Jump to content

Talk:Rockstar (drink)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Promotional content

[edit]

As it stands, this page seems awfully promotional, almost like an ad. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Official Energy drink of paul revere society?

[edit]

Can someone verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbspewackshead (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar Energy Drink has absolutely no connection or affiliation with The Paul Revere Society.--Balancingact5k (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor

[edit]

Just because I felt like trying something different, I went to pick up some energy drinks and I grabbed a can of Rockstar. I searched the can for any indications of what flavor I should expect, but it didn't mention anything. So I went here hoping that it would mention what flavor I had bought, sill didn't mention anything. So I figured I'd describe the flavor, and maybe somebody can work it into the article. Anyway, I'd describe the flavor [of the origional, in the black can] like liquid nerds [which is really just condensed sugar with artifical fruit flavors], really tangy and kind of sweet, but it's got a sour aftertaste, then after a minute or two it tastes like you just ate a box of nerds. ARBlackwood 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla isn't a bad way to describe the flavor of an original Rockstar. And yes it is somewhat "tangy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.185.98 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I couldn't STAND the black-can variety. I spit it out and threw it away. Juiced in the puple can, on the other hand, is sooo flipping good. Unfortunately, one ONE gas station in my town carries it. Kingoomieiii 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't disagree more. I can't stand juiced 76.102.183.62 (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me the stuff in the black can tastes kinda bubble gum flavored. Not alot, but just a little. Either way Rockstar is the best tasting energy drink around IMO Fisha695 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the talk page is to talk about the article, not the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.99.53 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health

[edit]

Is there any information available on the health effects of these drinks?

Ingredients

[edit]

Carbonated water, [high fructose corn syrup]], glucose, critic acid, taurine, natural and artifical flavors, sodicum citrate, caffeine, caramel color, benzoic acid, sorbic acid, L-carnitine, inositol, niacinamide, calcium pantothenate, milk thistle extract, ginko biloba leaf extrac

Substantiation re Michael Savage claim

[edit]

Now please stop reverting it. http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2001-04-11/news/feature_3.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben-w (talk • contribs) 22:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

This question may seem stupid but I'm still curious.

[edit]

I was wondering if, Russell Goldencloud Weiner is in any part related to Rockstar Video Game company as well as the drink company. The actual article about Rockstar game mentions nothing of the individuals who devolped the company so I really couldn't find anything out from here. I'm googling it right now but since I'm at a public school they block almost anything to do with video games because "Violence" and "Naughty Words" are bad and cause "A surge in youth violence" so I probally won't discover anything before then. So please post if you know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.144.44.21 (talk • contribs) 15:08, December 14, 2005 (UTC)

I too am curious if this beverage company is affiliated with the software developer. --NEMT 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.

[edit]

ROCKSTAR Energy Drink is not affiliated with the video game. There is a mutual agreement in place that the video game company will not manufacture energy drinks and the energy drink company will not start to produce software.

MARCisaROCKSTAR 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Claims

[edit]

Can someone get a source for the comment that was put on the article: "The drink itself fluoresces when exposed to UV light. It is also turns urine a neon green color."


I've deleted the urine comment because I think it was vandalism, but I can't prove the UV Light comment.

Any sources would be nice.

I can confirm that drinking the non-flavored kind of rockstar (The basic black can Rockstar) will indead turn your urine a bright yellow color. The Red (Pomegranate), Purple (Guava), and Blue (Zero Carb), will not do this, however. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bright yellow is probably due to dehydration. This might be the end result of your body losing fluids due to the diuretic effect of caffeine.. 12.217.236.33 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the comment said neon green.. lol.

I have analized my urine many times. It was a definate 2 shades closer to neon green than before I drank it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.130.147 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

The color change is actually true it is a bright(neon if you will) yellow but its not due to dehydration its actually do to to the high B vitamin content which change your urine color  --User:skinchops  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.41 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check the UV comment.. that's interesting.. --User:ToughLuckMeadow

I checked the UV comment with the sugar-free Rockstar drink with the UV light we use for scorpion hunting. Scorpions do fluoresce under UV light, but sugar-free Rockstar energy drink does not. Dolomedes 21:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That proves nothing. No offense, but not everything fluoresces at the same wavelength. Take blood for example, it fluoresces in the visual spectrum. If you read just the abstract found here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ChOpL...2..160G you'll see so. Given that 10-400nm wavelengths are all in the UV range, and it could fluoresce in any part of the light spectrum, including both UV and infrared, I have to question if you did a full experiment. I'm not arguing that we include anything about UV, just that given most UV lights are ~360nm and higher, and you only tested it on one type, there is no proof either way. 67.234.72.104 (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay all you Rockstar addicts, affect on weight thoughts - not really looking to include this, just looking for other experience. I started drinking black can when I tired of the small cans of Red Bull around 10 years ago. I went from drinking ~2 cans a day and weighing in at 205 lb (94 kg). Over the years, my daily consumption has increased to the point where I couldn't tell you how many I have; I buy it by the case (four at a time) but would estimate it at 5-8 cans. My weight has dropped to 127 lb (58 kg). There are no other factors; no illness, change in routine or exercise amount. I mostly smoke and drink Rockstar and eat when I'm hungry until I'm not hungry (versus full). --98.203.166.166 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I'm not sure the article needs a cleanup any longer, I've added a bit to it and added some citations. I can find the bit about Gumball 3000 on Rockstar's news bar but unfrtunately the whole site is in flash so citing directly to that bit is impossible :(

Citation of further sources needed but I think the cleanup is done. Joncojonathan 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a lot that needs to be added.

  • Sponsored Tours and what bands are on those tours [2]</>
  • Sponsored Sprting Events [3]
  • Student Travel [4]
  • Charity Support [5]

--Balancingact5k (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Booze

[edit]

added rockstar+vodka section and pic.

Affiliations

[edit]

I've removed the following section, previously entitled "Affiliations", from the article:

My reasoning for this is that the section is a trivia section. It adds nothing to the article and a list of affiliations which are irrelevant to the drink. Imagine the Coca Cola article listing every organization and trivial group the company has sponsored. Instead, it mentions the advertising in prose and omits trivial details that this section is entirely composed of. Not to mention, only one of the affiliations has a citation. 高 03:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actuatlly that is very relivent information about the company. Both Red Bull [[6]] and Monster Energy [[7]] have information about their Sponsors and Endorsements. --Balancingact5k (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Dubious citation

[edit]

I'm noticing that the article uses an attack site -- http://www.thetruthaboutrockstar.com -- as a citation. Surely a better citation can be found? 69.137.130.101 (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Wikipedia is filled with "progressive" children who will go as far as to discredit an ENERGY DRINK (lol!) because the owner of the drink is the SON of Michael Savage. Evidently, they are fond of the belief that people can be guilty by association. There is absolutely no reason to take www.thetruthaboutrockstar.com seriously. Yes, Russel Weiner is Michael Savage's son. Is that all? Moreover, the site CLAIMS Michael Savage created the drink, but THEY PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE. This is why I and many others do not take Wikipedia seriously. 71.234.116.13 (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest the truth about rockstar site does some a bit rash an unsupported, however http://www.drlaniac.com/Articles/view.asp?file=fascismcola.htm this site is filled with what appears to be fact as far as I can tell. Direct quotes about the relations of father and son and beliefs of the son are shown within. As such I think that this site holds possible value and can be used as evidence. As for the "progressive" children comment, there is nothing wrong with wanting to change something you see as wrong, assuming that all the facts that you have are valid. There for not taking Wikipedia seriously because of a minor portion of an article about a soft drink leads me to believe that you did not do your own research either OR that you are some how biased towards the view points of the man under discussion. Boycotting a drink because you do not believe in the views of the creators father/himself seems silly, though to state that there is a boycott is certainly within the rights and purpose of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackofallHearts (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. That site is as biased and unfounded as the former source. “Dr.” Laniac’s sources are Salon.com, and Media Matters. Need I say more? Or does Wikipedia still consider Salon.com and Media Matters objective news sources? Further, the sources Laniac cited are not evidence for the claims that he made in his so-called article, such as the claim that Michael Savage helped invent (or invented) Rockstar, and Russel Weiner’s political views are a carbon copy of his father’s. The site also calls Michael Savage anti-gay, anti-Islam, et cetera, which are the typical accusations made by liberals, but these are merely accusations. A sound bite of a minute or two hyperbolic statement taken out of context does not prove anything and the tactic is childish. This site you’ve provided is a smear website and nothing more. I have no qualms with this article stating that there are some who are boycotting Rockstar for political reasons. Although I have a problem with the unfounded claim that Michael Savage invented Rockstar and that *the* gay community is behind the boycott. Believe it or not, there are some homosexuals who listen to Michael Savage who believe he is not anti-gay. Lastly, I do not take Wikipedia seriously because the sources the editors are allowed to use are often not credible. For example, the source you've provided is amaturish at best; it looks as though it was peiced together in a day or two by a frustrated left-wing college student. Have you looked at the rest of the website? 71.234.116.13 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on controversy section

[edit]

An editor associated with Rockstar made complaints that the controversy / criticism section is inaccurate or unfair.

Although the criticism issue is well known and coverage here appears to be accurate and cited (though that's open to review), I believe that the section as is is violating our policy WP:UNDUE, which says that we should not give undue weight to narrow aspects of articles or subject topics.

The section currently occupies about half the total article text (by word count and vertical height, excluding image and navigation / subsections box).

I would like to invite people to comment on this, and propose how to balance the criticism section better in proportion to the total article.

We don't whitewash articles - and the criticism issue is legitimately very well known right now, so it should be mentioned - but WP:UNDUE requires that we balance coverage, as does our policy on neutral points of view, WP:NPOV.

I don't know that any of the information in that section shouldn't be - it appears accurate, as I said above - but perhaps should be left to a briefer summary with links to the various boycott sites. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, there doesn't seem to much more that can be added about subjects of actual interest (like, profile of the company, sales figures and the like), as opposed to mentions of all the stuff they sponsor, which seems of dubious value. The controversy section is actually quite brief, the trouble is the rest of the article needs expanding usefully, which is proving difficult (I tried a while ago), partly because the company is private. Disembrangler (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to expand the rest, please feel free, but WP:UNDUE applies whether anyone does or not.
The level of detail in the criticism section is significantly deeper than the rest of the article. I would prefer to trim it down to a single brief paragraph for the time being - leave the material here in talk in a comment, if the article expands enough that it won't further unbalance things, it could go back in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you read what I said? I tried to expand the rest of the article, and couldn't. Maybe others can. I don't see how the boycott section can be trimmed without loss of relevant information, unless we're willing to drop the entire sentence about Tsai and keep just the more general statement about taking down critical groups.
Also you're wrong about WP:UNDUE - the considerations apply to a hypothetical final version of the article, not to the current version. WP:DEADLINE. In addition, I'd question whether WP:UNDUE really applies to this version. Not many drinks have boycotts against them - this is notable. Disembrangler (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was pertinent information on this site that had to do with the company of Rockstar and that information keeps getting identified as spam. If you look on my page Balancingact5k, you will find that Red bull and Monster are allowed to have way more content about their company then Rockstar. Plus, I have not had a chance yet, the information about the Boycott needs to be challenged and I will do so soon. --Balancingact5k (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a lot that needs to be added.
  • Sponsored Tours and what bands are on those tours [8]</>
  • Sponsored Sprting Events [9]
  • Student Travel [10]
  • Charity Support [11]

I would also like to add that both Red Bull [12] and Monster Energy [[13]] have information about the events they put on or the things they endorse. It's not whitewashing, it's information about the company. People i think would like to know what these companies have a hand in. --Balancingact5k (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but note the style and type of information those articles provide. I expect similar debates have been hashed out there, so I'd suggest these articles would be models to follow. Disembrangler (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will take note when putting together entries to copy the style but I looked at the Red Bull talk site and found no conversation pertaining to advertising. Correction, there is one sentence. [[14]]. --Balancingact5k (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

[edit]

The title of the article is wrong. The Drink is Called "Rockstar Energy Drink" [15] not Rockstar.--Balancingact5k (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott Section needs editing

[edit]

Savage's son, Russell Goldencloud Weiner, is the co-founder and CEO and Savage's wife is the corporation's secretary and treasurer. As of June 2009, Rockstar, Inc. shares the same address with Savage Productions.

I challenge this part of the article because there is no connection between Savage Productions and Rockstar Inc. Further more Michael Savage has nothing to do with the company. There has been no citation or documentation stating that Michael Savage has anything to do with the Rockstar Inc. Therefore:

  1. The information about the address is not cited and therefore not verifiable and needs to come down.
  2. That information bares no relevance to the article as Michael Savage has nothing to do with Company and I challenge you to find any credible resource showing Michael Savage has affiliation to the company. Michael Savage Is not on the payroll. Michael Savage is not on the board of trustees. So on and so forth.

--Balancingact5k (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this. As stated before it doesn't have relevance to the company. Michael Savage has no deed or claim to the business and therefor not lagin to put on this site. Even with the inaccuracies of that site, i would like to point out that even they acknowledge that Michael Save is not apart of the company which makes this line irrelevant to the article. --Balancingact5k (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott section needs More Editing.

[edit]

Michael Savage has been criticized by people who claim he has made homophobic, racist, and discriminatory public statements. Savage's son, Russell Goldencloud Weiner, is the co-founder and CEO and Savage's wife is the corporation's secretary and treasurer. As of June 2009, Rockstar, Inc. has the same registered business address as Savage Productions.

This statement in bold has to do with Michael Savage and not Rockstar Energy Drink. If people want to find out about Michael Savage's controversies, they can go to his page. As stated in previous postings, Michael Savage has nothing to do with the company Rockstar Energy Drink and that statement is entirely about Michael Savage. Further more Michael Savage does dot speak for or represent Rockstar Inc. So please remove.--Balancingact5k (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing your two comments (this section and above) and will try and respond coherently tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified why the sentence is there ("The boycott is motivated by..."). It needs to be here, for minimum explanation of the boycott; with further details at the Michael Savage page. Disembrangler (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, But can we put instead write:

The boycott is motivated by claims that Michael Savage and incendiary public statements on his radio program directed towards the LGBT and immigrant communities.

or

The boycott is motivated by incendiary public statements Michael Savage has made on his radio program that The LGBT Community, immigrant community and supporters of this boycott claim are discriminatory.

The reason being:

  1. Relating to the first suggested revision. As stated before Michael Savage has nothing to do with the company and I think adding the specific charges that are assigned to Michael Savage on the Rockstar page unfairly associates Rockstar with those charges. But as it is fair to write a blurb about why the boycott is upset with Michael Savage, I think it gets the point across that by summarizing his statements as generally discriminatory. If they want to know specifics they can go to his page. Sins of the father should not be punished on the son.
  2. Relating to the second suggested revision. The charges are being made specifically by these communities and I think it is fair to point that out. The accusations are not general opinion. If you look at a reference sources, they are mostly from gay publications are LGBT sympathetic sites communities.

Please consider these revisions.--Balancingact5k (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers

[edit]

In the late Spring of 2009, Savage hired lawyers for the purpose of distancing himself from any possible association with Rockstar.[citation needed] Rockstar ordered the take down of groups on Facebook critical of the connection to Savage.[21][16] Rockstar's legal team, Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, LLP threatened legal action against Facebook user Charles Tsai[22] for creating a group called "Don't Drink Hate, BOYCOTT ROCKSTAR!,"[23] and later gaywired.com issued a partial retraction based on the issue.[24][25][26]

I have issues with this statement.

  1. In the late Spring of 2009, Savage hired lawyers for the purpose of distancing himself from any possible association with Rockstar.[citation needed]

    To the best of my knowledge, Savage has not retained lawyers to distance himself from Rockstar. Since this reference is not cited by a credible source or any source for that matter, then this statement should come down.

  2. Rockstar ordered the take down of groups on Facebook critical of the connection to Savage.[21][16] Rockstar's legal team, Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, LLP threatened legal action against Facebook user Charles Tsai[22] for creating a group called "Don't Drink Hate, BOYCOTT ROCKSTAR!,"[23] and later gaywired.com issued a partial retraction based on the issue.[24][25][26]

    Rockstar didn’t order or threaten anyone at Facebook. Rockstar cant order facebook. Facebook takes down pages that violate the Facebook user agreement. Furthermore, all the sites are anecdotal and I challenge the neutrality of their accusations. They are obviously supporters of the boycott and play a part in the advocacy of the boycott; plus, none of the sites have published Letters of Retractions that would have been given to them by Rockstar lawyers if in fact lawyers had approached them. Nor have these references shown any supporting evidence to their statements. I thin these claim on these referenced sites are highly questionable.

Thanks for looking into this.--Balancingact5k (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

[edit]

Russell Goldencloud Weiner, is the co-founder and CEO and Savage's wife is the corporation's secretary and treasurer.

This is wrong. Russell Weiner is the ONLY founder of the company and is the CEO. Mr. Weiner started the company with his own money and his own contacts from previous business adventures. Janet Weiner is the CFO.

  • Plus this is in the top lead-in to the article.

    Rockstar is based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and is co-owned by Russell Goldencloud Weiner.

    As stated above Russell Weiner is the ONLY founder of the company and is the ONLY owner. He is the CEO.

    • --Balancingact5k (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Statements are not enough. We need reliable sources. Disembrangler (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair but the original statement is not sourced at all and not accurate. But i will look for references.--98.151.5.63 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the IP. We have no source for Janet Weiner being a cofounder, and if it's contested in this manner it's fair to say that it should not be in the article.
    It would help (hint, hint) if the company website had a corporate ownership/history statement which we could refer to... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In this articles own reference it shows Russ Weiner as the Founder. It also shows Jonathan Jacobs as a founder. I don't know who he is and will have to do research but he could have helped incorporate the business. But one thing is for sure, Janet Weiner IS NOT on there as a founder.[16]--Balancingact5k (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that (Janet being co-founder) was in the article either, so I'm puzzled why you bring it up. Also she may be CFO, but we only have sources saying she's Secretary/Treasurer. Disembrangler (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True but Russ is still listed as the founder not co-founder. In the boycott section, i think that there is an inference that Savage co-founded Rockstar too and I want to make it clear that Russ is the ONLY founder.--Balancingact5k (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redundant

    [edit]

    Rockstar is the subject of a boycott by part of the LGBT community because of the company's ties to the controversial conservative radio host Michael Savage (via his son Russell Goldencloud Weiner and wife Janet Weiner).[15][16][17][18][19] The boycott is motivated by claims that Michael Savage has made homophobic, racist, and discriminatory public statements. Savage's son, Russell Goldencloud Weiner, is the co-founder and CEO and Savage's wife is the corporation's secretary and treasurer.[20][21]

    Th highlighted comment is redundant. The link that Russ is Savage's son is at the beginning of the paragraph and the it is mentioned that he is the CEO at the beginning of the article. Ditto that with Janet. Can I suggest we edit it like this:

    Rockstar is the subject of a boycott by part of the LGBT community because of the company's ties to the controversial conservative radio host Michael Savage (via his son Russell Goldencloud Weiner, CEO and Savage's wife Janet Weiner, CFO). The boycott is motivated by claims that Michael Savage has made homophobic, racist, and discriminatory public statements.

    This cleans up and clarify the statement.--98.151.5.63 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=22212790

    The Newsweek article has been updated and now shows that russ is the ONLY founder. Please correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.7.50 (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanup tags

    [edit]

    I've added cleanup tags, overall I think it's a decent article, just needs a little cleanup. The lead happens to be most of the article, the sponsor table is horrible, there is a contradiction within (marked) that I don't want to intrude on. I'm wondering why there is a question mark after 2009, in the second sentence. The gallery of images should be split up into separate sections, or at least into a single section which describes each different variety. In either case, there are new varieties listed on the website. 67.234.72.104 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    new drink table

    [edit]

    i love rockstar so i added tables showing all the flavors and the drink size for those researching the drink itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronrust (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Caffeine Content????

    [edit]

    Probably the most important part of these articles on Energy drinks but I cannot find it. The regular Rockstar drinks actually have *significantly* less caffeine than the lo-carb or diet versions. Energyfiend.com (no idea how accurate they are) has a listing of caffeine content for various drinks, although they seem to be missing the diet rockstar one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.121.144 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The sugar free one? I think it's the same as a Regular one. To be fair, Mountain Dew has more caffine than a Rockstar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiesushi (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IP: you should research it and add it to the article yourself. --Psrq (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some clearly false info in the article regarding caffeine. It says the shots have 32 mg, but clearly that's not true. Also, I was going to add energyfiend as a source of caffeine info to the article, but only added a note in a source comment, as it turned out to be unreliable. The huge tables seem like TMI to me, but I figure someone put the work into making 'em and they're bearable. --Psrq (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Malicious reference removal? - Examiner.com

    [edit]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rockstar_(drink)&diff=prev&oldid=444733776 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rockstar_(drink)&diff=516531221&oldid=516389040 are edits to remove "Rockstar energy drink founder is homophobe and racist Michael Savage " as a citation. I see no discussion, making it hard to see this as other than malicious reference removal. First edit summary: "besides being a dead link, it was a blacklisted site anyway". The San Francisco Examiner blacklisted? WTF does that even mean? Link wasn't dead. It was removed in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links. Second edit summary: Removed unusable and duplicate citation. Unusable? Is that a code word for blacklisted? What, if anything, makes these removals anything other than ANI-reportable vandalism? I'm seeing that the changed case of "BOYCOTT ROCKSTAR" doesn't match the citation either, which makes for a pattern of editing that indicates POV-pushing.--Psrq (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com is not a valid source. It's blacklisted because people keep inserting it into articles even though it isn't a valid source per WP:RS.
    In addition, according to the Wikipedia article, Rockstar is founded by Savage's son, Russell Weiner. There are plenty of criticisms to be made of Michael Savage, and quite a few of them are in the article at Michael Savage#Criticism. Much as I'm no fan of racist homophobes, I don't exactly see what Savage's views have to do with an energy drink manufacturing company started by his son. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Sorry for the confusion. I see now that examiner.com is not sfexaminer.com! (The examiner link I was concerned about was regarding homophobia, and dead (but archived elsewhere w/o the banner so I thought it was the SF paper.) I find your reply nonsensical. The San Francisco Examiner is a normal newspaper, AFAIK, which makes it presumptively an RS. On what objective basis does it not meet RS? I still can't find any evidence that it doesn't meet RS - just claims that if true would mean it is not a RS. Can you provide some evidence indicating what blacklist is it on? Not one that matters here, AFAICT. Aha! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#Self-written_commission-paying_sites contradicts your claim that examiner.com is not a RS. Rockstar seems to have been a family business - run mostly by Savage's wife, IIRC, and I guess there's some evidence that Savage himself is involved directly, including being a founder and using Rockstar's corporate address as that of his own company. If he's not a founder, why does the examiner article say he is? -Psrq (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Perhaps the sanitization of this article explains why you see no connection between Savage and Rockstar. It seems impossible to reconcile “Mr. Savage is not affiliated with Rockstar in any manner.” with data from the "Nevada Secretary of State. For according to that office, Savage’s company, Savage Productions, uses the same mailbox and is registered at the same street address as Rockstar. Also, Rockstar’s sole officer other than Russell Weiner is Savage’s wife and Weiner’s mother, Janet Weiner, who fills the positions of director, treasurer, and secretary. Ms. Weiner must be exceedingly adept at these diverse responsibilities since she is also the director, treasurer, and secretary of Savage Productions." (source.--Psrq (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, it contains a list of domains that are BLACKLISTED on en wikipedia. That was my justification behind the removal of the citation. Also note that the same BLACKLISTED citation was duplicated in the same position. Objections to examiner.com being BLACKLISTED should be addressed elsewhere. Also see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#Self-written_commission-paying_sites which contradicts your claim that examiner.com is not a RS. It explains why some blacklisted sites can be RS.--Psrq (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This page MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests to which you directed me indicates that examiner.com is usually unacceptable {{Examiner.com (note this is not the website of any of the various paper publications including the name "Examiner")}} The citation in you are up in arms about is /www.examiner.com/examiner and therefore "in order to avoid your request being summarily denied, you need to go the extra mile to demonstrate that the article is reliable and that you are not connected with the site owner." All this to say that my reasons for deleting the citation were justified as I perceive that subsequently you also may have had reasons for re-inserting it then deleting it yourself and subsequently re-inserting it again.EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "You can lead a horse to water..." There's nothing more to do if you still don't see that it would have been appropriate to provide more justification and explanation than merely stating that examiner.com is blacklisted for repeatedly removing the citation. HAND. --Psrq (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you put special emphasis on the word repeatedly suggesting there was edit warring on my part. As far as the edit history will tell, I only made one edit deleting the source and had no further dealings with the article until you began this discussion here. I notice from your edits that the repeatedly refers to your edits on the page which you were evidently at odds about because you also deleted the source after re-adding yourself. Anyway I'll let sleeping dogs lie since I have no vested interest in the content of this article. Happy editing.EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockstar_(drink)#Boycott is a WP:BLP VIO

    [edit]

    Blogs, dead links and fringe opinions do not make for valid verifiable Reliable sources to support such defamatory claims. This section is a blatent WP:BLP Vio about Michael Savage.

    Dead link
    Dead link
    Nothing more than a press release about thetruthaboutrockstar.com and not a WP:RS
    Not a WP:RS nor is it independent of the subject ie '"Rockstar’s lawyers sent AlterNet a letter accusing us of defamation"..
    Fails as a WP:RS
    This is by no means a valid source, Self published opinion/blog press by release by a fringe group (thetruthaboutrockstar.com).

    References 19-25 do support inclusions of claims he is homophobic, racist, or otherwise. this violates WP:BLP. --Hu12 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I took out the open.salon link because that is truly a self-published source with little to offer but its very inflammatory headline; I added an Associated Press reference for the Newsom link. My feeling based on that is that the sourcing can probably be improved across the board - if folks here haven't searched out relevant Associated Press articles we've never really had a proper news search about this topic at all. The mere fact that gaywired is a dead link doesn't make it an unreliable source, but it makes it hard to know if it is. The Alternet source should be used carefully - it does support that Alternet was threatened with a lawsuit. The two primary sites truthabout... are only being cited for very general statements about what they contained at the moment, so this isn't really wrong, though it isn't at this point all that useful either. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Rockstar(boisson)-multiples.jpg

    [edit]

    The file File:Rockstar(boisson)-multiples.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Rockstar(boisson)-multiples.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Roskstar2.jpg

    [edit]

    The file File:Roskstar2.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Roskstar2.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    New Drink Flavor

    [edit]

    I work as a sackboy at a local supermarket and found a new "Horchata" flavor that I thought needed to be added to the flavor list but as a new Wikipedia editor I have absolutely no idea how to do it. If a more experienced editor could please add this flavor to the list it would be greatly appreciated.

    Link: [17] Richardkelley21 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rockstar (drink). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

    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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lime Freeze (active) vs Freeze - Frozen Lime (discontinued)

    [edit]

    Rockstar currently makes:

    Rockstar - Lime Freeze: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SJIEf0noM-I/maxresdefault.jpg

    They discontinued:

    Rockstar Freeze - Frozen Lime: http://www.kustompcs.co.uk/acatalog/68094.jpg


    Perhaps this is a different formula, but even if not - the can being different would still be of interest to collectors.

    --Wowaconia (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    [edit]

    "Evolution of Merchandising in the Apparel Industry and management of Private Label Apparel in the Retail Industry" Brand of authentic logo design Andi Nugraha.Adv2020

    List of Products

    [edit]

    The deletion of the list of products is unwarranted.

    • On claim that listing products of a company on that company's page is unencylopedic:

    Note the listing of products for Apple Inc. on their page [[18]]

    • On claim that its just an advertisement for their products:

    The list for Rockstar included historic information on products that they don't even sell anymore so the accusation is unsupported.

    --Wowaconia (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Also examine the policy Wikipedia:Spam "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. ...When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view."

    I do not see how listing its products promotes anything, it does not use sale-oriented language nor does it have the tone of an advertisement.

    Please explain how wiki-standards demand that the segment be deleted? --Wowaconia (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another applicable wiki-policy would be WP:PROMOTION : In the segment on "Advertising, marketing or public relations." It states "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."

    • I maintain that a flat list of products that the company has produced, that offers no opinion on the subjective value of such products is objective and does not violate the standard.

    --Wowaconia (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this list is not encyclopedic. The list is sourced entirely to the company's own webpage. This differs with the Apple listing in several ways. The list of Apple products does not include every single iteration of products listed, the list is sourced to reliable sources other than Apple, indicating that the products included in the list are notable, and the Apple products also include prose that give context to the the products and their impact on the industry and computing/consumer culture. I agree there should be some Rockstar products listed, but at the macro level, not the micro. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a better example would be their competitor in the energy drink market Red Bull if you look in the info box on the wikipage for that company it lists their products under "variants".

    --Wowaconia (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that is a much more reasonable listing, it is at the macro level, not micro. I know how much hard work you put into building those tables, and I know tables are difficult in wikimarkup, but the current version dominates the page, and at such minute detail it comes across as spam even though that wasn't your intent. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I believe the Red Bull page is listing everything they produce. Rockstar makes many more variants than Red Bull.

    -Wowaconia (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    this drink makes me feel sick

    [edit]

    Should we add that to the article and warn others not to drink it because it might be poison? Bod (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rockstar_(drink)&oldid=1208397314"