. I see plenty of other pages that on Wikipedia that state these controversial facts. Why should PepsiCo be any different? 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done:Sorry for the really long paragraph but I can't figure out how to separate them and yet appear as one response. Part of the flaw of this section is the fundamental issue: the accusation of using embryonic cells in research. Any use of embryonic cells is an extraordinarily contentious issue, so the very mention of it should raise red flags about possible neutrality problems. But that in itself shouldn’t necessarily be grounds for removing the whole section. However, this section references a source from LifeNews.com, which positions itself on the far side of the pro-life debate. That is another red flag for neutrality problems. The article used in the reference also strikes a polarized tone with language like “cells from babies victimized by abortions”. Again, not neutral. The bulk of the section also seems poorly written, as if PepsiCo themselves are accused of doing the contentious research. Who can re-write this with a neutral tone, because at this time it doesn’t have one. Also, to the user “Navstev0”: you’re not helping your case. When other editors have removed this section, you’ve been one of the people that has been restoring it. My problem with that is the comment you used earlier today: “Dang wiki nazi.” You’re not helping your neutrality argument when you call someone a Nazi. --MikeUMA (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the commit stated “Dang wiki nazi.” My stance on the comment was that my section was removed even though it was stated that there was a talk, and the user didn't participate in the talk other then telling me that I was biased with no direction as to what gave those conclusions. I see your point, on the tone from the reference to the LifeNews article, I will attempt to rewrite the section from a more neutral stance. Navstev0 (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the entire middle portion to be more neutral, and changed the reference to only show that there was a boycott issued, as any further information was considered to have a polarized tone. Navstev0 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for removing this material repeatedly even though it was added in good faith. I don't think it was suitable in that form and with that sourcing for an article like this. I wouldn't rule out including a mention of this if it can be better sourced and a form of words agreed here though. --John (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added Controversy section

This edit added a Controversy section that was unsupported by the link provided [1]. Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting the addition, and welcome discussion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In total, I think it should be a good article. No objections, no controversy. And, it's a very important article too. --Rossi101 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Rossi101[reply]

PepsiCo distribute?

From the article, I copied the following sentence: "PepsiCo also distributes the soft drink 7UP in Europe via license agreement." The above statement about distribution is news to me because I live in the UK, where Pepsi and Mountain Dew are distributed under licence by Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd., making it more than likely that they're sub-licenced to distribute 7UP as well. Sheogorath 178.99.200.63 (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Frawg

Frawg is an unremarkable product itself, but would make a nice little section on the page about PepsiCo. Technical 13 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multinational Cos are Thieves and Plunderers

Be it pharma, soft drinks, fmcg, tobacco, consumer electronics or anything: these multinational companies are a set of thieves and plunderers. They plunder people's money, health, peace-of-mind, and keep innocent people in illusion that life is beautiful, and is a cozy bed of roses. Rascals number one! -59.95.15.213 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union Citations

The section on the Soviet Union relies on a single secondary source. Here are some contemporary news articles which can be used to improve the accuracy and citations for the section:

NY Times: Soviets Buy American, (May 1989)
Washington Post: Pepsico Sets $3 Billion Barter Deal with Soviets , (April, 1990)
Los Angeles Times: Bloc-Buster Deal, (July, 1992)

A785236 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working conditions Frito Lay strike ended

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “The strike began on July 5th and is currently ongoing.” To “ The strike began on July 5th and ended on July 23rd.”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/07/26/frito-lay-strike-topeka/ 2600:8803:5C00:8C:745C:D706:E9D:5F5C (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 20:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove environmental criticisms from summary and add to criticisms or environmental impact section. If that's not possible, add environmental criticisms to Nestle and Coca Cola summaries as there are plenty of scholarly sources to cite for those two as well. Blacktwolf (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The lead is a summary of the article, which has an Environmental record section, so it should be represented in the lead. This talk page is not the place to request edits to other pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two grammatical corrections: (1) Location: 2nd paragraph of article; first word of 2nd sentence: Change Pepsico to PepsiCo with a capital "C". (2) Location: 2nd paragraph of article; 3rd sentence: Change "market capitalization; PepsiCo is..." to "capitalization, PepsiCo..." with a comma instead of a semi-colon. Goman1 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 195 countries

One of the first sentences in the body section of the article describes PepsiCo as operating in over 200 countries…? 173.54.54.157 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GMO...

Why is the brief section about GMO included under "Environmental Record"? There's absolutely nothing about their any-kind-of record in the tiny text there, let alone environmental. 2001:4898:A800:1010:520:A563:CC9A:AC1A (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]