Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 [1], and even by a "number of Indian states" [2], 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 [3]

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 [4]

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 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 [5]. 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. [6]

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. [7]

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. [8]

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. [9]

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 [10]. 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. [11] 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! 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".

• [12]
• [13]
• [14].

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. [15] 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?

chocolateboy 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

say google is ... &c.

The point of talk is coke. [16]

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. [17] chocolateboy 21:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that Drbalaji md uses "authoritarian" in the same way as you [18]. And he/she shares the same IP address... [19] [20]

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. [21] 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. [22] 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: "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?

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 [23]. 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." [24] (cf. C2, Diet Coke)

food: "Nourishment eaten in solid form" [25]

"junk food and soda/pop": 630

"junk food or soda/pop": 102

"junk food such as coke/coca-cola": 2

"coke/coca-cola is junk food": 2

"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." [26]

Is the sugar in orange juice and colas the same?

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. [27]

Water is a nutrient. It's nutritional density is 100%. [28]

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. [29]

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" [30], 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:

1. 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.
2. Snopes, the Internet's most cited debunker of urban myths, explicitly states: "Coca-Cola is harmless" [31]. It also points out that Coke is a notorious attractor of fanciful calumnies: "Don't believe all those Coke stories you hear." [32]
3. 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." [33]

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" [34]. Certainly not to an elaboration of the Harry Potter [35] or school vending machine [36] 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 (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, [37], there are 202 National Delgations [38] 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)

Spelling mistake

When it first talks about the cola leaf, it spells it "leave." The next sentence then uses the "leaf" spelling -- shawbin (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertising oops

On the caption of the picture of Hilda Clark, it says she is dressed in "formal 17th century attire". That's clearly 1800's wear, not 1600's wear, so the century should be changed to the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.176.163 (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. That piece of vandalism has been there unspotted since 7 December! Fixed now. (You wouldn't happen to know what decade's fashion that is? To my untutored eye it doesn't look like the 1890s, and it was probably intended to look a little old-fashioned.) -- Zsero (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In the pepsi article it says flavouring instead of flavoring

The article forgot to mention the company's involvement in the Vietnam war and the advertising techniques that were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduncan89 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Multiple "citation needed" tags and a critism tag

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am now failing this article as GA because concerns are not addressed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bite the Wax Tadpole

The phrase "bite the wax tadpole" redirects to this article, but the phrase does not appear in the article itself. Can someone write a blurb on this? SkyDot (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to know what to do with that. There probably was once something here about it, but it probably got deleted as trivia, which it certainly is. I'll try to work the fact into a paragraph that will be notable enough to stay in the article. Maybe next week some time. -- Zsero (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

An alternative would be to have "Bite the Wax Tadpole" become its own article instead of redirecting to this one. It doesn't need to be a very long article, but if it's too trivial to include in the main article on Coca Cola, then maybe that would be more appropriate. A third possibility is to write an article on notably bad translations of commercial slogans and the like. (I vaguely remember that that's what this phrase was. Recall that I was trying to look it up!) That article could include Nova and "brings your ancestors back from the grave" and such. SkyDot (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the editor shows there that he can't distinguish artwork from his own opionion what is artwork. Bad for wiki.. notjhing eles to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.213.152 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Which editor? What artwork? What opinion expressed where? SkyDot (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.flagadventure.com/ deleted

i am no expert here in wiki, but could someone answer me why: http://www.flagadventure.com/ was deleted from criticism? eldberg (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Because an art exhibit at some high school in Latvia isn't notable, even if you put up a web page about it. And the external site isn't even in English, so even if there was something notable there, it's of extremely limited utility to this encyclopaedia. Also not sure what the criticism was supposed to be. -- Zsero (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Web page is in English (right upper side) 2) Only the exhibition is staged in high school (has nothing to do with an student project or so), was done by the artist to protest against Madalain Olbrites intervention in work of Latvian Health Ministry, who baned soft drinks from schools. 3) Criticism = the healthy of the product. (if it does destroy wool), put up a new section than. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.63.213 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what excuse the artist gives for why he staged his exhibit in some obscure location; is there any reason the artist or his work is notable? If not, I'll assume the real reason it was in that location is because nowhere else would give him the time of day.

It's not in any way surprising or notable that if you soak fabric in an acid solution for several weeks it will be destroyed. You will find the same result with orange juice. Only an idiot concludes that this proves something about the safety of consuming it. The article already notes that claims exist about Coke's acidity being in some way unhealthy, and also notes that no evidence exists for this contention. -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Benzene

My complaint is the inclusion about benzene... The fda study was right but coke contains no sodioum benzoate. Only citrusy drinks such as mt dew contain it. seems like another misinformed "health nut" anti coke bit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.200.64.163 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article does say that the FDA found no cause for concern. And it did find benzoates (but not Vitamin C) in Diet Coke, so the potential for some sort of problem was half there... Still, you're right that this information belongs in the article on soft drinks, not on Coke. -- Zsero (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove "1st sponsor of olympics".

The statement mentioned above seems incorrect. The citation link is dead(additionally [this]and [|this] page makes no mention of the fact. ( also a quick search of the olympic website did not yield a suitable source. Additionally it contradicts the Oxo page. A quick google session has located the following possible sources for the oxo date.

[random book on books.google] [Company web page]

--91.108.106.119 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, further evidence of Oxo below. Oxo was the first sponsor of the Olympics in 1908. Can the page be amended please? (Kentish 16 Dec 08) http://www.hastings-marathon.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9:by-alexander-wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Coca Cola Red

I was taught that the Coca Cola Red was chosen by the Bauhaus painter and master of color, Josef Albers. Apparently, it took him 5 years to finally decide on a color, which still stands today, as opposed to Pepsi who have changed their colors multiple times.

However, I'm having trouble locating a source for this at the moment, can anyone confirm?

Mromaszewicz (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I also heard that there is a specific chemical formula to this color that the company has patented/trademarked/whatever. If this can be confirmed, it should be in the brand portfolio section with the contour bottle and like info. 4.249.15.6 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to remove

Underneath 21st Century is the following.

In April 2007, in Canada, the name "Coca-Cola Classic" was changed back to "Coca-Cola". The word "Classic" was removed because "New Coke" was no longer in production, eliminating the need to differentiate between the two.[24] The formula remained unchanged.

This is already mentioned under bottle design and such. There's no need to repeat information, no less under an incorrect category. 70.126.219.62 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cola

Debresser (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In one of the first lines of the main article it says that Coca Cola is often refered to simply as "Coke". As a matter of fact in European Countries it is often refered to as "Cola". If anybody would like to work this information into the article...

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.162.175 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Cola" and "Pop" are not synonymous of Coke, but rather of cola drinks (RC, Pepsi, etc.) and soft drinks in general (respectively). See Wikipedia's own entry for Cola, for example - or, for original research, just step into any restaurant in North America and ask for a cola - as well as any dictionary with a listing of pop and soda pop. It would be more accurate to say that "Coke" has become a synedoche for soft drinks (for example, http://popvssoda.com:2998/). All tigers are cats, but not all cats are tigers. Voideater (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As the person above correctly notes, coke is only one of many cola drinks available and cola is only one of many pop (or even soda) drinks available - this is even true in Europe. Another aspect of this statement in the article is the real puzzler: "often referred to simply as Coke (a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company in the United States since March 27, 1944) or (in European and American countries) as cola or pop" One wonders what the author thinks the United States is if not an American country. Of course, this is Wiki where the U.S. is some horrible place where proper English isn't spoken, etc. Jmdeur (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The FIFA - Coca Cola Trophy

Hi.

I share with you this video: It a spot about the FIFA U-20 World Cup in 1983 and you see the FIFA- Coca Coca Cola trophy [[39]]. Bicko2008 (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV!!!

Please clean up the first paragraph, it sounds like an ad! "Its dominating position"! PLease remember NPOV(neutral point of view)!99.224.132.115 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition Facts

Please provide nutrition facts of various Coca Cola flavors. For example the Nutrition Facts for Coca-Cola classic is Serving size 8 fl oz (240mL) Calories 100 Total Fat 0g 0% Sodium 35mg 1% Total Carbohydrate 27g 9% Sugars 27g Protein 0g

Not a significant source of calories from fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron.

• Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.

Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors, caffeine

Caffeine content: 23 mg/8 fl oz Naristov (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Qibla Cola and Mecca Cola

There is mention of both Qibla Cola and Mecca Cola in the 'Local competitors' section where it states:

"Mecca Cola and Qibla Cola, in the Middle East, is a competitor to Coca-Cola."

Neither are Middle eastern in origin as Mecca Cola originates from France and was launched there. Although the Middle Eastern and south Asian market is a strong base for the brand, its business plan is to spread internationally the same as other brands. It is also very popular in Britain.

Qibla Cola is British in origin and founding and is distributed across Europe, North America and Asia, including Canada, Netherlands, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Malaysia.

Therefore, neither are Middle Eastern in origin and neither have sole distribution in that region. It is therefore incorrect to suggest they are Middle Eastern because of their religious philanthropic leanings. They are both in fact European in the same way Coca-Cola is American.

82.36.44.192 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The text says that Mecca Cola and Qibla Cola are competitors in those markets, not that they are from that area, but that's just my interpretation. From their articles I understand that they mainly compete with Coca-Cola in said regions because of anti-American feeling and the American ownership of Coca-Cola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searle, L. (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Other drinks owned by Coke not mentioned

Barq's, Canada Dry, Dr. Pepper, Enviga, Fresca, Full Throttle, Mellow Yellow, Nos, Rockstar, Tab ..

It doesn't own Dr Pepper anymore. Plus this is not the page for the company, this is the page for the drink. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my belief that it never did. I believe it was independent until it was purchased by Cadbury Schweppes.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My Dr Pepper bottle said "Bottled under licence from The Coca Cola Company", it is moot anyway, this page is about the drink not the company. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Pepper and Canada Dry (Along with A&W and and Sunkist) are owned by the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group. While Dr. Pepper-Snapple has its own distribution network, some of their brands are too big for them to handle in numerous areas. In these areas, they just sell to Coke or Pepsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.227.101 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Poweraid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.196.153 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter???????? This is about the drink. Not company. --Ashleigh101664 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's not like they need more advertising by naming more products. Coca is already one of the most famous brand drinks in the world.SchumiChamp (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the page

I've noticed from the edit logs that the page had been blanked twice - by the same person! Is there any way to protect the page to prevent anoms from this sort of mischief? Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You can ask for semiprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I would advise something more personal.Bettering the Wiki 04:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanilla Coke re-introduced where?

The table about different varieties notes Vanilla Coke was "re-introduced in 2007" due to popular demand but it doesn't say where. Is that in the US? The table itself notes it is still available in other markets. Can someone who knows update this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgreen (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanilla Coke is available in Florida. I just bought a pack yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.184.220 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What's "popular demand" anyway,a justification not included anywhere else in the table? (And was the popular demand to get rid of the cherry flavor?) I would think "by popular demand" should be deleted for NPOV. Danchall (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Image from a retailer

The Coca-Cola caffeine can is the first image I have added and I had to copy, paste and change a few things from a Coca-Cola Cherry article as a few things I didn't quite get how to set out, so if anyone notices any problems here could they let me know and either I will change it or I could view the changes and learn from it! Hope I haven't done too bad and I can keep helping the community! Also I wanted to upload another Coke pic (Lemon) but it was from a website selling them, so what would the situation with that be? --WezGG (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Coke: A Cure for Cancer

Resent studieds preformed by Canadian scientists, theroize that Coca-Cola helps to prevent cancer. Debates are rising between the Coke and Pepsi companies about how marketing should countiue. With new Cancer-Cola Prevention method becoming more and more popular in Canada, Pepsi sales are drastically declining.

I have removed this article as it did not have any sources, and after reading the wiki on citing sources felt it was the best action.--WezGG (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Coca Cola & Scientology

I recently spoke somebody who is a Scientology member for about 20 years. He told me IBM en Coca-Cola are based on the Scientology Management System from Ron Hubbard. Does anybody know more about this part of Coca-Cola's history? Did they already use this system during WO-II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.48.71 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like rubbish to me. -- Zsero (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting strangeness

In the 5th paragraph under History, there's a bit where "concerted" is not followed by advertising campaign as in the code. Instead, that link is missing. Does anyone else see this? - Denimadept (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the link is missing here when I view the results! Does someone not like the text "advertising campaign"? Okay, it appears when it's not a link, but as a link, it disappears! - Denimadept (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It shows up just fine. I think it's an issue with your browser. Maybe you've got it configured to block any link with "advertising" in its text, for fear that it might be spam. -- Zsero (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's worth a shot. I'll try IE instead... nope, does the same thing there. Maybe there's a filter somewhere between the server and me. I'll have to try it at home. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Works fine at home on Firefox. Weird. - Denimadept (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Coca-Cola 200m

There is really a Coca-Cola 200m Event that is held annually. Why is this not a part of annual Sporting Sponsorship? 200m Video

(Hendrick4life (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Please demonstrate its notability. We're not going to list every two-bit event in the world that gets a few bucks from Coca-Cola. -- Zsero (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Many Famous Runners have raced in this event, it also is held around the time of breast cancer awareness and Coke holds a huge event to support it. They do alot. Im not really understanding your question much. Its worth noticing (Hendrick4life (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Show us some examples of notice it's attracted in major news sources, or something else that demonstrates its notability. You can start with what it's actually called. Not just "a 200m event". -- Zsero (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Coke as spermicide

I think the fact that significant scientific work has been done on this question, and the researchers on both sides have come to public attention by being awarded the Ig Nobel prize, is a significant fact about Coca-Cola. No scientific conclusion is written in stone, and perhaps later work will find more evidence for rather than against the proposition, but this article should report the facts as we know them. -- Zsero (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ig Noble Prize is for non-notable work. That's the point. - Denimadept (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Where are you getting that from? The Ig's standards of notability are different than those of the Nobel Committee, but the sort of work that wins the award is certainly notable.

Or we could go about this another way: The research showing that it is a spermicide is certainly notable, because it was noted. It was originally added to the article with several newspaper mentions. And the fact that that work won an Ig is a notable fact about it, if not about Coke itself. But it would not be good to leave it in there without balancing it with the contrary research, which may not have been noted by the press, but was by the Ig committee. -- Zsero (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to what I read at Ig Nobel Prize, I'm not so sure. - Denimadept (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you don't object to my reinstating it? -- Zsero (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who originally removed it. Look, lots of things can kill sperm. That doesn't mean they're useful contraceptives. - Denimadept (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think even the original researchers suggested that it was particularly useful as a spermicide; it was surprising enough to find that it did seem to have spermicidal qualities. -- Zsero (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, air is a spermicide. The only thing which isn't a likely spermicide is a woman, and even there I have doubts. - Denimadept (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The original study, which has enough press mention that it's by definition notable, found that Coke was significantly more spermicidal than most things; enough that it was a surprising result. The subsequent study found that it was just a fluke. That's why both got the prize. Maybe a later and even better study will find that there is something to it after all. And this is a notable fact about Coke. -- Zsero (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

pH/Acidity

Does anybody have an authoritative figure for the acidity of Coca-Cola? Some sources online suggest 2.5-3.5, but I can't find anywhere terribly reliable (the higher seems more plausible). The article briefly mentions myths about coke being dangerously acidic, so this would be a useful addition to that section. Even Snopes doesn't have a figure, despite confidently claiming (without much evidence) that Coke isn't harmful[40] [41]. By comparison, the pH of saliva is around 6.3[42], and Wikipedia claims orange juice has a pH of around 3.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"more than 200 countries"

As far as I know, there are only 192 UN-recognized states, so I would just replace "in more than 200 countries" by "worldwide". 87.231.186.104 (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)anonymous

What's the UN got to do with it? This page says "over 200 countries". It only lists 194 locations, not all of them countries, but it omits some countries, e.g. England and Scotland, where Coke is certainly available. -- Zsero (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's been a revolution when I wasn't looking, England and Scotland are both still part of the United Kingdom. 66.159.69.132 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So? They're still separate countries. -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree Coca Cola is available in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. But it certainly doesn't mean it is available in "more than 4 countries" in this example, does it? The "over 200 countries" looks pretty much directly copy-pasted from the link you provided earlier and its main purpose is to put emphasis on the availability of the product. It's a very basic advertising process. Also, the link you provided, as you stated yourself, lists less than 200 countries, which contradicts its claim. I do believe the "more than 200 countries" claim qualifies as advertising. See WP:SOAP. 87.231.186.104 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact, from a trustworthy source. Even if we had an exact number, I don't see how it would help the reader to know that the product is available in, say, 202 countries, rather than "more than 200". And that number would be subject to constant fiddling. So long as we have reason to believe "more than 200" is accurate, that's what we should say. Certainly any more precise number would need sourcing. -- Zsero (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Even "more than 200 countries" needs proper sourcing. The source you provided (which comes from the company itself, thus being hardly neutral) uses "more than 200" as a catchphrase rather than an informational estimate as it only cites 191 "countries" of which 1 is unrecognized, 3 are recognized as part of China, and 22 are overseas territories, let alone "Great Britain, Ireland, Northern Ireland" etc, so this is hardly "over 200 countries" in my book. I didn't mean to replace "more than 200" with a precise 200+ number as such a number can't exist unless you count some "countries" as separate entities. There are less than 200 countries in the world, and Coca Cola is not available in some of them. Let's call a spade a spade, "more than 200 countries" is false advertising. 87.231.186.104 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Coca-cola is a reputable company, and is a reliable source for its own sales. It has no reason to lie, and this is not the sort of extraordinary claim that requires more solid sourcing. There are more than 200 countries in the world, and it's certainly possible for Coke to be sold in that many. If Coke were actually only sold in 195 countries, for instance, surely the company would say "nearly 200", instead of "more than 200". In any case, if you weren't suggesting a precise number, then what wording would you prefer? -- Zsero (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Worldwide" would be neat. As for the actual number of countries, yes it's closer to "nearly 200" but "more than 200" sounds better. The very source you provided lists less than 200 locations despite its title claiming "over 200 countries". Also, country is a weasel word and I think considering every single overseas territory a "country" is a poor excuse to make the number look bigger than it already is. 87.231.186.104 (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Coca-cola is also avalible in Cuba, though it is not imported from the U.S. due to embargo it is imported from Mexico. I purchaced many on my last visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beausw (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a UN certified figure not more reliable than one from a company obviously interested in its own brand image? And more to the point, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales are not counties, only the UK is. The different elements may well be separate 'nations' but they are not autonomous to the degree required, nor are they recognised as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.160.233 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New logo?

ZippyGoogle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly changing the logo shown in the article. Do we have a reliable source that says that the beverage has a new logo? If anything, the logo Zippy uploaded is just in use at mycoke.com. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It says it at mycoke.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZippyGoogle (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Where? I do not see a news release anywhere. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, sign your posts. In my opinion, until I see it on an Coke bottle, the old logo should stay. Companies sometimes change their logos for a short period of time.SimonKSK 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Further, the only place I see the "new logo" is in the context of "mycoke". When Coca-Cola appears, it is in the script text. Based on all that, the old logo should stay; I agree with SimonKSK on that point. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Zippy, you broke the 3 - revert rule. I'm gonna pretend that I didn't go to the history page and see those reverts.SimonKSK 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If Coca-Cola had a new logo, it would be all over its press releases, tv ads, magazines, websites etc.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Coca cola does have a new logo, the old logo used to have a drop shaddow with a silver swirl and yellow dots the new one is all white and red. http://cache.consumerist.com/assets/resources/2007/07/oldnewcoke.gif check out this picture, i am a collector and have pictures of both as well as other old stuff in my collection.Aryattack (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see the logo on the bottles. I would know. I'm drinking one right now. §imon_K^S_K 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

new pictures

i am a collector and have pictures if anyone needs new ones. message meAryattack (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Current picture

The picture "U.S. containers in 2008" does not include the 1l and .5l bottles and the small 100 calorie can. It would be nice if someone could take a picture including them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.249.252 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition, please

Whoever edits this article I believe adding the world's first outdoor coca-cola advertisement located in Cartersville Georgia would be very informative. Also, if someone has a pic of it that would be good as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupe678 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source that says it's the world's first? —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here they are. http://notatlanta.org/firstsign.html

http://web.georgia.org/net/content/go.aspx?s=55538.0.26.3011

Oh and if you want to see the official sign on the wall. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2DK6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupe678 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No 355mL can

The current can size in Australia is 375mL, not 355mL as is stated in the paragraph regarding the new slim and tall can in the "The Coca-Cola "contour bottle" design" section.

150.101.206.3 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

different bottle sizes

There is no mention of the couple or so years that coke and pepsi came out with a three litre bottle in North America (including Canada), around 1988. The pop in them would go flat before the bottle could be finished. Great for parties though! I feel this is a pretty important part of the soft drinks history. Thanks, William 68.151.228.175 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ANOTHER NAME FOR THE PARALYZER IS COLORADO BULL DOG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.87.229 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DNA Damage?

While I am certainly no fan of coke, the claim of 'DNA Damage' seems a bit... sensational - I don't feel that such a claim (based on a citation from the Daily Mail), is substantial enough. The article itself says that the chemical may 'turn off' DNA... a bit different than the language used by the Daily Mail. Anyway, I propose adding a citation needed tag, but I'll not do it unless others are in agreement. Thanks, TheFireTones 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's not cited, go for it. Put a tag in. Or even remove the statement. Any idiot can put any old crap in Wikipedia, which is why 'everything' has to be verfiable. I mean, going out in the sun can 'damage your DNA'. Possibly drinking water and breathing air too! Another route is to look for a source to verify/discredit the claim. BUT if it can't be verified(by a reliable source) it should be removed!
Another possible tag to use is --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Increse in tumors"

The following statement: "The use of coca-cola has also been associated with increse of tumors as found by the Ramazzini Foundation [67] in 2006." is false (and contains a misspelling in "increse").

The source material conclusion states that the study indicates a statistically significant increase in tumors IN RATS that, in the authors' judgment, resulted from an increase in caloric intake which led to obesity.

There is NOTHING in this study to indicate that anything specific to Coca-Cola itself led to an increase in tumors. They chose Coke because it is the most widely consumed soft drink in the world, and soft drinks have become a large source of calories in the human diet.

Santiago3b (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)santiago3b

Akka Mala

In the popular culture, the Coca Cola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.101.223 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sugar

There is a secret war going on between the scientific and corporate communities.

Research has lead the World Health Organisation to warn about the damaging efects of sugar, its excesive use in foodstuffs and its excessive percentage in the average diet: [43]

"Evidence suggests that excessive consumption of energy-rich foods can encourage weight gain, the report says and calls for a limit in the consumption of saturated and trans fats, sugars and salt in the diet, noting they are often found in snacks, processed foods and drinks."

Some of the research points to the drug and addictive nature of sugars. Rats that were feed a sugar high diet for a month and had it suddenly removed behaved liked if they were being weaned of heroin.

You have a great article here in wikipedia: [44] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgonzalezdelhoyo (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated comment. Please post at the correct talk page. -- I've Drunk Brew ^{talk • contribs} 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to clarify 'teaspoons' as 'flat teaspoons'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.33.28.102 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Brand portfolio correction

{{editsemiprotected}}

in the brand portfolio section in the "Coca-Cola with Lemon" row it says that it's still available in Romania.

Sadly, I haven't seen that product in Romania in the last 10 years, and if it ever was in Romania, it was for a very brief period, so what I ask is if someone can remove Romania from the country list in that row.hi

Kaly J. (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done: It seems to me that Coca-cola is still being sold in Romania.. Coca-Cola even have a romanian website. Do you have any sources to show it is no longer being stocked? Place the {{editsemiprotected}} template back so I or another editor knows to check back :). Cheers, — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Sorry, I thought you meant the entire range wasn't available any more in Romania, which I thought was odd. I have made the edit here. Cheers, — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 04:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated image

A lately updated image "Coke lemon.JPG" can be used for Coca-Cola with Lemon in the Brand portfolio section. Someone with the permission may update it as this page is locked and protected. (Dezzawong (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezzawong (talk • contribs) 07:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Coke in China

I live over here and can take a pic of a stubby 1 yuan coke bottle with the name in Chinese. They are sold everywhere. Does anyone think that would be good for the article?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be very good. Interesting the various sizes/ type of packaging that are sold, and come and go. Good to make the article more 'international'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

According to this Wikipedia article, the United States government sued the Coca-Cola Company for the amount of caffeine put in the drink in 1911, but the hyperlink of this case says this case took place in 1916. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dungpk55 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The case was resolved on appeal in 1916. 1911 to 1916 sounds about right for a case's lifecycle. Keep in mind that it usually takes about five to eight years in the U.S. for a case to go from complaint to final appeal to the Supreme Court (which has discretionary review and may or may not take the case). Yes, this is ridiculously expensive (with lawyers' bills running up at an astronomical rate) which is why 98% of cases settle before trial. Part of the problem is that the U.S. has traditionally underfunded its federal and state judicial systems, so appellate judges take forever to decide cases (because there's just not enough of them and they don't have enough law clerks to help them with everything). It's common for a case to sit around for a year before an appellate court gets around to actually reading the briefs filed by the parties and schedules oral argument. Or, in some states, a case might be briefed and argued relatively quickly, but then the judges on the panel might start fighting about what to decide, and then all of them might end up writing separate opinions that attack each other, which can take over a year. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Criticism section

Could you read this and add a criticism section about the Coca Cola corporation? http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Transnational_corps/RealThing_CocaCola.html Thank you. Stars4change (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Coca Cola Classic

Is there a reason that Coca Cola Classic is listed at the bottom of Coca-Cola#Brand_portfolio and listed as introduced in the USA in 2008? It's the same thing as regular Coke, so shouldn't this be removed from the list?--Ridge Runner (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Or is it? -- Zsero (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to show Coca-Cola Classic as a separate product, the introduction date needs to be changed to 1985, to correspond with the launch and replacement of New Coke. From the US side of the coin, it's the successor product to original Coke, though with a tweaked formula (high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar). I don't think there's a formal name for the version made with corn syrupcane sugar around Passover; the only distinction is the cap color. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean "the version made with cane sugar around Passover" -- Zsero (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. The version without the corn products so it's kosher for Passover. (Oops! Just noticed my error.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. To me, Classic and regular Coke are the same, but at the very least the date needs to be fixed.--Ridge Runner (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So what do you guys think: should it be completely removed from the list or should it be edited to reflect the correct information and moved up to the top?--Ridge Runner (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects, then, I'm going to remove it. I think it's unnecessary.--Ridge Runner (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Coke availability

Cherry Coke is still available in Czech Republic, there is no Cherry Coke Zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubyk (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Coca-Cola is also leader in Israel

This site: [Israel] tells that Coca-Cola is the most popular beverage in Israel in 2009.Agre22 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Brand

Coca-Cola is the #1 top brand in the world, valued at over US$67 billion.

www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148038492933.htm

bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/best_global_brands_2009/index.asp

24.60.190.107 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sucrose Coke and sans-classic in US

I have 2 issues with the article:

• Sucrose is used by the Coca-Cola bottlers of Allentown, Pennsylvania and Cleveland, Ohio instead of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

[45] [46]

• "Classic" has been gone from American packages of Coca-Cola since the beginning of the year.

[47]

If these issues can be resolved, and added to the article, then it will be more accurate. 70.225.72.21 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammar Error

"while Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola and Diet Coke Caffeine-Free contains 0 mg."

"Contains" should be "contain"

Jake.k.compton (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Coke in Finland

Coca-Cola Vanilla is available in Finland, while Coca-Cola with lemon isn't. --Squidoh (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Already released? (Coke mini)

I recently just bought a case of Coca-Cola at Wal-Mart and the cans were about the size on a credit card and had 150 ML of coke, or somthing like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan Gage (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Differnce between "Coke" and "Cola"

Hey there. Someone told me, that "Coke" ist not the same as "Cola". For example "Bundaberg Rum-Cola". Is there a difference between "Coke" and "Cola"???

This may sound stupid, but I really need to know it! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.101.132 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the best place to ask but to answer your question Coke is often used to abveriate the brand name Coca-Cola while cola is a generic term that can for this products and all other smilar prodcuts. For example, Pepsi is a cola but would not be called Coke. In short, they are basicaly the same thing but Coke is only one brand of cola.--76.66.191.208 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ops in Palestine

Categories can't be referenced, I don't think, but it is very easy to verify that Coke operates in the Israeli occupied territories. A quick search finds the following: 'WEST BANK: COCA-COLA RESUMES OPERATIONS' [48], 'Coca-Cola renews its commitment to the Palestinian economy' [49] and many others Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of Chinese "stubby" bottle

I just added the image. The bottles appear to be the same size as the little 12 fl oz bottles sold in Canada when I was a kid. I don't remember if they were called "stubby". Does anyone remember these little bottles? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants, I will take a snapshot of the whole line of Coca Cola products available in China side by side. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [[

Link title

]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.189.66 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Amount of coca leaf imported into the U.S.

The last two sentences in the "Coca — cocaine" paragraph, within the "Stimulants" section say: "Stepan Company buys about 100 metric tons of dried Peruvian coca leaves each year, according to claims by Marco Castillo, spokesman for Peru's state-owned National Coca Co.[35] but the real amount is 8 tons."

The last sentence is gramatically incorrect, and points to a reference that merely speculates that "The Coca-Cola Company is said to import eight tons of coca leaves from South America each year, mainly from Peru.".

I propose removing this last sentence "but the real amount is 8 tons" unless someone comes up with a good reason.

MFdeS (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides being POV, the reference given for the statement "but the real amount is 8 tons" is nothing but conjecture. 121.45.219.25 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I've deleted it. MFdeS (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Transition to high-fructose corn syrup

The article suggests that the transition to HFCS occurred at the time that Coke Classic was reintroduced alongside New Coke. I have often read that HCFS had been in use in the "Old Coke" formulation well before New Coke had come along, but that can labels still incorrectly said sugar. When the new label for Coke Classic was created, the correct sweetener name was placed on the label, leading some to believe that Coca-Cola had not gone back to the pre-New-Coke formula, which Coca-Cola denied in the press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.169.2 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why has the cocaine been removed from Coca-Cola ?

Didn't seem to hurt anybody back then, when Pemberton's formula was still applied. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_drugs; you're trolling of course. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy

"Keith Law, a producer and writer of commercials for Belfast CityBeat, was not convinced by Coca-Cola's reintroduction of the advertisement in 2007, saying that "I don't think there's anything Christmassy about HGVs and the commercial is too generic."[74]"

I don't think this is relevant to the author. Reviews of a company should not be on the page unless they are of significant importance. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Coke + aspirin = ?

Hi there, I was wondering if a rumour I heard in high school was right, and I could not find anything here. I found the answer at snopes.com [50]. Is it not worth including here? It sounds like I was not the only one who heard that tale, and I know of one Italian band (Elio e le Storie Tese, the song is Supergiovane) who even references this rumour - apart from the movie Grease, as Snopes mentions. Thanks. 122.25.250.221 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rumor mill, nor a place to dispel rumors. If this particular urban legend had any notability of its own, it could have an article.  Frank  |  talk  12:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... one reliable source, one classic mainstream movie, one popular song. How can you say it's not notable? WP is not a place to dispel rumors, unless that is a side effect of adding sourced relevant and notable information to an article. There are plenty of similar examples in our articles. 122.26.59.216 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This would appear in the "Coca-cola in popular culture" section, if one existed. The reason one doesn't is apparently because some Wikipedians believe that every time an "X in popular culture" section to an article, God kills a kitten. Or maybe it's God vandalizes an article. -- llywrch (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the cult of Mexican Coca-Cola made it to published sources?

Yes, this is based on my personal experience -- & thus is original research -- but I've encountered this enough times to wonder if this is a new trend. Has anyone else noticed the increasing availability of Coca-Cola bottled in Mexico in the United States? The attraction is that Mexican Coke is made with sugar cane -- not fructose from corn syrup -- which gives it a taste much closer to the "original formula". (Yes, this is my opinion.)

I first noticed this item for sale here in Portland Oregon at a restaurant supply chain ("Cash & Carry") about two years ago, but after several months they stopped carrying it due to problems obtaining it on a regular basis. (And the manager informed me that the Mexican government subsidizes the use of sugar cane for domestic use, they were unhappy about their money going to benefit their rich gringo neighbors.) Time passes, & the other day I noticed one of the tell-tale bottles in the back of a pickup truck on the street. Then today I was surprised to find a pallet load of bottles of Mexican Coca-Cola at the local Costco! (Yes, I quickly bought a container of 24 bottles.) So is this simply coincidence -- there is no organized market for providing this desirable version of the real Coke to those who remember what it tasted like -- or is there an actual underground demand for Mexican Coca-Cola which is sold in parts of the United States? (And can this be verified in reliable sources, not the ramblings of Just Another Wikipedia Editor?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong picture in the table for the 1886 bottle

The bottle pictures in the 1886 portion of the table is clearly a plastic bottle, with the olympic rings on it, I doubt, very much, that coca cola sponsored the olympics in 1886 during which time there were about 4 or 5 different versions of Coca Cola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.252.121 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, this the wrong picture. The first Coca-Cola bottles were Hutchinson bottles.Georgeghodgesiii (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is still an issue. Idiot me couldnt figure out how to delete the image without moving all the other images up, but someone should change that. Que? (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Come Together"

In the section talking about the song "Come Together" to give the line a more lyrical flow it should be changed to "He shoot Coca-Cola, he say..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldamaster702 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Coca Cola information or Anti-Coke propaganda?

This page begins flows with and ends as an anti coke campaign. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.144.78 (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The picture of the "Original Coca-Cola" launched in 1886 is acctully a picture of a much newer plastic bottle from the olympics and needs to be removed.

{{editsemiprotected}} The picture of the "Original Coca-Cola" launched in 1886 is acctully a picture of a much newer plastic bottle from the olympics and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starscream615 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Agreed, but I can't find the old picture, do you know what it was? -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The image in question illustrates Coca-Cola, the brand that began in 1886. Nothing in the article prevents using a modern image to illustrate the brand. If anything, a modern image is preferred for the sake of identification of the product and its current packaging. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, we are talking about in the History chart. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Brand portfolio section? That's the one I'm referring to as well. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, just read the context. Ya, it doesn't really matter though it wouldn't hurt to have both would it? -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The second and third sentence are out of order.

Seriously, you've got to explain who the Coca-Cola Company is before you start using it as a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.111.72 (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Variants

A couple of years ago, I was in Germany and saw a green tea flavoured Coca-Cola. Apperently they are also produced and distributed in Japan aswell as other countries,source 1 and source 2. I guess they come in sizes from 330mL, 500mL (pictures on google) and 1500mL (source 2) Maybe that flavour should be added to the list? 80.167.214.3 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cocaine in Coca Cola

The flavoring and the cocaine are separately extracted from the coca leaves. The flavoring, and hence Coca Cola, will inevitably always contain some trace amounts of cocaine. These trace amounts will be so small as to have no physiological effect however. This should be added to the article as it is fairly significant and clears up a lot of misconceptions. I'm guessing there are people who work for Coca Cola censoring this article though... Kernow (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

John Stith Pemberton died in 1888 (http://www.cocaine.org/coca-cola/index.html) "Pemberton called for five ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup, a significant dose; in 1891" This statement cannot be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.0.4.14 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The full sentence is "Pemberton called for five ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup, a significant dose; in 1891, Candler claimed his formula (altered extensively from Pemberton's original) contained only a tenth of this amount." Thus, there's nothing to stop Candler from making claims about the formula three years after Pemberton's death; the "in 1891" goes with Candler's claims. —C.Fred (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this true ?!

"and hiring paramilitary units to murder trade union leaders." This is part of a sentence in the 'Criticism' section. It does not have a reference and seems very unbelievable. Can someone find a reference for this or determine whether it is false. Dylan (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not sourced in this article, but the main article referenced at the beginning of the section (Criticism of Coca-Cola) does have more info at Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Colombia. "True" is perhaps not the point; the claim is sourced, although not especially well.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bluedudeguy, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} plastic bottles <design> was instead of "plastic bottles was"

Benji (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I can't find the text you're referring to, and what's intended by the <design> tag? —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a reference

The ref 81 "Liquid Candy: How Soft Drinks are Harming Americans' Health" leads to a page for taxing soft drinks. This is not a proof of what is asserted in the article. Macaldo (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the link to point to the PDF of the report; the old link had gone dead sometime in the past five years when they rearranged the website. I've also pointed to the specific pages in the report, 5 and 6, that discuss nutrient intake by soda drinkers. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Source for "The use of Coca-Cola has also been associated with an increase of tumors in laboratory rats, based on research by the Ramazzini Foundation[84] in 2006."

This source is no longer valid, if it ever was in the first place. A click of the link takes you to an Italian-language page. I'm going to delete the sentence, as it is unsourced at this point. Hanxu9 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

200 Countries

"Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in the stores, restaurants, and vending machines of more than 200 countries."

Although the above is correctly cited I don't belive there are 200 countries and the state department only recognises 194, should the statment be updated?

Using the most expansive definition of country to mean "independent entity," there are 203, listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states -- places like Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan. However, I'm sure you could change 200 to 190 without controversy. Hanxu9 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Brand portfolio

Is Diet Coke consumed by hobo's within Coca-Cola industries, missing or vandalized? No mention of where it's sold for free to hobos. And in media, no mention of the huge advertizing sign destroyed in Metropolis in Superman II. Product placement is subliminal, I guess. :D 75.204.30.101 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect photo

Could someone with a registered account pls remove the first pic in the table under "Brand portfolio". It's clearly incorrect. Thanks. 203.59.139.230 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Enterprises / Coca-Cola Refreshments

Need to update this page to reflect corporate changes within Coca-Cola, specificaly the purchase of Coca-Cola Enterprises and the immediate spin-off of Coca-Cola Enterprises' European group into a new company. The North American group of Coca-Cola Enterprises is now Coca-Cola Refreshments and is owned by The Coca-Cola Company.

161.162.4.23 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)