Jump to content

Talk:The Coca-Cola Company/Archive 1

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

300

300 countries and territories?? Is this true ?

--~#dtox#~ 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly utter nonesense, there are far fewer countries in the world. I'd change it but I don't know what the right figure is (anyone believing the 300 country figure is just as likely to believe any other figure) -- jcm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.29.237 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


See below - "over 200 countries Pete the pitiless (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion Template

I added a Req. for Expansion template. This article is woefully lacking as far as the history of the company. Feco 22:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Also maybe the facts need to be checked after the recent things that happened to wikipedia the past few weeks, don't want to say anyone else had assassinated people when they didn't. 220.233.48.200 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The URI to the copyright case at guerrillanews.com gives a 404. Can someone take a decision either to remove the link or to update it? google.com caches it like this -- Drange_net, 2005-05-04

History of Coke, the product

I believe most if not the whole of The Coca-Cola Company History should be sent back to Coca-Cola, the product article. Seems to me the section was mainly written as history of the product, and the original Coca-Cola article is now "bare" without its product history.

I think if the intent is really to split content about the company versus content about the product, it should be done by first duplicating the relevant part to the company article. Not by wholesale chopping of important portion from the original article, rendering Coca-Cola the product article very "bare", and not living up to its WP:FA status. -- sabre23t 05:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In reading the discussion page -- there was a concerted discussion about the need to separate the company from the drink. I take your suggestion about duplicating with respect. Care to help me out? I started chopping because I noticed the original guy (John_____k) was chopping out parts from the original article, but left it incomplete. I followed his lead so as not to have a partially-complete history section. Guppy
No prob, Guppy. I'll give a hand on the Coca-Cola article a bit later, after your major edits has settled down. ;-) -- sabre23t 06:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just made the same comment on Talk:Coca-Cola — that moving the history section en masse was too blunt an approach. It will take some rewriting to separate into coherent histories for the company and the product. Autiger 06:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring out unnecessary duplicates with Coca-Cola

I think the Coca-Cola article is now cleared out of unnecessary Coca-Cola company contents, except for leader/pointer paragraphs here. Perhaps some of us would like to similarly clear this The Coca-Cola Company article from unnecessary Coca-Cola products contents? ;-) -- sabre23t 09:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Main picture needed for The Coca-Cola Company

I can think of two pictures that would be very appropriate at the top of this article; (i) picture of Coca-Cola World HQ in Atlanta, capturing corporate signboard and building, (ii) picture of collection of major Coca-Cola products that includes Coke, Fanta and Sprite. For now I'm putting this Image:Coca_cola_shop.jpg in Lahore, up there. -- sabre23t 09:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I live not far away and this is already on my ToDo list; I had thought the corp HQ would be perfect for this page. Unfortunately, today in Atlanta is overcast so I can't get a good shot. Autiger 18:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The new Coca-Cola World HQ photo certainly looks nice, Autiger. Thanks. ;-) For a world flavour an additional photo or two of Coca-Cola HQs in other countries would be nice. I'm putting on my ToDo list, to take a photo of F&N Coca-Cola Malaysia building in Shah Alam, that's not too far away from my home. -- sabre23t 06:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I was finally able to get time on a nice day. I don't think I can make it any of the other company locations anytime soon, so I'll leave that to you. ;-) Yesterday was sort of a photography day; besides this one, I added pics for a couple of universities too (Auburn University and Georgia Institute of Technology). Getting some good use out of my new Nikon D70. Autiger 17:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had met someone recently who had a passionate stance against purchasing Coca-Cola products primarily on the basis of a particular copyright case regarding an independent marketing consultant named Bob Kolody. I haven't been able to find much information about it on Wikipedia, and was wondering if others were familiar with it, and perhaps feel that it might be worth mentioning it on the criticisms section of the company's entry. Here's a link to one of the more informative sources that I've found so far.

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/072801b.html

The mention of a legal battle between Coca-Cola and Bob Kolody was first mentioned on Guerilla News Network (www.gnn.tv). A book is set to be released August 15, 2006, titled "Coca-Karma." The book will be published by Disinformation Company with a list price of $8.95.

Introduction

There are many controversies surrounding the company, its products and its trade practices. Coca-Cola has recently been denounced in the UK for weaning young children onto junk food. In India, the corporation has provoked a number of boycotts and protests as a result of its perceived low standards of hygiene and adverse impact on the environment.

Does this have to be in the introduction? The company is not the target of any more or less criticism than any other $100 billion market cap company.--Jerryseinfeld 23:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Coke is a very popular target for some reason, just like how Microsoft is the butt of nerd-jokes. The problem is a lot of Coke-haters take this obsession far too seriously. I think that's a decent compromise in exchange for them not turning this and its related articles into a steaming pile of POV crap. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Relation with Coca-Cola article

I think this article needs to be merged with Coca-Cola. Wikiwikifast 21:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Coca-Cola company is a big organization, and does quite a bit that has nothing to do with the actual drink called Coca-Cola. I doubt that a merge is appropriate. Isomorphic 21:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All right, but there is a lot of duplicate information in both articles, e.g., Early Years, New Coke, etc. Information about the Coca-Cola formula should be in the Coca-Cola article, not the company article. The criticism of Coca-Cola should be in the Coca-Cola article, not the company article, because the criticisms are more specific to Coca-Cola as opposed to Sprite (since Coca-Cola the drink is a symbol of America to the rest of the world). Wikiwikifast 22:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms specific to Coke should be there, but I think this article should contain the criticisms in full. Then we summarise them in the main Coca-Cola article, with a link to the criticisms section here. It's not the drink that does this things, it's the company. Johnleemk | Talk 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not, but people boycott the drink specifically in protest. Wikiwikifast 03:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Boycotting the drink if it doesn't hurt the company doesn't change anything. These criticisms do not directly reflect badly on Coke; they reflect badly directly on the company that manufactures and markets it. The drink is viewed negatively as a side-effect. If the company and its assets (i.e. manufacturing plants, etc.) ceased to exist, Coke as a stand-alone product would no longer have most of these criticisms applied to it. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. It's just that the history of the Coca-Cola Company seems more appropriate in the Coca-Cola article, and some of the criticisms are specific to the drink, e.g., the health criticisms in India. In addition, Coca-Cola is more than a soft drink; it's a rich culture, a symbol of America and globalization. Wikiwikifast 19:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Untangling the company and its flagship product can be extremely hard; even more so when they share a common name. I agree that criticisms specific to the drink should be there, but most criticisms really are related to the company, and not the drink (i.e. allegations that the company murders union workers). Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to reunite contents of two articles

I believe that it was wrong to divorce the original Coca Cola article history in August 2004. As it stands, we have positive company history and information on the main Coca-Cola page, and negative history on this page. Therefore, if we meld the two articles, readers will receive a more complete and rich history at one glance. Otherwise, reading one or the other page is duplicative at least, and an act of ommission and an inaccurate portrayal of the company at worst.

I reject Johnleemk's points on one article being about the "drink" and the other about "the company", because the "drink" article currently contains much information about the company and its actions throughout history. As we have found in the article about "the drink", Coca-Cola the drink is synonymous with its brandname, logo. Coca-Cola the company shares this same brandname and logo.

Since the drink is physically and literally a product of the company, it is inseparable from the company itself. The only difference is that Johnleemk (and probably others) thinks that positive history about Coca-Cola is legitimate, and that "criticisms" or negative aspects of Coca-Cola's history is questionable in nature and often, not valid.

The result is that the "Coca Cola Company" page is a ghetto of "controversies" and "criticisms", while the "Coca-Cola" page reads like a page from the company's museum. We need to acknowledge that there is a pro-Coca-Cola perspective, and that Coca-Cola is not simply a bystander but a proactive actor in history.

Like all actors, Coca-Cola has its supporters, detractors, and indifferent observers. A good article will not be afraid to acknowledge a range in perspectives - especially when it is quite clear from the existence of TWO articles that there is a valid and well-documented wealth of history and perspectives.

I propose that we either: 1) reunite the two articles about the Coca-Cola Company ("Coca-Cola" and "The Coca-Cola Company"),

or, at least in fairness to NPOV:

2) completely remove company history, advertising policy, and "new coke" section as it stands in the "Coca-cola" article. -Guppy 12:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the article's POV fix it. The Coca-Cola article was overflowing with irrelevant company history. Although the company and drink share the same name, the company does produce hundreds of other products, as evidenced by this article. It is not fair to the other products to lump them in with Coca-Cola. After all, they too are produced in the same plants and by the same company that exploit cheap labour and contaminate water supplies. The idea that the company and drink cannot be separated is simply wrong. They are two different entities, and it is clear that one article cannot contain all information on both of them. If you think that there is too much history unrelated to the drink in the Coca-Cola article, remove it. If you think the information on advertising is a bit too much, trim it. And so forth. The solution to this problem is not to throw two separate objects into one article. Eventually they will have to be broken apart again. That's how articles evolve. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


John - If "that's how articles evolve", then there would have been no creation of a separate "Coca Cola Company" article, as occurred in August 2004. As you may recall, there was no creation of this separate article until certain editors (such as yourself) determined that a ghetto of "controversial" issues would need to be a holding pen for negative aspects of Company history. Had you followed your own advice, you would not have wholesale deleted 'controversial' items. My contention is precisely that there are not TWO separate items, but that Coke is both a company AND a drink. Your bias is to separate the two -- my bias is to argue that they are more often than not, one and the same.
In addition, you state that there is 'irrelevant company history" - my contention is that this was not irrelevant content, but valid aspects of the building of the Coke drink and its legend/image/status/popularity as not simply a drink but a cultural and political icon. Therefore, articles can also evolve by merging contents. Guppy 02:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I did not propose the idea; I merely noticed others had proposed it and agreed with them. It makes perfect sense; as you can see below, most people agree that the company and the drink are two separate entities. "Relegating" negative PR issues to this article is a non sequitur because it is like saying that there should be merging of some articles due to the fact that United States does not cover America's covert actions in South America, which affected the lives of thousands if not millions, or that Malaysia and Malaysian New Economic Policy should be merged because Malaysia doesn't cover the aggressive affirmative action policies of the government which disenfranchies thousands of secondary school graduates in Malaysia every year. The only difference is that in this case, both entities have the same name, so the merge briefly sounds plausible. If you think about it, though, merging the two articles is ridiculous. Merging of content is a natural form of article evolution, but merging two articles on two clearly different and separate topics is not. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
"Most people" (as seen "below") is not really a valid statement, given that currently only a few people have even responded. I am not targeting you personally, but you as one of the active editors (with at least some pro-Coke bias) of this discussion page and article. I agree that it might be useful to have two different articles, if both articles are clearly defined. As it stands, the drink article contains much company history that could arguably be contained in an article about the company alone. Meanwhile, negative aspects of the company's actions (i.e., Nazi involvement in WWII) while promoting the drink, were initially deleted from the drink article, and pushed into the company article. (I recently moved it back.)
My main complaint has been in the editing of content such that most items that are critical of Coke are either deleted, shrewdly contested, or relegated to a neglected article. This results in two articles that are poorly defined.
The editorializing of content has been such that most critiques of the company/drink are rendered in the context of "controversial", "suspected", "urban legend" claims. When referring to health claims, worker and environmental issues - because they are not scientifically proven and/or still in contention, the slant has generally been to protect Coke from scrutiny of its role as a leader in its field. As I made my points above - Coke is an actor in history, and its negative effects should be as equally or fairly acknowledged as are its positive accomplishments.
Meanwhile, I've made revisions to the Coca-Cola article, acknowledging that the drink has become a metonymy for the company, and for global political and cultural issues. Guppy 05:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Responses to RfC posting

(note the formatting... copied from VfD... will help tablulate ultimate consensus)

  • Do not merge. The corporation is much larger than the drink. The POV problems with each article are not enough of a reason to justify a "bad" merge. With suitable text pointers ("for discussion of the Coca-Cola Company, go here. This article discusses the Coca-Cola Beverage"), users should be able to manage just fine. Someone may have to do heavy editing/moving to restore the integrity of the two articles, but again, that's better than a bad merge. Feco 21:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As per Feco: Do not merge. A content dispute is no reason to merge the two articles. BlankVerse ∅ 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • After reviewing this, the Coca-Cola article, and some of the numerous related and auxiliary articles, it looks like everything is poorly organized and needs some major restructuring and major cutting-and-pasting between the various articles. I also feel even more strongly now than before that the articles absolutely should not be merged. BlankVerse ∅ 16:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. We've had this same issue at Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser. —Sean κ. + 18:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Holding comanies and their companies/divisions/products are two different things. While often people are not aware that this is the case, an encylopedia should explain this. Also the history of the parts can be very different especially during a buyout. Personally I'd like to see a small article for any stock market traded company even if the only content at the start is the ticker and a list of divisions. Multiple articles allow for cleaner use of categories. Vegaswikian 22:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Errata: Dr. Pepper NOT a Coca-Cola product.

The Dr. Pepper brand is NOT a Coca-Cola product in the United States; it is owned by Cadbury-Schweppes. It is a list Cocal-Cola product in other places. I have changed the list of brands to reflect that.

It is manufactured by Coca-Cola under license from Cadbury-Schweppes in some countries, such as here in Ireland and Northern Ireland. --Zilog Jones 20:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Bottlers of Coca-Cola (which may or may not be part of the Coca-Cola Corporation), may bottle products licensed by other companies. Not all Coca-Cola bottlers are part of the Coca-Cola Company; for example, in the US and parts of Europe (but not Ireland), Coca-Cola Enterprises bottles Coke products, as well as other products. Despite the similar name, these are different companies. --Jkonrath 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal pending verification

Removed the following sentence regarding murders pending supply verification from a credible primary news source or government agency (not an activist website):

In Colombia, the company was found to be responsible for 179 major human rights violations, including nine murders.

This page continues to be a favorite target of Anti-Coke activists, but Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate slander (unverified allegations). Autiger 19:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a forum for corporate fawning. If I were to continue your line of ad-hominem logic, I would say you are a pro-Coke activist. The point of NPOV actions, I believe, is to neutralize, and not wholesale delete items. I changed "found" to "alleged". [1] Guppy 05:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved it here and did not delete entirely pending some sort of proof. I'm just looking for a little fairness and balance. Almost half the prose in this article is criticism of the company including some with little or no balance as to Coca-Cola's position on the subject. I remove to the talk page an unsourced/unverified statement that claims the company committed nine murders and it's corporate fawning? As to it being ad-hominem, despite my context-setting off-hand activist comment, my issue really is that such an inflamatory statement must be verifiable and true, otherwise it is defamatory. The author of a false or misleading statement loses their credibility based on that action. Autiger 06:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
'Corporate fawning' was a response to your 'corporate slander' statement. This is another example of when criticism of Coke is perceived as marginal and outlandish. Just because an item is critical of Coke, doesn't mean it is slanderous. There are reasons to see the human rights violations issue as not inflammatory, but legitimate allegations that are being explored in court and in larger society. What I did was change the wording from "found" to "alleged" - an alternative to deleting the entire statement. Another reason to delete the statement might be for efforts to be concise - but that was not your motive.Guppy 06:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Also - if you note my comments above, you'll find that I also find the contents of this page questionable. The history section is barely updated and hard to recognize as separate from the Coca-Cola drink history. Still, removing content would make this article even more bare. If you need more 'positive' Coca-Cola content, please add it yourself. Guppy 06:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Company Brands

I thought Dr. Pepper was a separate company, and the article on Dr. Pepper gives me that sense too. I thought places that sell Coke or Pepsi products buy the rights to sell Dr. Pepper and 7 Up, and that these drinks aren't really owned by either Pepsi or Coke. Mred64 03:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Rebuttal Page about allegations in Kerala

The rebuttal page do not speak about the allegations made against the company in Kerala. Hence am removing it. If someone wants to keep it, please keep the link somewhere else.

Allegations of deceptive marketing tactics

In some cases criticism of The Coca-Cola Company focus on the product sold, rather than the company itself. A section should probably be added to address this category of criticism.

In the UK, the launch of their Dasani bottled water proved a major embarrassment when they were forced to admit it was essentially repackaged tap water. [2]

Minute-Maid orange juice is made from concentrate, but sold in groceries with the same packaging and in the same aisle as competing brands not made from concentrate like Pepsi-Cola's Tropicana or Florida Natural (unsuprisingly, Tropicana outsells Minute-Maid 7-to-1). Coca-Cola sued Tropicana in 1982 for pointing this out, and won, on the basis that Tropicana is pasteurized and thus not exactly "freshly squeezed" as claimed in their advertising. [3]

Some mention should be made of the recent contamination scare in Belgium, which led to the ouster of CEO Douglas Ivester.

Fazalmajid 01:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

bias?

seems like some sentences were added by coke, such as "coke became synonymous with the american way of life after ww2", dont you think?

Should have a picture of a normal can of Coke

Can we have a picture of a normal can of Coke near the top? At the moment, there's only the logo, a Diet Coke can and a picture of the HQ. --Jeremy 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - this is about the company, not Coca Cola, the product.

Boycott

The following text was inserted into a new section "Boycott" and then reverted with the explanation "rv. - info is already in article". While the article does mention boycotts a lot, it does not mention either of the two universities. Not sure if this particular information is important enough, but the idea to dedicate a section to boycotts may have some merit. Common Man 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Due to the accusations, particularly those regarding murders of unionists in Columbia and environmental pollution in India, as of January 2006, several US universities boycott Coca-Cola products, such as the University of Michigan and the New York University.

Proposed deletion of CitationNeeded sentences

In the past month, I've tagged approximately 10 sentences in the Criticisms section as CitationNeeded. I would like to propose that if ctiations are not found in the next 10 days, say by February 14th, that we delete these sentences. And an early Happy Valentines Day to all! ;-)Jvandyke 18:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to propose another round of deletions for sentences labeled CitationNeeded. Specifically, I propose that if citations are not found in the next 2 weeks, say by April 1st, that we delete those sentences. And an early April Fools Day to all! ;-) Jvandyke

I'd like to change "Motions in support of the boycott have been passed by the Union of Students in Ireland, which represents the 250,000 students on the island of Ireland" because USI does not include all students in Ireland. I'm not sure exactly what to write though.

Hello, I came acros this page when disambiguating links to Christian Brothers. The Christian Brothers mentioned in this page are in fact the Christian Brothers Investment Service, which "was founded in 1981 by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, widely known as the De La Salle Christian Brothers" [4] - and thus could perhaps be pointed at Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (slightly expanded to mentione the service) or at a new article about this investment service..? My thought is that I should mention the investment service in the existing article and point the link there, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. I'll check back.Politepunk 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

sugar and high frutose corn syrup in coke

Coke is mostly made with a secreted flavor formula and sweetened with sugar with the exception of the USA where due to the inflated cost of sugar and government subsidized corn High fructose corn syrup has replaced sugar do it much lower cost this was done in a deceitful but smart move in 1985 where they launched new coke which coke knew would fail, but it gave then sufficient time to clear the old sugar coke off the shelf’s before coming out with coke classic which was not classic at all but coke with high fructose corn syrup which coke says tastes the same as sugar but that simply not true or why would coke do such a deceptive switch if it did.

Also look up http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup and see why it much worse for us then sugar

POV?

"(Notice how Coke's list of praises shorter than its list of critisisms)" Seems an un-needed sentence at the end of sources.

History

Real weak on history of the company. No mention of having owned Columbia Pictures???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ingredients

It seems a little strange that the dead lizard is put under ingredients nad there is nothing else there. Should this be changed?Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it since it doesn't really count as criticism. --Dodo bird 19:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC).


npov check

read this article and tell me it doesn't sound like the company could have edited it itself to make it sound rosy and fine? anyway, i think POV criticism of this and Coca-Cola articles combined can be found on each talk page. i just don't have time to argue with people about why these two articles are POV. Guppy 13:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was definitely POV; however, I think that the article presents an unfairly critical and negative view with its long section of criticism, listing what seems like every legal action against the company. I've moved most of that section to a new article now, trimming down the section on this article. However, I intend to reword the entire section(s), making it more neutral, and to eliminate and incorporate both the "praises" and "criticism" section into the article. Our goal is to make this article neutral and nonbiased. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it certainly has not received due attention. Agreed with that process, sounds good. -- Zanimum 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of "Criticism of..." articles, as I think that unless there are size concerns the material should be on the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The plan by Flcelloguy was to split the section, fix it, then reintegrate it, not to permanently keep it seperate. -- Zanimum 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are size concerns, it overwhelms the rest of the article creating an unbalanced pejorative rant against the Coke company. See MSNBC "Coke gets slammed on Wikipedia" June 11, 2006. In addition there are multiple articles criticising Coke, it is better to aggregate it all into one place than replicate it across multiple articles. -- Stbalbach 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article after looking athe history was slanted befoer against Coke, but the article now is obviously lacking any criticism. As per Undue Weight obviously I think if noone picks up the task of adding back at least a shortened version, something in line with the current section devoting praise to their charity work, I will end up taking the load. I will try to keep it the same length in lines as the other section. If at that time some feel the article is too long, we can equally strip elements from both sections. Sound ok to everyone? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The crticism section needs to be more than just a link to a seperate page. There should be an introductory paragraph outlining some of the issues with a {{main}} linking to criticism of coke --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Here's a live look at our Peer review, in progress. -- Zanimum 14:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Coca-Cola Company

MSNBC just slammed the article. We need to quickly fix this to our normal standards. -- Zanimum 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • Started to stroke out things that didn't apply. How exactly can a javascript program judge copyediting? -- Zanimum 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh shoot- I forgot to change the wording for {{User:AndyZ/PR/copyedit}}. I'll fix that. By the way, about the first point, I was referring to the linking of years without full dates. While years can be linked (see WP:MOSDATE), they generally should be linked iff they provide context for the part in question. Andy t 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The History of the company is too short:
It needs to describe the foundation of the company, the origin of the company name and the original products. At present, the history section starts with World War II, some fifty years after the foundation of the company.
It needs to describe the company's development and global expansion after WWII.
It should describe the company's use of advertising to market its products around the world.
The information in the opening sentences of the Brands section could be more specific. According to the Coca Cola website, they 'offer nearly 400 brands in over 200 countries' - the number of brands gives an idea of scale as oppose to the vague 'other soft drink brands'.
Good luck with the article - Jazriel 08:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed the brands, is that of better relevance now? The history I'll have to leave to someone else. -- Zanimum 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I did some massive changes to the article (refactoring), the framework looks good, all that's needed rewording of the sentences, some added content etc 67.34.33.110 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S: the problem is the article Criticism of Coca-Cola 67.34.33.110 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, that is the most important battle ground. To brief everyone, that section was split off the main article, is being shaved down and fixed, and then will be rejoined with this article. However, I'm personally more concerned with the content of the article besides the primary troubled section, as I know the Criticism section is already in good hands. -- Zanimum 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As said above, this article needs attention to dates. This can be done quickly: simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As with Sesame Street, I see no errors in the dates. -- Zanimum 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, (boblewik) did ya steal Quarl's date javscript?

POV corporate citizenship

Ok, the corporate citizenship bit is going to need some work. It's far too biased towards the company. Points like the non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality are irrelevant, and absolutely standard for almost every company. Ranking in the top 50 or 100 for a company this size is really not particularly remarkable either. And where's the list of "negative acts"? Stevage 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The negative acts were all moved to the Criticism of Coca-Cola article as detailed in the commentary directly above: "To brief everyone, that section (Criticism of Coca-Cola) was split off the main article, is being shaved down and fixed, and then will be rejoined with this article". Prior to the split, the "corporate citizenship bit" served as a very mild counterpoint to the long list of criticisms. In short, your observation is correct, but the path to resolution is contribution to the Criticism of Coca-Cola article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvandyke (talk • contribs) .
That's known as a POV fork which is expressly forbidden at Wikipedia. We're going to have to do something here. Stevage 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I restored an abbreviated Criticism section to what it was after Flcelloguy created the Criticism subarticle on June 8. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I modified the criticism summary to mirror the content of the Criticism of Coca-Cola page while trying to retain the structure of the replaced sentences. I deleted the opening "As the largest seller of soft drinks in the world" as this is not in the referenced article. Additionally, I modified the text detailing "accusations" of business practices as most were lawsuits that have since been settled. I also modified the text to say "discimination" because the word "racist" is not contained in the linked article. Finally, I retained the summarizing "products and trade practices." because I couldn't think of a NPOV way to summarize the remaining text in the article.Jvandyke 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the "POV fork" line of reasoning. For one, the criticisms have become so lengthy that they are actually longer than the rest of the article, that's a POV problem right there, the article should be balanced, it should not be %50 (or more) weighted towards criticisms. - The next issue is the criticisms are not restricted to a single article, there are also criticisms in the Coca-Cola article, and before all these were merged into a single article, there was a lot of duplication across articles, with different people writing about the same things in different articles, and no consistency between them - that's what "main articles" were created for to allow a central place for multiple articles to reference. Finally, see the talk pages on the recent press scandal about this issue a month or two ago. -- Stbalbach 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. POV forks are not allowed as a consequence of WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable. Criticisms need to be given in this article. If the criticisms are very detailed, they can have a separate article as well to explain them in further detail and to stop there from being a disproportionate amount of criticism on the main article, but they need to be here as well. As it is, this article is essentially an advertisement. --Philosophus T 06:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I misread your part about the merger, and now that I understand it, I can also address the duplication. Criticisms of the Coca-Cola Company should go here, criticisms of Coca-Cola should go on Coca-Cola, and so on. --Philosophus T 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms are in this article, I don't understand your point except you think there should be more criticism then there are. That doesn't make the article POV. -- Stbalbach 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No. There is a single sentence saying that Coca-Cola has been the "subject of various allegations", and this is mitigated by "As the largest seller of soft drinks in the world". This isn't dealing with criticisms in this article. This is the same tactic I have to deal with in articles on pseudoscience. You can't push all criticism into a separate article and then put a little blurb like that linking to it. As for the POV problems with the "Corporate Citizenship" section - it is essentially listing a large number of random policies and doings of the corporation, which may or may not be notable, and are trying to prove a point. There does not appear to be any regard for whether any of these things are normal for a corporation this size, or any analysis of them.
Regarding the tags, there is a neutrality dispute here. Their addition is not inappropriate. There is also a much larger dispute on wikien-l, where the general consensus is that the current state of the article is not acceptable, and that this form of Criticism article, where the criticism is then only trivially mentioned on the main article, and entirely pushed into a negative (or sometimes even positive) POV article, is not appropriate. The tag does not mean that the article is POV, it means that their is a dispute as to whether it is or is not. As such, it should not be removed just because some people think that it is NPOV. --Philosophus T 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So why not summarize the main points of the criticism article and put it here? That's how "main article" tags are supposed to work and the reason for their existence. The main article contains the detail, and this article has a summary section of it. It is standard meat and potatoes wikipedia, I'm really confused what the problem is that you have to NPOV the entire article. As for "wikien-l" I have no idea what that is .. this is wikipedia, wikien-l is someplace else, it goes by different rules and regs. Also BTW you can't separate criticisms of the product from the company, they are too inter-related. -- Stbalbach 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikien-l is the mailing list for the English Wikipedia. Apart from the giant threads on things like Danny and Eloquence (amazingly, there is nothing on User:Kelly Martin/B yet), it also occasionally contains useful discussion on NPOVing and other such matters. As for my NPOV tags, putting a tag on an article like that tends to act as a major enticement for others to fix the problems with the article, though I will also admit I am rather overly predisposed to adding them due to my usual work in NPOVing articles on pseudoscience. The improvements you have made are good - they address the criticisms enough that a reader gets an idea of what they involve, but don't add too much criticism to the article. Having a main article on the Criticism and a more-than-one-paragraph summary like this is what I had intended to support, I apologize if I wasn't clear about this. --Philosophus T 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

racist -> discrimatory

I changed "racist" to "discrimatory" because as a summary of the Criticism section says in part "the Coca-Cola Company has been the subject of various allegations, such as.. racist employment practices". Yet the criticism details a settled lawsuit over discrimination

Coca-Cola and Christmas

The current section negates the role of Coca-Cola in assigning Red and White to the image of Santa Claus. From http://www.forbes.com/1997/12/24/feat.html you can read a good summary of the history which notes, "In 1931, for its first Santa Claus campaign, Coca-Cola hired an illustrator named Haddon Sundbloom, a hard-drinking Swede then living in Chicago. Under Sundbloom's brush, Santa Claus assumed his present, adult dimensions, clad in brilliant red and white. Over the years, until his retirement in 1964, Sundbloom went on to paint dozens of large, red-and-white clad Santas guzzling Coca-Cola." -http://www.forbes.com/1997/12/24/feat.html

Coca-Cola not #1 in Middle East due to the Arab League boycott

I removed the following addition made to the sentence discussing Coca-Cola's lagging position in the Middle East: due to the Arab League boycott. I removed this phrase because:

  • The cause-effect of the boycott causing Coca-Cola was not cited.
  • Coca-Cola's challenges in the Middle East are described briefly (and in my opinion more appropriately) in the Criticism section
  • The phrase reveals a bias as discussed in the Criticisms of Coca-Cola article: A common belief is that Coca-Cola supports Israel, or Palestine, depending on the proclivities of accuser.
I added it, and while I did not add an external cite, there's a fair bit in Economic and political boycotts of Israel. Cause-and-effect isn't difficult to see: The countries banned Coke, and when they finally allowed it, as with most new products, it didn't instantly jump from nothing to the market leader, since people usually stick with what's familiar. I could change it to (see the Arab League boycott). Regarding the criticism section of the article, this is not discussed; it is merely mentioned that there exists some issue with the Middle East and Coke. If one were to guess what this is from context, one would think it was Coke's American roots, not their Israeli business. The bias in question is ludicrous; is the mention of the causation pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-Coke, anti-Coke, or something else? On a related note, the Criticism of Coca-Cola article needs to be fixed. It implies that Coca-Cola has been criticized for being pro-Palestinian, but only gives pro-Israel accusations. Anyway, the mention is not vitally important for The Coca-Cola Company (the omission isn't glaring), but I fail to see how it's unfounded, unnecessary, redundant, or POV. If other people agree, they can re-add it. Calbaer 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy in the lead section

Regarding this which was added to the WP:Lead section:

The company is controversial, having been criticised for alleged problems in the health effects of its products, for claims about its allegedly monopolistic and discriminatory business practices, wikiturfing and its relation to U.S. foreign policy, environmental issues, its labor practices including allegations that Coca-Cola's main bottler in Latin America hired paramilitary mercenaries to assassinate trade union leaders in Colombia, its interactions with Nazi-Germany and the implications of doing business in Israel.

This is too lengthy and detailed for the lead section. The lead section is supposed to be a summary, and while this is a summary, it basically picks every single controversy in detail -- it's out of proportion with the rest of the article and with the rest of the lead section, taking up %50 of the lead section. Every global corporation of Coke's size is involved with numerous controversies, including other soda companies - it's normal. Also saying "the company is controversial" is POV - it's involved in controversial incidents, but so are most large companies - that doesn't mean the company is matter of fact controversial. -- Stbalbach 14:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is as summary, as you say, so we agree on that. It does not pick out every single controversy in detail - it links to the NPOV section headers in the Criticism of Coca-Cola article. Whether or not every global corporation of Coke's size is involved with numerous controversies is original research on your part. i don't understand why saying that the "the company is controversial" is POV. This doesn't say that company is exceptionally controversial, it just says that it is controversial. The fact that a whole article is focussed on criticism of the Coca-Cola Company is sufficient proof that the company is controversial.
So i don't see any NPOV arguments justifying why you removed the paragraphs. There have been accusations that the Coca-Cola pages have been wikiturfed, but IMHO we should assume good faith and try to NPOV them and assume that nobody is wikiturfing. Boud 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Boud, it's pretty obvious you hate the Coke company and your out to stretch Wikipedia as far as it will go to serve your agenda. You have not addressed the main reason I removed it. It is out of proportion with the rest of the Lead section. It takes up %50 of the lead. That is POV. Criticisms of Coke is not %50 of the article. Also it's a summary, but it is a highly detailed summary. Too much detail for a lead section, you don't need to list in detail all those criticisms. Finally I'm not sure why you keep talking about wikiturfing - that is completely baseless. Do you think I work for Coke? -- Stbalbach 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What i think of the Coke company is irrelevant. 50% of the summary takes up positive aspects of the company, 50% of the summary summarises criticism. How can you suggest that this is out of proportion? Trying to remove criticism of the company from the summary is surely more POV than including it. Sure that criticisms are not 50% of the article - because some people insisted on shifting them out to another article - but that should not mean that they become hidden from view in a back corner. It is not a highly detailed summary, it essentially just lists the headings from the NPOVed article. i have no reason to think you work for Coke. The relevance of wikiturfing is how we as a community deal with it. Boud 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Following is a comment that should be in this thread rather than on User_talk:boud, since i prefer to reply here. Boud 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Since we are supposed to AGF here at Wikipedia, I'm coming to your talk page to ask you if you really believe it is NPOV to expand an article lead so that half of it is unproven negative allegations about the subject as you did with your recent edit at The_Coca-Cola_Company? You added the term "wikiturfing" to the article twice, but when I followed the reference link that one would assume would support such an allegation, there was only the briefest and vaguest of allegation that someone involved with the company was responsible for the supposed POV fork. Do you feel that is NPOV and more importanatly, intellectually honest and encyclopedic? AUTiger ʃ talk/work 06:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It is misleading to describe headings taken from an NPOVed article as "unproven negative allegations". They are headings which people can NPOV by working on that article if they feel that they are POV. Boud 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Total Liquid Intake (TLI)

I've heard that the company claims to provide 10% of the world population's "total liquid intake". Is there any substance to this? —Pengo 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds extremely unlikely to me. While CC intake is growing in China, India, Africa and other developing countries (I presume), a large percentage of their populations have probably never consumed CC and definitely can't afford to drink it probably even once a month. They make up say 65% of the world. This implies the other 35% of the world get 40% of their liquid intake from CC and considering at least 25% (random guess but likely) of a person's liquid intake is not what would normally be considered a drink, coming instead from food, that's a very large percentage of what someone drinks coming from coke. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

When was cocaine first excluded from the formula?

Or has it? I think I figured out the secret ingredient.

Are you implying cocaine is still in the formula?...

Uh...

Just popped over to the Pepsi article...it states there that both Coke AND Pepsi were involved with the pesticides in India...yet it doesn't mention Pepsi in the coke article...just thought that was interesting/enlightening...

If you want to improve the Pepsi article, please do so or discuss it on the Pepsi page. It's irrelevant when it comes to this article Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Over 200 countries?

Last time i checked there were 192 countries in the world...Slipzen 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends what you consider a country; see List of countries. AUTiger » talk 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then i would guess that The Coca Cola company recognizes countries which doesnt even view themselves as such...Slipzen 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the list at all? There are a bunch of countries that are considered countries by at least a percentage of their population or want to be independent but are not recognised by the UN. For example, Taiwan and Palestine. Note also the line actually says "countries or territories" Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone had altered the text so it no longer looked like coca cola claimed to supply 200 countries, Iv'e changed it back and there's a sentance in a reference to show that more notable autorities on the nations of the world think that there are fewer countries than this in existance.Pete the pitiless (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cocacolalogo.jpg

Image:Cocacolalogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Employees

http://www.computerwire.com/companies/company/?pid=37CB5616-D04E-49EE-9F5C-FFE75047D6FF

Here it says that Atlanta and Georgia alone had 71,000 employees in 2006 contradicting the 55,000 worldwide stated on the page.

I'm confused, please explain.--Wiggs (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're mis-reading that page; 71,000 employees for Atlanta/Georgia is a ridiculous number. It is however correct for the 2006 worldwide headcount per the TCCC 2006 annual report. AUTiger » talk 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to know more about your finacial status

Hi I am a Student at AIU college on line And I need some information about your revenue and how you went about the pricing of your product. I am also a long time coke drinker, for over 25 years, So can i get a little detail, not much just maybe a few numbers on your revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.138.57 (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like some figures, does anyone know coca-cola's turnover especially in comparison to GDP of small/medium sized nation states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete the pitiless (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a health warning page!

The part on Coke C2: it sounds a little like tour warning people that "C2 is not a replacement for diet Coke". It should be more like "C2 doesn't have as many calories as Coke Classic, but isn't as low-calorie as Diet Coke," or something like that. Thhhh (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree I like the sentence structure of that better than the original. It fits better with what the article is suppose to talk about.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Diet Coke.jpg

Image:Diet Coke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.15.200 (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Drinks by Coke

Dr. Peper, Barq's Rootbeer....

Dr. Pepper is not distrubited by The Coca-Cola Company, although Barq's beer is (but it already says that in the article). --71.225.111.4 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Consumers

Let's just settle this once and for all. Should we include a "Consumers List" on the Coca-Cola Company page?

Nay, as it would to be long and not at all useful. --FeldBum (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hesitant No, I agree with FeldBum's reasoning. Perhaps we might consider creating the article List of the Coca-Cola Company's consumers for such a topic, and include that article in "see also" for this article. --...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Double brand section?

I understand there is a difference between the two but i find it a little odd. the two sections should be merged I think. DPM 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Freestyle

Trivialist's 16:17, 30 August 2009 (diff) deletion of my Freestyle content is better handled by creating a new article Freestyle (Coca Cola) (is that an agreeable title? I read WP:YFA to no avail) and adding to dab Freestyle. State and explain any objections. richardc020 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the new article based on no objections in 6 weeks. State and explain any objections, if any. richardc020 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Callum-Cola?!?!?!

This is a vandalism, please correct when you have time to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatoreoccasionale (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Racial & Civil Rights Issues

Coca-Cola's alleged racist employment policies are not mentioned on this page. Am I also right in saying that around the 1960s (maybe before) coke ran with the slogan "It's not for black people?". I have found absolutely no vindication of this online right now, but I swear I read this somewhere years ago.

I am aware that some of this criticism is mentioned in a separate criticism page of Coca-Cola (I'll appreciate clarification on the "not for black people" slogan and whether it's true?), but I do think it warrants brief mention in this main article, surely? It is not sufficient just to link people to the main criticism page: some explicit mention of racial issues has to be made here in my view. I would also suggest that - bearing in mind these accusations - having a separate section on this page called "Civil Rights" and portraying Coca-Cola in a completely positive way in this section gives completely the wrong impression. I don't have time to perform a major edit here - either by expanding the civil rights section or (as is probably preferable) just moving this section altogether to another area), but I hope you'd agree that the following additional sentence in the Civil Rights section does at least add some context for readers:

"However, Coca-Cola has also faced allegations of racial discrimination in its employment practices, and faced a class-action racial discrimination lawsuit regarding this in the early 2000s (see criticism of coca cola)."

... anyone wishing to make a better and more comprehensive edit for me (as I'm just too lazy) is more than welcome to do so, though. RomanInDisguise (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit "Cappy" Juice

The "Cappy" link didn't link to the juice, but instead led to a disambiguation of the word. Just for clarity, I changed the link to go directly to the correct page. LaughinSkull (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Biggest beverage company?

The article says that CC is the "world's largest beverage company". However, comparing the numbers in the sidebars for The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo the latter seems to have 12 billion more revenue, and double the amount of employees. If Coca Cola is indeed the largest beverage company it should be explained in which way they are "larger". Otherwise, remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi makes much of its money from non-beverage sources such as salty snacks. I don't know the specifics. Also, cola drinks are becoming less popular so I wonder if this affects the standings. --Javaweb (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

More on company history, please

There have been at least a couple of books describing the company's history. I would like to see how they were affected by Prohibition (probably helped) and sugar shortages during the world wars. I remember reading they were given preference for sugar during WWII because it would be good for the soldiers to have a taste of home. They were also able to set up bottling plants around the world, which helped their world-wide expansion post-war. Also would like to see mentioned how during the depression Pepsi marketed their soda in 12 oz bottles rather than 6 oz or so for the same money. Resources to check: Coca-Cola Company -- History --Javaweb (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks , 192.250.112.200 for fixing the article

I made the fix for the second part of 220.225.102.154's boo-boo. --Javaweb (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

CocaColas Nazi connections are not even mentioned (any more)

not even a little hint on the critisism part - typical american white wash - i'm done with wiki american bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.112 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Searching back through 2008, I see no mention of "nazi" in the edit summaries. Clearly this isn't something anyone has worked on in a while. Perhaps an interested editor will find sources and add content... though "criticism" is a bad place for it... it would ideally be integrated into the history of the company.Shajure (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Booknotes link?

Hello - Recently I added this link to the external links section: http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/181013-1/Constance+Hays.aspx

It is a one-hour serious discussion with a New York Times reporter about a book she wrote about the history of the Coca-Cola Company. The rationale for deleting was as follows:

I see other editors share my concern with this. I see this as an advertisement. Perhaps the book should be a source for new information in the article.

As for using the book itself as a source in the article, I think that would be a good idea (although, I do not have a copy of the book at hand).

But as for the point about seeing this as an advertisement - In what way is it an advertisement?

To me, this is a perfectly good link to add to this article, in that it offers interested readers discussion about the history of the company, with nuances that would be very difficult to capture in the body of the article without just re-creating the entire transcript in the body of the Wiki article. Please feel free to discuss.

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And to many of us these are strict advertisements for the books. Top on the page is the publisher's brag, the link to the book site, description of the book. This is about the book, not coca cola, and I don't see how the naked link will meet wp:EL Perhaps if you extract a piece of info from the interview, put it in the article, cite it to the link. I still think that would be "iffy" but it would lend some credence to your argument, and I don't think I would kill it, because then it would have some real value to the article.Shajure (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Shajure. Wikipedia is not a random directory of links. The more suitable approach would be to get a copy of the book and use it to either support existing factual assertions in the article or cite as a source in support of new ones.--Coolcaesar (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
OK - I will bow to your preferences and not re-add the link, but I think that the concerns about the presence of a short publisher's blurb and link to the publisher's website is far outweighed by the presence of a one-hour interview (in both video and transcript forms) about the content of the book, which is of course about the history of Coca-Cola. KConWiki (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with http://ir.thecoca-colacompany.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94566&p=irol-financials , is the "IR" for irol financials? It seems to be hosted at http://www.corporate-ir.net which is giving me some issues. Twillisjr (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

New subsection

I created a new subsection [5] noting the company's recent stake in Monster. Not sure if it is in the right place though. Does anyone have any suggestions on moving it to a more appropriate location? Fell free to make any changes. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

An error in the listed equity of the coca-cola company

I have yet to identify the correct number, but it would seem a number have been left out. In the right hand panel the equity is listed as a 5 digit number but does only display 4.

Hope someone can find the time to correct this.

Kind regards Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.84 (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Best Selling

The article specifies that Coke has a 25% share while Pepsi has a 75% share under "Best Selling". This makes up 100%. The reference no longer exists. Pepsi and Coke cannot possibly make up 100% of the world's beverage consuption. And since so much of PepsiCo's sales are in foodstuffs, I expect that there market share of the beverage consumption should read around 15%. See also http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/08/15/companies-that-control-the-worlds-food/2/ for statistics on large food companies.

(Sorry I should have logged in before I started this comment./ frizzle) (I was doing some stock research after the news today that Kraft and Heinz companies are joining creating the #5 largest food producer!) 76.11.117.68 (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability/Neutrality of sources - Advertising

The advertising section is both dubiously worded, with sparse citation, but my main concern is it's sources (See citation 39)

Advertising[edit]

1996–2002 Chevrolet Express wagon from The Coca-Cola Company. Coca Cola advertising has "been among the most prolific in marketing history", with a notable and major impact on popular culture and society as a whole.

The logo, bottle design, and brand image are internationally recognisable. Their product is ranked the number one soft drink, repeatedly, internationally, and has notoriety as the first soft drink consumed by astronauts in space. They employ a diverse range of integrated marketing communications to advertise through direct marketing, web based media, social media and sales promotions (Stringer, 2015).[39]

Citation 39 is the following site: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/case-study-coca-cola-integrated-marketing-gregory-stringer

Citation 39's sources include this: http://www.slideshare.net/VenelinaDarakeva/internet-marketing-of-the-cocacola-company

as well as other wikipedia articles, including the Coke-Cola wikipedia page itself!!

This is not at all reliable, and should be removed.

(Abuncha nada (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on The Coca-Cola Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Civic Involvement in Africa

Coca-Cola's efforts to fight hunger and poverty in Africa might deserve mention, no?

https://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coca-cola-takes-action-in-african-famine-relief-and-resilience-e

I could write up something about it myself, but I happen to be at work right now.

Dbrain64 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Owner

WHO is the owner of the Coca Cola Company? AeroWiki1946 (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding plastic bottles as a product in the first sentence

Hi all

The Coca Cola company produces 110 billion plastic bottles per year, this feels like an important thing to add in the first sentence in the list of their products. What would be the best way to phrase this? Something like:

The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational corporation, and manufacturer, retailer, and marketer of nonalcoholic beverage concentrates, syrups and plastic bottles.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that this belongs there. The relevant criterion, from WP:BALASP, is that aspects should receive a weight proportional to their treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. This doesn't justify appearing in the first sentence. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Danbloch:
I feel that there is something in here about WP:NPOV, not relying on companies advertising for what they say they produce, but what they actually produce using sources. Coca Cola presents the idea its main product is fizzy drinks, however I don't think this an accurate representation of what they do:
  • If a company produces 110 billion of something every year (14 for every person on earth), I think it is reasonable to include it in the their list of products.
  • Since the bottles are used for multiple kinds of drinks (Coke, Fanta, Sprite, Dasani etc) it seems likely that plastic bottles are their most commonly sold product.
  • A lot of their bottles exist in the world, the bottles are made of PET so don't biodegrade and will last at least 100s of years. Since PET density is 1.38 g/cm3 and they are producing 300 million tonnes of plastic waste every year this is over 200,000 m3 of plastic (a layer 1 meter thick covering an area of 1.5km2/0.9 miles).
John Cummings (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I found this video, don't know if it's useful?
Discussion about plastic waste with Coca-Cola CEO
Victor Grigas (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
But NPOV is defined in terms of being proportional to the number of appearances in reliable sources, and for better or worse this doesn't appear in a large number of sources. So I'm not convinced. (Also the wording is problematic, since the lead sentence says "manufacturer, retailer, and marketer of ...", and the company doesn't retail or market the plastic bottles.) Dan Bloch (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Danbloch:, what number of sources do you think would be reasonable for it to be included? If the number of references was reached what do you think would be sensible wording? Personally I think that it is reasonable to say they do market and promote the bottles because the bottle is part of the product and I've never seen an advert where they show the product without the packaging (Google image search). One of their heads of department recently said customers like them (plastic bottles) because they reseal and are lightweight. Thanks for your time John Cummings (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It isn't the number of sources as such. These sources say that company produces billions of plastic bottles, but don't define the company in terms of that. I see the proposed edit as an effort to change the way people think about the Coca-Cola Company, which may well be a worthwhile goal but isn't what Wikipedia is for. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Coca-Cola_Company/Archive_1&oldid=1248859638"