Jump to content

Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Bone loss data

"Like most other colas, Coca-Cola contains phosphoric acid. One study has shown that this hastens bone loss, contributing to illnesses such as osteoporosis.[30]"

I used to do a bit of health writing (not for the food industry), and on an osteoporosis project we looked at the link between sodas and bone loss. Most studies disproved the direct link, stating that it was the fact that people drank soda instead of water or other healthier alternatives that was causing the problem. That said, the new study cited in the above reference is interesting, but the conclusion on the Coke page was not definite in the original research. From the research sumamary:

"The study suggests that cola, but not other carbonated soft drinks, contributes to lower bone mineral density in adult women. Because similar results were seen with diet and non-caffeinated cola, these associations may be due to the phosphoric acid content of cola."

http://www.asbmr.org/news/press_releases/2003/newsrel06.cfm

Note: "suggests" and "may be due to" 66.57.225.50 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

-I recently changed this section to say "only in women", because the cited source states this specifically. Now, if someone wants to put in also that it is speculated that this is also true in men, that's OK too, but I don't want to mislead the people who read this page to think that there is a high probability of your skeleton falling apart from drinking Coke. May I put that change back? Romanstandrd 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If this article was featured...

...Why doesn't it have the little star in the upper-right corner? I'm sure there's some logical reason, but I'm confused. Thanks, RAmen Demosthenes 1 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is no longer featured:
~ UBeR 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Ohh okay thanks, I didn't know they could do that. Thanks again, RAmen, Demosthenes 18:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism or wrong?

I could be wrong but I think that "Cocka-Cola" is either wrong or vandalism in the Coca-cola article. I cannot find any reference to the soda being called that in reality. I think it might be something that needs to be removed but as I wrote, I could be wrong. Ankhet 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Uber vadalism my friend, i just saw an edit in the history where every cola had been changed to cock, and then the same editor changed it back 3 minutes later, lol. --Ferdia O'Brien 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't there any mentions of...

...what happens when Mentos candy is dropped in diet coke, and what happens to a piece of meat that is left in a glass of coke over a longer time period? 89.164.2.131 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone remove the WE LIKE COKE and smiley please, it's inappropriate. 

    "If you put Mentos into diet coke 
    and it has small holes or dents it 
    will act like a fountain. If it 
    doesn't have holes it will just 
    barley act like a fountain."
                   66.231.35.13 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Who determines sweetness?

Is it sweetened first by the syrup manufacturer ("the Coca-Cola Company") and then by the bottler (e.g. "Coca-Cola Enterprises")? In which case, surely the bottlers would control whether New Coke was sweeter or not, and could have manufactured both sweeter and less sweet versions to cater for different tastes.

From the article: Since independent bottlers add sugar and sweeteners, the sweetness of the drink differs in various parts of the world, to cater for local tastes. CaspianM 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The syrup does not contain any sweetener. Bottlers could make different kinds of Coke, but they'd need permission from Coca-Cola, which would be reluctant to consent without a very good argument. -- Zsero 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the straw poll on the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this section.


Should the following be included in the section entitled "Bottle and logo design"?: " A new slim and tall can has begun to appear in Australia as of December 20, 2006, which costs an average of $2AUD. The cans have a distinct resemblance to energy drinks that are popular with the teenage demographic. It is unknown if this design is of limited edition or may soon replace the current 375 ml cans that have been used in the past (the new slim cans are 300 ml, making the volume to cost ratio even smaller). In January 2007, Coca-Cola Canada changed "Coca-Cola Classic" labelling, removing the "Classic" designation, leaving only "Coca-Cola". Coca-Cola stated this is merely a name change and the product remains the same."

Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Zsero 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No

Comments
The point prob deserves inclusion but im not sure it requires so much text. --Ferdia O'Brien (The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman) 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the straw poll. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this section.

Caffeine

I do not think footnote 36 is in the right place: The drink has also aroused criticism for its use of caffeine, an addictive substance which does not affect the products' taste.[36]

The article cited by the footnote makes no claims regarding taste and caffeine content. It is a 1997 article criticizing caffeine additives to food and drinks by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a biased source. In fact, the addition of caffeine makes a very big difference in the taste of Coca-Cola. Zaphod9977 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should go. Zsero 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just extended the stimulant section and basically, coca cola contains kola nut as flavouring, but the kola nut extract also acts as coca colas main source of caffeine.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is this line considered to be maintaining neutrality, in the last paragraph? (Under "Coca-Cola as a political and corporate symbol") It seems like criticism to me.

"In 2002 Coca-Cola made nearly $4 billion. Douglas Daft, Coca-Cola CEO earned $105 million while the worker at the bottling plant earn $130 a month" 200.181.48.35 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that is POV, plus it has bad grammar. Viralmonkey 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pepsi and Coke

The article states that it is a "common" misconception that Pepsi is made by the Coke company. Unless someone can find some published sources that show that this is a "common" misconception, I think the verbiage should be removed. (Indeed, I doubt if you could find one person in a hundred who would think that Pepsi is made by the Coca-Cola Company.) Famspear 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, so I've removed the unsourced information about the "misconception." I think a surprising claim like this requires attribution. --Strangerer (Talk) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's one of the weirdest claims I've seen in a while. Why would Pepsi have commercials where Coke cans get crushed in various ways if they were owned by the same company? Maybe it could be a more common misconception in foreign countries, but definitely not in the US with the way they advertise.--Dycedarg ж 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Medicine?

My teacher told me that coke acts as a medicine for flu and fever. Is it true? 220.255.74.188 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coke can be effective in treating Gastroenteritis, sometimes known as 'Gastric Flu'. I myself was instructed by my doctor to drink large quantities of Coke whilst suffering from this complaint some years ago. The drink is effective largely through re-introducing a good mix of salt and sugar to the system - Diet Coke is no use, it has to be the full fat 'red can' type. Timothy Titus 00:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited out the "Phosphoric Acid" paranoia.

More anti-corporate stupidity I suppose. Whoever put that shit in their is a verifiable moron. The paragraph was inserted originally because of, get this, ONE study showed a POSSIBLE link to... blah blah. Before reinserting, please give us more research.

Company or Drink?

A lot of the article seems to be about the company (third paragraph in the intro), instead of the drink. Since there is already another article for the company, maybe a lot of that can be removed.Akubhai 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Coca cola in Cuba

There was a section in which the article stated that "Tropicola, a domestic drink, is served in Cuba instead of Coca-Cola, in which there exists a United States embargo". This is not 100% true. "Tu Cola" is a LARGE substitute for Coke; however, Coca-cola CAN be found rather easily in Cuba where it has circumvented the US embargo via imports from Mexican bottling plants.

Relevance of mental health

How is it relevant to the specific paragraph that Mr. Pemberton was addicted to morphine at the time he sold exclusive rights to Candler, and how is it relevant that his son was an alcoholic? These descriptive terms seem ill-placed and out of context. morbid88 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

The coke logo on the page is tagged as both non-free and as public domain. Which is the case? Where did the specific file come from? If it came from the coke website, it is probably not public domain. Even though the logo is old, the oldest version I pulled up from uspto would be public domain, the current version of the logo is different (albeit only slightly). Whatever though, not my point exactly; someone should decide which tag is appropriate and get rid of the other. I briefly considered making an svg of the logo, but if it is not public domain, it would be kinda stupid.--Shadowdrak 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include a section/article on Coca-Cola in popular culture? This could include the deleted product placement section mentioned earlier, as well as expplicit Coke references in film (By this I mean references that actually have consequences in the film, or take more than just a second- the reference to "Old Coke, new Coke...(etc.)" in Flight Of The Navigator being a good example), or other media (For example the BBC "banning" "Lola (song)" and "Come Together" due to references to Coca-Cola? Orville Eastland 02:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Although somewhat dubious about Popular Culture sections, which can quickly get out of hand and become just another Trivia section, if the 'consequences' criterion mentioned above was enforced then I'd tend to support it. Best example that comes to mind is The Gods Must Be Crazy, where almost the entire plot turns on a Coke bottle... Cheers, Ian Rose 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To Forrcrissakes

It's nice to know you love Coke. I too love Coke, and would gladly pick it over Pepsi (although I still drink Mountain Dew). However, to blank an entire article just to express your love, I think, is a little extreme. Elwin Blaine Coldiron 02:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would like a clarification. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&oldid=141769691#Bottle_and_logo_design says "The famous Coca-Cola logo was created by John Pemberton's bookkeeper, Frank Mason Robinson, in 1885.". The logo was created a year before the product ? Tintin 07:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? That's what often happens nowadays. It shouldn't be too surprising that it happened 100 years ago too. Zsero 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the film 'On the Beach' based on Nevil Shute's book, after a nuclear battle, curious random telegraphic signals are detected by a submarine patrol, which were generated in a deserted area by a Coca-Cola bottle nudging a telegraphic key only when disturbed by a breeze. Molewrench 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Passover Coca Cola

It's been suggested, that Passover Coca Cola be merged with Coca-Cola. Now that I've cleaned it up, it's barely a paragraph. I didn't see an open discussion here, regarding the merge, and, since the merge tag for Passover Coca Cola directs users here to discuss it, I thought I'd start one.

What's everyone think? Merge? AfD? --SXT4 06:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The relevant information is already at Criticism of Coca-Cola, where it should stay. I don't think it would fit anywhere in Coca-Cola. As to whether we should send Passover Coca Cola to AfD, I don't care one way or another. We should at least leave it as a redirect to Criticism of Coca-Cola. Ichormosquito 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? That's a bizarre place to have it redirect. What's Passover Coke got to do with criticism? It's not a criticism, it's just a barely-notable wrinkle in the formulation.
PS: Definitely merge Zsero 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Where in Coca-Cola would you suggest putting it? There isn't a "Coca-Cola and culture" section that I can see. Passover Coca-Cola is a natural fit next to the high-fructose corn syrup controversy, which is written up at Criticism of Coca-Cola. Ichormosquito 04:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It belongs under a "formulation" section - if there isn't one we can create one. Or just create a new section for "Passover Coca-Cola". It definitely doesn't need its own article, but nor does it belong under "controversy" since it isn't at all controversial. Zsero 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't think Passover Coca-Cola merits its own section. Giving it one on Coca-Cola would afford the issue undue weight. The mention of Passover Coke at Criticism of Coca-Cola serves the valuable function of fleshing out the high fructose corn syrup controversy; and that Orthodox Jews refrain from drinking Coke with high fructose corn syrup on Passover is, in some sense, criticism. Ichormosquito 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, how is it in any sense a criticism? Zsero 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge it into Coca-Cola formula. Its contents are hardly a criticism.-Wafulz 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a Coca-Cola formula article. The relevant stuff at Passover Coca-Cola could probably be dovetailed into both Coca-Cola formula and Criticism of Coca-Cola, but it fits better in "Criticism". The subject is criticism in so far as every single source listed at Passover Coca-Cola focuses on "American Coca-Cola connoisseurs", not Orthodox Jews, who prize Passover coke for its use of cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that Jews' refraining from the high fructose corn syrup recipe is in itself criticism; if it is criticism, it is only such in an abstract, irrelevant sense. Anyway, considering the sources at Passover Coca-Cola, I change my opinion to a definite merge to Criticism of Coca-Cola. Ichormosquito 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
the main coke article has basically nothing on this and the other types of coke have their own pages. why should this be different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.244.197 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

if the agreement was that it should be merged into criticism why was it merged into the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.244.197 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Making the Pepsi and Coca-Cola pages similar

I was just looking at the Pepsi page and these two articles have a different layout -- I think it would be better if it was unified. For example, breaking out a list of cola flavors like List_of_Pepsi_types. Also, I added a Trivia section for the Kingdom of Loathing parody. Phil 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Like your idea of commonality in layout between the two pages. Bit dubious about the Trivia section, however. First off, it's probably more correctly an "Appearances in popular culture" instance than just "Trivia". Secondly, though, there must be a million such pop culture references, where do you stop? I thought there might even be a page called "Coca-Cola in popular culture" but apparently not - and perhaps just as well...! Cheers, Ian Rose 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose the Trivia section. Those sections are generally frowned upon here. A product/company with one of the most recognizable brands in the world is clearly going to be the subject of many, many popular culture mentions; more than we could ever hope to deal with here. Also, many pop-culture appearances by Coca-Cola (and Diet Coke and other products) are product placement - paid appearances used as marketing and those really shouldn't be rewarded with mention here. AUTiger » talk 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad date in history?

The sentence "However, the earliest advertisement image still available appears to be an April 26, 1987 ad from the Columbus Daily Enquirer in Ohio." seems wrong; probably mean 1887, not 1987. 69.109.168.185 05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lacking shareholder & business info.

Why no mention of the 'Gadsden millionaires' ? When a bottling plant was opened up in the early 20th century some (est. 67) local residents bought stock and became millionaires as a result. See [1]

Also I couldn't see any info. on the value of the company throughout history.

I feel that the article is too well organised for me to just jump in and change it :-)

John 10:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that information would belong at The Coca-Cola Company, not this article, which is about the drink. I can't see it there, so feel free to add it -- Zsero 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks – John 20:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Coke and Labor

Coke internationally has practiced to stop labor unions at its plants. When I posted a discussion article with sites to murders at the coke plant in Colombia that article was deleted. The article violated none of the posting rules and was informative. Why doesn't wikipedia want critisim of coke's labor practices posted on this site? 208.242.58.126 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.70.191 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this page is about the drink, not the company. Second, your screed was completely unsourced and defamatory. Third, the mere fact that they don't want unions is hardly notable - what employer does want them? -- Zsero 03:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your post and do not agree it was defamatory but what is a screed? 208.242.58.126 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

screed -- Zsero 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Relative of Pemberton?

I have a neigbor who claims to be related to the orignal inventor of Coca-Cola. He claims "I would be rich if he didnt sell the recipie" Is this relevant enough to post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No. -- Zsero 03:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the logo really in the Public Domain??? Can I use it for stuff??Atomicman111 20:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No and no. AUTiger » talk 05:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

then why does the image say its in the public domain?Atomicman111 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because sometimes the issues of copyright and trademark are conflated on Wikipedia which leads to confusion. The logo is protected under trademark laws. AUTiger » talk 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New Coke Image

Why is the new coke ad scheduled for speedy deletion? It seems to fit well there.

24.176.136.25 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry Applegarth

While it may be his favorite drink, it's probably among the less important facts and should be at the very bottom of the article, if included at all. Probably not in the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.144.100 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's called vandalism, don'cha know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Enterprises

I'm pretty sure this group does not bottle for the Australian market, as is suggested in the introductory paragraph, and in fact its article states that its range is North America and Western Europe. Can any experts confirm this? Leon 05:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-Contradiction

It is along the lines of "The shortened name of the drink is Coke. Koke did not catch on." Can someone please verify this? P.S. I am adding the template.Goodone121 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure that's a self-contradiction? "Koke", if true, was in the 1880s. "Coke" was later. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add: Coca-Cola cans collection by Ronen Liwski

i think this should be added to the article. the landing page will be the website's gallery page including a special coca-cola can made especially for Ronen Liwski for putting his collection at the coca cola company visitors center in Israel.

http://www.cokecans.com/gallery.com

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokecans (talk • contribs) 16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Coca

The section regarding the use of coca leaves cites an article from the Washington Times that I could not find anywhere in their archived articles. I search from 1990 to 2007, for the title, author, coca and drink, coca, and the Stepan Company and could not find the article cited. A google search turned up only wikipedia references to this article. I think we should consider removing this assertion until a readable copy of this article is made available. The link provided takes you to the front page of the Washington Times, not to the purported article. Skafkas 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several links that talk about it. Which particular link is the problem link? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Also see my response at Talk:Coca-Cola formula. AUTiger » talk 06:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the Washington Times link that was the problem, but I am satisfied by the N. Y. Times link that was added. Wasn't that I doubted so much as that I wanted to make sure it was a true citation.Skafkas (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Random comments in New Coke

Looking at the article, there's a random comment planted right in the middle of the section on New Coke: "Also Coca-Cola is very harmful to your liver, as some recent studies suggest. To avoid these problems don't breath in the fumes when you first open the can." Sounds like a stupid urban legend, it's unreferenced, and it's completely out of place--even more so by the opening "Also" since it has nothing to do with the previous sentence (which is about comparing changing the Coke formula to rewriting the Constitution). 130.91.74.22 (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved
 – And anon user warned. Also other random cleanup done. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

CEO has changed

Hey, Coca Cola has a new CEO: Muhtar Kent. He will be in charge from 1st July 2008 on. The news are below: [2] His story [3]

Cheers ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umi1903 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!!!!

If Wiki isn't kept up to date with current events it is pointless. I added more references, but the FACT is that the movie has made controversy and that some on the right are naming its associated advertisers in their criticisms. If this continues to be censored I have serous doubts about the integrity of Wiki. Corporations or people that get themselves involved in controversy should not be shielded from having those current events documented on Wiki. Blohme (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to join the conversation, we're talking about this subject on a Burger King article too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burger_King_advertising#I_CALL_SHENANIGANS.21.21.21.21.21.21 Blohme (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view. You have just arrived here and appear to be clearly pushing an agenda with an aggressive campaign to add specific content to various articles. The cites you are using are not reliable sources, nor do the cited articles/pages directly criticize Coca-Cola, but rather just mention the company as a marketing partner. Furthermore, when representing various points of view, Wikipedia does not have air extreme minority opinions that would give them undue weight nor should it cover events/opinions that would be considered trivial and non-notable, as is this case. Your addition is inappropriate for multiple reasons and multiple editors have indicated that. AUTiger » talk 07:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


First, you have no idea how long I've been around, just when I registered. If anyone is violating the neutrality of this site I think it's you and Jerem. The interesting thing here is that if Jeremy hadn't tracked me over here to undo my comment you would be the only Editor with a problem in this article. You disagree with the sources I cited - I do too. But the fact still remains that there is controversy. If the right-wingers mentioned started boycotting Coca-Cola tomorrow would you censor that too? Blohme (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blohme, don't let them goad you into a personal attack- comment only on the edits, not the editor. Autiger; I don't really see how a single, properly cited sentence about the opinions of Catholic groups violates WP:NPOV- it would rather seem to enhance it to me. For my points about other policies and guidelines cited, read my comments over at Talk:Burger King advertising#I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!!!!. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
To the former Blohme; have you edited previously under yet another name before Blohme? Further, if you have been editing, you should clearly know better to violate the WP:3RR as you most certainly did last night. Not only that, but you have just misrepresented the history as not only I, but three other editors reverted/removed your addition with reasons why it was improper. In addition to the reasons previously cited, this is the wrong article for the "airing of grievances" against the company that produces the product Coca-Cola. You have addressed none of the concerns I or other editors have raised - you have produced no reliable source describing criticism of Coca-Cola for sponsoring the movie, only a clearly POV website commentary that mentions Coca-Cola in passing while criticizing the movie. Regarding undue weight; if we were to add every tiny crackpot complaint or criticism against TCCC, the page would never finish loading. You still haven't shown where there is any substantial weight or movement behind this criticism that takes it beyond a trivial concern - will anyone care about this next year?
The fact that you now claim to be an experienced editor and yet saw fit to violate WP:3RR here and other places to insert a non-notable, extreme minority mention of a 'criticism' point to an agenda on your part. As your spurious claim of censorship, if you show me a NYTimes article that says Coca-Cola is being boycotted over the Golden Compass, I'll be more than happy to see it in the Coca-cola criticisms article. AUTiger » talk 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There are 1.13 billion Catholics worldwide (roughly 4-5x the population of the US) - an opinion in a population that large should not be considered to be fringe unless it is fringe inside of that population - not fringe from your POV. Your entire justification for spamming the Undo button - at first at least - was that you considered the source to be extremist. That is why I pulled the censorship card and why I wouldn't let you and Jeremy try and "shout me down" by spamming Undo. My "spurious" claims of censorship are only matched by your spurious claims of POV and "extremist" sources.
That said, I don't have a problem with the decision by the admins, I obviously read it differently the first time through but please know that if this conversation had started differently, and if you and Jeremy hadn't screamed "extremist POV" and spammed the Undo button we probably could have come to the same conclusion on our own. The two of you immediately went into attack mode for reasons COMPLETELY different than the admin decision was made on. I hope I never run into you again... cheers! IrishTraveller (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
At no time did I say it was an extremist POV, I stated that your sources were unreliable and did not meet the standards of WP. I did state that one of the cites was considered extremist by several groups. Additionally, it was four separate editors undid your edits not just me, two of those included administrators that responded to my RfC. Please stop distorting the facts, attacks against other contributors will get you blocked. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Again, the reasons given for you spamming the Undo button were not the reason the admins removed it for. IrishTraveller (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread - WP:ANI#Golden Compass controversies - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Use of aluminum spelling over aluminium

The aluminium article is named aluminium and therefore every use of aluminum on wikipedia should be changed (except in the aluminium article where the origins of the spelling difference are discussed) to ensure consistency throughout wikipedia

Um no read ((WP:MOS)) it says we should use the variant of English first used in the article unless there is a very good reason to use otherwise and that we should use the same variant throughout the article not throughout wikipedia. 86.151.228.86 (talk)

more than 200 countries

The first sentence states "Coca-Cola is a cola (a type of carbonated soft drink) sold in stores, restaurants and vending machines in more than 200 countries". The world doesn't have 200 countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chgoid (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some checking on that what I found is the best quese for the amount of countries in the world is 193. Also I found that the Coke Cola Corp does make the statement of selling in more then 200 countries. Please refer to [[4]] AdmRiley (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Many countries are gone because of war and that kinda crap. My guess is that if they were still here there would be like 250 countries.--Altenhofen (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

santa

i dont know if this is true so im checking, is it true that SC had a green coat but cola changed it to red to match the coca cola colour?Mt 1994 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coca-Cola/Archive_7&oldid=1142535410"