Talk:PepsiCo/Archive 1

PepsiCo purchased Coca-Cola Company
The source for this information seems to be an article from the economist, but its only available to registered users of economist.com. I've tried finding other sources, but couldn't seem to come up with any. Is there anyone that can verify this information? I'm not use to adding to these discussions, forgive me if I did something incorrectly.

Disputed
The sourced cited for the Israel section on PepsiCo actually says that the company allegedly participated in the Arab boycott, and it does not say anything directly about Coca-Cola being considered "heroic." This section should be edited for neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ima007 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'heroic' claim possibly comes from this Snopes.com article, which gives a fair assessment of the whole matter . Nonetheless, the current section does not comply with NPOV - I'm going to try to rewrite it. Terraxos (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Britvic
I think it should mention that pepsi is owned by britvic the the uk. --82.4.149.205 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: Britvic doesn't own PepsiCo. However, Britvic *does* have the Pepsi bottling franchise in the UK similar to how The Pepsi Bottling Group has the franchise for much of the United States, Canada and Mexico.Jvandyke 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That is what i ment that it branded by bitvic in the uk. I Should of used better words.--82.4.149.205 18:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

in the Netherlands it's vrumona (Heineken) it's nothing special, they just outsource bottling. Markthemac (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pepsi Challenge" book
From WP editor : "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo.
This photo (pepsi in india) gives a negative impression of Pepsi which does not fit with the overall neutrality of the photo. The idea of putting the homeless person in front of the Pepsi sign will lead some to believe Pepsi is somehow responsible for this kind of thing. And while they may very well be it is in the interests of the article itself to use a neutral photo for a main article.

If the photo were part of a stub talking about how Pepsi is hurting India then yes it would be appropriate. However it is not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.22.6 (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pesticide Residuals Controversy
This section needs to be split off into its own article. It is far too large for the PesiCo article and should be focused around the issue itself with a link and short summary left here. Rhindle The Red (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of it is strong POV; it looks like it was copied off a magazine article, or perhaps written in a first-person account. Feel free to delete it, so speaks rohith. 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am deleting the greater malaise bit, nothing to do here and horribly worded. Any complaints let me know. --SidiLemine 09:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It also lacks references  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.243.85 (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have simply deleted it altogether. It has too many problems. It's uncited, it's non-narrative, it's written in the present tense -- and, let's face it, it's written as a timeline as opposed to an encyclopedic article. Someone seems to have put a great deal of work into it, but they never bothered to cite it. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What is India's flag doing in infobox?
--74.140.120.11 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Donation to PFLAG
The language used in the section about the PFLAG is really biased and needs to be reworded. Also, I think it doesn't belong in the section it's in. Pepsico making a small donation to a gay advocacy group isn't exactly a major turning point in its history. --65.66.216.162 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased the wording on the donation to PFLAG. I agree that it needs to be moved somewhere else in the article or eliminated. A small donation to a gay advocacy group is not a huge part of the company's history, and the boycott was so huge that it wasn't even all over the news. To me it comes across as a way of getting the boycott publicity instead of saying something relevant about the company's history Hypernick1980 (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

7up
Pepsico does not own 7up, it owns the rights to distribute it (outside the United States) but does not produce it or own it. 7up and Dr. Pepper are owned by an independent company separate from Pepsico. Please remove it from the "products" list in the infobox. Having in a history section showing how Pepsi used to sell 7up in the US prior to it deciding to drop its arrangement with 7up/Dr Pepper and produce their own Sierra Mist would be a good idea of having in hte article.Camelbinky (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Operating Income 200.345 billion U$D
Not Possible. Kindly make the necessary corrections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.119.147 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Consumption patterns in India Section
I'm deleting most of this section because it is almost all unsourced with poor, non-NPOV writing. "The blatant denials by the head honchos did not allay the fears of the general public," (no citation) is just one example of the poor writing I am deleting. It seems as though somebody just wanted to smear PepsiCo without any credible data. I'm removing all of the terrible writing and most of the unsourced material. It has been tagged for a while, and people should feel free to put it back up if it is sourced. Wharrel (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Prices in India(updated in Feb 2010) Section
Likewise, I have deleted this section as unsourced OR that's irrelevant anyway. No other country has a detailed history of PepsiCo's price schedule, nor is one needed. This article seems to have been the repeated victim of a conscious smear campaign. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

100 Trillion Cans of Pepsi Cola Per Year
This claim, from the introductory paragraph. is preposterous and can be dismissed out of hand. According to http://www.eduplace.com/kids/mw/wr/5/wr5_08_21_5.html, Americans on average drink 597 cans of soda (all brands!) per person, per year. Even if every human on the face of this planet consumed this exorbitant amount of soda (clearly a dubious assumption), that would amount to 3.6 trillion cans of soda per year globally for all varieties of soda put together -- two orders of magnitude less than the figure claimed. Pepsi Cola certainly has a significant market share in the soda market, but it's nowhere near 100%. This figure needs to be revised to a more credible number or else deleted altogether. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, this obviously isn't true. 100 trillion cans per year would be 14,650.937 per peson. There's no point in revising blatant vandalism. This little bit should easily and uncontrovertibly be deleted. 128.208.86.72 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on revision
Hello all, a few weeks ago after initially coming across this article, I noticed that a handful of inconsistencies existed, and I began to do a bit of research by reading through what reliable sources have published about the subject. After reading through the article more closely, and observing the most recent article grades listed at the top of this Talk page (Start/C-class grade; Top-/High-importance), it became apparent that a more extensive effort is needed to bring this article up to Wikipedia's own standards. While I'd otherwise be bold and implement edits as I went along, given the scale of this article I thought it best to write up the proposed revision in my userspace sandbox here: User:Jeff_Bedford/Sandbox.

Specifically, the revised version addresses the following:
 * revision and expansion of the lead to conform with WP:Lead guideline, so that it adequately summarizes the article
 * restructuring of article organization to represent each facet of the subject in proportion to its coverage in WP:RS, and with readability in mind
 * replacement and addition of citations throughout in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS
 * conversion of largely unsourced, exhaustive and outdated bulleted lists to prose (paragraph form), to improve factual accuracy as well as readability

As it so happens, the subject of the article happens to be a client of my employer, and with this in mind, I've paid careful attention to ensuring that the proposed revision is written in alignment with WP:NPOV. While I don't believe this potential conflict of interest has gotten in the way of putting together a balanced, well-referenced article, I recognize that others may see things differently and felt it important to note. In fact, the proposed revision maintains points of critique and attributed opposing viewpoints throughout; instead of removing previously unsourced original research and criticisms, these have been kept, sources found, and reflected within the sections to which they pertain.

I propose moving forward with the revision linked above, with the approach that while not 100% perfect, Wikipedia is a work in progress and it represents a much-needed step to bring the article up from Start-class level closer in line with Wikipedia's standards. Looking for others to weigh in with consensus to do so. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had a brief look, and certainly the sandboxed version seems an improvement. There is a sense that it is somewhat of an apologia for the company, however it is often the case that negative claims are overblown and hard facts speak otherwise (for example a local factory was much maligned for burning "toxic waste" by pressure groups, investigation showed that the company had agreed to upgrade the transport and  handling of it's fuels to "toxic waste" standard after previous pressure).
 * I would consider adding the country names back in the headers of the "concerns" section "Water usage (India and...)".
 * My main concern with both versions of the article is recentism. The company has a long history and is important in the developing of mass marketing, duopoly and various other areas.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks for this feedback - much appreciated. The country names have now been added to the userspace draft, per the suggestion above. Both the "Water usage" and "Pesticide regulation" subsection headings have been updated with the pertaining countries; the sections below these were all covering broader (worldwide) topics.
 * The recentism factor is one that I mulled over for awhile, and one of the challenges encountered is that PepsiCo was only formed in 1965 (as Frito-Lay and Pepsi-Cola Company merged), so I didn't want to devote undue weight to the histories of its two predecessor companies as their histories are explained in depth on the Frito-Lay and Pepsi articles. That said, I agree that the article should contain coverage of the company's development of mass marketing and a bit more in regards to the specifics of its history.
 * Following up, would you consider it an improvement to implement the revisions, to be followed by an updated history version (focusing on earlier history) in the next few days? Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a systemic problem with business coverage. For example we had a decentish article on Telewest, which was taken over and the article was I believe subsumed into the sentence "In 20XX they acquired Telewest."  [Seems I was or am wrong about that too.]  Since both Pepsi and FritoLay have iconic status they have probably faired better, so your decision is quite likely correct.
 * Certainly unless anyone has an objection, go ahead and update - the sooner the better within reason, to avoid divergence.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 05:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC).


 * I was asked to take a look at the proposed revision. Clearly this is both a significant change and a significant improvement to the article.  I have not looked at the references to verify them.  I will point out that several of the links do have issues.  In my mind any negatives in the proposed article are clearly outweighed by the significant improvements.  I think that the introduction is still a bit short, but that is not a reason to delay the switch to this proposal.  As Rich pointed out, there seems to be an over emphasis on the corporate criticism, but that may simply be a problem with the way corporations are viewed today rather then a specific criticism of the content. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi-Cola Venezuela
Has anyone considered writing about: es:Pepsi-Cola Venezuela on the English Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)