Talk:Red Bull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Thailand  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink / Beverages (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Austria  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Archive 1: 2006-2008

Health Effects[edit]

If someone wants to delete this section, please give a reason why, as opposed to just randomly removing it from the article, and not mentioning it. corvus.ag (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There should also be information on how much closer one gets to coming down with diabetes with each can drank. DUZZLEGOUCHE (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The health effects of Red Bull are overwhelmingly positive rather than negative, yet this article seems focused on demonising it. Every single ingredient except sugar (which is the same as in fruit juice, and you can get Red Bull without sugar) has very large health benefits, such as preventing Alzheimer's, preventing cancer, preventing gallstones, protecting your brain, protecting your cardiovascular system, etc. Half the negatives of caffeine are countered by Taurine and the B vitamins. So there should definitely be a section on health effects, but it needs to be honest and neutral, which means recognising that the health effects are more positive than negative. The main negatives are of course addiction, and having too much energy if you drink too much. Carl Kenner (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Caffeine Intoxication[edit]

Just noticed that on May 8, 97.82.161.247 removed the section in Health Effects that extreme over-consumption of caffeine can lead to death. Since no reason was given, I'm putting it back in for now, unless there is a reason not to. Don't care if someone takes it out, provided they give a reasonable reason :p corvus.ag (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

German Ban[edit]

I suck at writing articles, but reports show that at least 11 German states have banned the sale of Red Bull due to cocaine being present in the drink. It seems notable enough to be added to the article. BBC and the AP have both reported on the event. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8067970.stm http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hItGF3n5rzcEdW6PnVTP-n8zY1agD98DCUQ01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.241.0.6 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That report regards the newer product "Red Bull Cola," and in any case the phrase (added by some unknown IP) should not have been jammed into the middle of a sentence about the founding of the company. I reverted the change as vandalism because of the crudeness of the change. Rassilon (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


The german ban is specifically for "Red Bull Cola" and not the more popular "Red Bull" energy drink. This article is about "Red Bull" and NOT "Red Bull Cola". Can I clarify this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentford (talkcontribs) 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Health Effects[edit]

Hello All. I was bold and added a section on documented health effects of Red Bull :) I think this is something useful to have in this article.

This area needs to be expanded though, as I have only included the results of that one Australian study conducted in this past year. Results of other studies would be good, both ones that find Red Bull to be detrimental, and ones which find it has beneficial health effects. corvus.ag (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Added more information. I plan to add a section on the risks associated with mixing caffeine and alcohol next, when I get a chance. corvus.ag (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be more information about the French ban, I mean, it's a biiig deal. Why isn't it there? I remember it being here before, did somebody remove it? Possibly out of publicity fears?
I don't remember seeing mention of it in the article before. The ban has apparently been removed though, as of 2008. Will add mention of it somewhere. corvus.ag (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the section on lethal dosage of caffeine, while there is caffeine in Red Bull, I think this information is better suited to the article on caffeine intoxication. Anyone else have an opinion on this? corvus.ag (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about moving the toxic bit to intoxication.--86.29.141.125 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

About Turkish Red Bull[edit]

They sell it cheap in a shop in the UK where I am and I've noticed the first ingredient is 'Alkol' and that is has only 15g caffeine/100ml. If someone could add a section about this I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.91.82 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

15 grams are you sure? that would be enough caffiene to kill a horse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.9.185 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Thai Connection[edit]

Sadly the article is missing out on the entire story of how Red Bull came from Thailand to Austria, which is probably the most interesting thing about that swill. Maikel (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

it was here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Bull&oldid=258820865), but somehow got lost in the subsequent edits 220.76.15.181 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This really should be added back in to the article, although it could be cleaned up a little. The company makes no secret that the product was inspired by the Thai product, as it is mentioned in several articles. As it is now the entry has almost no information regarding the origins of the product. There is a very good article about the history of the company here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0328/126.html, which is even available as a PDF from the Red Bull website. cswpride (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Template On The Talkpage[edit]

I reverted the talk page to remove the template that was added here as well as to remove what appeared to be comments that were left on a user's talkpage and simply copied to this one. -- Qaddosh|talk|contribs 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a doctor but if it helps anyone who wants to find out about some of the adverse effects of the energy drink Red Bull, I hope this can help. I started out drinking one or two a day and then after about 2 or three months it was a regular thing. Yeah I felt like I had wings and as good as can be, that is until the crashes started. Now after about two years of limited Red Bull consumption, I still can't drink one without being exhausted about 1 hr afterwards and sometimes even taking naps because the crash is stonger than the level of tiredness that I usually start out with, but I will say it is refreshing . . ?? It has a great taste in my opinion, which doesn't help. I have also experienced tiredness to the point that people try and wake me up and I cannot bring myself to wake up except for a brief moment and then I am out for hours. I haven't seen much of this type of talk anywhere, nor have I heard it from any of my friends who drink it so it could just be me, however, it is still so disturbing to me that I wanted to post this, in hopes that I may see more evidence of this type of reaction and also to help those who are looking for info on the same subject I was and could not find anything on - - health effects of red bull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.90.41 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're describing caffeine intoxication: I started out drinking one or two a day and then after about 2 or three months it was a regular thing. - incidentally, you do not quantify the daily intake after it became "regular thing." This should serve as a reminder to all the folks out there that caffeine intake, irregardless of its source, can easily become a health issue. Just like so many other things in life when overused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.190 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Larger can size in the UK[edit]

Just a note to say that in the UK (perhaps the wider Europe?) Red Bull is now commonly sold in 355ml cans, as well as 250ml cans. I would guess the reason behind this is that shorty after AGBarr launched a competitor product "Irn-Bru 32" they started to ship their product in larger 350ml cans and still at a much cheaper price. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Krating Daeng and Red Bull[edit]

Krating Daeng is a very sweet and syrupy energy drink produced by T.C. Pharmaceuticals. Red Bull is a Soft Drink sold by Red Bull GmbH. These are two different products, by producer, taste, consistency, markets. so there should be two different articles for the two products. Even though I'am aware of the fact that Krating Daeng means "bull red" in thai. It is clear that this should go to the disambiguation page and not merged into the one article about both drinks as it is right now. I replaced the redirection from Krating Daeng to Red Bull by a stub. Feel free to contribute. 80.218.55.7 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is the non-carbonated Thai version is sold as Red Bull as well. See this.--Dodo bird (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned in France[edit]

Have you ever thought why it is banned in France?

France doesn't like drinks involving a bull's sperm in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.49.118.124 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Read this link- [1] Zazaban (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Protectionist trade barryers?--86.24.13.45 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine input levels[edit]

This article states correctly that an 8.2oz serving of Red Bull contains about 80mg of caffeine. However, it says that this can be as much caffeine as two cups of coffee, which is false. In an 8oz cup of coffee there is either 115-175 mg of caffeine or 80-135 mg of caffeine, depending on whether it is drip or brewed respectively.

[2]

[3] --86.29.252.35 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Whoever revises this should set up a table caffeine/ounce not in various proportions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.192.105 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?[edit]

It seems to me that this whole article should be tagged for neutrality. As large parts of it read as an advertisement. I feel like an outside POV might be needed. Any objections? Walrus1 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


On second thought I am going to be bold and go for it! Walrus1 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a specific template for articles that are written like an advertisement. --Taraborn (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Taraborn, I shall go ahead and remove the generic neutrality tag, and add the advertisement tag then.Walrus1 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not recommended by the cRc[edit]

Could someone please weight the following statement "Red bull is kosher, but is not recommended by the cRc.[1]" (source: http://www.crcweb.org/kosher/consumer/beverageList.html ) because it apparently is too light. If you could, it'll help a lot. 98.226.32.129 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK.--86.25.54.52 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Little bottle's of RedBull[edit]

I remember buying little bottle's of it, it had the RedBull logo but in a diffrent language..it had more of a syrup taste and was not carbonated...anybody else seen it around?

These? - filelakeshoe 18:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.114.182 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

External links cleanup[edit]

Since this article's supposed to be about the energy drink, I'm thinking most of the external links in this article about the racing teams and such should be elsewhere, maybe more suited to Red Bull GmbH or articles about the teams in question. What do people think? - filelakeshoe 18:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Brand portfolio[edit]

I've created a new "Brand portfolio" section, and incorporated the information that was in the old "Variations" section, as it could be argued that "Red Bull Cola" is not a variation of the original "Red Bull" energy drink at all, but is an extension of the brand's portfolio. This follows the convention of the "Coca Cola" entry. cswpride (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First Time[edit]

I have heard from a semi-reliable source (and have experienced myself) that the first time you have Red Bull, it acts as a depressant. Is that true, or is it just the placebo effect? Jonathan321 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's barely mentioned Red Bull is Thai[edit]

Any reason for this? I remember a past version of this article makes it more obvious what the origins are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.139.129 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in ingredients section[edit]

The "Ingredients" section erroneously compares the United Kingdom contents of Red Bull, to the United Kingdom. One of these should probably read "United STATES", though I do not know which.

Never mind. It is comparing regular Red Bull to sugar-free Red Bull, both in the UK.

Red Bull Box[edit]

I'm not great at this, but how about a Red Bull info box? Would contain topics such as products (Red Bull, Red Bull Cola) as well as sporting and marketing exercises (eg Red Bull Racing, Red Bull Salzburg) and go at the relevant bottom of the pages.--Mofs (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Name[edit]

If it's Austrian, why is it called "Red Bull" and not "Rot Stier"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.208.14 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because an English name for a product rather than a German name would make global marketing more effective? Square Enix don't bother spelling their name out in Japanese by default (or writing it Sukuwea Enikkusu). I'm sure there are plenty more examples of this around. - filelakeshoe 13:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Grammatically speaking, "Roter Stier" would make more sense. :) Hayden120 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, does the name have anything to do with the ingredient Taurine? as in Taurus in Latin is Bull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight Risk (talkcontribs) 22:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative reference source?[edit]

Does anybody have access to an alternative reference source for [10]? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7CW2-4T0F86T-20&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0e3fcd8da803bf77011fa8ee9d375cde

Unfortunately, the site has only pay-for access, making it difficult to verify (or, actually, as I intended, read through the study for informational purposes).

Quite a shame they did not extend the study to include coffee ingestion as a comparison. I have an exetremely small cock.find it extremely interesting whether it would show quantifiable difference depending on the caffeine source or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.190 (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Prohibitions?[edit]

Every mention that RB is/was prohibited on several countries (France, Denmark, Norway, Uruguay...) where removed. While you can now buy RB in France, according to the German version of the article RB is still prohibited in the other countries. The neutrality of this article is seriously undermined! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.234.150 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'wings' catchpharse[edit]

I think that we should add some sort of disclaimer stating that Red Bull does not in fact give one wings. I think that this would avoid a lot of confusion and would improve the article as a whole. 86.164.184.65 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since there have been no replies I can safley assume there are no objections. 86.164.184.65 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Now hold on there! This talk page gets a comment about once every two weeks. It's no surprise that you didn't get a reply in 4 hours. At any rate, I (and apparently others) disagree: We don't really need the disclaimer; I doubt that, as you say, it would "avoid a lot of confusion" because I really doubt many people would be confused by it. It's an ad slogan, and the article says so, and that seems clear enough. Consider also some of the "tiger" slogans of Frosted Flakes cereal. By the way, for a couple of days the "gives you wings" bit was also listed elsewhere in the article, under "health claims;" I've removed it from there since it doesn't belong. But as an ad slogan, it belongs. -- Why Not A Duck 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The football team in the German Oberliga is RB Leipzig but they are not Red bull Leipzig as this may contravene some advertising laws in the league. They cleverly use RB, which is generally thought of as Red Bull, but the team's official name is Rasen Ballsport (in English Grass ball sport) Leipzig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.69.30 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Country of Origin[edit]

People, please stop changing the country of origin in the infobox to Thailand. Krating Daeng is from Thailand, and Red Bull is a different drink, based on Krating Daeng, originating from and manufactured in Austria. This is what the sources say, and therefore what we say. - filelakeshoe 07:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


OMG: you should read this.. I saw this brand and logo before 1984. please go and read this link below, the last paragraph. You will know who's original. So please rethink that why he had to travel in ASIA to find the products which the manufacture found in Thailand since 1975. Also this logo we used before the "Red Bull" had found in 1984 so I dont know how you can deny that it's originate from Thailand. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0328/126.html also the company has no reason to use same product's logo if there is nothing related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.102.173 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's check out to this article. http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/who-is-helmut-marko-and-why-does-it-matter/ The Red Bull debacle in Turkey has brought the management of Red Bull Racing into the focus and perhaps it is worth explaining a little about how it works – and who does what.

The team is listed as being Austrian, but it is based in Milton Keynes in England. In reality it is about as Austrian as bangers and mash. I doubt more than a couple of people at the factory could name the Austrian Chancellor. Nonetheless, it is widely believed that it is the Austrians who make the decisions – which is their prerogative, as they also pay the bills…

The team is owned by by Red Bull GmbH, an Austrian company based in Fuschl am See, in the scenic Salzkammergut area, in the hills behind Salzburg. Red Bull GmbH was established in 1984 by Austrian toothpaste salesman Dietrich Mateschitz and he continues to manage the company, although he is only a 49% shareholder in the business, the majority being owned by Thailand’s Chaleo Yoovidhya and his son Chalerm. Chaleo had established the TC Pharmaceutical Company in 1962 and sold a drink called Krating Daeng, which is often translated as Red Bull, but in fact means Red Gaur, a gaur being a member of the buffalo family which is found in Asia.

Red Gaur, however, does not translate well in English and so when Mateschitz decided to do a deal to sell the product in Europe, he changed the name (and the taste) to fit the European market. The company began marketing the drink in Austria in 1987 – one of its first ambassadors being F1 driver Gerhard Berger. The drink was on sale only in Austria until 1992 when it was launched in Hungary. After that international expansion accelerated and at the end of 1994 Mateschitz bought control of the Sauber F1 team to bring his brand to the attention of the world. The company entered the US market in 1997 and the Middle East in 2000.

Just small part to share, hope this will acknowledge all who read the article. Also Mr. Chaleo Yoovidhya is the Chairman of Redbull company limited in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.102.173 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also you can check at http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/12/biz_07thailand_Thailands-Richest_land.html as he was mentioned..press-shy...Red Bull's press-shy Chaleo Yoovidhya takes the top spot, worth $3.5 billion so it's not surprised that majority will not get information about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.102.173 (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---Actually Bull is literally translated as Krating. That Gaur is water buffalo. Krating is transalted to Bull as in Spanish bull fighting. It was intentional. See the logo. Suredeath (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

--- I don't agree with CO is Thailand and Austrian. It is orginally from Thailand. It is not the reason that i'm Thai. for marketing reason, I am sure Krating Daeng and Red Bull are the same product. Firstly, Krating Daeng is popular and well-known in Thailand for long time. Secondly, Thai people is familiar with their logo (two fronting red bulls in yellow circle) since it was founded by Mr Chaleo in 1970s. If you said Red Bull was inspired by Krating daeng and different taste so it should be different origin, why did not Mr Dietrich Mateschitz use his own designed logo? But he still used the origin Krating Daeng logo and be partnership with Mr Chaleo, Krating Daeng's founder.

Lastly, for marketing reason, the different of product's formula or taste cannot always separate products. This often founds in most of international companies of food and drink products. The company used to change their product's taste to the taste which was liked by people in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxiczero (talkcontribs) 02:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are my wings?[edit]

Should I consume more Red Bull in the hopes of gaining wings or what? Where are my wings? What ingredient will give me wings? 77.86.70.223 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Red Bull effects[edit]

Paid notice to Tedder's reverts and edited arguments truthful and unbiased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talkcontribs) 15:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss it further than eleven words, but the information added was synthesis at best. For instance, "Red Bull's invigorating effects cannot be solely attributed to its high caffeine content because a single can". "cannot be solely attributed" is synthesis of existing sources. tedder (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
re: Red Bull effects[edit]

Yes as it might be attributed to synthesis though the understanding that the quotes were not already paraphrased and failing to catch out that they were clearly distributing a bias towards the interpretation though their fundamental validity as an expert's argument when there hasn't been research conducted on it s combined effects, a neither for nor against conclusion has not even been addressed. For example the first edit of the unsourced caffeine intoxication backed argument stating the common consensus when there is a bia towards failing to mention excessive consumption. To attempt to correct their paraphrased bias by editing without a valid quote has given me a taste for editing in way which cannot be challenged by erasing so I thank you. (Red Bull stimulating properties cannot be attributed solely to caffeine/Red Bull content quantities of caffeine in one strong cup of coffe/there is inconclusive research on combined effect of ingredients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talkcontribs) 10:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did some editing on the recent additions, but did not remove them. First, the study was definitely not published by the NIH--it was published by a Hungarian journal called Orvosi Hetilap. The NIH link is just to PubMed, which is a search engine which indexes medical journals. Furthermore, the citation you had was not pointing at the right journal article, and had the wrong title. So I fixed the reference. Furthermore, I removed part of the quotation, because it's not very clear what it means. It said "only a few have global knowledge", but, from the abstract, it's not at all clear what that "few" refers to--is it consumers? Researchers? Doctors? I'm guessing it's consumers, but unless we can know for sure, we shouldn't have the quote there. I think part of the problem is that the quote is just from the English abstract, while the original article is in Hungarian, which is why the quote is unclear. To be honest, I'm not certain the study belongs here--I'm not sure that Orvosi Hetilap is a journal with enough prestige that the article deserves a prominent place in the Wikipedia article about Red Bull.
Wait a minute. Possible problem. And now I realized where User:tedder was coming from. The paper you cited is about energy drinks in general, not about Red Bull in specific. Thus, you could add that statement and references to Energy drink, but it can't go here. Alternatively, if they talk specifically about Red Bull in that article, you could pull out just that part of the article and reference it here. But we shouldn't be discussing energy drinks in general here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough because to get rid of the slight spin in the article was my only aim, thank you Qwyrxian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talkcontribs) 20:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Invisible text[edit]

I suggest adding an invisible note to the infobox and body asking editors to view discussions regarding Thai vs. Austrian origin before switching. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin...again[edit]

There's a discussion of this above from about 6 months ago, but I'll put it here again so that the new editor insisting on Thailand can join. According to the History section, "Dietrich Mateschitz, an Austrian entrepreneur," went to Thailand, saw a drink called "Krating Daeng", liked it, and decided to copy it/make something similar back in Austria. He called that drink "Red Bull". That means that the origin of the drink is Austria, not Thailand. That is, "Red Bull" was not invented in Thailand--it was invented in Austria inspired by a drink from Thailand. For it to be invented in Thailand, you would have to show that Mateschitz first created and/or marketed it in Thailand. Since that's not what our sources says, Austria is the correct country of origin. Unless someone has new sources that show that history as being wrong or in dispute, the origin should not be changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My view: The very phrase: "...modified the formula and founded..." means the origin should be Austria. The origin of American mustard is America. The origin of mustard is .... I don't know, Europe. But not America. Red Bull is a modified form of the Thai drink. So, Red Bull's origin is Austria. How's my logic? Ontomoto, please state your case here. Let's discuss it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As I lay falling asleep last night, I was thinking that maybe there is room for a compromise here. While it does seem that the drink was marketed and developed in Austria, it is true that in a technical sense it was owned by Thai owners, and no one disputes it is modeled off of a Thai drink. As such, it would make sense to me to list the Origin as "Austria/Thailand" or "Austria and Thailand". Would anyone else be interested in such a compromise, or is it unnecessary? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy for it to say Austria/Thailand. The article Hamburger gives both the United States and Germany as origins for a quite similar reason - it's named after Hamburg and was created in America by Germans. Red Bull was created by an Austrian in Thailand, as an adaptation of a Thai drink, owned by a company based in Austria which is owned by Thais. There's enough of both. We should try and reach a consensus here really, because the infobox has had every possible combination of Austria and Thailand in the past, it's just a long long edit war. - filelakeshoe 02:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull, was not "created" by Dietrich Mateschitz. Saying so is inaccurate and false.

- Chaleo Yoovidhya, together with his son, was major stakeholder in the company he has created with Mateschitz. (being a major holder means something, I guess).

- Krating Daeng drink means Red Bull in Thai

- The logo is practically the same

- Dietrich Mateschitz is mentioned in this article only because he was able know the drink (Red Bull in Thai language, with the same logo and almost same formula - I've tasted it) created by Mr. Yoovidhya

If one was to measure the invention credit between both, would it be 80% (Yoovidhya) and 20% (Mateschitz)? If the intellectual credits do not matter, what about the legal/corporate aspect of their partnership, where Yoovidhya still holds majority of shares. In one way or another, Mr. Yoovidhya must come first, instead of being mentioned as a secondary co-inventor. To say that Mr. Mateschitz created Red Bull is the same as saying that Steve Jobs created/invented the personal computer. At its best, you can say that Steve Jobs or Mateschitz reformulated or improved their "creations". --Rsamenezes (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You simply asserting that does not make it true. The Red Bull website "In 1982, Dietrich Mateschitz became aware of products called "tonic drinks", and that he "founded Red Bull. He fine-tuned the product, developed a unique marketing concept and started selling Red Bull Energy Drink on the Austrian market in 1987." Forbes says, "Red Bull, the "energy" drink created by Austrian Dietrich Mateschitz". The Economist says "Mr Mateschitz spent three years developing the drink's image, its packaging and its low-key, grassroots marketing strategy before testing the product on the Austrian market in 1987." and ". He discovered it in Bangkok when he was international marketing director for Blendax...In 1984, he set up a company with Mr Yoovidhya and his son Chalerm. Today, they own 49% of Red Bull; Mr Mateschitz owns another 49%; and the remaining stake is in a trust. They played around with the drink's formula, translated the name into English and applied for authorisation to sell the sugary brew in Germany and Austria." Only the Forbes is even vaguely close to your position, but all of the articles seem to give much more emphasis to Mateschitz, not Yoovidhya. If you read the Forbes and Economist articles, the real key is that the drink is as much a marketing phenomenon as it is a drink; Red Bull is not a drink with a certain formula, but a drink with a certain formula branded and marketed in a specific way. I've reverted you on the article. You need to stop edit warring. If you can find reliable sources that support your version, please bring them here, and we'll see if there's a consensus for change. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I realized that actually the best choice is not to have a summarizing sentence at all about who created the drink--the issue is too complex. So, I switched back to the old version of the lead, but removed both people's names from the first sentence. The History section does a much better job of laying out the details. Rasamenezes, do not revert back without providing new sources to support your position. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Red Bull is from Thailand ![edit]

I'm 100% Thai blood ! Majoring in International Business !

It's very obvious that Thai holidng 51 % of a share. Because whatever happen thai can take the whole share back. As Chaleo Yoovidhya announced in Thai Medias. The Krating Daeng ( spell : Krating not Kratin, Kratin is a kind of vegetable in Thailand. and Krating is Gaur ) They grew up together! sometime it's very hard to tell that the product calls Red Bull origin from where when you ask somebody who doesn't know anything. Thai people never be 100% proud Thai that Red bull is 100% Thai blood But Krating Daeng is 100 % Thai blood. Because This new Krating Daeng Version calls Red Bull and widely known because the Austrian investor who was very cleaver and made it widely known in the world., They both have invested and made this idea together. Chaleo always says that Red Bull successful because of both country having each other (Austria and Thailand.) But the truth as the Thai person holding more share and easily judge that Red Bull origin is Thailand. The logo that you see was designed by Chaleo Yoovidhya ! There's one TV program in Thailand call Fan pan tae (It's about people who know something in What they really like) They showed many thing like who designed the logo and the company information

The sources

http://peoplerich.in/2010/08/06/%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%89%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%A7-%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B2-%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%81%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%95/

http://haturagitd.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_7987.html

http://www.forbes.com/static/bill2005/LIR13B6.html?passListId=10&passYear=2005&passListType=Person&uniqueId=13B6&datatype=Person

I'll put more sources later ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontomoto (talkcontribs) 14:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The first two do not qualify as reliable sources per WP:RS. The second only verifies that the Austrian owner owns 49%--that doesn't state where the drink was developed and created. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why the source is not reliable, Qwyrxian? It looks completely trustable to me. The second one verifies exactly what you insist to distort: Austrian owner is secondary and didn't invent/created the product. It was created and developed in Thailand, but modified (improved, if you will) somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsamenezes (talkcontribs) 04:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

They're not reliable because they do not meet WP:RS, which is how we decide which sources are reliable. The first page no longer exists, but looking at the parent site (peoplerich.in), it's a blog, as is the second one. Blogs are basically never reliable, except in cases where the blogger is a known expert in the field (like, an academic expert who regularly publishes on the topic at hand). That's our rules. Please tell me where in the sources currently in the article it says that the drink currently called Red Bull was developed in Thailand? I re-read the sources today, and I don't see that claim...I'm not perfect, though, so maybe I missed it. Please give me an exact quotation, and then we can figure out what to do with the article. If you cannot produce such a quotation (or a new source which isn't currently in the article), your change must be reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why Thai still holding the share 51 % while Austrian hold 49 %[edit]

This have been discuss several time !

Chaleo Yoovidhya doesn't want the Austrian to hold more than his share. Because he's still think if there's a problem. he can easily take it back.

But both guys love each other and they're respect each other.

And the krating deang (Thai name)actually just converted to be English name called Red Bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontomoto (talkcontribs) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use this page to discuss the subject. The only thing this page may be used for is to discuss changes/improvements to the article. Future comments of this type may be removed per WP:NOTFORUMQwyrxian (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull is an International Version of Krating deang[edit]

The word Red is Deang in Thai and Bull is Gaur.

Some people have spelled it wrong such as Kratin which actually the kind of vegetable in Thailand.

The correct word should be Krathing

กระทิง อ่านว่า กระ-ทิง

or kra-thing


follow this dictionary

http://dict.longdo.com/index.php?lang=en&search=*%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%87* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontomoto (talkcontribs) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If Red Bull were an "international version" of Krating Daeng, they would taste the same. But they don't. - filelakeshoe 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
And yet, the country of origin, according to the article, remains Thailand. Somebody forgot to change it back. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


"they would taste the same. But they don't" - Untrue. They taste almost the same. The main difference is that one (Red Bull) is carbonated, while the other (Krating Daen) is not. Besides that, it is very much the same. --Rsamenezes (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Outlawmonkeys[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}}

{{Edit semi-protected}} This page keeps getting vandalised and information wrongly changed as seen in the edit history. by User:Outlawmonkeys

If you mean you want the edit page protected, then you have to go to WP:RPP and file a request. Personally, I don't think they should grant it, because this isn't actually vandalism (that has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, which you can read at WP:VANDAL), but a content dispute. If an admin protected it, I think they'd need to do a full protection until we showed that we had consensus one way or another. We probably do have consensus, because one person does not sufficient dissent make, but we should be sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The last unicorn[edit]

just wondering if the red bull in the book/film is related in any way to the logo of these products. has one inspired the other or is it just coincidental? 71.232.147.54 (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but article talk pages are actually not the right place to ask such questions--these pages exist solely to discuss potential improvements to the article. You may want to try asking at the Reference Desk--they may be able to determine if a connection exists. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Events[edit]

do red bull actually sponsor things? the article reads like they do, but from my understanding red bull either own teams outright , own the events outright or are the sole organizors of events(there are no other advertisors or sponsors at these things) ,sponsorship to me means giving money to advertise at events or on teams, red bull dont do this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.39.178 (talkcontribs)

A fair question; right now the article simply lists them as being "events", without any details about how Red Bull is connected with them. Does anyone have any reliable sources that clarify the relationship? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ingredients - where's caffeine?[edit]

Red Bull contains caffeine, but it's not listed in the Ingredients section of the article. Why not? 98.14.248.71 (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Red Bull heir, grandson Vorayuth Yoovidhya[edit]

Breaking news: Bangkok Pundit (September 6, 2012). "Suspended sentence, impunity, the police, and the Thai judicial system" (News analysis; comments off). Asian Correspondent (Bristol, England: Hybrid News Limited). Retrieved September 7, 2012. As you all already likely know, the grandson of the original founder of the Red Bull energy drink is alleged* to have killed a police officer in a hit-and-run accident in the very early hours of Monday morning.  --Pawyilee (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: See also Judiciary of Thailand. --Pawyilee (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and that information doesn't belong in this article. This is an article about the company, not about the lives of the family members of its employees/owners. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence[edit]

This sentence lists two ingredients, four foods, and says "respectively":

"Taurine and glucuronolactone are normal body constituents and also naturally present in the human diet (e.g. scallops, fish, poultry and grain respectively)."

It's not possible to put two things into respective alignment with four things, and I would fix the sentence to associate something like the following, except I don't know which things to associate with what:

"Taurine and glucuronolactone are normal body constituents and also naturally present in the human diet (e.g. scallops and fish [taurine], poultry and grain [glucuronolactone])."

Could someone who knows which of the ingredients should be matched to which of the foods please correct this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Effects[edit]

The second paragraph under Cardiovascular Effects as of 10/10/12 is: "The results of a study showed that the ingestion of one, 250 ml can of sugar-free Red Bull, in a sample of 30 healthy young adults, had an immediate detrimental effect on both endothelial function, and normal blood coagulation. This temporarily raised the cardiovascular risk in these individuals to a level comparable to that of an individual with established coronary artery diseases.[8]"

Can the referenced study be identified? If not, perhaps this paragraph should be deleted. What were the immediate detrimental effect on both endothelial function, and normal blood coagulation? Is the detrimental effect on the endothelial function worse than drinking a cup of coffee? Is the detrimental effect on blood coagulation (presumably anti-coagulant properties) worse than taking a couple of aspirin?

jgreimer 10/10/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgreimer (talkcontribs) 02:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if we could identify it, we shouldn't use it. WP:MEDRS tells us that we should not make medical claims (which this is) based upon the results of a single, primary study. Instead, we should like primarily for the results of review articles, university medical textbooks, and similar quality sources, since any one given study may or may not indicate a major, repeatable, reliable effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Please take it out. There is a lot of bogus info in the article. Speciate (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the rest that I missed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sports sponsorships[edit]

Lindsey Vonn is sponsored heavily by Red Bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.9.13.139 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The company seems mostly known for their heavy involvement with many forms of sport. Do we need to separate out the section? Or maybe introduce a category such as Red Bull sports sponsorships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.126.134 (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article hardly mentions the 'extreme' sports sponsorship side of Red Bull which is significant, also extreme events such as Red Bull Rampage which form a big part of the brand identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.3.135 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition[edit]

Since the article is currently protected, could somebody add these to the list in section 5.2:

Deaths related to Red Bull-sponsored extreme sports events[edit]

There should be a section discussing the deaths of various athletes sponsored by Red Bull. It is no secret that Red Bull in its advertising campaign focuses on extreme sports, for example base jumping. There are at least six athletes that have suffered fatal injuries during events of that kind, which were sponsored by Red Bull. Some of them, Shane McConkey to name but one, have even died while filming material that is later compiled into just poorly masked movie-like advertisement for Red Bull. This is also part of the giant complex of nothingness that is Red Bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.217.185.130 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 79.217.185.130 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Red Bull is an organizer[edit]

This article's lead is demeaning. Red Bull is a sports organizer as much as a food product. Lumping every single Red Bull event under "Advertising" is absurd. Take an art/sport like freerunning, for which the Red Bull Art of Motion is by many considered the defining global freerunning competition. Why should every freerunner on the planet have to see the highest-level competition of their art/sport lumped under "advertising" of a food product?

The slogan "Red Bull gives you wings" is outdated. As far as I know it's being replaced with "Welcome to the world of Red Bull" (as in this ad), which better sums up what they're all about at this point. (The original slogan is written at the end, but it seems to be a legacy thing.) Squish7 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

introducing section on the company[edit]

I think it would make sense to insert a section on the company- facts including location of HQ, number of employees, places of manufacture (Austria and Switzerland) and its subsidiaries, like the film studio, etc.

And while I don't see anyone "discussing" whether Advertising should be split off, as suggested by the box in 3/2013 ?, I don't think it should, because it's ads are an essential part of the product.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wuerzele I agree, both with the intro suggestion and keeping Advertising in the same entry, but when looking up the address to add to the intro I ran across this entry - Red Bull GmbH. Do you think it should be merged? --Monstermike99 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Monstermike99, Thanks for spotting the company article Red Bull GmbH, that I missed in the introduction section. I suspect I am not the only one, so yes, I think Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull should be merged. Merging them makes sense, because knowledge about the company enlarges knowledge about the product, and merging will get rid of a lot of duplications, while swelling up the Red Bull article only some. Let's see what others think. If nobody replies in a week or so, we should go ahead. Do you want to help merging it?--Wuerzele (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I'm all for helping. I will check back in week. Thanks - --Monstermike99 (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


Company Slogan and spelling in advertising[edit]

In Canada the advertising slogan "Red Bull gives you wiings" with the spelling of 'wings' with two i's. It is frequently presented as 'wiings'.

Do not know if this is worldwide, but appears to designate 'Team Members' as well. Richard416282 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

While it looks like a lot of sources, this article is sorely lacking. Anytime we are claiming a person endorses or Redbull endorses a person, we have to have a source unless the article it is linking to has a source to such. Really, we should copy that source over here. That is basic BLP stuff. I took out all the deaths regarding extreme sports, they shouldn't be put back and should instead go into the individual articles on that sport, or if it happened in that event, in that event. Putting them here looked like we are saying drinking Redbull energy drink (the subject of the article) killed them. Obviously the actual deaths where it was claimed Redbull WAS or may have been responsible are ok if sourced, but not the others. I've cut a bunch, but much more need cutting, and even more needs sourcing. Dennis - 23:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Template:Http://www.crcweb.org/kosher/consumer/beverageList.html