Jump to content

Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Santa Claus

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

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

Rude posters recalled

Why is there no mention about the mid 80's posters that were part of an ad campaign that was cancelled because of the hidden rude picture? see [1]

Slogan

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

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

Addictive

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

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

The sugar in the drink also contributes to diabities and other physical complications.
I don't know what the point of saying this is, in the context of the article. All sugar is dangerous for diabetics.
Recent studies have shown that the caffeine accelerates the body for a short period of time.
What does "accelerates the body" mean?
This acceleration extends to the brain as well. Learning has been known to increase while drinking the soft drink.
??
This chemical is the element human brains work on. In essence, it's brain food. It has been known to cause headaches, though.
Caffeine causes dehydration, hence the headaches.

--LMS

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

BTW, why we don't we specify the amount of caffeine it contains? According to their site it contains 23/85 = 27% [2] of the caffeine in a coffee "brewed, drip method". So, a 500 ml bottle contains as much caffeine as an average coffee cup. (135 ml) Bogdan | Talk 11:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
the formula changes too, can't specify how much whatever is in it. trade secret too, so not allowed to state ingredients beyond what is published by coke. Cal Torrance former minister at Northridge United Methodist Church, Northridge California was 'addicted to coca-cola' though he could get by on other similar cola drinks. Could it be reasonably claimed the he was not addicted to coke, because Royal Crown cola could substitute?Pedant 03:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False information

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

Shortly after the turn of the century, cocaine was removed from the coca leaves by processing (leaving a physiologically insignificant trace), and extra caffeine was added.
Actually, a significant amount of the caffeine was removed.
The drink and its advertising campaigns have had significant impact on American culture. The current American image of Santa Claus, for example, as a fat jolly bearded old man in a red and white suit comes from a Coca-Cola advertisement.
Urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp
this is more a bad formulation than a false one,the drink and its ads do have significant impact on american culture and others, and do played a significant role in the propagation of the santa image (not created it thought). User:Izwalito:Izwalito
However, the company did take the opportunity to switch Coca-Cola Classic from using cane sugar sweetener to the less-expensive corn syrup sweetener.
Five years before the "new coke"-debacle, half the sugar was already switched. Six month before, all of it was. So, the sweetener replacement was done before new coke. See http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages -- Zoe

Cocaine

To our anonymous friend, please see, for example, [3] on the cocaine thing (and please do not remove that info from the page again). --Camembert

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

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

More on cocaine

I reccomend this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a subject that particularly interests me, but I would expect sources regarding the 19th/20th century cocaine controversy as well as references to chemical analysis that has been carried out in Allen's book [4].—Eloquence 17:00, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • According to the article right now, Coca-Cola do not say that they "never had cocaine in Coca Cola" (or at least, if they do, I've not seen it), they say that "cocaine has never been an added ingredient", which, as the article notes, is completely consistent with it being naturally present in coca leaves. They also say (again, according to the article) that there is no cocaine in the drink now, and I don't think anybody disagrees with that. So I don't see what the problem is. That said, looking around on Coca Cola's website for the comment in the article, I can't find it - does anybody have a link to a specific page? --Camembert
    • Yes, but Eloquence is arguing that there is cocaine in the Coke, now. Coca-Cola disputes it and Eloquence believes they are "obviously wrong". Pizza Puzzle
    • Here is the comment from Coca-Cola. Evil saltine 19:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I'll add that to the article. --Camembert
  • No, Pizza Puzzle, I have never argued that Coke contains cocaine now. That's simply wrong, and if you had read my comments, you would know that.—Eloquence 06:53, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • You appear to be saying it by arguing that it is "obviously wrong" to disagree with the article, "cocaine was removed from the coca leaves by processing (leaving a physiologically insignificant trace)". Pizza Puzzle
    • No, I have never expressed disagreement with that part of the article. I disagree with your proposed wording above, "it is often alleged that ..". This is an unnecessary toning down of facts as "theories", the "obviously wrong" referred to Coca Cola's denial that Coke had ever included cocaine, although, as the article in its current form correctly implies, the PR statement is not really wrong but just misleading.—Eloquence 13:55, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • The article says "Pemberton called for 5 ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup, a significant dose." Does this mean that there was enough cocaine in the leaves to have an effect? I'm still a bit confused as to whether Coca-Cola could ever get you high or addicted to cocaine.

Peruvian Kola

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

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

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

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

For more info see www.incakola.com.pe

Well, except for Irn-Bru, though it's starting to look like that brand is toppling as well. GeeJo (t) (c) 01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Peruvian Kola

The Inca Kola page says:

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

but the Coca Cola page says:

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

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

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

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

Quebec is not a country. Despite Pepsi's popularity in Quebec, Coke is #1 nationally in Canada.

Text removal

I removed this:

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

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

agreePedant 06:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Coke Brands

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

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

The list seems to be a copy of the information found at http://www2.coca-cola.com/brands/brandlist.html, and it does list Schweppes. It also lists A&W and Dr Pepper, also brands that are Cadbury-Schweppes brands. If from that page one follows the "print version" link, we reach a different page with the same brands, but with the disclaimer Listed below are the brands included in our 2003 unit case volume. Some are licensed and many are sold only in select locations.. I guess this means that the Coca-Cola company licenses Cadbury-Schweppes brands in one or more countries. It also means that the list as given is polluted, and less useful than it might appear. I'll put in a disclaimer on the article page. Abigail 13:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
OHO! Smellum heap big rat here. Is it just possible that counting these other brands that are distibuted by some local Coca-Cola bottlers but have no other connection (and may even be rivals) helps to boost the claimed popularity of Coca-Cola? Andrewa 21:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Differences between french and english articles about coca cola

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

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

Coca-cola union abuses in Colombia

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

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

---

Can anyone substantiate: "179 major human rights violations, including nine murders; this is undergoing international arbitration.".

I believe the correct, neutral view is (as summarized nicely in Straight Dope[6])

1) Colombia only 2) one murder 3) lawsuit filed in U.S. federal court in 2001. Coca-Cola Company dismissed from it.


Done.

The "Chinese Name"

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

Thanks for pointing this out. It was me who had added that part in the article. I guess when I added it the "[Discredited at Bite the Wax Tadpole]" wasn't there in the site or I plain didn't notice it ! I guess the section can be removed from the article then.
But the snopes site just says that the description is untrue, it doesn't provide any evidence why it is untrue or any origins of the legend if it may be called so. So unlike snopes ! Does anyone here understand any Chinese ? Jay 15:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Dear editors of this article

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

Nobody is conspiring to write a POV article here (at least, not as far as I know). I don't see where we are promoting idolatry. I believe we've given sufficient coverage of Coke's medical risks.
Closed mindedness.
I wasn't saying you shouldn't be fleshing it out. I was saying I feel we have a minimum sufficient coverage of Coke's medical risks already — it's been indicated that Coke used to contain cocaine but does not any more (if it does, I presume you think the US government is allying with Coke to cover it up?), and that it does contain caffeine, and even how much of it is inside, compared to non-decaffeinated coffee. Nobody has ever tried to claim that there are other unhealthy ingredients in Coke — all the court cases I've seen focused either on cocaine or caffeine. Again, there's things in theory and in practice. I've never seen anybody drop dead from drinking Coke like millions of fanatics have done. If you believe that there is some conspiracy to poison us with Coke, then please, do mention it. But mentioning such an unproven thing in the header — something not proved by any court evidence, something not even proved by anecdotal evidence — is just folly. If it is true, the least we could have is a citation from an acknowledged medical journal about this.
There's a policy of avoiding weasel words; show incidents that have happened and leave the reader to draw their own conclusion, not promote your own conclusion. This is to avoid POVing articles, and anyway, last time I checked we aren't supposed to be a source for critical medical information.
gibberish! would you not mention cyanide as a poison??
But does Coke contain cyanide? There is no proof that Coke contains anything more dangerous to your health than caffeine, which is definitely dangerous in some way to pregnant mothers and children, which is why I left it in the article. Until I see definite proof that Coke contains something more poisonous than that, I will not be accepting your half-baked claims.
Also, please provide sources for your claims, as I have Mark Pendergrast's "For God, Country and Coca-Cola" and it has mentioned lawsuits regarding Coke's caffeine content, etc. but if there's any discussion in the medical community about the dangers of Coke beyond some conspiracy theorists, I have yet to hear of it from any credible source, nor from Scientific American.
Sheer ignorance. I have been in this medical profession for a little more years than you have been on planet earth (just a comparison, nothing personal your highness). I have never encountered such a weak and ignorant argument.
I am not implying you are not a medical professional. But that's like Dubya barging in and going to war with Iraq, and then when asked why, he claims it based on political experience, and does not provide credible proof that there are any WMDs in there. To me that's what you're doing. There may or may not be WMDs (unhealthy ingredients) in Iraq (Coca-Cola), but as long as there are no satellite photos (medical publications) proving otherwise, the burden of the proof is on you to prove it.
So, you don't care about people dying in Iraq (Coca-Cola). What all you care about is satellite images (medical publications)? Why can't everyone here reseach on this issue, with an open mind, and provide a correct view? Several times, while drinking coke, I myself have engaged in debates over WMDs (unhealthy ingredients). And I certainly hope that I am not alone. There could no smoke, without fire. There could be no doubt, without fault. And that is the same reason why you doubt Dubya, without any proof that he is wrong.--ganesh 16:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Because there are no sources. That's "research", not just going out and stating in the opening paragraph that "nobody knows the exact ingredients, so obviously Coke must be dangerous" and bolding it as well — I don't see how that's NPOV at all (we don't fight POV with more POV — we correct the original POV material). Until we see something credible about a mysterious ingredient in Coke that causes people to drop dead, I'll stick to my guns on just mentioning that Coke may cause problems for young children and/or pregnant women, because caffeine is indeed hazardous in copious amounts, moreso for those groups at risk. Coke may be dangerous in India, but generally in the U.S. it conforms to the FDA's standards, and here in Malaysia, I haven't heard of anybody dying of a Coca-Cola overdose. "But there's no full list of ingredients!" is not a valid excuse. A lot of soft drinks and junk food you and I consume just puts us off with "and other permitted preservatives/flavouring" and not list what these are. Do we avoid them because they may be dangerous? Christ, Coke is more than a century old and approved for consumption in more than 200 countries around the world. If there's anything more dangerous in it than caffeine, I'd like to see how Coke got away with bribing various governments for more than a hundred years (of course, a credible source would probably be more helpful — that's mainly what I'd like to see for various claims that Coke poses a definite health hazard. Vaguely stating that it is "widely debated in the medical community" is not citing a source. See weasel words for what I mean.). Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I see that this article on Coke has a reference to Junk food at the end, where there is a reference to certain medical complications. So, by the rule of transitivity Coke poses medical concerns, that need to be addressed. Since health issue is the most important of all, (wikipedia is only for healthy living beings) mentioning it in the introduction is nothing insensible. I am just going to wait and see if this wikipedia passes this test of open-mindedness. --ganesh 23:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have revised the introduction again and moved some credible information to other sections, and deleted the stuff that I think requires a source or is unencyclopedic. Also, I have trouble believing that you've contributed to Wikipedia since its inception — if you have, I'd like to know what articles you've seen that have a dividing line between the opening paragraph and the rest of the article, nor any article that is so blatantly POVed by bolding text, which regardless of its veracity, could be construed as frightening people away from Coca-Cola. This is for the sake of POV; I myself don't give a shit about Coke. I just think that much of your edits are blatantly POV in their manner. You attempt to emphasise Coke's downsides.
moronic. Do you mean to say, Mr. Know all, that Iam lying?? If so, I think we have to teach you basic etiquette. I have never received such an childish response.
I am not saying you are lying. I think you are the one who is being childish. I'm just asking for a source. Yes, saying that it is "widely debated in the medical community" is a weasel word. At the very least, you could cite a medical journal which has discussed Coke before. I'm not stopping you from adding content to this article. I'm upset that you continually promote your own POV by introducing unnecessary, uncited text to the introduction, and emphasising it by bolding it. We are not a critical guide for people to drinking Coke. There is no need to highlight the dangers of Coke in the introduction beyond a one or two sentence summary like the mention of controversies we have now.
Let's remember that there's things in theory, and things in practise. If there's anything hazardous in Coke beyond caffeine, surely the FDA would at the very least force Coke to have a warning label. At the very least. Keep in mind Coke has been in existence for more than a century and the recipe has not changed much beyond the removal of cocaine, since its inception. Coke fanatics like Robert W. Woodruff lived to a ripe old age (but I'm sure you'll counter with Roberto Goizueta). Anyway, I don't want to talk too much more, since I'm afraid I'll just end up saying things I don't want/mean to say. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Pointless. Please don't assume things. By the way, I am going to stay away from sharing my knowledge regarding this drink or anything else(as you pleased, your highness). I do not have enough time to argue with idiots (in general). The trace of nobleness I had, to contribute without expecting anything in return, has vanished today. Wikipedia is never going to become an authoritarian source, this I can assert with confidence. It will become a big collection of POVs from 'enlightened ones' like you. Your response is the epitome of idiotism. --Drbalaji md 00:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I'm so sure we need people who refer to everyone else as dumb idiots, and to administrators as morons. I love how you twist my words and make it seem like I'm the one at fault when all I did to deserve this was to explain to you why I was changing the opening paragraph again. Goodbye, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dear Johnleemk, In wikipedia, profanity is prohibited. I strongly condemn your mannerless last sentence. Your arguments are indeed weak and looks like you are at fault. Besides, there is no place for your personal hatred in a specific talk forum. I do not see any mention by the author drbalaji_md which implies a personal attack against you, as you mentioned in the last paragraph. I expect a prompt apology from you. I also do not know why you bring unnecessary and dersivie terms like dubya, which is a direct caricaturing of a person holding a nation's presidency - this is a serious issue. I deferred from mentioning it earlier. We in wikipedia do not want to loose any legitimate contributors, but would be happy to loose persons like you without wikiquette. I would suggest the author drbalaji_md to forgive and forget these fleabites and continue his valuable contributions. I am also planning to take this issue to other aministrators, If I do not receive a satisfying explanation from you. --ganesh 19:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My arguments being weak is subjective to your opinion. If mine are weak, Drbalaji's are weaker. He decries some of them using one or two words, i.e. "closemindedness" and does not provide anything to back his arguments up. I have no problem at all with mentioning Coke's possible health problems. I do have a problem with someone adding unfounded information not borne out by more than hundred years of lawsuits and complaints against Coca-Cola. His biggest reasons for stating that Coke may be hazardous in the opening paragraph were:
  1. There's no full list of ingredients (already refuted by me earlier; surely you don't expect every company on earth to open their recipes for public viewing, do you?);
  2. It's widely debated in the medical community.
There's no evidence for either of the two beyond his word. If it is widely debated in the medical community, surely some magazine or medical publication would have carried an article on this. I am not denying Coke can and does have detrimental effects on a person's health. What I have a problem with is that Drbalaji promoted this POV heavily by:
  1. Including this in the opening paragraph using heavily negative wording;
  2. Bolding the text as well.
If it had been worded differently and not bolded, I would not have cared about the edit too much. But I find it difficult to defend such POV editing. I understand that we are all human and have our faults; I'm sure Drbalaji has contributed to other articles (I've thanked him on his talk page, if you haven't noticed) with good content. My issue was with how he contributed to this one. In case you haven't noticed, the only edits of his that I persisted in changing were those to the opening paragraph. I do not have any personal hatred for him — as a matter of fact, he barged onto my talk page and was the one who started the name-calling, labeling all admins as morons, and decrying me for acting like royalty, when I find little at fault with my behaviour to him before he started this. Calling people Dubya is a matter of opinion. I don't have much of an opinion on Georgie boy compared to some other liberal contributors to Wikipedia. As this is a Talk page and not an article, I see nothing wrong with expressing my own POV here. I won't defend my use of profanity, and that's the only thing I'm willing to apologise for — as I said earlier, I was afraid I would end up saying things I shouldn't be saying. My only regret from this whole fiasco is that Drbalaji would not accept others' criticism of his edits — see WP:FAC's section on Air India, where he again uses one or two words to rebutt some others' comments on the article. I feel that if he did not use such abrasive language in communicating, he would become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Regardless, there's no use crying over spilt milk/ Oh, and as for bringing this up with other admins, I have already begun this a few days ago at WP:RFC. I felt rather angry at the time over Drbalaji's apparent vendetta against admins, decrying us as morons. I feel he would not have been so harsh on me if I wasn't an admin, because he seems to think that admins have a superiority complex over ordinary users — this is exactly the attitude which we are not supposed to encourage, as Jimbo himself has said that having admins should be no big deal. I don't understand why Drbalaji was so harsh on me. He seems to have thought I was being allowed to get away with challenging his edits because I am an admin, when the same thing would have happened if I was an ordinary user. Overall, I remain confused over this whole incident, which shouldn't have happened if not for a huge misunderstanding on both sides. Johnleemk | Talk 07:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and here are some links to enable you to follow this a bit more easily:
  • User talk:12.221.86.216 - where it all began with me informing Drbalaji why I was changing one of his edits back, in accordance with Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version#Explain_reverts.
  • User talk:Johnleemk#Dear Mr.King... - where Drbalaji responded with calling admins morons, accusing me of elitism. I responded as best as I could on User talk:Drbalaji md in accordance with Wikiquette's first rule — always assume that someone has the best intentions.
  • Coca-Cola's History. Drbalaji made this and this edits. I only changed his edits to the opening paragraph and left the rest of them untouched.
  • Then on this page, Drbalaji created this section. I responded to him, and again explained in accordance with reverting policy, why I was changing parts of his recent edits to this article. The discussion continues till now.
  • As for personal attacks and profanity, as you can see, it was Drbalaji who began personal attacks with calling the majority of administrators on Wikipedia morons, which, as it was on my talk page, seemed to be a thinly veiled attack on me. As for profanity, note that the policy applies only to articles and not to talk pages. Likewise with my Dubya comment, as it is on a Talk page and not on an article, I see no reason to apologise for either. Regardless, I will apologise for the profanity, but I do not see much need for apologising for anything else. Drbalaji may have been driven off by me, but he certainly contributed a lot to it by being unable to accept that his edits can and will be changed as well as critiqued by others. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk, I do not know why you are jumping up and down while drbalji has written only a few sentences. I also do not know why you use bad words. I see nothing wrong in his appeal to the editors of this article. As to your anger about drbalaji mentioning you as morons, don't you call a president by some bad names in a public place like this? i did see the concerned talk page and i do not see a direct attack. It is his opinion and anyone can have their own opinion. I appreciate his high class language skills. I myself being a strong GWB supporter, felt so bad on seing your comments like dubya, georgie boy...what is all this? Do you think you are the president of the world? There is a limit for everything. Somebody do something to teach this guy some manners. I may be a newbie here but I have been an american for 50 something years. --Flagfanatic 00:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A few sentences, but according to Wikiquette, calling somebody a moron, let alone all administrators, is construable as a personal attack. The only bad word was "ass" and I apologise for it. I see nothing wrong with his appeal as well. I am not jumping up and down about that. I merely replied giving my opinion on the current (at that time) state of the article's NPOVness, and why I was reverting his edits, again in accordance with Wikipedia policy. He in turn replied with rebuttals consisting of one or two words, i.e. "close-mindedness". His rebuttals contained no substance. In serious discussion, replying to someone's opinions and arguments without providing any real substance can be defined as internet trolling. Drbalaji is the one who first made a mountain out of a molehill with his name-calling on my Talk, claiming I act like some stuffed-up royal, when all I did was (need I remind you, in accordance with Wikipedia policy?) inform him why I was rolling back an edit of his to the opening paragraph. I feel his personal attacks on me and other admins are undeserved, and he somehow seems to feel slighted by admins in some manner. And for the comments on Dubya, etc., these are personal opinions too. The difference is that calling someone Dubya is a joke — a bad one maybe, but a joke, regardless, and definitely not a personal attack on anyone on Wikipedia. It's a personal opinion (but as I said before, I really don't care much for fanatics like Bush and Moore — they're fun for making jokes about, but I don't really care about their political stances). Calling all admins on Wikipedia morons, however, is something else. This is an international site, by the way, so I can disrespect whoever I want. Would you have reacted as strongly if I dissed "Al-goreithm" or the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? This is getting rather off-topic for Talk:Coca-Cola, by the way, so perhaps it would be better if this discussion either ended or returned to the original point, which I think has already being ended. I have defended my position, Drbalaji has not responded, so if this discussion is continued, it will probably be at mediation or arbitration. Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

asome

                       ASOMWE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive_1&oldid=277362180"