Talk:Monster Energy

message: Would it be worth adding that the slashes have a left hook at the top that makes it resemble the Hebrew symbol "vav" which represents 6? I do have a few sources, one is http://www.templesanjose.org/JudaismInfo/writing/Hebrew_Alphabet.htm but I'm not sure what people here constitute a worthy source. It seems noteworthy, even if it wasn't done on purpose the symbols are still there. 64.119.57.59 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really noteworthy; this would be more like fringe-theory trivia, and many articles (not all have) excise any trivia. Additionally, the concept is flawed as the value of waw-waw-waw (ווו) as a number actually is 9. Both Greek alphabetic numbers and Hebrew alphabet used as numbers have different letters for the hundreds, tens, and single digits (and any letters from the same category add among themselves, thus 60,30,3 would be 93). In the Greek text in which the so-called 'number of the beast' (a gematric value of a person's name) appears is six-hundred-sixty-six (or six-hundred-sixteen, depending on which tradition of Greek NT manuscripts) — just three single sixes in a row can have no relationship to either number. So, any way that you look at this, there is no reason to include anything in the article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

text: More than likely is that these slashes symbolize the three nails that pinned Jesus to the cross making it at least as interesting as the three six theory, if not more so.86.176.29.26 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 666?

message: Why is the link to Mother energy drink the page for the word "mother" and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_(energy_drink)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.121.101 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. NotAnonymous0 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother?

message: I don't know whether it's just me, but it seems that Monster has a very different flavour to that of relentless, red bull and the likes. Any sources/references on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.20.166 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flavour?

message: According to this article "Monster Lo-carb gives little to no "buzz" to a humans system. It was origanilly made to people who enjoy Monster for the taste, not the energy." I really hope that was a joke. Someone needs to clean up this article because it is currently pretty useless due to vandalism and a lack of correct information. And why are Rockstar and NOS under the Coca-Cola Company?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.34.77 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NOS is manufactured by Coca-Cola Co, so that is why it is under that. NOS use to be distributed by CCCo, but is now (since 2009) distributed by PepsiCo, however the company that manufactures it is independent (it is currently listed as independent in the bottom Energy Drink template). So, these are all correct at this time. It looks like the question you had on M Lo-carb has been fixed since you posted years ago. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unchanged Vandalism?

message: LISA I just thought I would throw this in I have watched this article grow smaller and smaller to the point any real importance relating to monster energy is lowered to only a sentence or two.
I would like to know if you all agree that either the drinks should get a seperate article giving specific information regarding each one and updates that follow it or a its own catagory in the article regarding the drinks, Thank you. Flash512 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should each drink get its own detailed paragraph?

message: How high is "high"?  What is the source for this statement?  I would bet their advertising budget would be "low" compared to some other beverage companies (like Coke and Pepsi).  To the best of my knowledge Monster Beverage Company does no traditional advertising, although as mentioned later in the article they do sponsor many sports and concert events.  Perhaps this could be rephrased and qualified (with a reference)?  Dmarlin 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster is known for its high advertising budget. 

message: Please mention the particular sugar substitute(s?) used in lo carb Monster.
The can of Monster lo-carb I have here indicates it contains glucose, Sucralose (further down the ingredients list), and Acesulfame K (further down still).  I guess these would all be considered sweetners.  I'm not sure if this varies by distributor, or if it is the same for all distributors (and countries).  Dmarlin 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splenda is the brand name for sucralose (one of the sweeteners mention by OP). Judging by the sweetness, there is probably less than 200 mg of pure sucralose in a 16oz can (less than 1/25th of a teaspoon), thus the reason it is so far down the list of ingredients. Monster isn't really using the glucose as a sugar substitute (it is a sugar, after all) but part of its energy mix (there's probably about 2-3 g of glucose in the 16 oz M Lo-carb — around 1/5th of a teaspoon — a rather small amount compared to the amount of sugars in other drinks). — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lo Carb Sugar Substitute 

message: Can I add the amount of caffeine in the drinks to some of them? I did earlier but they were removed by a moderator
-Alex  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexPBenes (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually drink no more than one can of Monster in a single day but I wouldn't recommend it during breastfeeding days. And if you drink Monster, don't drink too much and do it when you are healthy enough (and not right before and after having a baby). NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me   17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Caffeine Content

message: For reference, a cup of coffee is about 100mg of caffeine.
Zhouj (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Updates 

message: The official web site for Monster Energy indicates that Monster Beverage Company is the owner of the drink. The Hansen Beverage Company does not list Monster Energy as one of their products, but their About Us page indicates that they distribute Monster Energy. Digging a little deeper, I found some press releases that indicated that they Busch would be taking over distributorship of the Monster products.
Does anyone know if Hansen Beverage Company actually owns Monster Beverage Company, or if they're just a distributor for them, or what the official relationship is today?
Without an official source other than the Monster Energy web site, I've changed the article to indicate that Monster Beverage Company is the owner. -Orayzio 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hansen Beverage Company is a subsidiary of Hansen Natural Corporation. Monster Beverage Company, or officially the Monster LDA Company (MLDA), is also a subsidiary of Hansen Natural Corporation. However, Hansen Beverage Company or Hansen Natural Corporation develops, markets, sells and distributes the Monster drink for MLDA.  . --Yarnalgo 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hansen's is the acknowledged owner and manufacturer of Monster Energy within the industry and in their stock reports, where Monster has been a central source of their growth in the last 2 years. I put Hansen's back in. Teloscientist 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansen Beverage Company 

message: I am wondering how we should situate this. Currently, related products features "Lost Energy" and "Full Throttle," see also lists "Lost Energy" and "Red Bull." I do not see the connection to having Full throttle, as far as I can tell, full throttle is only a related product in that it is an energy drink. To list all energy drinks would be impractical, so perhaps the most popular should be listed? Lost Energy makes sense, since it is based on Monster. Red Bull also makes sense, as it somewhat 'paved the way' for energy drinks to make a market impact. But perhaps we should come up with a system and have some logical process for the See Also, and especially for the Related Products sections.
--TheRealKuni 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also and Related Products 

message: I'm seeing a whole bunch of monsters now with no cut out, just a scratched "M" monster logo. Is this just something regional, or what? Violask81976 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: M pull tab

message: Really?  I'd love to see a source on this one :) Derekawesome 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Force Security Forces love Monster, especially on 12+ hour shifts. 

message: Since this energy drink's "source" is its high levels of caffeine (I'd imagine 80-120 mLs) maybe the level should be listed in the article.
--
Aren't ingredients listed by weight in descending order? There's 180mg of sodium per 8 oz in a can and caffeine is listed before sodium chloride in the ingredients list. Am I missing something? SubIgnition (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine content? 

message: :Image:Monster logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Monster logo.jpg

message: The article states: "In 2004, Hansen Natural Corporation did not announce a distribution agreement with Anheuser-Busch...."  My guess is that they also did not invade Poland or create a mutant strain of supervirus.  Why is something that they didn't do in the article?  —  MusicMaker5376 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was vandalized a while back, See the section below where I mention the specific edit. It's fixed now. —Random832 (contribs) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

message: there isnt enough info. on monsters. —Austiniodor 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell? 

message: Does Monster really have alchohol in it, or is it just an urban legend? If you look underneath the ingredients on a can of Monster, it says "Consume responsibly. Limit 3 cans per day. Not recommended for children..." Does that mean that it is alchohol, or is it something else? If anybody can tell exactly what it is, and if it's alchohol or not, it should be added to the "Ingredients" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.25.135 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if Monster contains any alcohol in any of its formulations, but it does contain a whole lot of caffeine, and caffeine can be deadly if you consume a lot in a short period of time (I hear that a few hundred concentrated milliliters of the stuff can kill an adult human).  That's probably the reason for the warning. — EagleOne\Talk 18:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes around 5 grams to a kill an average adult, I wouldn't worry about killing oneself on monster. Vivarin would be easier, and if it was alcoholic the price would be much higher because of taxes. C6541 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a question... 

message: What in the horse does "kosher" have to do with anything? Someone remove that line of garbage. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosher?? 

message: We have 473 mL cans here in Canada, not 16oz cans. Can we get updated sizes that included the metric system? 216.221.94.160 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the ingredients, then read the articles on them, some of the ingredients are actually prescribed to sexually dysfunctional men. I don't think it makes you smaller by any means, maybe a lower sperm count though  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.204.2 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International sizes 

message: is monsters made out of bull yearn (pee)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.5.96 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: -facepalm-  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.54.195 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  *facepalm* Monster Energy is definitely not made of pee! See Monster_Energy#Ingredients if you would like to know what Monster is really made of! NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me   17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  monsters 

message: no it is not good for kids it can harm them  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.195.55 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good for anybody.   It's tasty, delicious, while having a caffeine content that deserves a Surgeon General Warning.   There should probably be a section addressing the dangers of these kinds of drinks. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is a section addressing the adverse effects of energy drinks (not just Monster) here (in the article Energy drink). Although I do drink Monster from time to time, I don't drink too much (no more than one in a single day) and I usually drink the blue Monster (lo-carb) due to less sugar, calories, and carbs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me   17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this good for kids 

message: Activision has teamed up with monster to produce a new line of energy drink.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleIX (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Warfare 2 + Monster 

message: Has Vermonster been around for 10 years? I thought it was created for the 10th anniversary of Rock Art Brewery. My information is not sourced, so I won't change it... Also, I'm guessing this page should be watched for vandalism in the coming days. (Oh, and I'm not logged in... it doesn't matter I'm no one important.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.152.20 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source didn't support the claim that it has been brewed for 10 years so I have removed the sentence. In fact, one of the other sources  claims Vermonster has only been brewed since 2007. Barret (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock Art 

message: I'm not so sure about the claim that the Monster Nitrous actually contains Nitrous Oxide. The ingredients only lists "nitrogenated water," and the FDA prohibits the sale and distribution of products containing N20. The actual content of the drink is still a bit up for question as to how they actually "nitrogenate" the water. MasterNetHead (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitrous Oxide claim

message: My friend says there use to be a Monster flavor called Monster Radioactive. Does anyone have any proof to this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.231.82 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I haven't heard of that before. I did hear, however, that as time go by, Monster is releasing new flavors. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me   17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Monster: Radioactive

message: The picture on the infobox recently changed from a regular Monster Energy logo to a can of Monster Energy. The picture of the Monster can appears to be very large, and I am curious whether it's necessary to keep it like that, make it smaller, or revert it back to the regular logo. The large picture of the can is very big, compared with the rest of the infobox, so this is why I was questioning about this since I have never seen large infobox pictures like this (other than vandalism). NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me   17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture of Monster can on infobox 

message: Per the reference, updated caffeine content to 10mg per fluid ounce.  It had been 2 mg per, which is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.224.13 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine content was wrong 

message: I feel the Monster Roo fursuit should be noted in this article in one way or another.
68.147.223.205 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster Roo 

message: Somebody recently deleted the Flavors section. I, and probably many others, feel that this section should stay in this page. On many other pages for products on Wikipedia there are sections for its' own flavors or products. If somebody deleted this section on this page then why would we keep it on countless other pages? The Flavors section is helpful for people who either do not have time to reach the company website or someone who needs to look it up fast. Also on the company website it does not have Coming Soon flavors or Discontinued flavors like we have here which is also helpful.
Ajfweb14 (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone ever need to look it up fast? Or at all? Serious question. This needs a source, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavors 

message: in maine i found an 8 oz monster called monster mini that had the same 2000mg energy bland and all. it was definitely legit, theres no way a copy of anything could be that good. anyway there is zero web prescence on it so should it be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.232.207 (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  monster mini? 

message: What the title says.  The list is ridiculously long, and also isn't supported by citations.  I support the move to a list per WP:NOTDIR. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the list would fail NOTDIR. Just delete it. It's not informative. It's a bunch of words that describe nothing. If they had flavours readers could understand or follow a link to, like grape or blue, it'd be different. But Killer-B? Dub Edition? Ripper? Lobo shot? Useless. If they can be explained and sourced, they can stay. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move "flavors" section to its own list. 

message: Did the writer had geography? UK is part of Europe. If you insist of naming the UK separate, write it like: UK and the rest of Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewoonbart (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically speaking, the UK is a country who's mainland is an island off the coast of the continent of Europe. The UK is generally considered to belong to "Europe", but if you bring "geography" into it without mentioning political influence, you run the risk of defending your statement. The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire!, how far away from "Europe" are the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Bermuda? They might not be full fledged members like Scotland, but still part of "The UK". Is the United States of America only located on the North American continent? Is Hawai'i a full fledged member of the USA? Just some things to think about. I could be wrong, but be ready to defend your position when you decide to change the sentence. You are Wikipedia, like the rest of us, no need to wait for someone else to edit it for you. (Just make sure you have someone proofread your grammar before posting, or someone might ask "Did you had English?")  --Billy Nair (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: UK and Europe

message: Should this be noted under the "Controversies and warnings" section? --1.252.80.199 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody removed sourced information about this "controversy"; I restored it.  The Facebook video would not qualify as a reliable source.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy about being satanic? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monster Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121212234024/http://www.pbr.com:80/en/news/press-releases/2011/2012/11/pbr-monster-energy-drink-announce-multiyear-partnership.aspx to http://www.pbr.com/en/news/press-releases/2011/2012/11/pbr-monster-energy-drink-announce-multiyear-partnership.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100420062334/http://www.kawasaki.com:80/Racing_MotocrossRacing/MPCTeamFacts.aspx to http://www.kawasaki.com/Racing_motocrossracing/MPCTeamFacts.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monster Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120625182204/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/05_23/b3936409.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_23/b3936409.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monster Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131019092641/http://www.pilmore.com/news_and_events/current_news.php?id=39 to http://www.pilmore.com/news_and_events/current_news.php?id=39
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Text and references copied from Christine Weick to Monster Energy.  See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: The lead section should only summarize article, there should be no content that isn't in the body so the music should become another section. Same for example with "World Rallycross Championship" of which there's no trace in the actual article. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  sip 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Briefing:I suggest changing the advertisement printed on cans. 24.183.75.71 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business Management: Advertising  

message: This subsection had two cleanup templates on it since 2019, and seemingly no effort to fix it up. When I searched for both incidents cited, nothing could be found beyond the initial sensationalized reporting in 2017. Ergo, the claims made were never substantiated. Subsection removed for lack of significance plus heavy bias. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of lawsuit subsection