Talk:Pepsi/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Logo

I hate the new logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.29 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

can we have a current logo?

I found one at http://www.pensacolapower.org/images/Pepsi_logo.jpg Dansiman 05:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Or here's another: http://www.napervilleparks.org/genecawebsite/T/images/Pepsi%20logo.jpg Dansiman 05:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good references/links

I have been searching around the Internet and found these useful sources that can be used to add lots of missing info to this article:

— Wackymacs 21:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pepsiman

the "see also" section contains a blue link to "pepsiman" the japanese pepsi superhero, but the link redirects to this article, and the only mention of pepsiman is the link itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.114.109 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pepsi Si

My friend from Texas asserts that he's never heard of the "Pepsi Si" promotion. I demand an explanation. Philwelch 03:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't appear that this was done with any fanfare, just that the packaging simply started saying Pepsi Sí. I found a picture of a case here, and a memo from Pepsi Bottling Group here. There doesn't seem to be much about it online, a few random blog mentions. However, it's been fairly hard to search for online. Rhymeless 06:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pepsi Si is not on EVERY Pepsi in Texas, as the article states. In mostly hispanic cornerstores and grocery stores, you find many 'Si' cans, but in a general sense sometimes you see them sometimes you dont. --168.56.111.51 18:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pepsi Capuccino

The article states: "Pepsi Cappuccino was released in Romania and Bulgaria". I'm from Bulgaria and I have never heard of Pepsi Capuccino. And I'm a Pepsi drinker. --Babycham 03:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Pepsi copied Coca Cola Ashleigh101664 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

Pepsi Products

Mountain Dew (including Diet Mountain Dew, Mountain Dew Code Red, Mountain Dew Diet Code Red; not currently offered are the Caffeine Free, Baja Blast flavors)

Baja Blast Mountain Dew is currently available at Taco Bell

Discontinued lines

FruitWorks: Flavors were Strawberry Melon, Peach Papaya, Tangerine Citrus, Apple Raspberry, and Pink Lemonade. Two other flavours, Passion Orange and Guava Berry, were available in Hawaii only.

FruitWorks is still available, and I purchased a bottle about a week ago.

Mountain Dew Live Wire: Offered for one summer. Mountain Dew Pitch Black: Tagged Don't Be Frightened Of The Dark, it was "with a blast of black grape".

Both are widely available, and are due to be part of a major Halloween promotion by Pepsi

Squirt: including Diet Squirt and Ruby Red Squirt

Still available; However, I beleve this may be a Cadbury-Schweppes brand; I have never seen diet or Ruby Red

I decided to leave the FruitWorks where it was, until I saw more information. It's not something I see at grocery stores, now that I think of it. I changed the Mountain Dew information, and will move the Squirt info to the proper website.

[[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 04:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Split

Split the company and product information, move the company info to PepsiCo, Inc. and link from there to Pepsi. - Jerryseinfeld 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

korean coat of arms

is there any point to this picture and mention? it sounds like putting a picture of a piece of chicken shaped like homer simpson on the homer simpson article. Lockeownzj00 19:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I think it's kind of noteworthy of the similarity. Cburnett 00:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (this comment of mine was in the wrong section, moved here Cburnett 01:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC))

I agree...I am taking it down. It doesn't make any sense. ---- anonymous (added by cburnett)

I agree with Lockeownzj00 -- doesn't seem to be relevant, nor in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia article.

I've put it back again. You'll have to excuse me for putting a lot of faith into users who don't even sign their posts. Additionally, I think it warrants more people's opinions. Cburnett 15:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

While a funny bit of trivia, I agree that the image just clutters the page and is unnecessary. It'd be better to just mention the similarity in the text and make sure to cross link the article. After all, if someone really wants to see the similarity, all they have to do is go to the South Korea page an take a look. --oknazevad 00:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Due to the similarity between two, there is an urban myth in South Korea that Pepsi is actually a Korean company. This myth started in late 1990s to early 2000s when South Korea had economic troubles and the government launched "buy homemade and make exportable goods" campaigns. Since the locally owned company produced Pepsi products and only paid the right to distribute and use the brand name, this is technically not false but a myth nevertheless. I believe there was an increase in Pepsi's market share during that time in South Korea possibly related to this but Samsong did launch a major endorsement campaign at the same time. So it's difficult to say whether this had any impact. -- Revth 04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Francophiles

I was a bit surprised to hear that Pepsi is so popular with Francophiles. Is there evidence that this has anything to do with the similarities between the soda's logo and the French flag (it looks more like the dutch flag, really, but it's still pretty close)? -R. fiend 7 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

I don't know about froncaphones around the world, but in french-speaking Quebec, historically Pespi was more popular than Coca-Cola because it was cheaper and the population was poorer (the same happened, to a smaller scale, in "poor" parts of the US). In the late 20th century Pepsi had very strong and succesfull tv-ad campaigns designed especially for quebecers, so they maintained their market share. Luc Da 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ingredient list

Not sure it's appropriate, but a section on what's in Pepsi should be added.

From the Pepsi website (this is also confirmed on the can of Pepsi in front of me, California, USA).

(Cut and pasted from http://pepsi.com/pepsi_brands/product_info/index.php)

Pepsi (8 fl. oz) Contains: Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sugar, caramel color, phosphoric acid, caffeine, citric acid and natural flavors

Calories 100
Total Fat (g) 0
Sodium (mg) 25
Potassium (mg) 10
Total Carbohydrates (g) 27
Sugars (g) 27
Protein (g) 0
Caffeine (mg) 25

http://urbanstyle.org/wp/upload/pepsi1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.5.225 (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Spokespersons"

The celebs aren't really spokespeople of the company. They are paid endorsers of the product. Is there a good word for that? encephalon 20:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How about "Major celebrities endorsing Pepsi products"? I know then some people will argue about just WHO qualifies as major but it's pretty neutral. -- Revth 04:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I renamed to "Celebrity Endorsers"Jvandyke 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt

An article was just created with this text:

Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt

"Drink that is re-bottled Pepsi that has exceeded its used-by-date and can no longer be legally sold under the Pepsi label due to quality control contracts with sellers."

That looks like nonsense. But I'm putting it here. If someone else want to include this in the pepsi article, feel free. Zeimusu | Talk page 14:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pepsi Light

What happened to the Pepsi Light link? It now redirects to the main Pepsi page. There used to be a page devoted to Pepsi Light with a picture of the can. What happened?

(Pepsi light was introduced in the 70s and had a light blue can with a lemon.)

--Globe199 22:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, MANY of the Pepsi links contained here redirect to the main Pepsi page. These other brands (Pepsi Light, Pepsi Edge, Pepsi Vanilla, etc) should have their own pages. Anyone know what happened here?

--Globe199 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly should they have their own pages? -R. fiend 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It makes for much better articles. Look at the Coke pages. Erechtheus 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PEPSI FREE??? (honda impossible dream style):,,, PEPSI - free - COLA - technical -OIL... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.48.169 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First made

The introoduction claims that Pepsi was first made in 1886. Other sources that I have seen claim it was first made in 1893. [1] What sources do we have for this claim? Capitalistroadster 08:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The date changes are unsourced and I am now treating them as vandalism and reverting them. Kafziel 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have adjusted the "first made" date to reflect what Pepsi says on their own website. --Godfoster 08:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Pepsin?

The article claims that the original Pepsi contained pepsin. [2] agrees, [3] disagrees, and [4] states that the question is disputed. Do we have anything more authorative? AxelBoldt 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 I cannot directly answer the above but being a youngster in the 1950's I can definitely assert that Pepsi was reformulated in the middle to late 50's. Prior to that Pepsi-Cola had a medicine like taste that my family and friends thought was horrible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenngingold (talk • contribs) 04:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Corn syrup discussion

User:Magnusfl added the text below to the main article. I've moved it to the talk page here, as probably more suitable to be here. Suitability for inclusion in the article needs to be reviewed, spelling/wording also needs attention. --OscarTheCat ^talk 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"this is for the USA version other country’s use sugar instead of High fructose Corn syrup which is cheaper in the USA due to federal corn subsidies of 4,501,951,045 in 2004(http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn )and much less healthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup"

Removed this similar commentary from article. --OscarTheCat ^talk 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"this is for the USA version other coutrys use sugar instead of High frutose Corn syrup which is cheeper in the USA due to federal corn subsidies of :4,501,951,045 in 2004 [http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn (1)]and much less healthy."

Uranium?

I find the following passage questionable:

"That same year, the US federal government passed the Pure Food and Drug Act, banning substances such as arsenic, lead, barium, and uranium from food and beverages. This forced Coca-Cola to change their formula; however, Pepsi-Cola was already free of these substances, and thus claimed they already met federal requirements."

Although it doesn't explicitly say so, the implication is that Coca-Cola contained arsenic, lead, barium and uranium. If we are going to list examples of substances banned by the Pure Food and Drug Act, we should at least specify which impurities were found in Coca-Cola. I'm pretty sure uranium is not among them, and its inclusion is misleading. Mistercow 00:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I had the same reaction. I'm going to remove the entire statement. It reads like an amateurish slander of Coke.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) 07:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

Pepsi-Cola → Pepsi This is the most common name in use. EdwinHJ | Talk 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. It is the most common name and hundreds of pages link here through the redirect at the "Pepsi" page. (The dash complicates things even more, as other pages link here through "Pepsi Cola"). Even though most pages link to "Pepsi", it will be a big job to correct all the links, but I do think it will be worth it for the future. Kafziel 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. If concensus agrees this, then for consistency, perhaps Coca-Cola should then move to Coke ? --Oscarthecat 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, "coke" has a lot of different meanings, and since it isn't the actual name of the product, I think it should remain a disambiguation page. But Pepsi is Pepsi. Plus, the "what links here" for Coca-Cola doesn't seem to be nearly as lopsided as the Pepsi-Cola article. The "Coca Cola" redirect has a lot of hits, but not nearly as many as the "Pepsi" redirect. Kafziel 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. James F. (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support It's pretty clear from various sources that Pepsi-Cola is no longer in use. Even the contemporary pictures on the WP entry show only the Pepsi logo. ~ trialsanderrors 07:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - But Pepsi is not the "actual" name of the product! — Wackymacs 19:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pepsi's website might disagree with you, as well as every bit of advertising shown there. I can't remember the last time I heard "Pepsi-Cola" in a commercial. If nothing else, it's certainly the de facto name. And the word "pepsi" has no other meaning in any dictionary I can find, so it won't hurt anything as far as disambiguation. Surely Pepsi won't object to our moving their article, when their own website is pepsi.com? Kafziel 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked all over that website, and they don't even call it "Pepsi-Cola" on the product information page for it, here. Kafziel 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Length?

Is this article the right length? It seems a little long to me. Anyone else thinks something about the size? loulou 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Rivalry..." Must Distinguish Between Companies And Drinks

Throughout the entire "Rivalry with Coca-Cola" section, it is unclear in many places whether the companies The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo or the drinks Coca-Cola and Pepsi are being compared. Take, for example:

"In the U.S., Pepsi's total market share was about 31.7 percent in 2004, while Coke's was about 43.1 percent."

These figures are clearly labeled as company market shares by the source, so this statement would be much better off in one of the main company's articles. This article is about the drink Pepsi. This sentence even further obfuscates its meaning by using the term "Coke". The only time "Coke" is ever used is in the name of the product "Diet Coke". So, really, the sentence should read:

"In the U.S., Pepsi's total market share was about 11.5 percent in 2004, while Coca-Cola's was about 17.9 percent."

This is one such example of the confusion that can be found in this paragraph. There are articles for the drinks, and there are articles for the companies. The two should be kept separate. I'll try to move things around and clear things up when I can, but I'm leaving for a week tomorrow and would appreciate some help here. -- Tflynn17 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Largely done. Happy travels.Jvandyke 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh why thank you! Tflynn17 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

pepsi's better than coca cola--Peace, Ghetto Fabulous 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the new Pepsi Jazz? Pepsi Jazz it should be refrenced here or go on the Diet Pepsi page. --68.180.8.70 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

hey yeah i just saw this in Jewel the other day. Looks...awful... :-\ Tflynn17 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Not-verified" -- "Rivalry with Coca-Cola" needs sources

Added the NV tag to the article as it needs citations in some areas. :: Colin Keigher 05:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on several criteria of the GA quality standards. It fails criteria 5 as it is unstable. It fails criteria 2 on several aspects as additionals sources need to be cited. Please make necessary corrections, reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and submit the article through the nomination process. RelHistBuff 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Propose deletion of sentences marked (fact) on September 1st

I propose the deletion of sentences marked (fact) on September 1st. I believe that the removal of these sentences will improve the article and make it much more factual. In particular, I am concerned about some of the unsupported claims regarding acceptance/rejection of certain types of Pepsi and comments on the safety of Pepsi ingredients. Jvandyke 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed as proposed.Jvandyke 02:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of sentences marked (fact) or (citation-needed) on October 1st

I propose the deletion of sentences marked (fact) or (citation-needed) on October 1st. I believe that the removal of these sentences will improve the article and make it much more factual. In particular, I am concerned about some of the unsupported claims regarding acceptance/rejection of certain types of Pepsi and the uncited discussion of Muslim claims against Pepsi. Jvandyke 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.Jvandyke 08:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

pH comparison to stomach

I removed the following as it was uncited and struck me as an attempt to use weasel words. Citation and clarification encouraged: [Pepsi] is nearly as acidic as the acid in your stomach Jvandyke 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Myanmar

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but why is there nothing about Pepsi's controversial activities in Myanmar? CJCurrie 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article details Pepsi the drink, not PepsiCo the company. Thus, I believe you are asking your question against the wrong article. Jvandyke 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents Box vs. Infobox - Fight!

When you opt to hide the Contents Box at the top of the page, the Infobox bleeds over into the "History" section. Is there any way to prevent this? I tried some methods on my own, but could not find a way to get it to work. --Godfoster 08:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

Are those slogans under the "Marketing" Section really right or is someone just vandalizing the page? Admittedly I don't know anything about Pepsi, but.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Music girl117 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Both this and the Coca Cola pages are being vandalized. Superstooge 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Slogan

I seem to remember in the early 90's one of their slogans was (I even remember it being printed on the cans) - UH-HUH! - Is anybody able to vouch for this? or am I thinking of something else? - 203.205.122.84 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about Diet Pepsi and those ads with Ray Charles, that would be correct. I don't think, however, that the slogan was used for the regular Pepsi.

WAVY 10 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

Someone probably ought to remove the vandalism by User:Quogud in the external links section. If you check the user's talk page and history you will see that this is no longer an honest mistake.--68.158.44.232 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Already done, by User:Colin Keigher. --ais523 18:28, 19 January 2007 (U T C)

this is the beginning

Should their new campaign[5] be mentioned somewhere? --theblueflamingo^Speak 21:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yin-Yang

Pepsi's trademark symbol is an obvious appropriation of the yin-yang. What is the history behind this symbol? MotherFunctor 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the Taegeuk article, and I'm wondering the same thing. Can anyone shed some light on this? Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 06.07.07 2150 (UTC)

Joan Crawford

Didn't Joan Crawford, movie star from the 'golden age' of Hollywood, have something or other to do with Pepsi back in the day? CanadianMist 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

CM Punk

he why isn't CM Punk mentioned here. he has a tatoo of the Pepsi ball logo on one of his arms. boutitbenza_69_9 5:10 PM, 23 June, 2007

Because it's not really notable? I guess it could be mentioned on the CM Punk article, but it doesn't deserve a mention here. --Cyde Weys 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pepsi fire and ice

In 2005 I saw a huge billboard in Malaysia for Pepsi fire and Pepsi ice - There is no reference to this on this page... I'd like to see it if I can. I have a picture of said billboard I'd be happy to upload. Opticalnoise 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Add Health Risks

Can someone please put the following back?

if the admins are going to lock it you better be putting the stuff back in that was getting taken out, or at least unlcok it so the ppl can do it for you

Long-term health effects

Some nutritionists assert that the phosphoric acid component of Pepsi-Cola, and other similar soft drinks, may be deleterious to bone health in both men and women, with some studies finding the effects to be more notably pronounced in female subjects. See phosphoric acid in food.

Pepsi and other similar products contain a lot of sugar. An excessive intake of sugar has been suspected as a contributing factor in certain kinds of diabetes. Sugar is also a leading contributor to tooth decay.

In addition, both 'diet' and non-diet variants are highly acidic, which is a cause of degradation of tooth enamel, making decay due to subsequent sugar intake more likely. This is particularly exacerbated when a drink is sipped at frequent intervals throughout the day.

in addition, later study showed aspartame, included in both regular and diet pepsi, increases risk of cancer. It is also known as chemical that gets people addicted to pepsi, which will later cause other health problems that results from high intake of pepsi, such as diabetes and tooth decay. Teppei s (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Although I'm not an expert by any means on pepsi (fan of the soda though), I just did an undo to the rise in popularity section. There was some vandalism, hopefully it was just a one time thing. Trying to be a good wikicitizen Aohara1986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aohara1986 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Restaurant Sales

I think it's worth mentioning in this article that certain restaurants, most notably Pizza Hut, KFC, Taco Bell (all of which used to be wholly owned by Pepsi), and Arby's sell Pepsi products only, while most other major fast-food chains sell only Coke products. Thoughts? Dansiman 15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia edits

Shouldn't we have all details of the company in this page, including those of how the pepsi companys computers were used to falsify info on wikipedia? Shouldn't it be known by everyone who reads this page that pepsi co. was erasing harmfull truths about there soda so as to most likly show themselves in a better light? There is now proof that pepsi co. did this (thanks to wikiscanner), and I think it is relavent information about the goings ons of the company, and that there should be a section depicting that they did it at the top of the artical, and really, I think that should go for all the other companies who did this to their wikipedia articals, "wikilobbying" as "steaphen colbert" would say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.82.165 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes in article

There is an expletive in the article. In the section titled Criticisms, on the ninth line of the first paragraph, is a common expletive.

Further down in the article the word caffeine is not spelled correctly.

Brian 71.214.255.40 20:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

enough with the vandalism

geez you friggin stupid kids. do you think u're affecting anyone by putting ridiculous stuff in the article? grow up. this page has had nothing but vandalism for the past few days. can't we protect it or something? i'm no wiki-expert, but it seems like there should be something that can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDHannan (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Can we please have a photo actually showing the color of the liquid? Badagnani 04:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In Romania

Con somebody explain about marketing in the Eastern bloc? I was surprised by the Pepsi ads in a tennis court in a Romanian film from the 80s. --Error 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

140000 Ounce bottle

Goddamn vandals. I don't know much about Pepsi, but I'm reasonably certain no soda has ever been sold in a 1400000 ounce bottle (that's over 10 gallons.) Could somebody correct this? And maybe look for more "mistakes?" Please and thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutoniumboss (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pepsi tops in PEI for of lack of Coke, not consumer choice

As noted in the aricle, Pepsi outsells Coke on Prince Edward Island, Canada. That's because they don't allow cans to be sold on the island, and Coke doesn't bottle there. So you can get Coke in some restaraunts, but primarily Pepsi is your only choice. Pepsi bottles its soda for the island in Charlottetown, PEI. Does anyone know if the reason Pepsi outsells Coke in the other states/territories is similarly-reasoned due to lack of competition from Coke rather than market choice? --BizMgr (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson was a giant Pepsi pop-icon in 80s at the top of his career giving Pepsi worldwide popularity. [6] [7] --Ciao 90 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pepsicup.jpg

Image:Pepsicup.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) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pepsi Cona?

Does anyone remember the cola and coffee combo Pepsi Cona they had years ago? Kiminatheguardian (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The entire bulk of the Coke - Pepsi rivalry dedicated to the Thai market has been copied, word by word, from TIME magazine's website. If you follow the link in the text, it takes you to the news stories' page where it is clearly copied completely from TIME. As we all should know, TIME does not make its stories public-domain, there is a copyright on the story. I don't want to do any re-writing yet, but does anyone have any suggestions about what to do in this situation? Thanks, — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 16:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The copied material should be deleted. A summary of the source, without using their exact words, should be written. I'll go remove the copied info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

coke vs. pepsi

why on this article,they always said coke is better than pepsi? this is off topic! they supposed to said about pepsi not coke. this should be semi-protected.96.235.133.35 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pepsi Sales in Newfoundland, Canada

I don't have any hard numbers to back this up, but I'm pretty sure Pepsi outsells Coca-Cola in Newfoundland, Canada... at least in most cities. Before the early 90s, both Pepsi and Coke had bottle/can factories in St. John's. Coke shut theirs down and moved things to the mainland, which spurred many people to boycott Coca-Cola. While both products are equally available here, a lot of people prefer to drink the beverage manufactured within the province.

If anyone could obtain any information to back this up, that'd be awesome. --Zippo (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Older can images

Does anybody have images of the old type cans. Those white cans with red & blue sides, then latter red & red sides? GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pepsuber

Pepsuber should probably redirect to SNL Digital Shorts, not Pepsi. 216.41.16.82 (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Done. Will Beback talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was changed back, FYI. It really SHOULD NOT go to the Pepsi page. ArcAngel (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I invited the editor to come here and share his thoughts. In my view, the name "Pepsuber" is more associated with the SNL skit than with the soft drink. If there's evidence in the future that it becomes a popular nickname for the drink then it should be linked here instead. But I don't foresee that hapenning. Will Beback talk 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of that, but the commercial in the SuperBowl promoted Pepsuber being associated with Pepsi. Do whatever you want, iMatthew // talk // 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Blue

There's not a word on Pepsi's last major rebranding, known internally as "Project Blue", when in the 1990s Pepsi went to using an all-blue label, and among other things painted an Air France Concorde blue for the occasion (which could not fly at supersonic speeds due to the paint). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pepsi Meaning

Does Pepsi stand for : (Pay Every Pence to Save Israel)??? 62.61.164.86 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

It says at the very beginning pepsi is a "urine" which is obviously not true. Somebody change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

- Someone keeps vandalizing the page. I've fixed some of them. Seriously, I love coke much more but doing this to the pepsi wiki page is just sad. 69.205.18.60 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Globalise/USA and Cleanup tags added

I added the globalise/USA tag because, despite Pepsi being a major soft drink in a large number of countries, much of the article simply ignores this fact and treats it as exclusively a US drink. Obviously the US should get the most coverage, since that's where Pepsi comes from, but it shouldn't get very nearly all of it! As a more-or-less random example: the whole "Pepsi Throwback" concept is meaningless to most of the world, since in most countries Pepsi has never stopped being sweetened with sugar, yet the lead section on Throwback doesn't mention this at all.

I've added the Cleanup tag too as certain sections need work from someone knowledgeable (which isn't really me, or I'd do some of it myself). For example, "Colas" is a poor section title as it's not informative, while the section itself consists of a massive, unwikified, unreferenced list of varieties, with (for the most part) no attempt made to identify those which are for the US. It's not enough simply to assume that readers will assume that (if you see what I mean). Loganberry (Talk) 23:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to include "Controversy and Criticism" section or a separate wiki page similar to "Criticism of Coca-Cola"

Should'nt we also include a section or a separate wiki page for the controversy and/or criticisms faced by PepsiCo?
- Pepsi Suicide Ads for Pepsi Max
- Pepsi Cola health concerns (similar to a section in "Criticism of Coca-Cola" wiki page)
- Pepsi promotional campaign in the Philippines: "Number Fever" 349 scandal --Dan15ph (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add more items if I miss anything :) --Dan15ph (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Logo

Can someone add more for a logo evolution section? 70.29.210.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

boycotting PEPSI

shouldn't there be a part about the Islamic world trying to boycott pepsi with movies like this: [8], saying that buying pepsi helps Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.228.172 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the other way round isn't it??Boycott of Coca-Cola, which is drank in Israel and where Pepsi is very unusual. There was once some kind of fatwah issued by someone in india i think, that said don't drink coke.

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/gupshup-cafe/11064-no-muhammad-no-mecca-says-coca-cola.html Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Satan?

According to this video (►► 9:48), the word Pepsi is derived from the ancient Egyptian word for "Satan". Is there any proof for that? Maybe we should spend a sentence if so or even if not. Maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe it's made up, maybe it is on purpose. I'd like to have information on this matter. Thanks! --Bapho talk 21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we?

Shouldn't we add back the part for long term health effects? We can't have corparations kick us around!-KyleWestwood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.156.65 (talk)

Here here. I'm actually very surprised that this wasn't done by the time I checked the Pepsi page. We cannot allow wikipedia to become what the Wiki-criticizers say it is already.

-Ransom

I agree whole heartedly.

Long-term health effects Some nutritionists assert that the phosphoric acid component of Pepsi-Cola, and other similar soft drinks, may be deleterious to bone health in both men and women, with some studies finding the effects to be more notably pronounced in female subjects.[citation needed] See phosphoric acid in food.

Pepsi and other similar products contain a lot of sugar. An excessive intake of sugar has been suspected as a contributing factor in certain kinds of diabetes. Sugar is also a leading contributor to tooth decay.

In addition, both 'diet' and non-diet variants are highly acidic, which is a cause of degradation of tooth enamel, making decay due to subsequent sugar intake more likely. This is particularly exacerbated when a drink is sipped at frequent intervals throughout the day.

Phosphoric Acid and Tooth Rot Now that soft drinks are sold in almost all public and private schools, dentists are noticing a condition in teenagers that used to be found only in the elderly-a complete loss of enamel on the teeth, resulting in yellow teeth. The culprit is phosphoric acid in soft drinks, which causes tooth rot as well as digestive problems and bone loss. Dentists are reporting complete loss of the enamel on the front teeth in teenaged boys and girls who habitually drink sodas.

Normally the saliva is slightly alkaline, with a pH of about 7.4. When sodas are sipped throughout the day, as is often the case with teenagers, the phosphoric acid lowers the pH of the saliva to acidic levels. In order to buffer this acidic saliva, and bring the pH level above 7 again, the body pulls calcium ions from the teeth. The result is a very rapid depletion of the enamel coating on the teeth. When dentists do cosmetic bonding, they first roughen up the enamel with a chemical compound-that chemical is phosphoric acid! Young people who must have all their yellowed front teeth cosmetically bonded have already done part of the dentist's job, by roughening up the tooth surface with phosphoric acid.

-Colonel Chicken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 00:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Issues with images

Some of the images ('40s ad, and Crystal Pepsi) appare to be not working. Occaisionally, they'll show, but more often than not the code that references the image gets shown instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellmark (talk • contribs) 05:22, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

New Logo Release Section

The new logo release section could be a bit expanded. The "other countries in 2010" is not all that precise. For instance in Poland Pepsi is sponsoring Warsaw's New Year Eve and adds (with the old logo) show the slogan "something will change", as the new logo is intended to be some surprise. However most hypermarkets have bottles with the new logo since the beginning of December and at present even small stores and restaurants have the new design. So they didn't really think it through here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.252.41 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Logo similar to Obama campaign logo?

http://rocksoft.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/pepsi-obama-logo2.jpg?w=450&h=469 of course, there's not really any way we can PROVE that the image team at PepsiCo had that exactly in mind, but eh. --66.167.11.114 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Article damage control / Health Concerns

Seems to be an unbalanced favor-ability of Pepsi over Coke. Coke has criticisms right in the main article and also an additional article just for criticism while Pepsi has nothing comparable although im sure the criticism is about equal for the 2 companies.

In the very least it should be said that the ADA endorses destruction of the soda industry. Every dentist i've ever been to since I was a child has told me to stop drinking soda. I finally did stop drinking it. Im assuming the ADA would have to be behind this at some point.Woods01 (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the article's POV is not neutral, do edit it, but keep in mind that Pepsi is not the place to discuss whether or not soft drinks are a good idea. If such concerns are notable of themselves, a separate article would be appropriate - with references or summaries and links on the various soft drink pages - but that article would still be limited to reporting rather than discussing and should ideally include other concerns such as comparisons between the effect on the teeth of soft drinks as opposed to starch sugars, the time each spends in the mouth or in contact with enamel, and so on. Also, not to be toooooo policy based, all of my personal opinions, diatribes, and preferences on soft drinks are inserted in the following quantum hyperdot: . kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 17:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Marketing?

Is somebody such as Boeing or Coca Cola jealous, that Pepsi scored a marketing coup by repainting a Concorde in Pepsi colors. This was a first for Concorde, and is a significant marketing acheivement.

My edit was reversed, REFERENCES include. REASON??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.4.24 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The third sentence in the third paragraph of the history section has an error: "Megargel was unsuccessful, and soon Pepsi's assets were then purchased by Charles Guth, the President of Loft Inc." The word "soon" or the word "then" should be removed.

96.26.63.235 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Logo

I worked for Pepsi when it switched from the previous logo to the current one. I believe it was 1998. This article shows the old logo running unit 1991 then a gap. Why? It would't let me edit but that 1991 date is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.192.100 (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Slogans

Was "Buy a can 50p" really the UK slogan between 1975 and 1977? 50p for a can would have been ludicrously expensive then. 5p would be nearer the mark. The only reference to the slogan is this page or sources that seem to have been copied from here.78.146.130.30 (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a few slogans in there were actually just subtle attempts at vandalism, "Don't be a tramp, buy a can" being perhaps the most glaring. I've removed those and did a little fixing up of the 80s/90s slogans.

Sadly, the whole Slogans section is a mess; a mish-mash of American taglines for regular Pepsi and international ones, plus slogans for Diet Pepsi and other product extensions. To make matters worse, every celebrity who's ever sung a line in a Pepsi ad seems to be mentioned here, which is needless.

My suggestion would be that the slogan section for the Pepsi article should list the slogans for Pepsi in the US chronologically, followed by known international ones. Information about the slogans for Diet Pepsi etc. should appear in the relevant articles for those products. Asukasboy (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Did it! I will move the Diet Pepsi ones, ASAP! Coolboygcp (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

pepsi is one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.61.133 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

niche marketing

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/19/obituaries/walter-s-mack-who-made-pepsi-the-no-2-cola-maker-dies-at-94.htm

Mack is described as "progressive " which may be misleading or at least not supported. Just one google search of mack reveals the times obit above that states he was a republican fundraiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.122.47.122 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate information

The first line of this article states that pepsi is a carbonated drink manufactured by PepsiCo and contains 90% urine. Thats inappropriate.. requesting to take the necesssary action to modify as i guess a lot of people use the wiki as a good source of info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.243.210 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ‎it was vandalism; Ischafer reverted that. Materialscientist (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Higher resolution original logo

Hi, sorry if I'm doing this wrong! I've found a much higher resolution copy of the 'original logo' in this pepsi logo design PDF here: Hi, I don't really know how this works but there's a much higher resolution copy of the 'original pepsi logo' on page 8 of this PDF. :-) http://s0.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf (page 8?)

Adam - Sun 23:19 2013-04-21 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.157.117 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

On "stylization"

Never thought I'd see the day where Wikipedia would be fighting against me over this.

Pepsi uses "Pepsi", not "pepsi" or "PEPSI" or anything else. We mention stylizations when it's something the company actually uses, but Wikipedia refuses to. Anything else is useless information... just think of the possibilities. Oh, time to move Columbia Pictures to COLUMBIA, because that's all the logo has, right? Gonna move Time Warner over to TimeWarner, that's what the logo looks like!

The only time you should ever consider the logo is when things are vague; a great example is ImageFight. (Terrible shame that the NES localization uses "Image Fight" everywhere, really. CamelCase is cool.) Despatche (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule about using stylizations in lead. Even "I Knew You Were Trouble.", "vevo, formerly VEVO", or "allmusic, previsouly as AllMusic and AMG" have the same syle of lead. PepsiCo trademarked and labelled it as "pepsi" and "PEPSI",[9][10][11][12] if they refer to it as "Pepsi" in the label, why it is not branded "Pepsi", but "pepsi" and previously "PEPSI", like in Coca-Cola? If ImageFight is called and/or titled "Image Fight" is irrelevant here. This is not a "PepSi" issue. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't even think of how I'm supposed to respond to such meaningless nonsense. I don't know why companies don't follow their logos; no one does, and they probably never will. What I do know is that if all caps is trademarked but not used, it's been done as a precaution, and also because of its "default" nature; this Pepsi stuff is a great example (Pepsi Twist should have smashed your face in, but no). Once again, you may as well mention just how much out there is in all caps... "PepSi"? You honestly believe the ImageFight case has anything to do with this made up nonsense? God, what am I supposed to do? Despatche (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you're completely out of control, and there is no possible way I can fight you. Are you happy now? Despatche (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all stop edit-warring, and stop with your "I'm going to win, get all the admin you want, they are idiots" attitude. Second, there are easiest solutions to resolve this, but you want to do a drama on something so simple. You can ask other people to get involved within this, like in a WP:RFC discussion or ask other people to join here, but considering this, this is the way you act: as if you are always right, even when you aren't. Also, this is not a fight, but you want it to be one. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you lying to my face? You need to understand that you are the one "edit-warring". You need to understand that you are the one that "wants to win". You need to understand that you are the one causing the drama and creating the battles here, that you're the one fronting this attitude, and you're not even saying much to do it! Most importantly of all, you need to answer some of my questions instead of dodging them all like they're somehow irrelevant; you need to stop ignoring the discussion if you're going to try and solve the problem.

Look, I'm trying to solve that problem, because it seems you won't; there doesn't appear to be a problem, to you, even though you've made it quite clear that there is. I have very clearly stated what I know about your points, even though some of them simply don't make any sense, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you do the same. Despatche (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To edit-war there are needed two people, is stupid to believe I am edit-warring with myself, so don't act as if you are the good one here, and blame me exclusively. Also, you are not "trying to solve that 'problem'", when you are calling me dirty rat and vandal, that won't solve anything (excepting that you are likely to be blocked), and BTW, your "castle", is not yours your highness. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so you're not going to be helpful, I get it already. Despatche (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., capitalization is not taken into account in standard character trademarks; the mark is granted for all styles of that combination of characters. The USPTO has granted PepsiCo a standard character mark for "PEPSI" (USPTO uses all caps for all standard character marks). PepsiCo can claim trademark rights on that combination of letters with any letters capitalized, in any typeface, any color, etc. — it still falls under their trademark. The trademarks linked to above are special forms, meaning they're considered a unique graphical design. The capitalization of the letters is considered part of the graphics, not part of the wording. Ibadibam (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't clear enough: I'm waiting for a reply. Stop dodging already and fight fair if you want to fight at all. Despatche (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to "fight" I don't, especially considering your editing pattern including you decided to violate the WP:3RR rule after a AN3 report. You never proved why it is "wrong", or cited any kind of policy or guideline that favors you, but demostrated the lack of cooperativism denoted a month ago with Unofficial. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't realize that neither of us (at Unofficial) knew the actual facts. You don't realize that that editor was very helpful, at least in the end. You don't realize that YOU'RE STILL DODGING THE DISCUSSION. Despatche (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Try, for example, http://www.pepsico.com/brands/Pepsi_Cola-Brands.html. This site carefully capitalizes Pepsi in the text. Yet it is pepsi in the current (new) logo File:Pepsi logo 2008.svg, and PEPSI in the previous logos File:Pepsi logo.svg and File:Pepsilogo.png. Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pepsi formerly used the stylizations "pepsi" and "PEPSI" in its logos. There is nothing to argue about here. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a lot to argue about here. Worse, stuff like this causes more problems if it just goes through, because we have to do consistency checks.

You can't just throw around what any old logo says without more information; we get our stylizations from actual print, what the company uses themselves on their websites, their products, etc. Again, should Columbia Pictures mention the fact that the company's (current) logo just has "COLUMBIA"? I get the feeling even they would laugh at you. And what about all those logos that are written in all caps or even small caps because it's a holy default? "PEPSI" might have a trademark filed for it, but "COLUMBIA PICTURES" does too.

I'm starting to wonder if you guys are actually clicking on the websites you're linking here. You say there's a trademark for "pepsi" in there, but all I see are trademarks for "PEPSI", even when the new "pepsi" logo pops up. You claim this PepsiCo brand page "carefully writes 'PEPSI'", but I don't see that anywhere (I do see "IZZE", however). Also, to build on the above, check out the "PEPSI TWIST" trademark; specifically, the logo.

You've got to be careful with this stuff. I don't know why you're ignoring the problem; it's definitely there, or I couldn't come up with paragraph upon paragraph about it. Gonna ignore all this too?

(Really appreciate everyone coming in after the "drama" happened, by the way. Yes, that's sarcasm. And yes, you're still misconstruing everything I've been saying so far, Tbhotch. But I'm going to put that behind me if you will.) Despatche (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image Donation

Hello!

My backyard used to be a dump back in the 60's, and during the landscaping that was done years ago, we've found some really classic things. However, recently with some landscaping done in another part of the yard, we've recovered a vintage Pepsi bottle.

I'm hereby offering these two images as an example of a Pepsi bottle. However, I'm not sure of the exact vintage. The logo on one side is the same one as the one made in the 1940's; however, the font and styling of "PEPSI" on the other side is from the 1961 logo. If you can figure out when it's from, I would greatly appreciate it. :)

On a side note, this bottle is from Canada, or at least, it is where it was dug up.

Enjoy! The Legacy (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we track logo-only stylizations?

Okay, I'm getting really frustrated over this, so I apologize in advance if any of this sounds rude.

I was always given the impression that we don't mention whatever the logo might imply if there's nothing similar in printed word. Examples: stuff like Columbia Pictures (where we would use "COLUMBIA" if this wasn't the case) and Universal Studios (where we would use "UNIVERSAL"), and Google products (most of them are written like "Google <lowercase word>" in the logo, but never in print). But from what all of these editors above tell me, that shouldn't be the case, or at least not for Pepsi... which is where the consistency check has to come in anyway. I brought up Image Fight and XMultiply as unusual cases due to the way English/Latin-based titles tend to be formatted in Japan (all caps; it's actually harder to fight for what the localization of Image Fight supports, sadistically enough).

So what exactly is it, really? I hope everyone doesn't just ignore this, too... Despatche (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in the MOS on the subject. Per MOS:LEADALT, the first sentence can contain alternative spellings and historical forms, insofar as there is still a balance between providing information and keeping the article readable. Whether "alternative spellings" may be construed to mean "alternative capitalizations" is another matter, and I'd suggest these questions be taken case by case.

For "Pepsi", I'd suggest that the alternative forms "pepsi" and "PEPSI" are not significantly different to the primary, so they don't really give the reader any useful information and could probably be removed to make the sentence more readable. The fact that these forms only seem to exist in the logo, and not actually in any actual text, further makes their inclusion dubious.

Which comes around to your original question: I'd say that a logo is not text. It may use text, but the way in which it uses it is not necessarily the name of the product, organization or company. We don't have to say "IBM (also stylized as IBM)" just because that's what the logo says. The alternative forms given in an article's lead are there to tell the user that the subject may go by a different name in the text of other articles or sources, not to cover as thoroughly as possible the graphical variations used by some company's marketing department. Ibadibam (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand "PEPSI" was used in print by them before the new "pepsi" logo was unveiled; could be wrong, I don't know. But yeah, how far would we go with logo stylizations? Do we start grabbing color and font, and even letter placement? That's what really bothered me.

I'm not sure I like the "some company's marketing department" argument, though. Their name and branding and whatever (at least if they're being consistent, which is important) is far more important and deserves much higher respect than whatever so-called "reputable sources" carve up. Facts will always trump "convenience", especially when that convenience lets a few lies slip through. Despatche (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Where was it used in print, though? I've been looking through old ads and in every decade it looks like "Pepsi" is the only form used. Ibadibam (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm removing the relevant text from this article to restart this discussion. To restate and clarify my position from the above comments and the previous section:

Capitalization is not an inherent part of a proper name. Per U.S. copyright law, stylization of text is a graphical element that is part of a logo, not part of the name itself.
For usage within articles, the MOS dictates that proper names written in all caps be reduced to title case. This is also explicitly stated for trademarks.
Variations in capitalization are not alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, or significant names in other languages, and do not provide significant enough information to the reader that they outweigh the need to maintain readability.
Any stylized elements of a trademark (including color, typeface, capitalization, etc.) are properly represented in graphical logos included as images in article infoboxes, and don't need to be simulated in the article's lead paragraph.

Based on the above points, I'm proposing the removal the all-caps boldsyn in this article. This should also apply to articles like Vevo, Wired (magazine) and MSNBC, and following further discussion here, I intend to propose it for inclusion in the MOS. Ibadibam (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're going a bit far. If the company themselves use it, it's fine. If it's a logo-only thing and the company refuses to use it ("pepsi"), we should probably ignore it. It's generally accepted to at least mention flourish once, in the lede, if it's actually used. So here, using "PEPSI" is OK, because as far as I know it's what Pepsi used to use; if I'm wrong, please correct. Despatche (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

1) Could you provide a source for "PEPSI" being used in print? I haven't been able to find it written that way in anything I've seen. 2) What is the purpose of MOS:BOLDSYN? I always assumed it was to present the reader with other names for a topic, so that they can recognize that "Mother Teresa" and "Anjezë Bojaxhiu" refer to the same subject. Is there a danger that the reader will think "PEPSI", "pepsi" and "Pepsi" are all different things? Ibadibam (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem, I can't find one! I seem to remember it being the case though. Might be on an old website or something and thus in print at the time. BOLDSYN is mostly for subjects with different alternate names, like localized video games or some animals. Cases like Pepsi here are a little different, but BOLDSYN is still valid. However, even if there was an earlier use of "PEPSI", you might be able to make a case that we should put it in, say, the trademark section, since it's no longer in use. That's a pure judgement call though, I think. (edit: Oh wow I completely missed your initial followup I'm so sorry) Despatche (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To reply to Ibadibam, point-by-point:

1. No one is saying that "pepsi" is part of the name or not part of the logo. The "pepsi" is (or, I guess for now, was) in the article to show that it was sometimes depicted in that manner. An irrelevant and invalid argument.

2. With the alternate titles the article would still be following MOS:ALLCAPS. Alternate depictions of the name "Pepsi" being listed are not in violation of this rule, the rest of the article still refers to the product as "Pepsi", and it does. Thus, this is another irrelevant argument.

3. I don't see a conflict with MOS:LEADALT. The examples you list are not the complete list of what qualifies as an alternative name, and different capitalization in a title most certainly counts. Significance of the alternatives probably your strongest argument, but I will address that in my next point ...

4. ~~... Which will be very short. See WP:LOGO#Accessibility.~~ On second thought, not the best example. But it is marginally related to the discussion at hand, if you're curious.

A large part of your argument seems based on the fact that no one prints "PEPSI" or "pepsi" and that the name is and always will be "Pepsi", which is true, but that argument misses the point on including alternate depictions of titles/logos. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "logo text" does not need to appear in writing to be magically granted validity. The use within the logo suffices. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Responding, preserving your numbering:

The word "Pepsi" is never depicted as "pepsi"; it is depicted in a specific style that includes lowercase. For example, this trademark "...consists of the word 'PEPSI' in a stylized format." The letter case only applies when a specific typeface, font, kerning and numerous other elements are also applied. Without that overall stylization, as you can see from the description, the word is just PEPSI: five characters that, from a legal perspective, don't have case. The trademark doesn't protect "PEPSI" depicted in any lowercase style, just this specific one that includes the other elements. On the other hand, the standard character mark ("PEPSI") only consists of the letters and no case. Of course, we can say that that's merely law, and our goal as editors isn't to follow laws but to convey information. But I think it's telling that copyright law treats letters as letters, regardless of case. "A" and "a" are just different forms of the same letter and are otherwise equal. That principle can serve us well when we're trying to understand what something is named.
You're right. MOS:ALLCAPS doesn't apply here. I was mistaken.
Why does different capitalization count as an alternative name? It still consists of the same combination of letters and is pronounced the same way. I genuinely don't see the reason it would be considered a different name.
The depiction of the logo is accomplished by an image of the logo and any verbal description of that logo per the accessibility guideline you linked. A plaintext simulation the logo — which is effectively what "pepsi" is — doesn't add anything to the article that the aforementioned image and content don't already. Ibadibam (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ibadibam (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The logo consists of "PEPSI" in the stylized format, yes, and that stylized format uses lowercase lettering. That should be clear. We aren't talking about "from a legal perspective", you look at the logo and you see "pepsi" in lowercase. Copyright law principles are totally irrelevant.

3. Not quite a different name but a different depiction of the name worth noting.

4. It lets people know that alternative textual depictions exist. Yes, logos are "graphics incorporating text", but it makes no difference. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

But that's just it: the logo isn't a textual depiction; it's a graphical one, which only occurs in the logo. And the logo is right there on the page, so we've already let the reader know that the depiction exists. Adding "sometimes written pepsi" to the lead seems like a solution to a nonexistent problem. Ibadibam (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It includes text. Are we really going to argue whether that lowercase "p" is a "graphic" or "text"? Also, it doesn't hurt to acknowledge alternate stylings in the lead just in case the logo is not clear enough for readers. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the guidelines make it quite clear that it does hurt, because readability suffers when superfluous information bloats the lead. I still don't understand what information you believe the now-restored content is really conveying to the reader. Ibadibam (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead makes it quite clear what the "main" way of depicting the names of these things is supposed to be, with the stylings mentioned in an off-hand way. Readability should not suffer because of this.

And I don't see why I have to repeat once again why I think it should stay, however small the benefit I believe it to have is. If such info is superfluous because there's already a picture of a logo then why introduce the article as "Pepsi" if people can look at the picture and know that it's Pepsi? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pepsiman running game

I am rather positive that my newest phrasing of the debated sentence was, in fact, entirely confirmed by the reference links provided. Pepsiman is strictly a non-stop running game (see specific description of the genre, first paragraph of the section), its gameplay description in the links very much confirms so when you just sum up both reviews (not exactly OR, is it?), and "early example" simply states the –neutral– fact that such a game existed earlier, without claiming it to have inspired the random-endless-level ones that followed, or been copied by them. Though, in reality, Subway Surfers is virtually a Pepsiman clone, except that the latter's poor ratings and very limited popularity resulted in an unfortunate absence of official documentation, outside the selective club of the gamers having played both.^[1]
Even though it is a primary source, the YouTube gameplay video makes the stunning similarity with Subway Surfers more than self-evident enough to establish its status as (just) an early example of the genre beyond the bias of interpretation. So, since Wikipedia is about things proven, not "simply the truth", I just state here what is strictly established and referenced, and which I believe is far beyond POV or OR.
Allow me to make a comparison: Mount Fujiyama is "very famous, since, like, forever", for being a nigh-perfectly symmetrical cone. What would be a proper source to "de-OR" this? The testimony of someone with official scenery expertise? Or a series of photos from different angles that would all show an identical silhouette? Methinks here I have provided the likes of both. If need be, I can add an equivalent video of Subway Surfers that would immediately show how quasi-identical they are. How strictly do we need to enforce the rules, when we know there's really no doubt? Issar El-Aksab (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I could look at your sources and reach an entirely different conclusion: Pepsiman is not an endless running game, because it has predefined levels of a limited size. It has similar gameplay mechanics to Subway Surfers, but fundamentally different structure. (I happen instead to agree with you that Pepsiman is a precursor, but our two opinions don't mean that someone else won't view it differently.) This is the point of the No original research guideline: to limit the content of Wikipedia to independently verifiable information, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions, rather than make those conclusions for them. If it doesn't say it in the source, then it's original research. None of the sources say that this game was a precursor to endless running games, or an influence on them, or anything of the sort, so it doesn't go in the article.

In all seriousness, if you've stumbled upon an important piece of video game history, I think you should contact a video game journalist and get them to write about it, or try to publish an article yourself. There are appropriate channels to bring this information to the world, but Wikipedia isn't it.

I can't speak cogently to your Mt. Fuji example, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to judge the content you've highlighted, but it looks to me like the sentence on the symmetry is unsourced and should be challenged. Ibadibam (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Careful there, pilgrim. Don't ever utter such doubts publicly in Japan, lest you might get lynched. The magnificent symmetry of the proud and holy Fujiyama is about as old and official as the cedars of Lebanon. Sung by poets and painted by artists for centuries. Just... stay safe, okay? ;-)

As for Pepsiman, if you tend to agree with me, couldn't we just plead consensus? Pretty please?

Kidding. More seriously, and in a nutshell: I'm working on it. Don't know any journalists yet, but I've got a precious lead. Might be a scoop of Wikipedia quality very soon. Though I'm admittedly a bit distressed about the severity of the OR criteria. Sometimes, it's like I couldn't myself write that two words rhyme, unless an English poetry Professor says they constitute a rhyme. Ah well. More on this when I get some results. Until then, statu quo for the articles is OK with me. Anyway, it's still too early for an Oktobickerfest, ja?

Issar El-Aksab (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure, two words don't necessarily rhyme. Marlowe wrote, Come live with me, and be my love, / And we will all the pleasures prove, which doesn't rhyme in the English I speak, but sure does/did in others. I might also say that "cider" and "writer" rhyme, which is true in my Western U.S. dialect but not in central Canada. Assuming that the rhyming of two words is mere common knowledge is biased and, as you guessed, original research that would diminish the neutrality of an article. Ibadibam (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh... I bet you didn't even mean it, but you sure put me back to my place with your precisions on rhymes! Didn't exactly realize how hastily they could be assumed. I've learned something today. :-)

"No matter how old or experienced you become, you'll always be someone's student." – (Chinese wisdom) Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Health concerns?

So, whatever happened with the whole "health concern" issue? I see that the section is still not on the page, but only other questions as to why, and not any answers. Thoughts? DarkOppressor (talk) 17:29, December 12 2008 (UTC)

According to the NYT, PepsiCo took it out. [Last year, someone at PepsiCo deleted several paragraphs of the Pepsi entry that focused on its detrimental health effects. ]
Ulmanor (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pepsi man

The Pepsi man video game for the playstation should have its own wikipedia article with more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.177.162 (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done I don't think here is the right place to suggest the Pepsi Man video game have its own article. You may create your own article by testing it in your sandbox (saying if you have one). If you would like to create an article, you may start by creating an account. See WP:ACCOUNT. After you have created an account, you may create and experiment an article that you created in you sandbox. You can also try the Article Wizard which would help you create an article. Thanks and happy editing. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 01:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Logo History/Edit Request 1/30/14

Although a few of Pespi's logos are already on the article, there are several other images of the other Pespi logos that are missing from the page.

These logos can be found on Logopedia and other sites showing Pepsi's logo history. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

1st logo:Pepsi's first logo (not counting the Brad's Drink logo) was used from when Brad's Drink was renamed Pepsi-Cola in 1903 until 1905. Although this logo is already on the page, I still wanted to talk about it.

2nd logo:Pepsi-Cola's second logo was used for only one year from 1905 to 1906. This logo was a more neat version of the 1903 logo.

3rd logo:This Pepsi-Cola logo was used from 1906 to 1940 and was the longest used Pepsi logo. This logo was tilted to the right, had a fancy look to it, and had the word "drink" in the C.

4th logo:In 1940, Pepsi-Cola got another new logo. This logo didn't look as fancy as the previous logo and it was used on Pepsi Throwback in 2009. Although this logo is already on the page, I still wanted to talk about it.

5th logo:In 1950, the 1940 logo was put inside of a red, white, and blue bottle cap design and the logo now faced the left. This logo was used until 1961 or 1962 and was the last logo to say "Pepsi-Cola".

6th logo:In 1961 or 1962, Pepsi-Cola was shortened to just "Pepsi". This logo had black lettering on the red, white, and blue bottle cap design that now faced the front rather than facing left or right.

7th logo:The 1973 to 1991 logo is already on the page, but this logo had a slight redisign in 1987. The redisigned logo had different texting that would be similar to the next three logos.

8th logo:In September 1991, the Pepsi logo was redisigned once again. The texing was put outside of the red and blue swirls, both moved inwards closer to the white colored swirl to make the famous "Pepsi Globe". There was also a red streaking rectangle put to the left of the logo.

9th logo:In 1998, the globe from the 1991 logo was put on a dark blue backround and the texting was on top of the logo on bottles and to the left on the cans. This logo was used until 2003 when it was monified to be 3D except on some flavors.

10 logo:Already on the page.
If anybody sees this comment, please answer my request! --24.147.1.197 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Remark: Why not create an account so you can edit yourself? Feedback required Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 01:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pepsi Throwback is now Pepsi

Pepsi Throwback has become the new Pepsi. The wordmark for Pepsi is now the old cursive script. AmericanLeMans (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

the Marketing: Wining a car contest

In 2002 at Novosibirsk "Pepsi" created a contest to win a car, by choosing the right key for the car for those who bought a bottle of Pepsi. But when a man was able to open a car he was sued by "Pepsi" as there was no right key, so it should have been impossible to win^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.23.54 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

This edit request to Pepsi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2015 Other Colas #2 Pepsi still my #1 (Luke Rosin) 121.208.114.78 (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ADD NEW SECTION !

Should add the new section of what are the dangers of having pepsi *→ and a Label showing all the fats, sugars etc in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvipman6 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Pepsi. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Owed not to sell Pepsi

Traders Union's 15 lakh members across Tamil Nadu, an Indian state decided not to sell Pepsi and its products from March 1, 2017 as it exploits the state's water bodies while farmers facing severe drought^[3]^[4]. - Saba rathnam (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Pepsin

This article claims that Pepsi got it's name from pepsin. It uses the Pepsi Store website as a reference. That reference (and many others, including Pepsi's website) refute that claim and state very clearly, "Despite its name and hearsay, pepsin was never an ingredient of Pepsi-Cola." Looking at the wayback machine, I can see that this article had the claim inserted that Pepsi's name came from Pepsin. Then, that claim appeared on other trivia websites, then it appeared on the Pepsi Store website before being quickly removed and replaced with the statement that Pepsi did not come from Pepsin. Yet, this article still makes the apparently false claim that Pepsi originally contained pepsin and, therefore, was named Pepsi. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I corrected it. Dlthewave (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Live for Now (Pepsi)

Page watcher are invited to help expand the newly created Live for Now (Pepsi) article about the controversial Pepsi ad. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Accusatory Implications

"Many Israelis and some American Jewish organizations attributed Pepsi's previous reluctance to do battle to the Arab boycott. Pepsi, which has a large and lucrative business in the Arab world, denied that, saying that economic, rather than political, reasons kept it out of Israel." The section part of this reads as if Pepsi's denial is not true due to the business in the Arab world. My suggested rewrite is to just change a small portion around. "Many Israelis and some American Jewish organizations attributed Pepsi's previous reluctance to do battle to the Arab boycott, given it has a large and lucrative business in the Arab world. Pepsi denied this interpretation, saying that economic, rather than political, reasons kept it out of Israel." I personally don't know anything about the circumstances behind this, but this will hopefully make it a bit more neutral. 50.45.196.14 (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that your wording is more neutral. I think it would be an improvement. Deli nk (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well. The current wording was taken from the source verbatim http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-05-19/news/9202140910_1_arab-markets-pepsi-generation-arab-boycott. "Reluctance to do battle" should be replaced with something more encyclopedic. Dlthewave (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pepsi. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.google.com.lb/search?q=Pepsiman+%22Subway+Surfers%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=2RA5Uq_XJpDI0AWu_YG4DA

[2] ttp://www.sostav.ru/sotka/news/2002/07/17/r6/

[3] ttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/food/tamil-nadu-traders-to-boycott-coca-cola-pepsico-products-from-march-1/articleshow/56799928.cms

[4] ttp://www.timesnow.tv/india/video/no-coke-pepsi-in-tamil-nadu-from-march-1/54780

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]