Talk:Red Bull

Error in ingredients section

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.

Littering

User:Aquatic Ambiance added a section titled "Littering" to share that Red Bull cans are found in litter and that in the Netherlands Red Bull cans happened to outnumber any other brand in the litter collected during World Cleanup Day. I removed the section with the comment "Even if true, which brand of drink is most found in an arbitrary country's litter is sub-encyclopedic trivia, uninformative about the brand." Aquatic Ambiance restored it (Aquatic Ambiance, see WP:BRD) without responding to my comment at all, saying only "It's about Red Bull. The article."

Yes, I know it's about Red Bull. If I didn't think it was about Red Bull, my comment would have been "Not about the topic of the article".

I feel this content doesn't belong here.

• That Red Bull cans are littered at all is pure trivia. Imagine if we added "bottles/cans/packages of X are found in litter" to the article about every product. It's a mundane observation.
• The mention in a source that's a general article about World Cleanup Day is incidental. It supplies no encyclopedia-worthy information about Red Bull; it tells the reader nothing that's intrinsic to the product or that helps to understand it better. The mere fact of Red Bull being mentioned somewhere doesn't suffice to cover it in our article on it: WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS.

To me, the section reads as an accusation, running up against WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Comments? Largoplazo (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not adding "bottles/cans/packages of X are found in litter" to every article about every product. Only about the most littered brand. This is important information imo. The most found item of all that they found. That says something. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am currently working with Red Bull to update and improve the Wikipedia entry. While I'm clearly biased, I have to agree with User:Largoplazo. The claim does not seem like a necessary detail about a large corporation, especially when the claim is not about a company milestone, policy, etc. I would also add, the sources are not ideal (option.news and an organization's official website) and only one side is presented here. If the article is going to discuss litter, then the company's participation in recycling initiatives such as Every Can Counts should probably also be mentioned, per this source and this source. This would at least make the text more neutral. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree that it's important. How widely was it reported? Is there coverage in multiple sources of the implications of Red Bull instead of another product being the number one in this respect? Does it tell us anything about the Red Bull corporation that wouldn't be true if another brand had beaten it out in this respect? Take into consideration that this finding was only for one of the world's 200 countries and only for one or two years. Should we also report the brand that happened to be most represented in the trash of Malaysia in 2016 or Zimbabwe in 2008 or Fiji in 2013? Compare this to, say, cars: Is it significant to the article on car manufacturer X if cars from that manufacturer happen to have received more parking tickets in 1992 in Slovakia than cars of any other manufacturer? Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Option.news piece is obviously advocacy and not a reliable source. It's covered by Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, though.[1] If anything, I think the fact speaks to Red Bull's popularity, but I agree it doesn't quite belong. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Seems there's consensus to not include this content. Do you mind updating the article, or do I need to submit an edit request using Template:Request edit to seek further feedback? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. This is probably scant as consensuses go, in terms of number of respondents, but it's three out of three except for the editor who contributed the section. I'd suggest it's reasonable that a consensus be found to include disputed content rather than to exclude it, per WP:BRD. Largoplazo (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Whereupon Aquatic Ambiance, with no consensus to do so, re-added the section within ten minutes. I've removed it again and left a warning about edit warring. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if 8 billion people think it shouldn't be on the page, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. This is about Red Bull's lack of concern regarding the environment. Of course it's relevant for the page. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aquatic Ambiance: That is precisely how Wikipedia operates. See WP:Consensus. If 8 billion people oppose your addition to an article and only you believe it belongs, then you don't get to include it.

As I believe I've brought to your attention before about dealing with any dispute to an addition you make when it arises: See WP:BRD. Summary: Don't just re-add it, discuss it.

Also about how Wikipedia works: see WP:NOTSOAPBOX, which your comment reveals to be directly applicable, where I had before only suspected it. (By the way, beverage companies don't each control how many of their respective customers discard their containers improperly, so the connection you're trying to draw between company concern, or lack of it, and people's littering habits is fallacious anyway. Related to that, in regard to drawing your own conclusions from sourced information, see WP:SYNTHESIS.) Largoplazo (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Introduction edit- market share

Red Bull has a 43% US market share, not worldwide market share. This needs to be noted as it can easily be misinterpreted. Red Bulls worldwide marketshare is much lower at 13%.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/15/red-bull-f1-dominance-boosts-energy-drink-sales.html Joeblackooo (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The 2020 source of 43% explicitly says "Global Energy Drinks Market Share", so the market share is not referring just to the U.S. I'm not sure if 13% seems legit for a quasi-generic trademark product, even considering that the source is from 2023, although CNBC is generally reliable, and the linked article also states that Monster Energy is now the world's largest energy drink brand, which seems not too unrealistic regarding its growth in recent years.

Generic health effects

I pruned bulk of health effects here. It seems to be generic concerns about energy drinks. Am I missing something here as to why it needs to be in Red Bull article? Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)