Talk:Enviga

message: I've added a couple of references, along with the "beverage" info, but the second paragraph is still basically original research and needs cleaned up and verified. Also, can anyone think of a better classification for this drink? I've called it a "Carbonated soft drink", but that seems a bit clunky. -- IslaySolomon 05:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Veritee initially develloped in 2002 in Geneva Switzerland and then copied by a team of nestle experts, in Lausanne a city just about 10 miles from Geneva. Veritee is the first product to use concentrated EGCG an has patented EGCG manufacturing process. I will find references:)--Netquantum 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Veritee father of the original EGCG wellness drink

message: -----------------------------------------
DO YOU WORK FOR ENVIGA BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE ON WIKIPEDIA JUST TO PROTECT ENVIGA --Netquantum 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Veritee was deleted by consensus, and apparently subject to Amoona's hysterical over-reaction, from this edit  - Amoona was similarly apoplectic over the deletion debate for Patrick Buri appearing on Google, with similar results. Veritee is pretty much unverifiable, as I guess you have already found out. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  what do you mean? Have you not read their very informative website VERITEE REGISTERED TRADEMARK NEW WEB SITE COMING SOON-? --Charlesknight 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Veritee - Enviga Issues

message: OK let's take each of those in turn:
Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable.
Which bits? Please give specific examples.
This article or section reads like an advertisement.
Which sections read like an advert? Please give specific examples.
--Charlesknight 13:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That does not seem to answer either of my questions? Can you provide SPECIFIC examples of what is wrong with the article otherwise I will remove the tags. The article as it stands is purely descriptive - what SPECIFIC elements would you say are "pure advertisements" --Charlesknight 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's certainly a strange assertion, given that this is being marketed by two of the biggest players in the food & drink industry. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that the product is just one more product out there and why not have a review for millions of other drinks out there. this seems like advertisiment to me ! GUY in this case why not make a review for the other 1200 products available from coke and nestle --Netquantum 14:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  all those products you are refering to are mainstream and very famous products, Enviga is just a new product available almost nowhere and pointless to mention in this article. --Netquantum 14:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mainstream is a rather pointless term, we are concerned with notability and verfiablity.  A new product launch by two of the world's biggest food & Drink industries and adverted by Saatchi & Saatchi? Is it N&V? you bet your bottom dollar it is. Unless you have some policy-based reason why this product article should not exist, this conversation is over. --Charlesknight 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  as i said why not post a review for the other 1200 products from coke nestle. the enviga article as it is seems pointless and nothing special as it is. --Netquantum 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are missing the point.  This article exists because User:Jfrasch decided to create it last July, and I note that you have been attempting to subvert it for some time.  Other similar articles may exist when someone decides to create them.  If there are a lot, someone might merge them to a combined article on Coca-Cola Nestlé brands or something, who knows.  In its earlier stages this article was of doubtful validity, but it is now well sourced.  Existence or non-existence of comparable articles is not a criterion for judging inclusion, although precedent has some merit as an argument when debating whether to merge or delete a given article.  Guy (Help!) 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to get your opinion on this one but for me this article is pure advertisement and the artcle is pointless and not very interesting, please improve the quality of your edits; and not relevant at all. sorry not to agree with you. have a nice day. --Netquantum 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  THIS PERSON IS AN ENVIGA AFFICIONADO AND IS ONLY ON WIKIPEDIA TO PROMOTE ENVIGA (HAS DONE NO OTHER ARTICLE) . HE IS PROBABLY RELATED TO COKE OR NESTLE.--Netquantum 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags on page 

message: I have replaced the content that was deleted. I have no objection to it being edited, but I have very strong objection to its wholesale deletion - unless it can be sensibly explained.  There is valuable content that is of benefit to those contemplating the purchase of green tea beverages.
Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.216.179 (talk • contribs) 
You need to read WP:OWN, WP:NOT and various other bits and bobs - wikipedia is a descriptive encyclopedia, it's purpose is not to provide the type of instructions, commentrary and OR that you are trying to push onto the page - it even finishes with a number list of conclusions! All the page should do is DESCRIBE the product as it is described in notable sources - that's it NO MORE and NO LESS. 
It is NOT a page to describe the history of green tea (all that is needed is a link to the green tea article - that's it!). 
It is NOT a page to debate the various health benefits of X vs Y vs Z. 
It is a descriptive product page - that's it.
--Charlesknight 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, the onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify it from policy. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, this is an encyclopaedia article about this brand not a buyer's guide for "those contemplating the purchase of green tea beverages". Guy (Help!) 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  THIS PERSON IS AN ENVIGA AFFICIONADO AND IS ONLY ON WIKIPEDIA TO PROMOTE ENVIGA (HAS DONE NO OTHER ARTICLE) . HE IS PROBABLY RELATED TO COKE OR NESTLE. 
I SUGGEST THAT GUY SHOULD BLOCK THIS ACCOUNT PETEGRANGE OR PETE OR WHAT EVER DNS he uses.--Netquantum 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed content 

message: A drink is claimed to BURN calories; how? This seems like blatant advertising, but maybe I missed somethingAbtract 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: of course you are right I was just so surprised to see it. Abtract 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the confusion, and while Coca-Cola can of course easily claim this, it would also be nice to know the active components in this that say it would burn calories. I have never really heard of this before, besides in quite minimal amounts. While I believe the current article text could stay, I think this is an example of an article in dire need of support from independent research. -- Northgrove 08:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Have I missed something?

message: OK - let's try it this way. People suggest something that want to add below and then we discuss if it fits and how it should be formated. PLEASE do this a couple of paragraphs at a time! 
--Charlesknight 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content to add. 

message: This article seems to be going nowhere and maybe the reason is because there shouldn't be such an article ... this product is hardly notable. I suggest we need a hierarchy of articles something like this Soft drink (miraculously already 
exists but sadly states that tea is not a soft drink, ah well good try) ... and then maybe articles on various types of non-alcoholic drink for example, in this context, Tea and then Green tea (both miraculously exist) and possibly also articles on various methods of preserving/storing/transporting soft drinks such as the Beverage can (miraculously exists) ... this is looking good. Maybe next we need an article spinning off from the various tea articles and the canning one such as Canned tea which may well contain a list of such products inluding Enviga. Canned tea is generic and reasonably notable, it deserves an article - Enviga does not. My proposal in a nutshell is Move this article to Canned tea and rewrite it accordingly, giving Enviga whatever minor place it deserves Abtract 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. We could even have an article about "health" drinks, where claims of health benefits can be discussed NPOV. This article has created a firestorm of comments. I agree that the article reads somewhat like an advertisement. This is an encyclopedia; articles are supposed to have some importance. There are several straw man arguments above about other beverages having pages. That's not relevant; what's important is upgrading this article to encyclopedic style and standard. Otherwise, Abtract or I will likely send it to AfD with a Merge recommendation. MKoltnow 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you shouldn't do that - AFD is a administrative process, while merging is an editorial one (yes yes I know that lots of people put merge as an answer at AFD but then lots of people think AFD is a vote). If you want to merge it, use the correct tag and process, don't waste everyone's time with an AFD. If you feel the product has no notability at all, then send it to AFD.  --Charlesknight 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Men? My view is that the brands (of course) are notable but the product is not. It may well be worthy of inclusion in a list of canned teas and indeed in lists of the products of the two brands, but as an article ... I think not. It seems to me to be a blatantly commercial article designed to draw attention to a new product. I would nuke it :)Abtract 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But of course Englishmen, in the gender-neutral sense of Britons :-) Guy (Help!) 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, all of it at the moment ... this and this are interesting but not in the article.  But hey, life's too short to worry either way. Abtract 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This product is a new concept and supposed to be the first drink that burns calories. This claim is not as absurd as it sounds because of ingredients like coffein and other green tea extracts. I do not know any English information source, but for the German look below. --84.178.109.88 12:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest we delete and reorganise

message: If you can read German, you can have a look at this article: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/html/result.xhtml?url=/tp/r4/artikel/23/23927/1.html It is from a notable german technology magazine and gives some details about this product. Especially it includes why this product is something new and deserves an own article. --84.178.109.88 12:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German article

message: I removed and then replaced the following:Upon inspection by a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, the Study conducted in Switzerland used to support the claims made by Nestle and the Coca Cola Corporation has proven to be a dramatically overrepresented.
The double blind placebo controlled study investigates 31 people consuming enviga over a period of 3 days. The study clearly shows (as is supported by other research) that the high caffeine (and caffeine like substance) content in enviga speeds up the metabolism and causes you to burn more Calories from fat rather than carbohydrates. even up to 60-100 extra Calories  per day. However, it has also been extensively researched and proven that pure caffeine as a supplement will have the same effect over that time period. Thus rendering the content of enviga (aside from the caffeine) to be mostly irrelevant to the "negative calorie" claim. Furthermore, research has shown that Caffeine sensitivity drops exponentially over time. Like with all stimulatory drugs and agents, the same dose of caffeine is no longer equally effective over time, requiring higher and higher doses in order to provide the same effect. the 100 calories burned per day will drop to 0 in a period of a few weeks, unless dramatically more caffeine is utilized.
the net conclusion of these observations is that the extrapolation from a 3 day time period onto a permanent 60-100 calorie weight loss per day is completely unjustified. Any researcher whose name is on such a misrepresenting and misrepresented study should be vehemently opposing the interpretations of this data claimed by the Coca Cola Corporation, and fearful for their future career prospects if they support these unscientific claims.My guess is that the unnamed PhD in this paragraph is the one who wrote this paragraph (134.69.178.83). But one can't know for sure because there are no sources cited in this whole text, which contains numerous grammatical and capitalization errors, not to mention obvious original research. I can't understand the first sentence, for example. Could someone above the fray in this talk page clean this up? Orthografer 14:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: Please do not start an edit war by wordlessly reverting major changes. 70.134.224.60 (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war