This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofNew York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
I removed the biased reference, now showing that PepsiCo started a collaboration with Senomyx. The middle of the section the reference is not bias, it is showing that groups did boycott, and that PepsiCo responded but, less on the response more on that groups did call for a boycott. Also the section doesn't take a stance on the moral or ethical implications of this. Though this section and the following might be better in a new heading like on subways page titled "Controversies." Navstev0 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your claims, the section is biased. The addition has absolutely no reference to a single reliable source. Further, the mention of the boycott still requires a reason why the boycott was raised in the first place, which is circular because there still needs to be mention of the original biased allegations to support the boycott. --Jeremy(blah blah • I did it!)08:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so your telling me that a PepsiCo press release is bias? Then please tell me what is unbiased in historical research? "reliable source" Also please tell me what sources are reliable. Because the sources I had were so. The section was flagged for neutrality, removal without resolutions was unwarranted and argumentative. Support the boycott came from pro-life groups, you can't call it biased if they are the ones reporting there own boycott. I am putting it back until you can tell me why my sources are unreliable, each one please. Navstev0 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a normal editor of this page, but do believe Wikipedia can be a great place. But hiding facts for corporations shouldn't be the goal. I see plenty of other pages that on Wikipedia that state these controversial facts. Why should PepsiCo be any different? 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done:Sorry for the really long paragraph but I can't figure out how to separate them and yet appear as one response. Part of the flaw of this section is the fundamental issue: the accusation of using embryonic cells in research. Any use of embryonic cells is an extraordinarily contentious issue, so the very mention of it should raise red flags about possible neutrality problems. But that in itself shouldn’t necessarily be grounds for removing the whole section. However, this section references a source from LifeNews.com, which positions itself on the far side of the pro-life debate. That is another red flag for neutrality problems. The article used in the reference also strikes a polarized tone with language like “cells from babies victimized by abortions”. Again, not neutral. The bulk of the section also seems poorly written, as if PepsiCo themselves are accused of doing the contentious research. Who can re-write this with a neutral tone, because at this time it doesn’t have one. Also, to the user “Navstev0”: you’re not helping your case. When other editors have removed this section, you’ve been one of the people that has been restoring it. My problem with that is the comment you used earlier today: “Dang wiki nazi.” You’re not helping your neutrality argument when you call someone a Nazi. --MikeUMA (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the commit stated “Dang wiki nazi.” My stance on the comment was that my section was removed even though it was stated that there was a talk, and the user didn't participate in the talk other then telling me that I was biased with no direction as to what gave those conclusions. I see your point, on the tone from the reference to the LifeNews article, I will attempt to rewrite the section from a more neutral stance. Navstev0 (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the entire middle portion to be more neutral, and changed the reference to only show that there was a boycott issued, as any further information was considered to have a polarized tone. Navstev0 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for removing this material repeatedly even though it was added in good faith. I don't think it was suitable in that form and with that sourcing for an article like this. I wouldn't rule out including a mention of this if it can be better sourced and a form of words agreed here though. --John (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, I copied the following sentence: "PepsiCo also distributes the soft drink 7UP in Europe via license agreement."
The above statement about distribution is news to me because I live in the UK, where Pepsi and Mountain Dew are distributed under licence by Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd., making it more than likely that they're sub-licenced to distribute 7UP as well.
Sheogorath 178.99.200.63 (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be it pharma, soft drinks, fmcg, tobacco, consumer electronics or anything: these multinational companies are a set of thieves and plunderers. They plunder people's money, health, peace-of-mind, and keep innocent people in illusion that life is beautiful, and is a cozy bed of roses. Rascals number one! -59.95.15.213 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the Soviet Union relies on a single secondary source. Here are some contemporary news articles which can be used to improve the accuracy and citations for the section:
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove environmental criticisms from summary and add to criticisms or environmental impact section. If that's not possible, add environmental criticisms to Nestle and Coca Cola summaries as there are plenty of scholarly sources to cite for those two as well. Blacktwolf (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The lead is a summary of the article, which has an Environmental record section, so it should be represented in the lead. This talk page is not the place to request edits to other pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Two grammatical corrections:
(1) Location: 2nd paragraph of article; first word of 2nd sentence: Change Pepsico to PepsiCo with a capital "C".
(2) Location: 2nd paragraph of article; 3rd sentence: Change "market capitalization; PepsiCo is..." to "capitalization, PepsiCo..." with a comma instead of a semi-colon. Goman1 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@173.54.54.157 PepsiCo is not the UN, so they may define "country" differently. I, for once, certainly recognize some countries they don't and don't recognize some countries they do. However, this is not the place for that discussion. Deluzejaylewis (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this is likely the PepsiCo website, which refers to "more than 200 countries and territories around the world" - this is inaccurately paraphrased as "more than 200 countries".
We have a large article on criticism of Coca-Cola but this article on PepsiCo didn't even have a criticism section. I notice some of the criticism is present in other sections (about environment or nutrition). I do wonder if we don't have a PR shill problem (is there someone on PepsiCo's payroll removing negative content from this article...?). We certainly do need an article on criticism of PepsiCo. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The line, "PepsiCo re-negotiated a US$3 billion deal to exchange syrup for vodka and a small fleet of decommissioned Soviet warships including 17 submarines, a frigate, a cruiser and a destroyer," doesn't seem right. From several sources, including some of the ones cited here, it seems that the $3 billion deal in 1990 was something else entirely or that the flotilla was only a small part of the deal, so there seems to be a conflating of events. Here's another article about it. There seems to be so much misinformation about this that it's difficult to tell what's true and isn't. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SonOfPlisskin Done, I think. As you said, there is so much misinformation on this dead that seems to be based on (formerly) reliable sources reporting on facts presented in YouTube videos without further fact checking. As far as I can tell, the 20 ships were part of a 1989 deal that also included two much more valuable (and operating) oil tankers, while the $3 billion deal was for 85 ships over 10 years. I updated the article the best I could. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PEPSICO Under the 'Soviet' section, Nixon is listed as PRESIDENT in 1959. Nixon was VICE PRESIDENT in 1959 and did not become PRESIDENT until 1968. 72.66.32.192 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the Soviet Union section of the page on the very last line it claims that the deal for the old navy vessels did not take place, however both links that are listed as sources (57, 58) say that the deal DID go through. This seems to be a contradiction. Wyattshumaker (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The deal that included "decommissioned Soviet warships including 17 submarines, a frigate, a cruiser and a destroyer" is the one that fell through. The renegotiated deal included a fleet of obsolete and decrepit Whiskey-class Soviet submarines, already planned to be scrapped by the Soviets, which were sent directly to a Norwegian scrapyard. The article is correct and supported by its sources as written. General IzationTalk 03:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PineconePicker777 (article contribs).
Among the products it produces I saw no mention of Quaker Oats Oatmeal Squares. Do they only produce the mentioned Cap'n Crunch and Life cereals? There is also a snack mix that Quaker makes that includes the Oatmeal Squares product. I get that this could be a Frito Lay product, but is it produced by QF NA also? If not I can add in the above mentioned product. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]