Talk:Red Bull/Archive 1

Red Bull Clothing

"METs and sponsored athletes are the only people (technically) allowed to sport the Red Bull logo on their clothing." - I've removed this - it's rubbish! Red Bull Racing sell a whole bunch of merchandise with Red Bull logo on including jackets, caps and shirts which anyone who buys can wear. Alexj2002 09:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I drank it and flew away!!!!

RUNNING AROUND IN YOUR UNDERWEAR on mars is considered illegal in Austria. But, personally, if you try that, you'll die because of no helmet. Trust me...im a zombie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.244.78 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red vs Blue

Someone should write a bit on how Red Bull is constantly bagged in Red vs. Blue -203.45.17.94 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. It was lampooned twice, which isn't that much over the course of four seasons and change. The reference would better belong, if anywhere, somewhere in the Red vs. Blue articles. But there's no real evidence that it's truly a running gag. — TKD::Talk 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Download" imitator

I removed this from the "imitators" section

"A drink known as Download is reported to taste exactly like Red Bull."

as the only reference I can find to this drink reports the opposite. [1] --Heycos 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rooster is a near coppy to. Blue lightnig's packet is similar to.--86.29.249.177 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pics of the golden cans

I posted the two pics of the Thai can that's available in Australia. I think it answers some previous queries. The nutritional infomation attached to the can is mandatory under Australian law for manufactured foodstuffs. Htra0497 20:53, 6 December 2006 (AEST)

Red Bull versus Krating Daeng

The current article doesn't give enough credit to the fact that this is essentially a Thai drink. While it is true that an Austrian-based company is marketing the drink in many countries, it is inaccurate to suggest that this is an 'Austrian carbonated soft drink' that was developed by Dietrich Mateschitz. Here are some of the facts: Krating Daeng has been sold in Thailand since the 1960's; in the late 80's, the rights to market the drink in Europe and the USA were licensed to the Austrian company; the name Red Bull is simply a translation of the original name, Krating Daeng; the Red Bull logo is the same as the Krating Daeng logo; the recipe is almost the same (the Thai version is sweeter); in Thailand and other parts of Asia (and - it seems - in Australia) the original version of the drink continues to be marketed by T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co [2]); and most of the pictures shown in the wikipedia article are of Krating Daeng, not Red Bull! I suggest some editing is needed to create a more balanced article. APB-CMX 14:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the whole article is a mess, Red Bull and Krating Daeng are treated as almost equal in this article although they are two totally different companies.

- The original Red Bull Krating Daeng was from Thailand and still exists in that form and never has been very successful outside Thailand.

- The other brand is the Austrian Red Bull which is the number one Energy Drink around the world. It was founded by an Austrian in Austria and has nothing to do with Thailand other than a Thai is holding a big share of the company and the taste is simelar to the thai Krating Daeng.

It's not just that an Austrian happened to licencse the Krating Daeng for other markets its is a completely different drink. Everything that Red Bull is today was created by an Austrian without Mateschitz no one would even know about Red Bull outside Thailand

That is wrong on so many level. Follow the link given in the origin section. The founder of Austrian Red Bull did indeed adapted the brand and the formula from Thailand. Krating Daeng furthermore is incredibly popular in Southeast Asia. Red Bull AND Krating Daeng Trademark still belong to a Thai firm.Suredeath 14:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull & Vodka

In the section titled Mixed Drinks, it says that Red Bull mixed with vodka was first created by Parker Hallam in Dallas, Texas, at a bar called Soul II Soul located on Lower Greenville. There is no reference to support this assertion (in fact it almost feels like an advertisement for a bar) so I'll add a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} to the statement. D1lux 15:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although many people attribute the Red Bull and Vodka mixture to Parker Hallam, he did not invent the drink, but a Hans Vollers of Whittier, California who moved to Dallas is the actual creator. Parker and Hans meet in Lower Greenville as bar tenders and began to mix Vodka with many different mixers. Hans was the first to use Red Bull, using an extra can that he had with him from his workout. Parker then made this drink popular after Hans left the serving industry.

Red Bull Can Image

I find it hilarious that there isn't one image of the traditional (western) can on the whole page.

Anyone interested in uploading one or two? James Pinnell 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded one. See the gallery at the bottom of the article. --Mark PEA (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although many people attribute the Red Bull and Vodka mixture to Parker Hallam, he did not invent the drink, but a Hans Vollers of Whittier, California who moved to Dallas is the actual creator. Parker and Hans meet in Lower Greenville as bar tenders and began to mix Vodka with many different mixers. Hans was the first to use Red Bull, using an extra can that he had with him from his workout. Parker then made this drink popular after Hans left the serving industry.

Trivia

Red Bull will glow a yellow colour under a black light.

What on earth is a 'black light'? VikasGorur 14:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is John F. Kennedy? Back to the Future

Someone has now fixed this! I have removed the cite sources tag from the section as sources are only required for items that can be challenged. Most of the items are not challengeable or inherently specify their source (eg TV references). If a specific item requires a source, that item should be tagged with {{fact}}. Halsteadk 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I guess that solves the Red Bull & Vodka issue I had posted earlier. By the way a black light is another name for a UV lamp (see Ultraviolet and black light for more info). D1lux 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about the drink or the company?

It's not obvious. The info box a tthe top is titled Red Bull GmbH and contains info about the business, but the rest of the article focuses on the drink. Maybe a new article is needed, with marketing, distribution and other business stuff kept separate from the things which relate directly to the drink.Spute 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. D3av 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honest, this should be about the drinks. The only thing out of place in the article is the info box of Red Bull GmBasdfdhSuredeath 09:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I moved the marketing cruft toward the bottom. Facts first, salespitches second. -Anon

I have made a page for Red Bull GmbH. I will let it percolate for a bit, then obliterate the corporate stuff from the drink's page. Speciate 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health risks again

Man's heart stops after Red Bull overdose - an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, about the risks of Red Bull. Incorporate into the article? Qwerty (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight red bulls is about 6 cups of coffee. He is a smoker, he was participating in a motorcross event, he is still alive, and he had 8 red bulls in five hours. So did his heart go into defib because of the drink? For these reasons I think the story is BS. Speciate 23:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happen to someone who drinks 8 bottle of water in five hours ? Nothing, except he will have to pee. I think concerns about RB shouldn't be ignored like that. "Dr Malcolm Barlow, a cardiologist who treated Mr Penbross at Newcastle's John Hunter Hospital, said it appeared excessive consumption of energy drinks had precipitated the heart attack." Isn't it a little bit obvious ? panmon 16:56, 29 february 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.203.51.18 (talk)

Taste differences between Thai red bull and American Red Bull.

Thai red bull is sweeter and non carbonated. Thats all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.103.48.146 (talk) 03:53, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like rubbish to me. Its a carbonated drink not a medicine, which might tell you that if you consume more than 2 tablets you might have feelings of sickness. The doctor obviously doesn't know what he's talking about or has been misquoted as drinking large quantities of water can be a lot more dangerous as it can remove vital salts from the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.31 (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Compsult

the 50g of inositol is *incorrect*, it is actually 50mg (I can't figure out how to edit this section to correct it) – Compsult (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed – Gurch 06:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks they doth protest too much

"Red Bull is subject to numerous claims of adverse health effects, most of which are urban legends. In 2001, the drink was investigated by the Swedish National Food Administration after being linked to the deaths of three consumers, and was completely cleared. It has been subject to a number of other health concerns regarding glucuronolactone, a precursor of taurine. Glucuronolactone is a naturally occurring chemical compound produced by the metabolism of glucose in the human liver. It has received some notoriety due to urban legends that it was a Vietnam War-era drug manufactured by the American government. The rumor goes on to say that it was banned due to several brain tumor-related deaths. The rumor has since been proven false, as neither the cited British Medical Journal article nor the "banning of its consumption" ever occurred. Due to the link with taurine, only energy drinks without taurine are sold in France, but infant formula sold there (and worldwide) is commonly supplemented with taurine. Furthermore, no warnings appear on the Food and Drug Administration website regarding its potential to cause brain tumors or other maladies [6]."

This section seems so defensive that I suspect somebody employed by Red Bull had a hand in its writing.

"Due to the link with taurine, only energy drinks without taurine are sold in France, but infant formula sold there (and worldwide) is commonly supplemented with taurine. Furthermore, no warnings appear on the Food and Drug Administration website regarding its potential to cause brain tumors or other maladies."

Whether or not France allows taurine to be added to baby food is so remotely linked to Red Bull that perhaps it shouldn't be in the article. The fact that no warnings appear on the FDA website regarding Red Bull's potential to cause brain tumors certainly shouldn't be there. Should every article mention websites which don't refer to the subject matter? There is nothing in the bible indicating Red Bull's potential to cause plagues of locusts. Should that be in the article as well?

Also, the 'health concerns' section should probably mention that a 250 ml can of Red Bull contains 500% of the recommended daily allowance of vitamin B12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.55.217 (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention 250% of the RDA of of B2. However, there seems to be little evidence either of these are capable of toxic effects via consumption of Red Bull. 20µg of B12 has been linked to dermatological and gastrointestinal issues. However, as B12 is readily excreted via the urine I am not entirely sure any quantity of Red Bull will induce these conditions; 20µg of B12 is the equivalent to drinking 5 cans, and these would have to be drunk in a very short period of time indeed to counteract it's filtration via the kidneys. B2's low solubility means that it is not readily absorbed at dangerous levels, and any nutritional excess is excreted via urine. -Iscariot (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sole bottler for western red bull

Maybe it should also be mentioned that the Red Bull GmbH doesn't botlle red bull itself. It is all done by the company Rauch in two production sites, one being in Nueziders in Vorarlberg, Austria and the second one in Windau in Switzerland. The sitzerland plant was opend for US export only not to be affected by possible trade wars between the US and the European Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strahli82 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash

Perhaps the crash following most or all energy drinks follows with Red Bull. Maybe someone should look into this and it be put into the article? I have heard of crashes from 45 minutes after drinking it to no crash at all. Maybe we should find some studies and put what is found into the article? Just a thought but I saw nothing about how long the effects of Red Bull last which is why I looked up the article. Or maybe I just missed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.116.1 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the crash can be attributed to your metabolism being boosted so you burn glucose faster, but it essentially doesn't give you any more fuel, just lets you burn through it faster. It's like revving a car engine so it'll go faster, but without putting anything in the gas tank. When the your blood glucose runs out, your metabolism is still amped, but with no more fuel to burn. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull - Not Krating Daeng

Krating Daeng (Bull Red) is not Red Bull for ALL purposes. Red Bull was created by taking a product (from Thailand) and redesigned, manufactured, and marketed by an Austrian company founded by an Austrian man. The information should be written with a hyperlink to a page for Krating Daeng as the original idea behind Red Bull, but to focus credit on Krating Daeng or to write that Red Bull originated in Thailand is 100% false.

Krating Daeng was created in Thailand in the 1960's and distributed. Red Bull was invented based on that product. End.

That's like saying Toyota belongs to Ford because Ford first mass produced the car.

Red Bull needs to focus on Mr. Dietrich Mateschitz the FOUNDER of Red Bull from Austria, not Krating Daeng or Thailand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.137.72 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize Red Bull is English for Krating Daeng and the Thai Founders own the majority of Red Bull, right? Even the logo is the sameSuredeath (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice the very first 4 words of my first post = Krating Daeng (Bull Red).

Mr. Mateschitz had the idea of introducing Krating Daeng to the western world under the name Red Bull. He developed the company with the help of his business partner Mr. Yovidhya (a Thai national). Mr. Yovidhha and his son own 51% and Mr. Mateschitz owns49% of the privately owned Austrian company Red Bull. This company "Red Bull" was founded by Mr. Mateschitz in Austria, not by a Thai man in Thailand. Founder has nothing to do with who owns the majority of a company, but who had the idea of it and ran with it.

  Krating Daeng is very sweet and syrupy, Mr. Mateshcitz recognized the idea behind Krating Daeng and developed a product that could
  be enjoyed by western consumers. 
  Once again, the original idea came from Thailand, but it's not a Thai founded company, or is the single founder of the idea 
  "Red Bull" a Thai national.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.150.216 (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- What I found out is that you don't have a single clue what the word company co-founders mean.Suredeath (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh.. I didn't notice until now. But is he seriously arguing that Kratin Daeng is "Bull Red", and therefore not the same as "Red Bull"? That's how you write it in Thai Language, adjective comes after the noun in Thai. Suredeath (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larger can size in the UK

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)[reply]

Neutrality?

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Krating Daeng and Red Bull

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not recommended by the cRc

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)[reply]

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

References

^ http://www.crcweb.org/kosher/consumer/beverageList.html

Caffeine input levels

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.

[http://www.faqs.org/faqs/caffeine-faq/]

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

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)[reply]

External links cleanup

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? - filelake shoe 18:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little bottle's of RedBull

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? - filelake shoe 18:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brand portfolio

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)[reply]

The Thai Connection

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First Time

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)[reply]

About Turkish Red Bull

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's barely mentioned Red Bull is Thai

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)[reply]

Red Bull Box

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)[reply]

CSD Template On The Talkpage

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alternative reference source?

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)[reply]

Prohibitions?

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)[reply]

Caffeine Intoxication

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)[reply]

Health Effects

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The 'wings' catchpharse

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

German Ban

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned in France

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)[reply]

Read this link- [4] Zazaban (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where are my wings?

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)[reply]

Red Bull effects

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

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)[reply]

re: Red Bull effects

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 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible text

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)[reply]

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

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 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:NOTFORUM Qwyrxian (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Outlawmonkeys

{{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)[reply]

The last unicorn

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Events

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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

Ingredients - where's caffeine?

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)[reply]

Country of Origin

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. - filelake shoe 07:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---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)[reply]

--- 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 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull is an International Version of Krating deang

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 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Red Bull were an "international version" of Krating Daeng, they would taste the same. But they don't. - filelake shoe 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

The Red Bull is from Thailand !

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 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Origin...again

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - filelake shoe 02:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Red Bull heir, grandson Vorayuth Yoovidhya

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Awkward Sentence

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)[reply]

Cardiovascular Effects

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 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please take it out. There is a lot of bogus info in the article. Speciate (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the rest that I missed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths related to Red Bull-sponsored extreme sports events

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)[reply]

Addition

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

Hyundai Genesis Coupe Pikes Peak edition
Rhys Millen's Hyundai Veloster rally car — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.161.141 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Cacá Bueno's speed record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.160.108 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peugeot 208 T16

Sports sponsorships

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Red Bull is an organizer

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)[reply]

Health Effects

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Name

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)[reply]

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. - filelake shoe 13:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically speaking, "Roter Stier" would make more sense. :) Hayden120 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company Slogan and spelling in advertising

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)[reply]

Sourcing

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 - 2¢ 23:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

introducing section on the company

Red Bull GmbH / Red Bull article merge

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Wuerzele & Monstermike99: I haven't thought about whether Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull should be merged, but I put the merge tags up since it seems under discussion. I did however make some points about the advertising issue. Did you not see the previous thread? Squish7 (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squish7, which entry is the previous thread on? --Monstermike99 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article of this talk page, Red Bull. I wrote it 1.5 yrs ago but it still stands as my concerns. (I find athletics cross over less with referencing/literature than most other topics, hence encyclopedia content/discussion isn't going to be as current.) [Formatting tip for you: Try to use {{od}} if you're going to continue a thread of thought on a new line, to signify it's a continuation, rather than a new thought on the original post, which the formatting otherwise signifies. I've done it above before your last post as an example.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squish7 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on merger I'm not sure what the precedent is but I would say it depends on how much overlap there is between the two. For example Monster Energy is only one article, Red Bull's main rival who also have many extreme sports endeavours. PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company are about the companies itself, but Pepsi and Coca-Cola are about the drink only. I'd say either change Red Bull to just about the drink itself, and put everything else in GmbH article, or merge them into one giant article Abcmaxx (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on merger a lot of the overlap is in the marketing / advertising section. I would be in flavor of merging the majority of the advertising info to Red Bull GmbH article, with a paragraph left on the drink with a 'more info' section header linking to Red Bull GmbH # Marketing. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This must be done. Get the long lists of Red Bull GmbH stuff into the Red Bull GmbH where it belongs. This article is about the drink--one could argue that it is about the original flavor only. Speciate (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tijdschriftvoorpsychiatrie.nl/en/zoeken/artikel.php?autid=2007&pgr=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016

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

Gaming is not an action sport and links were not verified with actual credible sources, thusly the teams/players should not exist because they do not fall under sponsored athletes on the red bull website From dictionary.com noun 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Highintel (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13_(talk) 18:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

The origin in the infobox tends to be changed quite frequently between Austria and Thailand. I think this is something on which a consensus needs to be established and possibly some hidden advice left not to change it once agreement has been reached. This has been discussed before, I know, but those threads seem to have just 'petered out' without any solid conclusion. Eagleash (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Red Bull heir murder case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4383824/Red-Bull-heir-wanted-hit-run-seen-London.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:4C3D:4F00:D406:1176:F804:4E13 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Red Bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.crcweb.org/kosher/consumer/beverageList.html

[1]