Talk:Coca-Cola

Template:Mainpage date Template:Indian selected An event mentioned in this article is a May 8 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Archives
Archive 1

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.)

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!!! (unsigned edit by 24.107.152.237)

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)

Wait, doesn't that mean a lot of money is going straight from the Coca-Cola company to cocaine producers?? If not, what in the world to they do with the cocaine after they remove it from the leaves, do they just throw it away??? Keenan Pepper 20:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The coca leaves used are leaftovers from LEGAL cocaine grown in the US for prescription medications (cough syrups, local anesthetics, etc). The cocaine is removed and Coca-Cola uses the leaves. NO MONEY IS SENT TO ILLEGAL COCAINE GROWERS. Hope this answers your question. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A friend of mine has been fascinated by this question for the past few days. Can you give me any references with more details to back up these statements please? — Hippietrail 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ODP

Seems this article is appropriate in ODP Recreation Coca-Cola category 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.

Nobody "owns" these pages. This includes you. If it offends you to see your contributions edited (or removed), then Wikipedia will be a very frustrating site for you. However, if you are indeed interested in helping people out, perhaps you should review the Picture Tutorial and the Image Use Policy and address the concerns that were raised. Exia 05:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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: [[1]]

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: [[2]]

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. 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:

1. Not complying with the NPOV policy
2. 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! User:Angrydruid]

"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.

thank you wikipedia

dear people of wikipedia. this website truly helped me,and my dear friend in our science project. we deearly appreciate this help in our science fair topic. we are doing to boys or girls know the diff between pepsi cola and coke cola better?

you can use this experiment

us at highpoint middle

Final Fantasy + Coca-Cola

In Japan, haven't Final Fantasy / Coca-Cola been sponsering vice-versa?

India + Coca-Cola

Wasn't Coke driven out of India in '78 for refusing to reveal their secret formula? Trekphiler 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite sure that's true. In my case, so they should have. ^KILO-_LIMA 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Edited typo

Replaced 'sponsered' with 'sponsored'. Weird that it made it to feature status without being properly proofread. --Anchoress 12:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Grrrrr... period missing in the same section. Proofread, people!! --Anchoress 12:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, had it ocurred to you that this aarticle has been edited, vandalized, fixed, etc... a lot since last year when it was featured? -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 15:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, has it occurred to you that there is no excuse for typos and spelling/syntax errors? --Anchoress 04:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, guys, no need to get all worked up over just some typos. Just because an article is featured does not mean it can't be improved. As Drini has said, the article has changed quite a bit since it got featured, and it's not surprising that a few minor errors crept in accidentally. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Really? Cuz if the goal of Wikipedia is ...to create a free, democratic, reliable encyclopedia... then I really don't think errors creeping in accidentally is much of an excuse, especially for spelling errors, considering that Wikipedia HAS a dictionary. You know, I did what I've read people on WP talk pages asking for over and over, I created a UP so I could sign my edits and comments, and I get a smackdown from TWO people for expecting a high editorial standard. I think I'm just going to go back to doing everything anonymously; seems you can't win with people.

Nobody is saying you were wrong to fix those errors. What we're saying is that you can't expect anything on Wikipedia to be perfect. This was by no means a "smackdown" — it was pointing out that Wikipedia is not perfect, just like anything else that involves humans, and it never will be. You are right to expect the best, but the goal of Wikipedia is not to grouch about these sort of things but to fix them and keep on editing, hoping to achieve the impossible goal of the perfect encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

The bit about the nazi party and Fanta is a bit skewed. The plant operator created Fanta out of desperation to keep the factory operating. He never joined the nazi party and gave all the profits to Coca-Cola after the war. You can find most of the data on Snopes.com

BTW - Sorry if I entered this comment the wrong way..I am new to this. [Doobie Ex]

Criticisms section not visible under Firefox - but it's present under I.E.

Anyone getting a problem with browsing this page with firefox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola ). It doesn't diplay all the page. It doesn't display the 'Criticisms' section to be more exact. Isn't that funny? Radu Dragusin

You must have some kind of problem, I see it fine using Firefox 1.5. Autiger 01:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First image on article

What happened to the first image on the article: Image:Coca-Cola.jpg. It appears to have been deleted. Of course, since the change in policy, the history cannot be seen, thus I can't see why—and who—deleted it. ^KILO-_LIMA 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Checking the logs, it appears this was originally [[:Image:Cokecansmall] before it was moved to commons [3] as Image:Coca-Cola which was deleted earlier today as a copyvio[4] (follow the links to see the logs). -- MisterHand 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What needs citation?

Today, the flavoring is still done with kola nuts and the coca leaf; however, the coca leaves used today are "spent" leaves - the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process - however, one cannot extract cocaine out of the leaf at a molecular level; therefore, the drink still contains trace amounts of the stimulant [citation needed].

What part of this sentence needs citation? That Coke is still made from coca leaves? That you can't extract cocaine from them at a molecular left? That they use spent leaves? // paroxysm (n) 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Adverse long-term health effects

I'm restoring the vague statement that many nutritionists believe that "soft drinks and other calorie-rich, nutrient-poor food can fit into a good diet" because it's very plausible that this is true... but a source citation is needed, particularly given that it has quotation marks around it. (However it would still need a source even if it didn't). And that source had better be a nutritionist, not, say, a statement on Coca-Cola's website. If the origin of the statement is Coca-Cola, if it is to be in the article, it needs to be rephrased as "The Coca-Cola company claims..."

it is generally agreed that Coca-Cola and other soft drinks can be harmful if consumed to excess

absolutely needs a citation. IMHO it would be sufficient to have one really credible source that says this; it's not necessary to prove it's "generally agreed." But you can't just assert that it's "generally agreed."

There are some reports that Coca-Cola is addictive, although the veracity of these reports has yet to be established.

Again, we can't have this as it stands. At least one specific report needs to be cited.

If citations aren't forthcoming, these statements ought to be removed. verifiability is supposed to be our policy everywhere, but we really need to take it very seriously in any statements concerning health. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

---

it is generally agreed that Coca-Cola and other soft drinks can be harmful if consumed to excess

absolutely needs a citation. IMHO it would be sufficient to have one really credible source that says this; it's not necessary to prove it's "generally agreed." But you can't just assert that it's "generally agreed."

It's a tautology to assert that something consumed to excess is harmful - it wouldn't be 'to excess' otherwise. But I think the point should be made. I've removed the 'citation required' tag. Artbristol 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

--- I changed the paragraph from saying "While many nutritionists believe that "soft drinks and other calorie-rich, nutrient-poor food can fit into a good diet", it is generally agreed that" to saying "Most nutritionists advise" since I doubt the statement, and it's unsourced. If it can be sourced, feel free to put it back in. I also took out "The soft drink industry dismisses many of these criticisms as urban myths." because it wasn't true. The article cited is about Cocacola's use as a pesticide being an urban legend, not about caffeine. And I think everybody knows caffeine is addictive, although not dangerously so. Sarah crane 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A few minor things

Under "Early Years": "In 1885, after Coca-Cola moved, when Atlanta and Fulton County passed Prohibition legislation, Pemberton responded by developing Coca-Cola, essentially a carbonated, non-alcoholic version of French Wine Cola." I'll do something about the three consecutive prepositional phrases, but does someone know when, why and to where "Coca-Cola moved"?

There is also an entire paragraph about the operations of the company in the article's introductory section. Have we decided to what extent this article will cover the company, considering there is already an article that better suits this sort of information? A blurb about the details of the company's operations certainly doesn't belong in the introductory section of "Coka-Cola the beverage". Adhall 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is a relatively new program, as far as I can tell, someone might want to add/check out Camp Coca-Cola...seems to be a philanthropy project funded by Coca-Cola

Is "Coke" a synecdoche?

Is it worth explaining why the word "Coke" was eventually trademarked by the company? Is there a better term for its popular usage as a catch-all word for any cola product (like Kleenex is to tissue, Xerox is to photocopy, etc.)? Adhall 09:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in our discussion on my talk page, these are two separate issues. The trademarking of "Coke" in 1945 is highly relevant to the article, as are the company's prior attempts to steer consumers away from the word. It was notably the first dual trademark, ie, same product known under two trademarked names. The company trademarked the term "Coke" because people were using it to refer to Coca-Cola, not because (as your edit implied) they were using it to mean "soda" in general. Much of the early history of the drink, including this, has yet to be added to the article.

Furthermore, the present-day use of "Coke" as a generic term for any kind of soda is far from universal, being a U.S. regionalism; it might be worth mentioning lower down in the article. This is a sort-of example of synecdoche, so you can use the word there if you really want to. It just isn't important enough for the first paragraph, though. Cheers. ProhibitOnions 11:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Formulation

Coca-Cola has a different taste in Canada compared to the United States (tastes more like Pepsi in Canada, although it is still easily distinguishable).

How many different formulations are used for Coca-Cola ? The article should mention this.

India and Ingrediants

I would like to make a comment about the line blow.

"Critics claim Coca-Cola is less popular in other places such as India, due to suspicions regarding the health standards of the drink. However, these claims conflict with marketshare data. As an example, in 2004 Coca-Cola India's market share was 60.9%".

This sentence tends to give a wrong impression that the claims made by the critics are incorrect, while on contrary it must be noted that they only talk about market share, and hence there is only a comparison between the sales of Coca-Cola and other soft drinks rather than actual sales number, or the liters of coke sold in India compared to US or any other country. As infact, the paranoia as some might call it (not me) is about almost all the aerated soft drinks and not just coca cola.

What colour is Coke?

If the caramel colouring wasn't added to it, what colour would it be?

The name "Coca-Cola"

"Coca-Cola" obviously means "cocaine kola nuts". There's obviously no cocaine left any more, but is it still flavoured with kola nuts? Or has the name become entirely obsolete? JIP | Talk 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• See: Coca-Cola formula and Coca-Cola. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out some other stuff

I took out this paragraph from the Coca-Cola's advertising:Recent history section. "Coca-Cola has a policy of avoiding using children younger than the age of 12 in any of its advertising as a result of a lawsuit from the beginning of the 20th century that alleged that Coke's caffeine content was dangerous to children. However, in recent times, this has not stopped the company from targeting young consumers. In addition, it has not been disclosed in exact terms how safe Coke is for consumption by young children (or pregnant mothers)." I looked and looked, and I don't think cocacola ever had a policy of not showing children in ads. And I doubt there was a suit at the early 20th century, back when there was no FDA or anything, would have done that. It sounds pretty modern to me. It would be awful hard to prove that coke targets young consumers. And any questions about safety should be in another section. Sarah crane 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola in trouble?

I have heard that coca cola is currently suffering a decline in sales as well as a decline in popularity, is it true that the company, and the drink that is so quintessentially American, is facing difficulties? J Gez M, 17:32, 10 April 2006

Black Market

In the section titled "High Fructose Corn Syrup", there is a reference to a booming black market for mexican Coca-Cola. While the company is trying to block the import of mexico coke, it is not illegal and thus not a black market. Since it is officially licensed by the Coca-Cola company they can't have it blocked at the borders as being counterfeit, and retailers are not bound by the contracts between the company and their bottlers. For a reference, see the article below. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041109/news_1b9mexcoke.html

I reworded this paragraph, trying to make it more neutral. It could still use some references though. Philbert2.71828 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola drink vs. Coca-Cola company... again

Here are some parts of this article that I think should be removed from this article. I haven't removed them because I want to know what other people think:

1. The reference to "shrewd marketing tactics" in the second paragraph doesn't seem to be a neutral POV.

2. The first paragraph under "The Inventor of the Coca Cola" doesn't seem relevant to the drink. By the way, I just noticed, it should read "The Inventor of Coca-Cola"

3. The "World War II" section doesn't seem relevant to the drink. I think this should only be on the Coca-Cola company page.

4. I think the bullet points in the "Business practices" don't need to be listed here. I would leave this section, but end it after the first paragraph and remove the bullet points. Philbert2.71828 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph on Pemberton and renamed the section. I also clarified the importance of WWII for the drink -- without it, many people would never have been introduced to Coke by grateful husbands, fathers, brothers, etc. I'm not sure about the neutrality of "shrewd marketing tactics", because from what I can tell, nobody has ever questioned that Griggs Candler was shrewd in marketing Coke. He was very influential in its popularity during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Feel free to be bold and remove the bullet points. I think the section as a whole needs rewriting to keep the parts relevant to Coke the drink (i.e. the boycotts are relevant, but we needn't digress into discussion of what the Coke company does; I'm about to remove the stuff on the company's employment practices, etc.). Johnleemk | Talk 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

iCoke

218.189.141.202 has added a link to http://icoke.hk on this page twice, and I removed it both times. He/she added it to the Coca-Cola company page now too. The site is in a foreign language and looks like it's just a promotional site for Coca-Cola. Even if we wanted to link to something like this, there are English language versions like http://icoke.ca. There's an http://icoke.com but the main page doesn't have anything much on it. I don't see any reason to link to these kind of sites anyway. Philbert2.71828 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Benzene update?

Should new benzene info be added following this FDA press release (and various similar international stories)? Stories moved on national wires the same week, but I haven't found them yet. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01355.html ... Posted May 3, 2006

npov check

read this coca-cola article and tell me it doesn't sound like the company could have edited it itself to make it sound rosy and fine? anyway, i think criticism of this and the coca cola company articles combined can be found on each talk page. i just don't have time to argue with people about why these two articles are POV. Guppy 12:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)