Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Coca-Cola. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Why is there no clear mention of its sugar content?

Approximatelly 10% of Cocacola is sugar, i.e. in 10litres you get 1kg of sugar. This is common to most soft drinks. I recall reading that the World Health Organisation has been threatened by the US if it continues to investigate and publish articles about the adverse health effects of sugar. This threats would entail the loss of US contributions and are a result of lobbying in washington by the fast food industry. I will try to get the appropriate references.

In Super Size Me we meet an obese man who claims to drink between 6 and 8 liters a day! And his wife claims she buys about 52l a week for both of them, though she only drinks about 2l. Not surprisingly this man is in a hospital bed awaiting stomach surgery as a last resort to his obesity and associated diabetes.

In my own POV I feel that just as cigarettes have a warning about its health effects (in Spain) there should also be similar warnings in Soft drinks about their considerable sugar content. In this sense I would like to see a warning to its sugar content clearly mentioned in this article.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

dear johnleemk, I will try to get the references regarding the WHO.

I AM ASTONISHED!!!! I just put "World Health Organisation Sugar" into google and this is the first result I got: [[1]] it is the Guardian online paper and let me please quote some extracts (I hope that this does not violate any laws):

Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO

The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating.

The threat is being described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.

The industry is furious at the guidelines, which say that sugar should account for no more than 10% of a healthy diet. It claims that the review by international experts which decided on the 10% limit is scientifically flawed, insisting that other evidence indicates that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar.

It seems that my memory served me right. The soft drink industry and the fast food industry is part of the sugar industry and they are the first to be adversely affected by the WHO studies. I have not looked much further into this, for one I am still a newbie and rather restrict myself to the talk pages. Please do let me know if you will support me in including a researched section on the sugar content in CocaCola and its worrying concerns in the scientific community.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That article does not mention Coca-Cola, and attempting to link Coke with the sugar lobby is original research unless a reliable source has done the same. (And even so, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the drink.) Johnleemk | Talk 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the letter was written to the WHO by a sugar lobbying group, while most Coca-Cola is sweetened by HFCS, a corn product, which is not sugar. Yes, it's a form of sweetener, and may also be bad for you, but the sugar industry lobbies for the corn industry about as much as the gun industry lobbies for the auto industry. --Jkonrath 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

II have done some research and I have found the following article printed in the Toronto Star newspaper in 2003 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0429-05.htm:

(...)if people followed those guidelines, a huge proportion of the sugar industry's market would disappear, so of course it fights it. It fights using the strategy that was pioneered long ago by the tobacco industry, and later copied by the industrial interests that wanted to deny the phenomenon of global warming. Set up one or more institutes with misleading names to throw doubt on the evidence — the International Life Sciences Institute, founded by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Foods, Proctor and Gamble, and Kraft, is now accredited to both the WHO and the FAO — and use the Washington lobby system for all it's worth.

The following page attributes the following quotes to The Guardian, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/21/1050777210363.html:

The association, together with six other big food industry groups, has also written to US Health Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to try to get the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the US Council for International Business, comprising more than 30 companies, including Coca-Cola and Pepsico. (...) the International Life Sciences Institute, founded by Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, General Foods, Kraft and Procter and Gamble, has also gained accreditation to the WHO and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.

This are the result of a quick search in google, I agree that we could find more reputable and definite source, but as you say there is probably little point in including this information in the article.

Look at this extract about sugar from a link in the food additive section (http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm):

Sugar and sweetened foods may taste good and supply energy, but most people eat too much of them. Sugar, corn syrup, and other refined sweeteners make up 16 percent of the average diet, but provide no vitamins, minerals, or protein. That means that a person would have to get 100 percent of his or her nutrients from only 84 percent of his or her food. Sugar and other refined sugars can promote obesity, tooth decay, and, in people with high triglycerides, heart disease. It also carries the following warning: Cut back on this. Not toxic, but large amounts may be unsafe or promote bad nutrition.

Here is a link to the WHO and a summary of the report, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr20/en/. Please also refer to the article on the WHO where the controversy about its report is mentioned.

I think I am bringing up a good case for including a section about Cokes sugar content, where we would give details with links as to its sugar content (10,6g per 100ml http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/active_lifestyle/nutrition.asp) and mention the controversy about sugar in the diet, with an emphasis on what seem to be the 3 key numbers: 10% as the WHO recommended maximum sugar content in the diet, the 16% of a current average diet in the US and the Sugar industry / lobby that 25% should be the maximum. We should also mention that sugar only provides energy and is void of other nutritional elements, and that in as far as a healthy diet equates energy spent with energy intake, the more sugar we take the less food there is to meet our nutritional needs. I dont think we should mention Coca Colas part in the sugar lobby here, but possibly it should be mentioned in the article about the company.

Please do comment and lets see if we can agree on appropriate wording and references. I have not edited and will not edit the article unless we meet a consensus first. I specially would like to hear from DJK and Johnleemk. Regards Carlos Cgonzalezdelhoyo 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sugar content in Cocacola

By the way, if it were 10%, then that'd be 1kg of sugar in 10kg of soda (if that figure is correct). You're mixing liters with kilograms though, which is inaccurate considering that sugar isn't measured in liters (even though one liter of water weighs about one kilogram). --Cyde↔Weys 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cyde, you are right, I am asuming that 1litre = 1kg and I do say that "approximately" 10% is Sugar, so, as you say, there is approx 1kg of sugar in 10litres of Coca Cola.

By the way, can you figure out how much sugar there is in one litre using the Coca-cola formula, it seems the information is too confusing for me, but we can see that sugar is by far the main ingredient.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it seems that adding sugar to water increases its density rather than its volume. So saying that there is approxiamtely 1kg of sugar every 10litres may be the right way to report it.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found the following Coca Cola page with regards to its nutritional levels: http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/active_lifestyle/nutrition.asp

As you can see, it consists exclusively of sugar, 10,6g per 100ml, or 1,06kg per 10litres.

Can we include the following image in the article? http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/images/siteimages/dietcokespritelabel.gif Cgonzalezdelhoyo 09:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Watch out for Coca Cola's minions!!!

CocaCola in its Coca Cola Zero advertising campaing has been caught spamming and worse of all, creating a false blogg. This deceitfull, cheating and degrading behavoiur on the part of Coca Cola means we can expect anything and everything from them, and Wikipedia, with its open edit policy and its huge following (16th most visited website in the world) is a prime candidate for their vandalism. I strongly recommend administrators to take this appaling behaviour into consideration and take drastic action, possibly blocking the open edit on this article.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably this is what was referred to as "people thinking that this article is biased towards Coke"? If there's any danger in this article's balance, it is that it is being hijacked by anti-Coke protestors to make a point. Remember that we are attempting to get a neutral point of view - that is one the does not favour any side. Anything that is not verfiable and referenced is not wanted. DJR (Talk) 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear DJR, this information I cite is arrived at via a WP article, in particular a referrenced link that leads to an "anti-coke" blogg. In this blogg it is mentioned that the blogg created by Coca Cola lied in that it claimed to have started in June, whereas a WhoIs, shows that it was started in November. [[2]]Im not australian and had not heard of Zero Coca Cola until I stumbled on it by accident in WP. Following the links in the article I have found a huge number of bloggs and pages critizising Coca Colas Astroturf campaign, abusing the confidence we place on bloggs.

In my books, once caught lying makes you a liar, and hence my warning on this page as a company that is willing to fake logs will be tempted to edit WP articles in their favour.

You may consider me as Anti-Coke, even a protestor, but I am just a normal guy in Spain with no particular agenda other than to spread the word on this shamefull behaviour in the hope that their reputation will (justifiably) suffer so that in the future Coca Cola and other companies think twice about trying to manipulate the online community. This is simple retrobution to condemnable behaviour.

In fact, I am now drinking a diet coke and it is my favourite drink, though I normally buy Safeway Diet Cola which has a nice taste and is much cheaper. Regards Cgonzalezdelhoyo 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All well and good, but none of it matters as it infringes WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Blogs are not even close to being a reliable source of information and an accusation of lying, regardless how many blogs suggest it, does not constitute lying unless proven as such. Furthermore, the example you state seems to be unimportant, especially in the grand scheme of things. Lying over a date? If all companies were called to task for this then the world would not exist as we know it. "Following the links in the article I have found a huge number of bloggs and pages critizising Coca Colas Astroturf campaign, abusing the confidence we place on bloggs" - this just sums it up. A blog is not a reliable source. Criticism does not equal lying. Dodgy advertisment campaigns do not abuse "the confidence we place on blogs", because as Wikipedians, we place no confidence in blogs. It is that simple. DJR (Talk) 22:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly many people do not place any confidence on Wikipedia either.Being flawed does not mean it is exempt from telling the truth and being right. Though I agree that a blogg is not an acceptable source for wikipedia, it does nevertheless provide clear testable information i.e. that a WhoIs on the fake blogg contradicts what is stated in the blogg and that there is no record of significant activity by blogg search engine Technorati.

Furthermore, this is the talk pages and the restrictions that apply to writting an article do not have to be met here (though there are other restrictions i.e. code of conduct). I am not trying to edit the article, but I do want to point out that if Coca Cola is willing to fake a blogg they will also be interested in shaping their WP articles which most likely have more repercusion than their fake blogg in Australia. Neither am I a multibillion company whose success lies in it marketing skills.

Also please refer to Coca Cola Zero and how the matter has been handled there, in case you or anyone does feel it warrants being mentioned. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't violate policy plz kthx. Johnleemk | Talk 04:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to delete what you consider infringement, as far as I am concerned you guys are currently overseeing the page and my point has been made. Maybe you can tell me in my talk page exactly how I have violated policy, as I am still a newbie and did not think such strict restrictions where applicable to the talk pages. Regards Cgonzalezdelhoyo 08:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Simplify Logo?

I was wondering if we could do with a direct, white-on-red, version of Coca-Cola's logo, without the image file with the beads of water on it. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia considered it appropriate to reiterate a company's subliminal marketing schemes. I have to give credit where it is due, though: at least we aren't using the ubiquitous command "Enjoy" commonly seen above the company name. Thank heavens for small favors. Kasreyn 07:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally dont have an objection towards the present image. Anyhow, I've created a simpler version.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Exactly what I was thinking of. Would anyone here object to switching to this logo? Kasreyn 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I ditto the above - I don't see anything that wrong with the current image but if it really is a major issue then feel free to change it. DJR (Talk) 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well before I had even saw this I created this picture. It is the correct dimentions but because it doesn't have a shadow like on its products it seems thnner than normal. I made it myself so I can credit myself only. I also created the Coke version of the logo. Lenny 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will change it. I think it is is a very good idea. The more generic coca-cola logo is more appropriate then an outdated promotional image.

{{main}} versus {{see also}} and other issues

Since it's been agreed that we won't be including any criticisms of the Coca-Cola Company that are unrelated to the drink, I don't see a point in listing Criticism of Coca-Cola as a main article for the health concerns section. The article's tone and content are obviously confined to Coca-Cola the company, not Coca-Cola the drink. (The few exceptions are material that was initially expunged from this article.) Also, I will strenously oppose any attempt to cut down the section on health issues as Stbalbach implied he planned to do in this edit summary. The content of the article at the time I write this is not excessively detailed, and avoids delving into the obscure concerns of Ashkenazi Jews and other similar excess detail that was pruned from this article. There is no reason to reduce the size of this section when it has already been trimmed of irrelevant cruft, and deals broadly with the most common health concerns related to Coke. On another note, for the last time, please don't add {{fact}} to the introductory paragraph of health criticisms. An introduction does not need footnotes when the same material is dealt with in greater depth (with complete referencing, I might add) a few paragraphs away. Johnleemk | Talk 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

carbonated accident legend

Removed the following because of http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/carbonate.asp

Although Pemberton intended it to be mixed with still water, it was sold at soda fountains (popularized at the time by the belief that carbonated water was good for the health). It was first mixed with carbonated water when a customer at Jacob's pharmacy came in with a bad headache and bought some Coca-Cola syrup and asked Willis Venable, the soda fountain man, to mix the syrup with (regular) water so the customer could take it immediately. The tap water faucet was at the other end of the counter, however, so Venable recommended carbonated water instead of plain and the customer agreed and said it tasted much better, and within weeks several other drugstores began mixing Coca-Cola with carbonated water. --Espoo 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Split the article up

I propose to move the history and production to their own articles, history of Coca-Cola and production of Coca-Cola. Presently, this article is too long which is said when you start editing this page. Any objections? Helicoptor 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that if we provide good enough summaries of the respective articles it would be ok. I dont think that the article is too long per se, given that coke is the most popular commercial drink world wide. By the way, I'm about to rewrite parts of the Criticism - Health section to briefly but clearly note its high sugar content, 106g/litre, the WHO recommendation of limiting sugar content to 10% of the diet which means that we should not drink more than one can 330ml of Coke a day. (2 cans would be 660ml, equivalent to 277,2 sugar Calories, that is more than 10% of the recommended dayly calorie intake of 2000/2500 calories for women and men respectively). I have sources for all this information.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is currently featured, so I'm hesitant to split it up unless theres more than enough content for those indiivdualarticles to stand on their own. I say sandbox the dinivudal articles first and then split--larsinio (poke)^(prod) 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article length is ok as it is. It seems like it was pretty long a couple months ago, and if it grows too long again, we could perhaps split the history to its own page. I don't think there's enough information about production of Coke to warrent a separate page for that at the moment -- the section is only a few paragraphs long. Philbert^2.71828 01:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split, the article is featured, it's supposed to be long. If it is split than I would seriously question its featured status, the main material would be gutted along with most of the footnotes. -- Stbalbach 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Three charged with stealing Coke secrets

This has been recently in the news. It's basically a story on three people who stole secret files from Coke and tried to sell them to Pepsi.[3] If it hasn't been added to the article then I think that it should be added. Mr. C.C. 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Whitespace

I think that there is some unnecessary whitespace in this article, caused by right-aligned images pushing text sections down the page. Specifically, I'm referring to the first section (the introduction) and the "Advertising" Section. Can this be resolved without editing any actual content, or would the pictures have to be resized? It just looks less clean than I think it should. James Somers 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of the review

The featured article review for this (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coca-Cola) is up for closing and based on the comments it should lose its FA status. However, I notice changes have been made. If anyone wants to add additional comments to the review please do so soon. Marskell 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Desperate

This might seem insane, but I'm looking for a song. It is featured in a Coca-Cola commercial sometime back in May 2004 and I cannot find it anywhere. I've been looking for it for awhile now and the best info I could come up with is from this website's archives. http://www.geminigirl.net/archives/000324.html#comments Check that out and see if you recall any such exchange and get back to me. :) TommyBoy76 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, http://starbulletin.com/2004/01/14/features/ryan.html. 2nd paragraph... TommyBoy76 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Try this: [You nut!] Press play to start! Lenny 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no not that one. I know that tune already-- Harry Belafonte, isn't it? Plus it was at the end of Reservoir Dogs; the credits, I mean. I thought the articles above might have helped... Thanks, though. I'm glad someone responded, at least. I'd appreciate it if anyone else knew anything. Even a no is fine. --00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No "no"s huh? Hmm... well thanks anyway. I guess. TommyBoy76 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

-caine drugs

As mentioned in this article, "extracted cocaine ... is used in the creation of many of the common drugs whose names end in "-caine" (such as Procaine and Lidocaine)".

-caine drugs ARE NOT cocaine derivatives! Those drugs are artificial substances, and only their action as local anaesthetics was the reason of calling them Pro-caine (also known as Novocaine), Lido-caine, and so on.

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procaine 80.94.225.222 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Procaine is made of paraaminobenzoic acid and dimethylaminoethanol. If any source approves that Cocaine is used in this process, this source is doubtful. Student BSMU 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical of the claim that Coca-Cola still contains cocaine. If a source other than a book about baseball could be cited, it might have more weight.Tybo09 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Coke contains trace amount of cocaine because there is no method to extract all the cocaine from coca.

PS: I am wondered what is the extracted cocaine used for, if it is not used in procaine and lidocaine synthesis???Student BSMU 13:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Most people seem to be unaware of this, but cocaine is still used in Western medical practice. This is why it is a Schedule II compound and not Schedule I. It is used for its anesthetic properties in surgical procedures involving the nose and throat and for anesthetizing lacerations on children. (as noted here: eMedicine ) I have also read that it is still used in eye surgery, and know for a fact that some dental procedures use it as anesthetic (though this is rare). A friend of mine was sent home with a bottle of mouthwash containing cocaine after an oral surgery. Joharri 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So Nasty

Why is Coca Cola one of the most well known and popular sodas? If you ask me it's also one of the worst tasting ones... DR. PEPPER IS THE KING.--Tainted Drifter 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a POV comment. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Criticism of Coca-Cola is a POV fork which should be merged into the main article. 72.60.227.118 06:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this a million times already? It's not a "POV fork", it was done for practical reasons 1) The length of the criticism section far outweighs its importance in the main article, it had taken over the article, its length is a distortion making it POV 2) the criticisms are easily long enough to warrant its own article 3) multiple articles discuss the coke critically, this aggregates them all into one location, before we had a mess of duplications across multiple articles 4) There was a very public article in the newspapers about how the Wikipedia Coke article was majority negative material attacking Coke. The "POV fork" people have not provided a rationale for why it is a POV fork, or even what that nebulous term means, and have not addressed the pragmatic reasons why this was done, nor the public embarrassment Wikipedia suffered as a result of the previous version of the article and how to prevent that from happening again. Basically, it looks like a bunch of anti-coke activists who are unhappy about being segregated. Wikipedia is not a site for activists to take over articles with negative material, it needs to remain a balanced set of articles. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms should be integrated into the body of the article rather than segregated into a specific section or a different article. This is our POV policy. Please don't remove the tag. 72.60.227.118 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger for all of the reasons that Stbalbach already listed. The Coca-Cola article already has a section on criticisms. The full list of criticisms is just too long to have in the Coca-Cola article. Besides, this article is supposed to be about the drink itself, not the company. The criticisms article deals with criticisms of the company, not the drink. Philbert^2.71828 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then split it company/drink, not drink+company/criticisms. That makes sense. Stevage 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Too difficult, it is not that clear cut. Can't talk about one without talking about the other. A single place to talk about criticisms of the product and the company makes the most sense. In fact the way it was before was split, and that record shows a mess of duplications. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I will echo the comments I made on the talk page of Microsoft. It's not against NPOV policy, please read WP:POVFORK. There is a proposed guideline for the removal of criticism articles and even there, the discussion has been moving to keep them so long as they meet NPOV themselves (by allowing rebutting points and discussing the fact that notable criticism exists and not participating in the criticism directly itself). As you will quickly see from the consensus on Microsoft and this article, these articles do not violate policy and will most likely stay in place as they are. Please do not continue adding merge headers to every article with a "Criticism of..." splitout. It would be considered vandalism to edit an article to prove a point. ju66l3r 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at Criticism of Coca-Cola and it seems to me that criticisms of the product and corporate practices directly related to the product should be in this article. Criticisms of other corporate practices such as hiring, employee mistreatment etc should be at Coca-Cola Company. There should be no Criticism of Coca-Cola article - that's a POV fork pure and simple. Stevage 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Too difficult, it is not that clear cut. Can't talk about one without talking about the other. A single place to talk about criticisms of the product and the company makes the most sense. In fact the way it was before it was split like you suggest, and that record shows a mess of duplications (ie. trying to talk about the India problem from only the perspective of the coke product and not the coke company results in a mess of duplications and confusion of material across different articles - basically an explosion in the amount of criticism material). Besides, we have a summary section in each article of the criticisms, it's not a POV split, it's simply a way of keeping the article in balance in terms of sheer mass of material. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)