Talk:Criticism of Coca-Cola/Archive 1

POV FORK?

Is this a POV fork? V. Joe 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No. See Talk:The Coca-Cola Company; I just moved the content here while I improve that article. Once that is done and all relevant information has been moved back, this article may be deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also add in not to delete this. The Wikipedia Signpost (i.e. probably more to the attention of the higher-up admins) seems to like this article as a sub-section of the coca-cola article in response to criticism by a newspaper - Master Of Ninja 13:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Stbalbach 14:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Before adding a POV tag

Let me repeat, following heavy criticism in the media regarding the coca cola article, the negative elements were brought in this article to be cleaned up and then re-integrated.

There is no intention of re-integrating, anon. The "POV fork" argument makes no sense. In order to be a "POV fork" there has to be some other POV it is being forked from - where is the other spoke of the fork, what has been forked? This article was created because the criticism's had become so long and difficult to manage across multiple articles that it made logistic sense to aggregate them all into one place where they could properly be monitored and controlled since this is such a controversial topic. It also removes an concerns that the main Coke article(s) were being over-run by criticisms, unbalancing them with %50 or more of negative stuff. The main articles still contain a criticisms section, but it is just a summary of this article with a Main article link. -- Stbalbach 20:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WW2 Germany

I changed this, mostly based on the Pemberton book, but all of the facts are in the snopes article too. First of all, German != Nazi. And the German Coca-Cola was not operated by the Atlanta home office at all during the war; in fact, they didn't even know it survived by May of '45. And Fanta is not a Nazi drink, Max Keith wasn't a Nazi, and the US Coca-Cola didn't deal with any Nazis. --Jkonrath 20:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the writer above have ANY idea what he is saying. Is it sourced? Is he saying that Coca-Cola in Spain, Switzerland, Vichy France, Sweden and so forth did not know Fanta existed and did not report this to their home office. Is he saying the company sold to the Nazi military but opposed the Nazis? What war is he speaking of, the one that started in 1939, 1941... what is possibly meant by this post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.59.144 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

wikiturfing reference removed: why?

User:Stbalbach in this edit claimed that a wikipedia mailing list discussion thread is an unreliable source (rv - unverifiable source) for claims of wikiturfing.

The content he removed was the following:

In August 2006, the Coca-Cola company was suspected of wikiturfing its entry in the online encyclopedia, wikipedia.<ref name="wikipedia_en_cocacola_wikiturf">{{cite web | last = Bennett | first = Steve | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = [WikiEN-l] POV fork anyone? (coca cola) | work = | publisher = Mediawiki Foundation | date = July 23, 2006 | url =http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/051128.html | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2006-11-05}}</ref>

i find this really quite difficult to understand. How can the wikipedians' english language mailing list be an unreliable source for discussion of wikiturfing? Where is a more reliable source for the topic of wikiturfing?

For the moment i am reverting this. Please provide some rational comments if you wish to remove the reference to wikiturfing. Boud 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To put this in the language of WP:NOR: i think that wikien-l can be considered a place of primary source research about the wikipedia. It is certainly not a good primary source for information about genetics, theoretical physics, theology, or the war in Iraq, but it is, IMHO, a reasonable source for study of the wikipedia. Note that the mailing list is not part of the wikipedia. (Although this is only marginally relevant, i myself am not subscribed to that list and never have been AFAIR.) Boud 21:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A post by someone on the Wikimedia mailing list does not count as a verifiable source that Coca-Cola marketing has engaged in "wikiturfing". Anyone can post to the Wikimedia mailing list. Anyone does. In fact, people who have a grudge against Coca Cola might even post on that list. It is not considered a reliable source. USENET sources are routinely deleted from Wikipedia. Because of the nature of the claim is defamatory and possibly even litigious - and BTW unsupported in the cited source itself - I've removed it entirely from the article. Further it is self referential (another violation) and involves an internal debate within the Wikipedia community about the larger issue of having "Criticism of.." articles (follow the linked discussion thread). Anyway if you want to quote rules heres some:

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

-- Stbalbach 23:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight?: there are many active wikipedians who write to the wikipedia en mailing list - this, plus the mediawiki technology that wikipedians use are powerful methods of fact-checking and editorial oversight, at least when the subject of the discussion is checking facts about the wikipedia. Please read wiki to learn more about how editorial oversight functions in wikis.

• self-published books, personal websites, and blogs?: these are sources without much external checking by other people (though blogs do generally allow comments, they're controlled by the blog author). A mailing list thread about the wikipedia is different to these.

• the fact being established: that a suspicion was raised that the Coca-Cola page was being wikiturfed - Ossama bin Laden is suspected of being responsible for the 11 Sep 2001 attacks, so suspicions are clearly allowable as facts in the wikipedia - provided that they are sourced. You wrote does not count as a verifiable source that Coca-Cola marketing has engaged in "wikiturfing". - i agree with this - it is only a verifiable source that a suspicion has been raised. Of course, it's true that we have to be careful about citing suspicions - i agree with that.

• self-referencing?: the wikipedia mailing list is not part of the wikipedia, so there is no self-reference in a wikipedia sense.

So you're wrong on many counts. Boud 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

USENET posts, mailing lists posts, blog posts - are not allowed on Wikipedia as sources except under very special conditions. Your response shows a disturbing lack of understanding of what a good source is. Based on your response there is no source anywhere that couldn't be used, heck, I could source my neighbors t-shirt as reason why Coke practices wikiturfing, because you know, Joe Bob down at the corner store said so, and heck, Joe Bob, he sure knows what he's talking about and he has teh internets and posted it on his blog sites. -- Stbalbach 03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundant sections

Should "Middle East and U.S. foreign policy" be merged with "Implications of doing business in Israel"? Andjam 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Under "Environmental Issues" there is what seems to be a summary of the sections on "Pesticide use" and "Water use" in relation to India. Can the summary be deleted? Also under "Bottling Plant Deaths" the first paragraph under "India" again repeats the pesticide and water use statements. I think this paragraph could be deleted as well. Raynethackery (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bigio family

Section is unbalanced because it only provides a single source, the Bigio family web page. The "other side of the story" (coke) is not being represented here. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bigio Family section

1. Reduced the section title length. There is no call to have such a long section title. It messes up the table of contents at the top of the article, and no other section title is that long. The section text explains what is going on don't need to summarize the details in the title.
2. Fixed grammar.
3. Fixed direct quote which is sourced. Don't change a direct quote that is sourced, unless you have another source.

-- Stbalbach 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

India POV

Early in the article, it states that pollution in India has been found not to be by Coca-Cola plants. In a later part of the article, it says pollution was directly caused by Coca-Cola plants. Which is correct? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

World record "rejection" section

I removed the section about the World Records Academy since the only citation was based on a press release from its own website, with no other external coverage other than distribution through free PR services and affiliates. Here's the event via Coke press release via Associated Press staff report via sfgate.com. A quick search indicates WRA is non notable commercial website. See "About us" info. Flowanda 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Coke with Real Sugar

The article mentions that Passover coke in America has real sugar instead of HFCS. As far as I know, Coke in Israel is real-sugar all year long. 2 notes:

1. Yes, Israel makes its own coke - the plant is down the road from me.
2. The second ingredient on the label in front of me is Sugar ("Sukar").

Tewner 13:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

'Boycott'

The boycott sections lists no reasons for the boycott, nor sources of the boycott...or anything else really. Why is it there? I'll be looking for a response, otherwise the unsourcedness of it goes bye bye.Ravenmasterq (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the "Boycott" section. I think it could be put back if someone wanted to fix the issues you highlighted. Raynethackery (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WW2 and Nazis

If it's gonna be in the article, shouldn't the stuff related to Nazis all be under the Nazi section or be merged with the world war II section?--DeviantCharles (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

arabic reversion theory

I believe that's still missing. Like when you reverse Coca Cola in the original trademark letters it says "no mohammed no mecca" in arabian. We tried it ourselves - asked a mother of a friend who speaks arabian, but didnt know about the logo and we reversed it and she could read it ^_^" I think it deserves an entry. Kampy (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Iran

The article states: "Coca-Cola has bottling plants in Iran.[42]" 1-The source does not exist 2-There is no Coca-Cola bottling in Iran, as a matter of fact it's called ZamZam Cola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.111.152 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)