Talk:Bang Energy

Comments

I am requesting an edit for the VPX page in order to avoid a conflict of interest. I wanted to expand the current article in order to contain more information about VPX without being an advertisement in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Below is the proposed edit. Thank you for your time :) RollinSwollen (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm Shearonink. I took a look at your 're-edit' here. I appreciate that you are passionate about the company and also that you asked for a re-edit because of possible WP:COI.

I have gone ahead and edited most of the questionable sections but wanted you to take a look at the following...

• Notability...Are there mentions of the subject in reliable outside sources?...Quotes from a subject's website, while they might be truthful, do not qualify, so I had to delete almost the entire Reference section.
• What Wikipedia is not...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox or means of promotion...the article's content as it appears now does not follow this precept.
• Neutral Point of View...Tone is an issue with the original article and with the re-write. For instance, saying "Our commitment" would not work in Encyclopedia Britannica and it is not quite appropriate for Wikipedia.
• Copyright Violation Issues...Some of the word choices appear to possibly come from the company's website. Wikipedia articles cannot have material in them that come from another website.

I do understand you've worked hard on this, but *please* read and study the Wikipedia Pages I've posted for you above, they will help you understand everything that goes into a good Wikipedia article. When you have more questions you can always talk to us at the IRC Wikipedia Help-channel.

Shearonink (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Vital Pharmaceuticals is a sports nutrition company which manufactures and distributes various sports supplements, including N.O. Shotgun, Redline, and Protein Rush. VPX is located in Florida, United States, but sells some of their product line internationally, including Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Europe.

Many of VPX's products are backed by University studies. Meltdown was proven by Baylor University to be 117% to 273% more potent than caffeine & ephedrine.

VPX’s Notable News

Cytosport Case

On May 6, 2009, in Sacramento, California, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction requiring VPX to immediately remove Muscle Power from the marketplace, after concluding that the product infringes on CytoSport’s trademark rights of Muscle Milk. This was prompted after CytoSport filed a lawsuit against VPX, stating that Muscle Power’s packaging, or “trade dress,” was deceptively similar to Muscle Milk’s packaging. The court held that “VPX has chosen an identical font, in an identical color, on an identically shaped package, and placed the mark on the package in an identical location.”

Hansen Case

Weston, FL - Apr 28, 2010 - Dietary and nutritional supplement company Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., d/b/a VPX/REDLINE of Weston, Florida, makers of the popular Redline® Products announces today that the company prevailed on a Motion For Summary Judgment against Hansen Beverage Company ("Hansen") makers of the "Monster" line of energy drinks and beverages. Hansen brought a lawsuit against VPX/REDLINE in the United Stated District Court, for the Southern District of California ("Court"), (Case No. 08-CV-5145) asserting claims for false advertising, unfair competition and trade libel. The original Complaint was filed on August 21, 2008, however, the Court denied Hansen's motion for preliminary injunction. Hansen subsequently amended its Complaint alleging three causes of action: (1) false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (2) false advertising and unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professional Sections 17200 and 17500; and (3) trade libel.

Hansen and VPX/REDLINE filed simultaneous motions for summary judgment in the matter. The court heard arguments from both sides on April 12, 2010, rendering its opinion roughly 15 days later in favor of VPX/REDLINE as it pertains to the following claims; (a) "Power Rush makes you "amped" to the max in minutes, ready to tear apart weights and wear out the treadmill like a tiger released from its cage!"; (b) REDLINE Xtreme is "university research proven" to deliver "a significant 7.5% improvement reaction time," "a dramatic 13% increase in energy," and "an amazing 15% increase in focus," and that it "dramatically enhances focus"; (c) Redline was ranked "sixth in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix and seventh in Dallas"; and that Redline is "growing 16 times faster than the National Average for Energy Drinks" and had "100 times the growth rate of Red Bull and Monster in L.A." VPX/REDLINE also prevailed on its motion for summary judgment on the entire trade libel cause of action.

The Court has denied VPX/REDLINE's motion for partial summary judgment on damages without prejudice and has allowed VPX/REDLINE to re-file a Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages on or before May 31, 2010 when the discovery on damages has concluded.

ConsumerReports.org finds Heavy Metals in Protein Drinks.

On June 2, 2010 ConsumerReports.org, and in the July issue of Consumer Reports magazine published a review of popular protein drinks, which included elemental analysis for heavy metals in each of these products. The report stated that traces of the metals arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury were found in most of the protein drinks which were tested. In response to this story VPX /Redline has received numerous inquiries from our valued customers in regards to the heavy metal content of our protein powders and protein beverages.

VPX/Redline has conducted independent, third-party tests of all of its protein powders and beverages. The test results indicate that for each of the VPX protein powders and protein beverages, no traces of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury were detected.

Notability

I came across this page because it was flagged as needing copy edit. I assert that it is in need of an overhaul, if not outright deletion, as it reads like product promotion and is lacking in citations.

This article was originally about the parent company Vital Pharmaceuticals. In 2010 there was a request for edit from a party wishing to avoid a conflict of interest. The text that remains above is what is referenced in the "peer review" banner on this talk page.

Since then it was proposed for deletion, that was contested, then the user who proposed deletion submitted it to articles for deletion. They subsequently withdrew it and moved the page to it's current space. This is why the infobox is broken; the class was changed from "business" to "product" by the same user and they did not repopulate it with valid fields.

As it stands today, the two references are to the company's website, and a website selling the product through affiliate links. I can find only a few notable sources mentioning Bang in a web search, and the entirety of that coverage concerns litigation between Bang/Vital Pharmaceuticals and the Monster energy drink company. LA Times Monster press release containing EU court decision Beverage industry website describing new lawsuit

Of these, I think only the LA Times qualifies as a reliable source. I would consider the second one suspect, as it is a press release from a rival company, but it contains a pdf of the court decision. The third one is from a beverage industry website that may have a vested interest in one or both companies.

So where ought we go from here? Rewrite the article to contain information only from reliable sources? Send to AfD as WP:DEL-REASON #4? Fix the infobox and call it a day? DancesWithThermalPaste (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Website URL

I am requesting a tiny edit. The link to their website is www.bang-energy.com. They must still own that domain because it directs to the new domain. The url of the current site is bangenergy.com. I am just requesting the link be changed to the current url as to avoid confusion. Acciprovus (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Info On Super Creatine?

I'm really curious about super creatine and would assume others are also, I'd like to add info about super creatine but am not sure where to find information about it. Can someone perhaps help me look for info on this? AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Super Creatine was found to be non-existant Charzuchi (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Politics

Do you typically include the politics of an organizations's founder?. Or is that only if they are a DJT supporter?. 2601:6C1:300:85E0:5D37:8D14:975:5B9D (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)