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.

Edit requests
Hello! On behalf of Red Bull GmbH (as disclosed at the top of this page and on my profile), I'd like to submit a series of edit requests to improve this Wikipedia article as part of my work at Beutler Ink. My goals are to fix inaccuracies, add mention of major milestones, improve sourcing (and reduce unsourced text), generally work to tighten the language to create a more well-rounded overview, and keep focus on Red Bull the energy drink brand instead of Red Bull GmbH the parent company.

I will not be editing the article directly. Instead, I'll be sharing requests here for editors to review and implement appropriately. I appreciate editors who are willing to assist and I'm always happy to address questions and concerns. Also, I'll try to keep the requests as simple to review and implement as possible.

Correction in introduction
For my first request, I'd like to correct the second paragraph of the introduction, which currently says: "He took this idea, modified the ingredients to suit the tastes of Westerners, and, in partnership with Chaleo, founded Red Bull GmbH in 1987 in Chakkapong, Thailand."

The text in bold in factually inaccurate. The bolded text should say "founded Red Bull GmbH in 1984 in Fuschl Am See, Austria", per this source, which says, "Red Bull GmbH was founded in 1984 by Dietrich Mateschitz, who located the company’s headquarters in the Austrian village of Fuschl am See just outside of Salzburg. Before launching the drink in Austria in 1987..." This would help clarify the creation of Red Bull GmbH in 1984 vs. the launch of the energy drink in 1987 (as mentioned in the introduction's first sentence). I should also note, the Red Bull GmbH article has 1984 as the year of establishment in Austria.

Does someone mind updating the sentence on my behalf? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: ResearchGate is considered to be generally unreliable on WP. Denied. Quetstar (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing. Does Wired UK work for you? ("Mateschitz proposed to Yoovidhya setting up an independent company that would expand the energy drink into international markets. In 1984, he founded Red Bull GmbH in Fuschl am See, Austria.") Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: Much better source. Quetstar (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this was a result of vandalism from way back in 2014. It was left unnoticed for seven years, but should have been fixed as soon as it was. Reverting vandalism should not require sources, if it is clearly so and identified as such. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that it was due to vandalism. Quetstar (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both. I'm submitting another request below, if you're willing to review. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Boycott threats" section
For my next request, I'd like to propose removal of the "Boycott threats" section because the text is actually about the Thai product Krating Daeng and its parent company. As explained at Krating_Daeng, the Thai product and parent company (Chaleo's T.C. Pharmaceuticals, or TCP Group) are independent of Red Bull GmbH and the Red Bull brand. The Red Bull energy drink article should not have claims about TCP Group.

I realize the relationship between Red Bull and Krating Daeng (which translates to "red bull"; shared co-founder) can be confusing. There are a couple other instances in which the two products are conflated in this article, but I'll address those at a later time. If editors insist on keeping mention of the boycott here in some way, can the text be amended to explicitly note this is about the Thai product and TCP, per source?

I should note, this content was added by a user with only a few edits to Wikipedia who does not appear to be active, otherwise I'd invite them to this discussion. Thanks in advance for reviewing and updating the article appropriately. Happy to answer questions. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an unambiguous error by the source material and I'd support making this edit. Since complete removal of this section is potentially controversial, however, I'd prefer to wait 1-2 weeks to see if there's an objection before accepting the edit request. I don't have a problem if another editor decides to accept it immediately, however. Chetsford (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ since there's been no objection in a week Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove "Notes" section and unofficial slogans from the introduction
Related to this request, do you mind removing the Notes section, which is no longer applicable? You'll notice the note directs readers to a slogan in the introduction, which should also be removed. Similarly, Red Bull has told me "No Red Bull, no wings" has never been used as a slogan, and in fact, I cannot find any source which verifies this claim. In short, the sentence in the introduction can simply read, "The company's English slogan is "Red Bull gives you wings"." Sorry, had I noticed earlier I would have included in my request. Thanks again for your continued help! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, I've re-opened this request because no editor has reviewed yet. Perhaps you or User:Chetsford or User:FormalDude are willing to remove the unnecessary Notes section and update the introduction as proposed? Inkian Jason (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see an unregistered editor has removed the actual note markup and Thai slogan from the introduction, but the empty Notes section remains. I'll let editors decide if the unsourced "(occasionally "No Red Bull, no wings")" claim is worth keeping in the lead. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ –– FormalDude  talk  02:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've marked this request as answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for "Market approval and legal status" section
For my next request, I'd like to seek removal of the last paragraph of the "Market approval and legal status" section:


 * In 2012, the Kuwaiti Ministry of Commerce banned Red Bull for people under 16 after it had allegedly caused heart attacks for a 16-year-old and a 21-year-old national squash team player.

This sentence is misleading. A review of the citations shows energy drinks were banned, not Red Bull specifically. The first two citations do not even mention Red Bull and the last citation appears to be a blog with a personal opinion ("considering the number of teenagers consuming Red Bull and wont be allowed to anymore, i think its gonna be a big drop in the sales for Red Bull").

I don't see how this claim is necessary for an overview of Red Bull, but if editors insist on keeping mention of the ban in some form, can the text at least be changed to "In 2012, the Kuwaiti Ministry of Commerce banned energy drinks consumption for people under 16 after it had allegedly caused heart attacks for a 16-year-old and a 21-year-old national squash team player" so the claim is representative of sourcing and not misleading to readers?

Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of this sentence seems to violate our policy on WP:SYNTH and I'd support removing it. Because this could be potentially controversial, however, I'm going to wait a week or so to see if there's any objection first. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ since there's been no objection in a week Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for "Health effects" section
I have another removal request for consideration. Currently the "Health effects" section is five paragraphs long. This seems excessive, given the length of the "Effects" section of the general Energy drinks Wikipedia article. There are other issues with this section:
 * In the third paragraph, the sentence "The review also states that though the caffeine and sugar levels in the energy drink are comparable to those present in coffee and fruit juice respectively, these levels have been shown to cause adverse health effects" seems to directly contradict the first sentence about EFSA findings. If editors prefer to keep the text in some form, I think at least some clarification would be helpful here.
 * The fourth paragraph is not specifically about Red Bull and the source does not mention Red Bull.
 * The fifth paragraph is not specifically about Red Bull and the source does not mention Red Bull.

Therefore, I propose removing the last three paragraphs of the section, which seems tangentially related to the subject:

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that exposure to taurine and glucuronolactone at the levels presently used in energy drinks is not a safety concern. In a separate analysis, they also concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support a number of commercial health claims about taurine. A review published in 2008 found no documented reports of negative or positive health effects associated with the amount of taurine used in energy drinks, including Red Bull. The review also states that though the caffeine and sugar levels in the energy drink are comparable to those present in coffee and fruit juice respectively, these levels have been shown to cause adverse health effects. In its scientific opinion on the safety of caffeine of 2015, the EFSA concluded that "consumption of other constituents of energy drinks at concentrations commonly present in such beverages would not affect the safety of single doses of caffeine up to 200 mg." Also, the consumption of alcohol, leading to a blood alcohol content of about 0.08%, would, according to the EFSA, not affect the safety of single doses of caffeine up to 200 mg. Up to these levels of intake, caffeine is unlikely to mask the subjective perception of alcohol intoxication. Habitual use of caffeine up to 400 mg per day does not.

According to SAMHSA, "the number of emergency department (ED) visits" among people over age 12 related to energy drinks doubled between 2007 and 2011 in the US (from 10,068 to 20,783).

This would leave the first two paragraphs, which at least mention Red Bull and offer readers a link to the Energy drink entry for further information.

Thanks for reviewing, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg  Not done: After review, I have determined that the section is good as is. Quetstar (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chetsford, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove unnecessary detail in introduction
Related to the above request, I'm submitting a request to remove the last paragraph of the introduction, per Manual of Style/Lead section, which says: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies... As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

The last (fifth) paragraph of the introduction is about energy drinks in general, not Red Bull. The one sentence which mentions Red Bull is based on this source, which unless I'm overlooking, is about energy drinks in general and not Red Bull specifically. Supposed health risks about energy drinks in general should not be mentioned in an introduction about a specific product. Because introductions are intended to offer the most important facts about a subject, and explain what makes the topic notable within a recommended length of 4 paragraphs, I propose removing this unnecessary detail.

Per your permission and previous responses above, I'm pinging you here and hoping you may be willing to review. I would invite you to review the above request as well, which was declined with limited feedback. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Inkian Jason: After extended review and consideration, I realised that the above request has substance and standing. I have therefore reopened it for further consideration. Quetstar (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Do you mind striking your comment above, which still suggests you disagree with the request? Just trying to avoid confusion. Inkian Jason (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inkian Jason Comment striked. Quetstar (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ after retraction of objection Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Chetsford! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove list of apps sourced by Apple Store
I propose removing the following content, which has some incorrect app names and is sourced by a URL which directs readers to an Apple website for iTunes:

I'll assume editors will see this as a non-controversial request to remove content sourced by a commercial website.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging you in case you're willing to review. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ –– FormalDude  talk  10:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to update number of cans in opening sentence
Hello again! Currently, the article's opening sentence says "... with 7.5 billion cans sold in a year (as of 2019)".

I propose updating this to "... with 7.9 billion cans sold in a year (as of 2020)", per the following sources:


 * Yahoo! Life: "This energy drink of Austrian origin entered the U.S. in 1997 and reports having sold 7.9 billion cans in 2020, with 3 billion of those in the U.S. alone."
 * Charlotte Observer (subscription required): "The company sold more than 7.9 billion cans last year worldwide..."

I know a company's official website cannot be used as an inline citation, but for what it's worth, Red Bull's site also mentions 7.9 billion cans sold in 2020.

Thanks for reviewing and updating the article appropriately! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ –– FormalDude  talk  10:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to convert long list of events into single paragraph of prose
For my next request, I'd like to propose replacing the long list of (mostly unsourced) Red Bull-affiliated events with the following paragraph:

Current and former Red Bull events include the Air Race World Championship (2003–2019), Argentine motorcycle Grand Prix, Art of Motion, BC One, Big Wave Africa, Cape Fear, Cliff Diving World Series, Crashed Ice, Dolomitenmann, Drifting World Championship, Flugtag, Frozen Rush, Indianapolis motorcycle Grand Prix, King of the Rock Tournament, Last Man Standing, MotoGP Rookies Cup, Motorcycle Grand Prix of the Americas, New Year No Limits, Paper Wings, Rampage, Red Bull 400, Road Rage, Romaniacs Hard Enduro Rallye, Soapbox Race, Spanish motorcycle Grand Prix, Stratos, Street Freestyle World Champions (2019), Trolley Grand Prix, Unleashed (2015), X-Alps, Xcbusa, and X-Fighters.

Why? The current list of mostly unsourced and includes many non-notable events. The paragraph I'm proposing mentions only notable events (meaning events with Wikipedia articles of their own) and eliminates use of eight Red Bull-affiliated websites as sources. An added benefit is reducing the amount of real estate dedicated to events; this single paragraph takes up much less space but still gives readers access to links for more information, without being promotional.

Currently, the section has two images from the same event, so I've removed one for now. If editors have other specific preferences for this section, I'm willing to update appropriately, but for now I'd like to think this is an improvement over the existing content because the text focuses on the most notable events and shortens the page significantly. I'm hoping an editor can review this request and update the article on my behalf. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ I removed two images of events in order to make this edit suitable. –– FormalDude  talk  10:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Red Bull Arts
Thanks for reviewing the above requests and updating the article appropriately.

For my next request, I propose updating the current Red Bull House of Art section. The text is outdated because the program title has changed and there is no mention of New York City; most likely, the text has remained unchanged since an article merge back in 2015. I propose replacing the text with the following:

Red Bull Arts is an art fellowship program launched by Red Bull in 2013 under the name Red Bull House of Arts. The program has multiple locations, including Detroit, Michigan; São Paulo, Brazil; and formerly New York City. . The program typically consists of a three-month period during which six to eight participants will create new artwork to be displayed at a final exhibition. During the fellowship, artists receive unlimited access to the galleries and a stipend for art supplies. Some of the artwork has been used in Red Bull advertising campaigns.
 * Red Bull Arts

Again, I'd like to think this is a fairly non-controversial request to update existing text. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ –– FormalDude  talk  21:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to fix inaccurate information in "History" section
On behalf of Red Bull, I'd like to propose an improvement to the third paragraph of the "History" section, which currently says: In 1992, the product expanded to Hungary and Slovenia. It entered Germany and the UK in 1994, the United States (via California) in 1997 and the Middle East in 2000.

Red Bull has identified incorrect launch dates for Slovenia and the Middle East. More importantly, the Middle East claim cannot be verified because the source is not accessible. Therefore, I propose replacing these two sentences with the following, which is a bit more general but still accurate per the already used Funding Universe citation: During the 1990s, the product expanded into Hungary, Slovenia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

I understand editors will ultimately decide how much detail to include here, but I don't think the average reader is too concerned about the exact year in which the product launch in different countries or regions. The claim I've proposed is slightly less detailed but still gives readers an overview of the product's market growth during the 1990s. Additionally, the claim I've proposed is accurate according to both Red Bull and the source already used as a citation.

Thanks to editors for reviewing and updating the article appropriately. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think your proposal improves verifiability. –– FormalDude  talk  21:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove label in "Ingredients" section
Hi again! For this request, I'd like to propose removing the label in the "Ingredients" section, which is confusing at best and misleading at worst. More specifically:
 * According to Red Bull, B-vitamin concentrations and %DV differ between countries
 * Currently, the table displays U.S. recommendations for %DV using nutritional information for a non-U.S. product
 * The source is an undated image (formulations change over time) with information displayed in Turkish
 * The U.S. label provides nutritional information per can, not per 100 mL

I'm no nutrition expert, but Red Bull is saying the label is wrong. I'm submitting this request because I agree that conflating U.S. and non-U.S. data seems confusing, and the labels differ by country, so arbitrarily selecting one without specifically clarifying the applicable country is misleading to readers. Red Bull has requested removing the label altogether, but if editors are unwilling to do so, perhaps specifically using the U.S. label and clarifying as such would be an alternative solution.

I've provided reasons for removing the label, but I'm open to discussing further if editors prefer to display a label in some form. Thanks again!

Inkian Jason (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted the label based off of Red Bull's website. I think it is appropriate to include the primary source in this instance. –– FormalDude  talk  21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to replace "Flavours" with "Products"
Hello again! For this request, I propose replacing the current "Flavours" section with the following "Products" section:

Red Bull began offering variations on its drinks in 2003 with a sugar-free version of the drink with a distinct flavor from the original. In 2018, the company released Red Bull Zero, a different sugar-free formulation designed to taste more like the original flavor.

The company began expanding its flavor offerings in 2013 with the launch of Red Bull Editions. Initially available in cranberry, lime, and blueberry, the Editions line has grown to include a variety of flavors, including some available only during specific seasons or in certain regions.

In 2019, the company launched Organics by Red Bull, a line of organic sodas with four flavors, bitter lemon, ginger ale, tonic water, and cola.

Why? Red Bull's offerings are not only different flavors. There are sugar-free varieties, different flavors, and organic sodas. Additionally, the lists of current and discontinued "flavours" are mostly unsourced and misleading because available varieties differ by country. Furthermore, this list will require constant updating as new varieties become available, or discontinued, in various markets. The section I've drafted is a more general and evergreen overview of the brand's products.

Related, I propose altering the order of sections slightly to Products, then Ingredients, then Health effects. Makes more sense to provide readers with an overview of products, followed by what they are made of, followed by their impact. Leading with ingredients, then providing a products overview, then jumping back to impact seems counterintuitive. Again, my goal here is to improve the article's accuracy and integrity. Happy to address questions or concerns!

Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. –– FormalDude  talk  05:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed content re: sports sponsorships
On behalf of Red Bull, I'd like to propose an overhaul of the article's content related to sports sponsorships. Currently, the article has three subsections: Sports sponsorships and acquisitions, Sponsorships (which seems redundant), and Endorsements. All three of these subsections are mostly unsourced: the first has 1 Red Bull citation within 21 entries, the second is entirely unsourced, and the third has a few citations, some of which are dead or primary.

Red Bull has indeed had an extensive history of sports sponsorships, so I've drafted replacement content which seeks to provide readers with an appropriate overview using reputable sourcing. The content shared below offers a general history, separated by athlete endorsements and team ownership/sponsorships.

I'd like to think this is a significant improvement over the existing text. Currently, the article has many images of vehicles, which seems unnecessary and redundant, but I will let editors decide which images are worth keeping for illustrative purposes. I've tried to be brief and neutral in drafting a summary, and Red Bull has verified the accuracy of the claims. I invite editors to please review the following content and update the article appropriately:

Red Bull has used sports sponsorships as an advertising vehicle for most of its existence. The company first started sponsoring athletes in 1989, initially focusing on Formula One racing and extreme sports such as windsurfing and hang gliding, and later growing to include more mainstream sports such as basketball and soccer. As of 2016, the company sponsored more than 750 individual athletes and more than a dozen teams in various disciplines, including motorsports, soccer, and esports.

Austrian Formula One driver Gerhard Berger was the first athlete to be sponsored by Red Bull in 1989. Many of the company's early sponsorships were in lesser-known or extreme sports, including Olympic rower Xeno Müller, who won a gold medal at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics in the single scull race and BASE jumpers Frank "Gambler" Gambalie, Miles Dashier, and Shane McConkey. In the 2010s, Red Bull began expanding its athlete base to include athletes from more mainstream sports, including Austrian tennis player Dominic Thiem, Brazilian skateboarder Letícia Bufoni, American skier Lindsey Vonn, and American Major League Baseball player Kris Bryant. The company also started sponsoring video game players and esports athletes, including American Fortnite player Richard "Ninja" Blevins, Spanish League of Legends player Enrique Cedeño "xPeke" Martinez, and Swedish Super Smash Brothers player William "Leffen" Hjelte. As of 2016, the company sponsored more than 750 athletes and esports athletes.

In the late 1990s, Red Bull sponsored its first team, the Swiss Formula One team Sauber and in 1999 started sponsoring the Flying Bulls, a Czech aerobatics team. In the 2000s, the company expanded its sporting team ownership to include several soccer teams, including the Austrian Bundesliga team SV Austria Salzburg (rebranded as Red Bull Salzburg), the Major League Soccer team the New York MetroStars (rebranded as the New York Red Bulls) in 2006, and the fifth-tier German team SSV Markranstadt (rebranded as RasenBallsport Leipzig) in 2009, which the company sought to move to the top of the German Bundesliga. RB Leipzig has been divisive and the subject of protests by some fans but has also experienced rapid success, climbing through the German soccer divisions to get a place in the top-flight German Bundesliga and earning berths in the UEFA Champions League in 2017-2018 and 2019-2020, the latter trip ending with a semifinal loss to Paris St. Germain. The company also sponsors the Los Angeles Clippers NBA team and Red Bull 3X, a series of men's and women's 3x3 basketball tournaments.

In the 2010s, Red Bull began sponsoring gamers and esports organizations, including OG and Cloud9, and founded the Red Bulls League of Legends team.

As always, I'm happy to address questions or concerns here or on my user talk page. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good edit request that improves WP:RS. –– FormalDude  talk  05:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "Locations" subsection
On behalf of Red Bull, I propose removing the "Locations" subsection, which is an unsourced bulleted list of sites tangentially related to the company, based on naming rights. The three arenas are mentioned in the navigation template at the bottom of the page, and the bridge is not a "location". Not to mention, "Locations" could imply office spaces to some readers. If editors are adamant about keeping mention of these sites, perhaps a single sentence about naming rights could be added to the end of the "Sports and esports sponsorships" parent section, or mention could be left to the navigation template?

Thanks for your consideration! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ –– FormalDude  talk  18:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks good, except I think now the "See also" section has been made a subsection of "Advertising". Inkian Jason (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Update for "Market approval and legal status" section"
For my next request, I'd like to suggest an update for the following unsourced sentence:
 * "However, as of 2014, it is on sale in all 27 member states of the European Union and in more than 167 countries around the world."

I propose changing "as of 2014" to "as of 2021" and "167 countries around the world" to "171 countries around the world" to bring the text up to date.

Following are some sources to consider using as a citation:
 * Forbes says, "The brand that gives you wings sold 6.8 billion cans, up 8%, across 171 countries in 2018."
 * South China Morning Post says, "Red Bull sold 6.3 billion cans worldwide in 171 countries last year."
 * Fortune says, "By the end of 2019, Red Bull boasted 12,736 employees in 171 countries, with 7.5 billion cans being sold worldwide."

If editors prefer more evergreen language, perhaps "more than 170 countries" is a better alternative. Either way, my goal here is simply to bring the article's current text up to date. The provided sources mention '171 countries' as part of the summary description of the company, which makes me wonder, should this claim be added to the introduction and infobox as well? Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Template:Infobox_drink does not have a parameter for countries that the beverage is sold in. However, this may be acceptable content to include in the lead section. –– FormalDude  talk  18:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks again for your help! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks again for your help! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove "Over 21" in the infobox
I'd like to submit a minor request to remove "Over 21" in the infobox, which links to a non-existent section and is no longer helpful to readers.

Also, as a reminder, there's still this similar open request above to remove the unnecessary "Notes" section and update wording in the introduction.

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've simply replaced "Over 21" with "Red Bull Zero, Red Bull Editions". –– FormalDude  talk  02:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove poorly sourced original research from "History" section
I propose removing the last two paragraphs of the "History" section:

In 1995, Krating Daeng authorized its drink, labelled as Red Bull, to be sold in China. Since 2014, the Austrian Red Bull (carbonated) has also been exported to China. This has created confusion since both drinks use the same brand name, in both English and Chinese.

Similarly, in Southeast Asia, Red Bull and Krating Daeng are often confused as both use the Red Bull name in their packaging, although they are two separate products aimed at different markets. The main difference is that Red Bull comes in a tall blue and silver can while the Thailand Red Bull, or Krating Daeng, is in a smaller gold can. The two drinks also differ in terms of taste—Red Bull has less sugar and is carbonated. The flavouring used for Red Bull is still produced in Bangkok and exported worldwide.

Only the last sentence has a citation, which directs readers to a dead Bangkok Post article. The rest of this content reads like original research about supposed confusion between different products, not a history of this particular brand or product. Also, the start of the "History" section already covers Krating Daeng.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The two paragraphs were removed aside from the last sentence, which, as you noted, has a citation. The last sentence was moved to paragraph three. –– FormalDude  talk  02:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Request re: extreme sports
For this request, I'd like to propose a wording change regarding extreme sports. Currently, the article says "Red Bull's international marketing campaign targets young men mostly with extreme sports. These range from motorcycle speedway, mountain biking..." There's no citation for "targets young men mostly with extreme sports" and I'm not sure Wikipedia should be suggesting women do not participate in extreme sports (or sports in general). I propose changing this content to the following: "Red Bull's international marketing campaign has been linked to extreme sports, including motorcycle speedway, mountain biking..." (or similar)

The current text does not seem like a fair or necessary detail, but I'm happy to discuss further if needed. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . –– FormalDude  talk  02:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to add a couple additional events to the list
Hello again! I'd like to propose adding two additional notable events to the list in the "Events" section, which currently displays links to standalone articles in alphabetical order:
 * Red Bull Joyride (Joyride)
 * Wings for Life World Run

Also, editors could consider adding Red Bull Illume, which is an international photography contest for adventure and action sports.

I am putting this request on your radar because of your prior assistance with this section.

Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The events list is full of stuff. I don't think it can fit anymore events. Quetstar (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've made this edit on 's behalf. Please treat it as a bold edit and feel free to revert if you have objections. –– Formal  talk 08:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Request to add B2 to list of B vitamins
Hello! I have another non-controversial request for this article. Currently, the "Ingredients" section lists B vitamins as "(B3, B5, B6, B12)". I propose adding mention of B2, also known as riboflavin, and changing the list to "(B2, B3, B5, B6, B12)". Reference #32 is already used as an inline citation at the end of the sentence and verifies this claim, and a simple Google search will prove Red Bull has B2/riboflavin. My goal here is simply to update the list to be more accurate.

Thanks again for your continued assistance to improve this article. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Quetstar (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Quetstar. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Redbull daily consumption.
Hi I would like to know how many Redbulls on average a day most people drink.....Me for instance, I drink on average 8 355ml per day a bit more on weekends.... I open my first one at about 7am every morning on my way to work and have my last one at about 3pm. This also depends on if I have to work longer then I drink more....

I do not have any side affects nor heart problems or anything.

Would like to hear from others on there habits with Redbull.

I Love Redbull

Regards, Richard Good 0840941288 102.66.60.45 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope you won't think I'm being rude, but as it says on the banner at the top of this page, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Bull article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.  If I were wanting to know the answer to your question, I would find a forum by Googling "red bull energy drink forums".  All the best, Le Marteau (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.