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 |
I am not living in the USA, so I don't know how it is over there, but ... I searched for Soda Club (since they use this name in the UK and Germany) and was redirected to Sodastream. But judging by the article, the main company is Soda Club, and Sodastream is just a small part of it, right ? If you go to the Sodaclub/Sodastream HP, after the country selection, you only see the Soda Club Logo. So I think redirecting Soda Club to this Sodastream article is wrong (however: maybe I missed it, but I think there is no Soda Club article) -- 87.177.252.198 ( talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention of Kenwood? That was always written on the machines when I was a child, and my parents even referred to the drink as "a Kenwood". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.199 ( talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
When reverting some of the extra links added recently I noticed that a bit had been added in the mean time about a import duty issue related to a Soda-club factory in Maale Adumim in the West Bank. While unsure of whether or not it should be included, I did find at least a usable source on the issue EU Eyes Exports from Israeli Settlements. PaleAqua ( talk) 02:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] The category is therefor correct and needs to be in the article: [2] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 12:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No, in fact I do not understand what you mean by politically motivated. I am motivated by the material available in RS. The ECJ ruling is one such high quality RS which quite clearly makes a serious distinction. Library of Congress research publishings go further and consider the attempted annexation to be in violation of the Geneva convention and scholars have argued that economic use of land to be a war crime. This is not political, it is verifiable information available in RS and it is unfortunate that our articles evidently do not make it clear enough. Unomi ( talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by politically motivated, but I fear that it skirts the edge of a personal attack so I would like to ask you to refrain from using thought terminating cliches such as this seems to be. Unomi ( talk) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, your concern is not impartial in nature either.
First of all, the cat is legitimate. It doesn't matter what the intentions behind creating the cat are.
Is this company in the West Bank? Are there others like it? There is an entire boycott movement against these companies because they operate in Palestinian land, occupied by Israel.
People should be discussing the validity of the cat and not whether so and so is pro or anti- whatever. If that is the case, you might as well revise EVERY SINGLE political topic on Wikipedia.
Even the term 'anti-Israel' is loaded.
Is there any actual opposition to the cat, that pertains to the ACTUAL idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 07:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea who you are describing, but it is not me. Unomi ( talk) 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't there a category for these kinds of companies?
It does not matter whether you are pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel or pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian.
The FACTS are important. Does this company operate in the West Bank or not?
Are there more Israeli companies that operate in the West Bank or not?
Is that not a LEGITIMATE category to make then? There is an entire boycott movement that is targeting companies such as this precisely because they operate in occupied territory.
The only POV in the discussion is from the apparently pro-Israel commentators who do not want to classify Sodastream et al. as operating in the West Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 07:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This is POV. No one arranges a sentence in this manner. This is a passive-aggressive attempt at inserting a particular pro-Israel POV.
If it is not widely thought to be Israeli territory, then who is the minority that DOES assume it to be Israeli territory and why are we mentioning them in the context of international law and other rulings by international bodies of law?
I changed the sentence to 'the West Bank, which is under Israeli military occupation'. That is a fact. There is no wiggle room, for a pro-Israel POV which was the case of the original line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 07:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I know it's a politically loaded debate, but I do think it's important that we mention that the majority of the product is produced in a West Bank settlement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.28.213 ( talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool, that's all i needed to know - thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.28.213 ( talk) 01:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, apparently, there is a gentlemen who goes by BioSketch who keeps reverting the edits that we're making! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.15.209 ( talk) 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Soda Stream ad.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 June 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Soda Stream ad.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Functionally, the Sodastream has much in common with the soda syphon. It would be an oversimplification to say that Sodastream is a brand of syphon, because, in a Sodastream, the water container is separate from the apparatus that opens the carbon-dioxide cartridge and controls the release of its gas. But a reference to this long-familiar device could greatly simplify the lede, which currently has a long and florid description of the widely-understood principle of carbonation. (It talks about letting user "take ordinary tap water and carbonate it to create soda water (or carbonated water) to drink", and says that, when other ingredients are added, the resulting beverages "are similar to the most popular brands of soda and energy drinks".)
A lot of the advertising-speak about "ordinary tap water" should go, and the connection to the soda syphon should be noted. Does anybody disagree? If not, I plan to make that edit, eventually. TypoBoy ( talk) 13:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
"A similar ad was expected to air during Super Bowl XLVII in February 2013 prior to being banned by CBS for jabbing at Coke and Pepsi (two of CBS's largest sponsors)."
I just saw the commercial with the exploding bottles during the Super Bowl. I know that's anecdotal, maybe the add was a little bit changed, but an ad with exploding bottles was on the Super Bowl. Rhollis7 ( talk) 03:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but their website was down due to the traffic after the commercial aired. They posted a video on their website that shows the original commercial they couldn't air. Rhollis7 ( talk) 03:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
i use this and i think we should list the flavors. it might help. Computeruser345 ( talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the content sourced from the Daily Kos blog. It has been restored. This article is covered by WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. As Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded says "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." (my bolding) Daily Kos does not meet those requirements as far as I'm concerned and the content should be removed. If this material is notable it will be easy to find it in a reliable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the following paragraph:
Some Palestinian employees interviewed by The Christian Science Monitor have supported Johansson's stance and opposed a boycott of Sodastream. They stated that a boycott would only hurt them, according to The Christian Science Monitor their position has underscored Israeli claims that a boycott would be counterproductive and undermine the cooperation and prosperity that could boost peace prospects in the Middle East. However, the same Christian Science Monitor article points out that Palestinians in the West Bank are cut off from work opportunities in Jerusalem by the concrete Israeli separation wall - the Israeli West Bank barrier. One Palestinian employee said he felt ashamed to work for Sodastream and felt like a "slave" working on the assembly line for twelve hours a day.[103] Another Palestinian employee in the West Bank plant recounted that there was a lot of racism at the factory and that, "Most of the managers are Israeli, and West Bank employees feel they can't ask for pay rises or more benefits because they can be fired and easily replaced,
I'd appreciate your thoughts. GabrielF ( talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
<- More sources would help to keep things balanced, but I wouldn't worry about it for now. The topic is in the news so there will be edits that violate WP:NOTADVOCATE, they'll be edits by sockpuppets/IPs of topic banned/blocked users, edit warring, all the usual nonsense that disrupts WP:ARBPIA articles. It will pass and normal service can resume. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. We do not ignore reliable sources because you, I, or any one editor does not like its content. -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC) And more sources: 'We need 1,000 SodaStreams around here'; What SodaStream's Palestinian Employees Think About Scarlett Johansson; and SodaStream Boss Admits West Bank Plant Is 'a Pain' — Praises Scarlett Johansson. -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR states that: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"
Dumping material into the article using sources that have no relation to the topic of the article like this is not acceptable. Dlv999 ( talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Dlv999, please explain your major removal of content [8]. The edit summaries are specific enough to address, especially such as in the case of this [9] or this [10], for which your edit summary seems inadequate. So either you are lazy and disruptive, or POV pushing. Please explain each or revert.
Also speaking of "Dumping material into the article using sources that have no relation to the topic of the article like", the topic of the article is SodaStream, not Israel, not Ma'ale Adumim nor Israeli occupation. So for example when the first paragraph specifies that the factory is located in "Mishor Adumim industrial zone, located inside Ma'ale Adumim". There is no reason to specify it again in the second paragraph.
The controversy should be stated once and those who supported i.e. according to B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch etc the issue of location. While adding assertion in quotes conerning Israel policy such as "Israeli system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank" is blunt POV.
Same goes for this [11] the Nytimes BLOG, doesn't mention the benefit or "jobs provided by the factories", it mentions the opponents of settlement trade, like Oxfam, and repeat the exact same thin as in Oxfam statement above, there is no reason to keep it, other than POV pushing in every paragraph in Q&A manner, which this is not.-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 12:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
For example this edit #1 and this edit #2 which K7 has reverted without any edit summary [12]. This behavior is disruptive and unless explained will be reported.(Also this edit by Sepsis II [13] is a good start.)-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 06:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This article was recently moved to SodaStream from Sodastream. The use of both forms of the name occur in the article, and sources. The company websites have the name as "SodaStream", "sodastream", and occasionally "Soda Stream". For reference Google ngram viewer only shows results for Sodastream, not SodaStream or sodastream. We should probably adjust the article to be consistent with the possible of mentioning of the alternate styles in the intro. Based on Wikipedia:Article titles#Standard English and trademarks, I believe the article should be moved back to Sodastream. PaleAqua ( talk) 09:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipikidea is not a Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. ThiS article is not about Israel, occupation or anything other than SodaStream and the location of its facility and the controversy surrounding its location in Israeli settlement in occupied Westbank. As such this:
Should be reduced to something like that:
and further condensed(and copy edited) with United Church of Canada saying that "Sodastream's products manufactured in the occupied West Bank".-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
All I see are childish attempts at ad-homenem and goading. Formalizing your assertions as policy and strawgrasping. Fact stands that this section is about the controversy of SodaStream facility location within Israeli settlement, when you include off-topic views concerning Israel "system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement" which can not and should not be addressed here, instead of relevant article which covers all relevant views on Israel practice in the campaign against Israel, or the Palestinian-ISrali conflict articles you violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX as a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing that campaign here. Grasping at straws asserting that you just trying to representing all views in WP:RS or saying what a great source HRW is, doesn't change any of that.-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 08:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox is a guideline for editors and not sources. This is not advocating Human Rights Watch but mentioning their view. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
In terms of due weight, the current section takes up about 1/5 to 1/6 of the article space. Looking at the google news returns for the search term "sodastream" going back to 1998, [16] the majority of the coverage the topic has received in RS relates to the location of the firms production facility in a West Bank settlement and the issues surrounding that. Our WP:NPOV policy states that we should weight articles according to proportional coverage in RS. In light of this it is appropriate that the "Palestinian Controversy" is given significant weight in the article. Going through the section deleting sourced material all from one side of the debate is not legitimate way to trim the section. In any case first a source evidence/policy based case needs to be made that the section needs trimming. Dlv999 ( talk) 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is when the sources says the same things and or when you are soapboaxing.-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have started reducing some of the melodrama in the section on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interested editors are invited to contribute further. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Details on the mutual allegations in the Arab-Israeli conflict should be detailed in an appropriate page directly dedicated to that conflict, not here. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that User:Dlv999 is part of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias but in this context, his unbalanced edits at this page create a comic effect. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
to
The old title referred only to the Palestinians and was unbalanced. The new title have been argued not to reflect the contents of the subsection. This issue could be discussed in this entry. Tkuvho ( talk) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a Palestine Controversy. There's just no reason to title it anything other than controversy. If another controversy arises it can be put in this same section instead of creating another controversy section. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
An earlier version of the article contained a claim that "the international community" regards settlements as illegal. I have two objections to this:
(1) the article is not primarily about the status of the settlements. These issues have been covered fully elsewhere on wiki and need not be recycled here.
(2) there are in fact sources (mentioned in particular at other wiki pages) mentioning legal scholars that dispute the claim of illegality. Therefore arguably we should not include such blanket statements here.
Then User:Dlv999 pointed out that the sources I mentioned do not deal directly with SodaStream and therefore cannot be used in this page. In other words, he claims that only an RS dealing specifically with SodaStream can be relied upon to challenge the blanket statement that "the" international community (implying a wall-to-wall consensus) subscribes to the illegality view. Such restrictions seem like nitpicking to me but I would like to hear what other editors have to say on this issue. Tkuvho ( talk) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Not really, Sepsis, just check this link out for lots of uses of disputed territories in Wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+%22disputed+territories%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Ubie the guru ( talk) 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The legality of the settlements is clearly a central part of the controversy. It is cited by Oxfam and pro-Palestinian supporters as the reason for their opposition to the Sodastream factory being located in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
I am going to compile a source summary of how the legality issue is covered by RS directly related to the topic of this article. Please feel free to add sources directly related to the topic that I may have missed:-
Editors need to put aside their own personal beliefs and biases and come up with a text that is consistent with what has been written in RS directly related to the topic. Dlv999 ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Jewish American actress Scarlett Johansson in the introduction, then later American Jewish actress Scarlett Johansson in the body. I can not find a source for this ethnic labeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobgoblin Spock ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No one is going to connect any dots with a widely disregarded theory and walk away with context. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does it belong in this article? At the very least it's grossly undue. Why is she mentioned in the lede at all? Let's remember this is an article about a company and we should be writing the article from the perspective of the entire history of the company rather than that of some recent controversy. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The location of the Sodastream factory is routinely described as being in the "occupied West Bank" by balanced WP:RS that cover the topic. Our text should reflect how the topic is covered in RS. See e.g BBC, the New York Times, Rueters, Haaretz, the Telegraph, The Guardian, Business Week, Al Jazeera, the Forward Channel4 News, The Hindu, Sky News, the Scotsman, The Age, The National. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Arutz Sheva, the settler news agency, has published a report insinuating that Oxfam's position is something to do with donations it has received from Coca Cola. This kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim against a third party would need "multiple high-quality sources". I don't see any evidence that these claims have been reported by any high-quality sources. If those sources can be produced then the claim can be included, if not it must be removed ASAP. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The recent revision to the text is problematic for the following reasons.
WP:CLAIM it is not enough to post this and have it be your argument. That Manual of Style is very specific. At no point does it say to not use the word claim. It says that care must be taken when using words such as claim. With claim it says it can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Only when the word claim does exactly that has it effected neutrality.The word claim does not do that here.
Did she resign in protest? Let's leave that up to the reliable sources. What we know is she quit Oxfam because she didn't agree with their position. Adding protest does introduce bias.
Serialjoepsycho (
talk)
21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Claimed is a neutral term. The only time that claimed is not a neutral term is when it calls does call someone a things credibility into question. There is no potential contradiction here to emphasize and there is no implication that they disregarded any evidence. Quit adding your systemic bias to the article. It doesn't hurt article but it is rather annoying. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added no loaded terms. I'm the one who simplified the controversy section to the title of "Controversy". You the one arbitrarily changing words regardless of whether they have an effect on the neutrality of the piece or not. I'm discussing changes to the content. You don't have a legitimate policy based objection. If you did it would be based off policy and not a an argument that these are load words. Claim can be neutral. It is only when it is not neutral is there an issue. You are arguing for a change because the word claim is used when no policy says not to use the word. That is annoying. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Nearly always as opposed to always, to change words that aren't always loaded. For the benefit of neutrality when you you don't actually question or discuss the neutrality of the usage of the terms. Perhaps the best way around this would to attribute changes to neutrality only when the changes actually relate to neutrality with that being the actual issue. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to the change. I object to the reason for such changes. "Neutral language" especially when the prior language was neutral. You can make the change. There's nothing wrong with the change. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 07:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is slowly starting to devolve into an edit war. Maybe we can work together to stop that. I think most everyone will say they are actively trying to improve the article. I see no reason to question anyone's sincerity. It seems we all have different approaches. Let's see if perhaps we can use them to better this article. Let's talk about it here. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Ronz and Sepsis II:Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. While they should be reported, perhaps just not yet. Maybe if we can not accuse anyone of being a part of a Pro-Israel Cabal, Pro-Palestinian Cabal, or anything else we can make some ground. Sepsis there is a means by which anyone who is doing anything other than trying to improve this article can be taken care of. As Ronz pointed WP:AE. There are other ways as well. I ask you sincerely and respectfully to assume good faith just for a moment. Let's just say clean slate. I think it's possible that everyone has the opportunity to offer something positive here. As I asked you here to this talk page Topic Sepsis I have also asked Tkuvho and Dlv999 here. Perhaps we can start from a clean slate. After which we can look into more extreme measures like Page protection or other actions. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Dlv999: I again completely disagree with your interpretation of WP:CLAIM. There is no prohibition on using that language. It tells to be careful with that language and it tells you when not to use that language. Besides that it is time to move on from being petty. Can you give these other few a clean slate so they can give you a clean state? Can you you try to work with them to better this article? Can we do this civilly as a group? Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 02:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Dlv999:They are petty because no policy says no to use the word claim or assert. It tells you how not to use claim or assert. Your argument has not been based on claim being used inappropriately but simply that it was used. There is no legitimate reason to restore the text prior to the 8th then start a fight that leads to an edit war. We should start from where we are now and work to better the article. You can keep your collegial way. I'll stick to encyclopedic or more specifically Wikipedia way. I will speak about the way people edit especially when they falsely attribute changes to neutrality.
Now as a Recommendation, To keep this conversation coherent, Let's work thru this article in order. Let's start with the lede. I'm going to ask that since you have the largest problem with the article to go thru first and propose your change. If you see no issue in the lede go to the next section and please post which section here that you are talking about. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going into a policy debate. I'm trying to stop a fight here. If you prefer you can go to a Admin. There's no telling how that will turn out for anyone. As preference I'd prefer that not happen as might effect everyone badly. Even myself whose changes have been minimal and neutral. If however you wish go for the Admin. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 07:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This was already mentioned in an earlier subsection here but only incidentally in connection with another issue. Since the inclusion of this in the lede has been challenged, I will note that Johannson becoming brand ambassador for the company is notable regardless of the current controversy. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Tkuvho:I have to Concur with Ronz. While SJ's actions are notable I'd wait to see how it plays out. Ray Charles had a strong cultural impact on Pepsi. I don't believe his in the Pepsi lede. The actual impact of SJ's actions have yet to be seen. It could have a major impact on the company and the world as a whole but as of now it hasn't. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The blog cited does not appear to indicate that the new brand ambassador is a key part of the company's strategy. And in terms of secondary source coverage, it's the controversy rather than the company's brand strategy that receives the coverage, so the statement "becoming brand ambassador for the company is notable regardless of the current controversy" is not the case in terms of what 'notable' means in Wikipedia. Unless someone is going to argue that this news blip over Johannson role in the controversy deserves to be in the lead (not me), I don't think policy supports including Johannson in the lead. It would be a mismatch between our article and source coverage (and WP:LEAD). Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Repeat posting of off topic comment |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I feel that the Majority consensus holds the Lead is fine. I recommend we move on to the next section and see if anyone has any issues there. If anyone still has issues with the lead consider the conversation here if you pursue further debate. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Referring only to the reason for the original post in this section. I agree that the user was errant in this change. The change dilutes the facts almost to obscurity. However while the users was errant it doesn't seem that they were trying to degrade the article. The issue was fixed. It can be fixed if they make another mistake. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Basically I hot linked Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to the word effort. See this Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I came here to get some technical information but there doesn't seem to be much. There is too much talk about politics going on. How much is the pressure inside the gas canister? I could calculate it if I had the measurements for the can. Even the official site doesn't give these info. Vmelkon ( talk) 01:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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 |
I am not living in the USA, so I don't know how it is over there, but ... I searched for Soda Club (since they use this name in the UK and Germany) and was redirected to Sodastream. But judging by the article, the main company is Soda Club, and Sodastream is just a small part of it, right ? If you go to the Sodaclub/Sodastream HP, after the country selection, you only see the Soda Club Logo. So I think redirecting Soda Club to this Sodastream article is wrong (however: maybe I missed it, but I think there is no Soda Club article) -- 87.177.252.198 ( talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention of Kenwood? That was always written on the machines when I was a child, and my parents even referred to the drink as "a Kenwood". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.199 ( talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
When reverting some of the extra links added recently I noticed that a bit had been added in the mean time about a import duty issue related to a Soda-club factory in Maale Adumim in the West Bank. While unsure of whether or not it should be included, I did find at least a usable source on the issue EU Eyes Exports from Israeli Settlements. PaleAqua ( talk) 02:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] The category is therefor correct and needs to be in the article: [2] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 12:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No, in fact I do not understand what you mean by politically motivated. I am motivated by the material available in RS. The ECJ ruling is one such high quality RS which quite clearly makes a serious distinction. Library of Congress research publishings go further and consider the attempted annexation to be in violation of the Geneva convention and scholars have argued that economic use of land to be a war crime. This is not political, it is verifiable information available in RS and it is unfortunate that our articles evidently do not make it clear enough. Unomi ( talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by politically motivated, but I fear that it skirts the edge of a personal attack so I would like to ask you to refrain from using thought terminating cliches such as this seems to be. Unomi ( talk) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, your concern is not impartial in nature either.
First of all, the cat is legitimate. It doesn't matter what the intentions behind creating the cat are.
Is this company in the West Bank? Are there others like it? There is an entire boycott movement against these companies because they operate in Palestinian land, occupied by Israel.
People should be discussing the validity of the cat and not whether so and so is pro or anti- whatever. If that is the case, you might as well revise EVERY SINGLE political topic on Wikipedia.
Even the term 'anti-Israel' is loaded.
Is there any actual opposition to the cat, that pertains to the ACTUAL idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 07:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea who you are describing, but it is not me. Unomi ( talk) 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't there a category for these kinds of companies?
It does not matter whether you are pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel or pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian.
The FACTS are important. Does this company operate in the West Bank or not?
Are there more Israeli companies that operate in the West Bank or not?
Is that not a LEGITIMATE category to make then? There is an entire boycott movement that is targeting companies such as this precisely because they operate in occupied territory.
The only POV in the discussion is from the apparently pro-Israel commentators who do not want to classify Sodastream et al. as operating in the West Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 07:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This is POV. No one arranges a sentence in this manner. This is a passive-aggressive attempt at inserting a particular pro-Israel POV.
If it is not widely thought to be Israeli territory, then who is the minority that DOES assume it to be Israeli territory and why are we mentioning them in the context of international law and other rulings by international bodies of law?
I changed the sentence to 'the West Bank, which is under Israeli military occupation'. That is a fact. There is no wiggle room, for a pro-Israel POV which was the case of the original line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 07:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I know it's a politically loaded debate, but I do think it's important that we mention that the majority of the product is produced in a West Bank settlement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.28.213 ( talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool, that's all i needed to know - thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.28.213 ( talk) 01:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, apparently, there is a gentlemen who goes by BioSketch who keeps reverting the edits that we're making! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.15.209 ( talk) 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Soda Stream ad.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 June 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Soda Stream ad.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Functionally, the Sodastream has much in common with the soda syphon. It would be an oversimplification to say that Sodastream is a brand of syphon, because, in a Sodastream, the water container is separate from the apparatus that opens the carbon-dioxide cartridge and controls the release of its gas. But a reference to this long-familiar device could greatly simplify the lede, which currently has a long and florid description of the widely-understood principle of carbonation. (It talks about letting user "take ordinary tap water and carbonate it to create soda water (or carbonated water) to drink", and says that, when other ingredients are added, the resulting beverages "are similar to the most popular brands of soda and energy drinks".)
A lot of the advertising-speak about "ordinary tap water" should go, and the connection to the soda syphon should be noted. Does anybody disagree? If not, I plan to make that edit, eventually. TypoBoy ( talk) 13:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
"A similar ad was expected to air during Super Bowl XLVII in February 2013 prior to being banned by CBS for jabbing at Coke and Pepsi (two of CBS's largest sponsors)."
I just saw the commercial with the exploding bottles during the Super Bowl. I know that's anecdotal, maybe the add was a little bit changed, but an ad with exploding bottles was on the Super Bowl. Rhollis7 ( talk) 03:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but their website was down due to the traffic after the commercial aired. They posted a video on their website that shows the original commercial they couldn't air. Rhollis7 ( talk) 03:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
i use this and i think we should list the flavors. it might help. Computeruser345 ( talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the content sourced from the Daily Kos blog. It has been restored. This article is covered by WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. As Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded says "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." (my bolding) Daily Kos does not meet those requirements as far as I'm concerned and the content should be removed. If this material is notable it will be easy to find it in a reliable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the following paragraph:
Some Palestinian employees interviewed by The Christian Science Monitor have supported Johansson's stance and opposed a boycott of Sodastream. They stated that a boycott would only hurt them, according to The Christian Science Monitor their position has underscored Israeli claims that a boycott would be counterproductive and undermine the cooperation and prosperity that could boost peace prospects in the Middle East. However, the same Christian Science Monitor article points out that Palestinians in the West Bank are cut off from work opportunities in Jerusalem by the concrete Israeli separation wall - the Israeli West Bank barrier. One Palestinian employee said he felt ashamed to work for Sodastream and felt like a "slave" working on the assembly line for twelve hours a day.[103] Another Palestinian employee in the West Bank plant recounted that there was a lot of racism at the factory and that, "Most of the managers are Israeli, and West Bank employees feel they can't ask for pay rises or more benefits because they can be fired and easily replaced,
I'd appreciate your thoughts. GabrielF ( talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
<- More sources would help to keep things balanced, but I wouldn't worry about it for now. The topic is in the news so there will be edits that violate WP:NOTADVOCATE, they'll be edits by sockpuppets/IPs of topic banned/blocked users, edit warring, all the usual nonsense that disrupts WP:ARBPIA articles. It will pass and normal service can resume. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. We do not ignore reliable sources because you, I, or any one editor does not like its content. -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC) And more sources: 'We need 1,000 SodaStreams around here'; What SodaStream's Palestinian Employees Think About Scarlett Johansson; and SodaStream Boss Admits West Bank Plant Is 'a Pain' — Praises Scarlett Johansson. -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR states that: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"
Dumping material into the article using sources that have no relation to the topic of the article like this is not acceptable. Dlv999 ( talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Dlv999, please explain your major removal of content [8]. The edit summaries are specific enough to address, especially such as in the case of this [9] or this [10], for which your edit summary seems inadequate. So either you are lazy and disruptive, or POV pushing. Please explain each or revert.
Also speaking of "Dumping material into the article using sources that have no relation to the topic of the article like", the topic of the article is SodaStream, not Israel, not Ma'ale Adumim nor Israeli occupation. So for example when the first paragraph specifies that the factory is located in "Mishor Adumim industrial zone, located inside Ma'ale Adumim". There is no reason to specify it again in the second paragraph.
The controversy should be stated once and those who supported i.e. according to B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch etc the issue of location. While adding assertion in quotes conerning Israel policy such as "Israeli system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank" is blunt POV.
Same goes for this [11] the Nytimes BLOG, doesn't mention the benefit or "jobs provided by the factories", it mentions the opponents of settlement trade, like Oxfam, and repeat the exact same thin as in Oxfam statement above, there is no reason to keep it, other than POV pushing in every paragraph in Q&A manner, which this is not.-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 12:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
For example this edit #1 and this edit #2 which K7 has reverted without any edit summary [12]. This behavior is disruptive and unless explained will be reported.(Also this edit by Sepsis II [13] is a good start.)-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 06:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This article was recently moved to SodaStream from Sodastream. The use of both forms of the name occur in the article, and sources. The company websites have the name as "SodaStream", "sodastream", and occasionally "Soda Stream". For reference Google ngram viewer only shows results for Sodastream, not SodaStream or sodastream. We should probably adjust the article to be consistent with the possible of mentioning of the alternate styles in the intro. Based on Wikipedia:Article titles#Standard English and trademarks, I believe the article should be moved back to Sodastream. PaleAqua ( talk) 09:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipikidea is not a Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. ThiS article is not about Israel, occupation or anything other than SodaStream and the location of its facility and the controversy surrounding its location in Israeli settlement in occupied Westbank. As such this:
Should be reduced to something like that:
and further condensed(and copy edited) with United Church of Canada saying that "Sodastream's products manufactured in the occupied West Bank".-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
All I see are childish attempts at ad-homenem and goading. Formalizing your assertions as policy and strawgrasping. Fact stands that this section is about the controversy of SodaStream facility location within Israeli settlement, when you include off-topic views concerning Israel "system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement" which can not and should not be addressed here, instead of relevant article which covers all relevant views on Israel practice in the campaign against Israel, or the Palestinian-ISrali conflict articles you violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX as a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing that campaign here. Grasping at straws asserting that you just trying to representing all views in WP:RS or saying what a great source HRW is, doesn't change any of that.-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 08:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox is a guideline for editors and not sources. This is not advocating Human Rights Watch but mentioning their view. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
In terms of due weight, the current section takes up about 1/5 to 1/6 of the article space. Looking at the google news returns for the search term "sodastream" going back to 1998, [16] the majority of the coverage the topic has received in RS relates to the location of the firms production facility in a West Bank settlement and the issues surrounding that. Our WP:NPOV policy states that we should weight articles according to proportional coverage in RS. In light of this it is appropriate that the "Palestinian Controversy" is given significant weight in the article. Going through the section deleting sourced material all from one side of the debate is not legitimate way to trim the section. In any case first a source evidence/policy based case needs to be made that the section needs trimming. Dlv999 ( talk) 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is when the sources says the same things and or when you are soapboaxing.-- 84.111.101.105 ( talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have started reducing some of the melodrama in the section on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interested editors are invited to contribute further. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Details on the mutual allegations in the Arab-Israeli conflict should be detailed in an appropriate page directly dedicated to that conflict, not here. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that User:Dlv999 is part of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias but in this context, his unbalanced edits at this page create a comic effect. Tkuvho ( talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
to
The old title referred only to the Palestinians and was unbalanced. The new title have been argued not to reflect the contents of the subsection. This issue could be discussed in this entry. Tkuvho ( talk) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a Palestine Controversy. There's just no reason to title it anything other than controversy. If another controversy arises it can be put in this same section instead of creating another controversy section. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
An earlier version of the article contained a claim that "the international community" regards settlements as illegal. I have two objections to this:
(1) the article is not primarily about the status of the settlements. These issues have been covered fully elsewhere on wiki and need not be recycled here.
(2) there are in fact sources (mentioned in particular at other wiki pages) mentioning legal scholars that dispute the claim of illegality. Therefore arguably we should not include such blanket statements here.
Then User:Dlv999 pointed out that the sources I mentioned do not deal directly with SodaStream and therefore cannot be used in this page. In other words, he claims that only an RS dealing specifically with SodaStream can be relied upon to challenge the blanket statement that "the" international community (implying a wall-to-wall consensus) subscribes to the illegality view. Such restrictions seem like nitpicking to me but I would like to hear what other editors have to say on this issue. Tkuvho ( talk) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Not really, Sepsis, just check this link out for lots of uses of disputed territories in Wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+%22disputed+territories%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Ubie the guru ( talk) 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The legality of the settlements is clearly a central part of the controversy. It is cited by Oxfam and pro-Palestinian supporters as the reason for their opposition to the Sodastream factory being located in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
I am going to compile a source summary of how the legality issue is covered by RS directly related to the topic of this article. Please feel free to add sources directly related to the topic that I may have missed:-
Editors need to put aside their own personal beliefs and biases and come up with a text that is consistent with what has been written in RS directly related to the topic. Dlv999 ( talk) 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Jewish American actress Scarlett Johansson in the introduction, then later American Jewish actress Scarlett Johansson in the body. I can not find a source for this ethnic labeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobgoblin Spock ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No one is going to connect any dots with a widely disregarded theory and walk away with context. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does it belong in this article? At the very least it's grossly undue. Why is she mentioned in the lede at all? Let's remember this is an article about a company and we should be writing the article from the perspective of the entire history of the company rather than that of some recent controversy. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The location of the Sodastream factory is routinely described as being in the "occupied West Bank" by balanced WP:RS that cover the topic. Our text should reflect how the topic is covered in RS. See e.g BBC, the New York Times, Rueters, Haaretz, the Telegraph, The Guardian, Business Week, Al Jazeera, the Forward Channel4 News, The Hindu, Sky News, the Scotsman, The Age, The National. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Arutz Sheva, the settler news agency, has published a report insinuating that Oxfam's position is something to do with donations it has received from Coca Cola. This kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim against a third party would need "multiple high-quality sources". I don't see any evidence that these claims have been reported by any high-quality sources. If those sources can be produced then the claim can be included, if not it must be removed ASAP. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The recent revision to the text is problematic for the following reasons.
WP:CLAIM it is not enough to post this and have it be your argument. That Manual of Style is very specific. At no point does it say to not use the word claim. It says that care must be taken when using words such as claim. With claim it says it can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Only when the word claim does exactly that has it effected neutrality.The word claim does not do that here.
Did she resign in protest? Let's leave that up to the reliable sources. What we know is she quit Oxfam because she didn't agree with their position. Adding protest does introduce bias.
Serialjoepsycho (
talk)
21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Claimed is a neutral term. The only time that claimed is not a neutral term is when it calls does call someone a things credibility into question. There is no potential contradiction here to emphasize and there is no implication that they disregarded any evidence. Quit adding your systemic bias to the article. It doesn't hurt article but it is rather annoying. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added no loaded terms. I'm the one who simplified the controversy section to the title of "Controversy". You the one arbitrarily changing words regardless of whether they have an effect on the neutrality of the piece or not. I'm discussing changes to the content. You don't have a legitimate policy based objection. If you did it would be based off policy and not a an argument that these are load words. Claim can be neutral. It is only when it is not neutral is there an issue. You are arguing for a change because the word claim is used when no policy says not to use the word. That is annoying. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Nearly always as opposed to always, to change words that aren't always loaded. For the benefit of neutrality when you you don't actually question or discuss the neutrality of the usage of the terms. Perhaps the best way around this would to attribute changes to neutrality only when the changes actually relate to neutrality with that being the actual issue. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to the change. I object to the reason for such changes. "Neutral language" especially when the prior language was neutral. You can make the change. There's nothing wrong with the change. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 07:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is slowly starting to devolve into an edit war. Maybe we can work together to stop that. I think most everyone will say they are actively trying to improve the article. I see no reason to question anyone's sincerity. It seems we all have different approaches. Let's see if perhaps we can use them to better this article. Let's talk about it here. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Ronz and Sepsis II:Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. While they should be reported, perhaps just not yet. Maybe if we can not accuse anyone of being a part of a Pro-Israel Cabal, Pro-Palestinian Cabal, or anything else we can make some ground. Sepsis there is a means by which anyone who is doing anything other than trying to improve this article can be taken care of. As Ronz pointed WP:AE. There are other ways as well. I ask you sincerely and respectfully to assume good faith just for a moment. Let's just say clean slate. I think it's possible that everyone has the opportunity to offer something positive here. As I asked you here to this talk page Topic Sepsis I have also asked Tkuvho and Dlv999 here. Perhaps we can start from a clean slate. After which we can look into more extreme measures like Page protection or other actions. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Dlv999: I again completely disagree with your interpretation of WP:CLAIM. There is no prohibition on using that language. It tells to be careful with that language and it tells you when not to use that language. Besides that it is time to move on from being petty. Can you give these other few a clean slate so they can give you a clean state? Can you you try to work with them to better this article? Can we do this civilly as a group? Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 02:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Dlv999:They are petty because no policy says no to use the word claim or assert. It tells you how not to use claim or assert. Your argument has not been based on claim being used inappropriately but simply that it was used. There is no legitimate reason to restore the text prior to the 8th then start a fight that leads to an edit war. We should start from where we are now and work to better the article. You can keep your collegial way. I'll stick to encyclopedic or more specifically Wikipedia way. I will speak about the way people edit especially when they falsely attribute changes to neutrality.
Now as a Recommendation, To keep this conversation coherent, Let's work thru this article in order. Let's start with the lede. I'm going to ask that since you have the largest problem with the article to go thru first and propose your change. If you see no issue in the lede go to the next section and please post which section here that you are talking about. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going into a policy debate. I'm trying to stop a fight here. If you prefer you can go to a Admin. There's no telling how that will turn out for anyone. As preference I'd prefer that not happen as might effect everyone badly. Even myself whose changes have been minimal and neutral. If however you wish go for the Admin. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 07:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This was already mentioned in an earlier subsection here but only incidentally in connection with another issue. Since the inclusion of this in the lede has been challenged, I will note that Johannson becoming brand ambassador for the company is notable regardless of the current controversy. Tkuvho ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Tkuvho:I have to Concur with Ronz. While SJ's actions are notable I'd wait to see how it plays out. Ray Charles had a strong cultural impact on Pepsi. I don't believe his in the Pepsi lede. The actual impact of SJ's actions have yet to be seen. It could have a major impact on the company and the world as a whole but as of now it hasn't. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The blog cited does not appear to indicate that the new brand ambassador is a key part of the company's strategy. And in terms of secondary source coverage, it's the controversy rather than the company's brand strategy that receives the coverage, so the statement "becoming brand ambassador for the company is notable regardless of the current controversy" is not the case in terms of what 'notable' means in Wikipedia. Unless someone is going to argue that this news blip over Johannson role in the controversy deserves to be in the lead (not me), I don't think policy supports including Johannson in the lead. It would be a mismatch between our article and source coverage (and WP:LEAD). Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Repeat posting of off topic comment |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I feel that the Majority consensus holds the Lead is fine. I recommend we move on to the next section and see if anyone has any issues there. If anyone still has issues with the lead consider the conversation here if you pursue further debate. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Referring only to the reason for the original post in this section. I agree that the user was errant in this change. The change dilutes the facts almost to obscurity. However while the users was errant it doesn't seem that they were trying to degrade the article. The issue was fixed. It can be fixed if they make another mistake. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Basically I hot linked Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to the word effort. See this Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I came here to get some technical information but there doesn't seem to be much. There is too much talk about politics going on. How much is the pressure inside the gas canister? I could calculate it if I had the measurements for the can. Even the official site doesn't give these info. Vmelkon ( talk) 01:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)