Jump to content

Talk:Enviga

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

References

[edit]

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)[reply]

Carbonated Teas ? Bottled/canned Teas ?

Pete


Would this CBC news story be a decent source?

"Each can costs about $1.50 and people would have to drink more than five cans of Enviga to burn the number of calories in two Oreo cookies." Hah. --66.36.149.168 23:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this simply repeats the claims made in another of the references. I have also deleted the reference to Veritee, which seems to me too much of a blatant advertisement for a competitive product. I invite comment on this, but I dont think we want too much debate on who was the first to come up with the concept, and who copied who. Thats a slippery slope. The reality is that the Chinese started drinking green tea hundreds - perhaps thousands of years ago. Veritee may or may not have been the first to carbonate it in 2002. Thats of interest, but probably minor interest. It really is a natural evolutionary extension - fresh brewed tea, then bottled green tea, then carbonated bottled/canned green tea. Moreover, there are vast differences between the Enviga and Veritee formulas. Whilst they both contain tea extracts, Enviga does not copy the various other ingredients in Veritee. In that sense they are different products and accusations of blatant copying is in my opinion, wrong. Moreover, Veritee does not provide any information on their website about the cost of their product or their EGCG or caffeine level, so one cannot make a more meaningful publishable comparison. Seems to me there are a number of still and carbonated green teas on the market, and Coke is certainly not the first. I have no objection to someone listing and linking to all of these, but selecting one over another is too contentious and too open to bias - especially by those who are simply competing with Coke for this space. I have attempted as much as possible to be objective in my comments - which are certainly not complimentary of Coke. But it is the 1 ton gorilla, and for that reason alone its development of Enviga has to be taken much more seriously than say a Veritee, despite the latter's earlier entry to market. Any comments ?

Pete

Veritee father of the original EGCG wellness drink

[edit]

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)[reply]

I am not sure what the patent refers to, but there are any number of suppliers of tea extracts in China. I believe Coke sources theirs from a Japanese company - and the said same company will supply anyone. That is, I do not think there is anything particularly exclusive about tea extracts in terms of their supply and efficacy - albeit there may be different methods of extracting EGCG and L-theanine which are patentable. But I dont see how the competing extraction methods is particularly relevent to the issue of Eviga - unless perhaps one method is more efficacious healthwise than the other. Seems to me that there are a number of companies manufacturing green tea beverages - including carbonated green tea. Therefore Coke has not necessarily copied Veritee - all these manufacturers have copied them if you like, with Coke being late on the scene. But I must say Veritee appears to be formulated purely as a health drink with a lot of nutritional ingredients - including tea extracts. However Coke appears far more focused (exclusively focused?) on the tea extracts - devoid of the other ingredients. In that sense it is not a blatent copy. It may be a copy of a concept - the carbonation of green tea. But once again, I think this is of minor interest in terms of Eviga. Perhaps a separate page should be established for Veritee, and other green tea beverages for that matter, with a link from Eviga ?

Pete

you can start the VERITEE PAGE AND PUT A NOTE.- --Netquantum 22:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Veritee - Enviga Issues

[edit]

DO YOU WORK FOR ENVIGA BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE ON WIKIPEDIA JUST TO PROTECT ENVIGA --Netquantum 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you completely daft ? Can you read ? Do you think I would make all those negative comments about Enviga if I were working for them ? Didnt it cross your mind what I wrote was objective as possible. Your stuff was deleted because IT was not objective. It was just a blatent advertisement for a competing product. Your insistence of commandeering the first few paragraphs on the Enviga page with totally irrelevent, incorrect (I am still waiting for proof of your 'low end copy' claim ) waffle about another competing product convinces me you have a commercial interest in them. Fine ...I wish you all the best. If I had a choice I might drink Veritee instead of Enviga - but so what ? Compose a page about Veritee - and I promise I wont take over the first few paragraphs trying to destroy the credibility of the product by directing readers to a competing product. How child-like and juvenile is that ? Make a link to Eviga - or any other green tea beverage on the market. I dont particularly care who stole what from whom, but it seems to me Veritee copied the concept from the Japanese company a full 17 years before. Are you going to devote a few paragraphs to that ? I think they deserve your undying praise more so than Veritee - but then again you are probably an employee or distributor in their multi level marketing scheme, or a consumer fed a pack of porkies by someone trying to flog their product to you. Let me guess - its very expensive ..right ? Maybe double or triple or quadruple the price of Eviga, and you feel your Veritee is threatened ? You have been flogging this expensive product to consumers and Coke is about to blow your business out of the water ? If you want to talk about who copied who, talk about Veritee copying a product developed 17 years before Veritee ever hit the shelves. Talk about a Japanese company that purchased tea from a Ceylonese tea plantation that (under British rule) stole tea plants from China 100 years earlier. How far back do you want to go in regards who stole what from whom ? Who gives a stuff ? If Nestle scientists stole the green tea extraction method from Veritee's patented extraction method, I expect there would have been a Court case and Nestles would have been prosecuted. Did this happen ? Where is the EVIDENCE ? What is Veritee's patent ? Quote the US patent number so we can read and scrutinize it. Does anyone care if the extraction method used by Veritee is 5% more or less efficient than their competitors ? Perhaps if Veritee has an extraction method that produces a product that is medicinally superior to Eviga that would be of interest. Does it ? Can you PROVE it ? So far, all you have done is make wild accusations - and from what I can see they are totally irrelevent and totally unproven - and have very little to do about Eviga. But prove me wrong - thats what Wiki is all about. Create a page for Veritee - and all the other green tea products out there. Itemise the EVIDENCE (not wild claims)properly, open it to scrutiny, and defend the claims. If there are Court judgements etc. against Coke/Nestles, then that might be worth putting on the Eviga page, but without dominating it like you attempted to do. The bottom line is, consumers dont particularly care about arcane extraction methods because they know in business nobody is original, they all attempt to copy each other. Veritee has done it, they all have done it. Having a patent on a particular extraction method is totally irrelevent - unless it provides Veritee consumers some substantial nutritional benefit over other green teas on the market. If not, then I suggest you put a lid on it. If you are not happy with that I urge you to request a Wiki Administrator review the matter.

Pete


[edit]

Veritee - Enviga Issues

Stop your BS the point is that in Switzerland we all know a product called VERITEE, was the first one to use pure EGCG, The point is that those product are no normal green tea but made with concentratuions of EGCG witch is found in green tea. EGCG is not green tea. and VERITEE was the first one to use this pure EGCG in concentrate forms. Normal green tea contains 10mg of EGCG per 100ml, Veritee contains 60mg of EGCG per 100ml. I am not involved with VERITEE nor Enviga I just know that this topic is going on in Switzerland in the news media. The reason I was asking if you work for Enviga is that the only edits you have done here is about Enviga--Netquantum 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats right, the only edits I have done is about Enviga - because thats the only subject I feel qualified to comment on - so far. But it should be absolutely clear I am not in any way involved with Coke or Enviga. That should be evident from my criticisms of Enviga's caffeine level, and my suggestion that people take green tea capsules and brew their own tea instead of purchasing Enviga. But what I am absolutely determined to do if I am going to contribute to Wiki in this way- is that the information is relevent and accurate. If not I will simply delete all the information I have contributed - which I had hoped would be helpful to those interested in this subject , and make my contributions elsewhere.

Your whole argument appears to be based on Veritee being the first to manufacture EGCG. I believe this is completely irrelevent. Besides, I refer you to the following press release of 3/5/2003

- Roche Vitamins is to start production of pure epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), the active compound in green tea, at a new production plant in Shanghai.

Swiss pharmaceuticals group Roche said it is the world's first industrial manufacturer of pure EGCG (epigallocatechin gallate), which it will market under the trade name Teavigo.

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=24718-roche-to-produce

I refer you also to the marketing release from Veritee, which suggests that Veritee actually sources their EGCG from Roche.

Veritee - Provides antioxidants, found in Vitamins C, E, Activin grape seed and green tea. (Recent scientific data demonstrate that the substance called EpiGalloCatechin Gallate (EGCG) plays an important role in the prevention of a wide array of diseases including cardiovascular conditions and cancer as well as gastrointestinal disorders, periodontal disease and dental cavities. Pure EGCG is one of the most active components of green tea. It is a natural and high effective antioxidant, which removes free radicals).(Copyright © 2000-2004, Roche DMS.)


http://experts.about.com/e/v/ve/VERITEE.htm

To summarise. Roche, not Veritee are the worlds first in manufacturing pure EGCG, and Veritee appears to source their EGCG from Roche - just like many other manufactuers. There is NOTHING special about Veritee in terms of being the first to do anything - and even if they were the very first it is of only minor interest to consumers or potential consumers of these products.

On that basis, all your claims of Nestles stealing Veritees EGCG process ,and patented manufacture of EGCG, and originality are just pure adulturated baloney. Veritee purchases from a company (Roche) that created EGCG - not Veritee. Shame on you for your sloppy research and untruthful information !

Pete


It seems to me that Veritee was the first one to use EGCG from Roche, in this form and was then copied by Enviga. What ever i have seen cans of Veritee's new cans and products and it looks similar to Enviga but the overal product composition in Veritee looks much better. --83.77.103.17 16:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


PETE PLEASE SIGN YOUR TEXT AND COMMENTS AFTER YUR LINES JUST LIKE WE DO YOU CAN PRESS ONE OF THE BUTTONS TO AD YOUR SIGNTURE. PLEASE CONTINUE THIS DISSCUSSION ON THE ENVIGA TALK PAGE. --Netquantum 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well at last we are getting somewhere. What I have finally demonstrated to you is that the information you provided is completely wrong and libelous. All that crap about stealing formulas and Nestles scientists and Lausaune, and low end copy - all a figment of your overactive imagination. The only thing I agree with is that the Veritee formula looks more interesting, and possibily medicinally better. But if you can only buy it in 3 European countries then that is not much use to the rest of the world. Besides it probably costs many times the cost of Enviga - am I right ? In which case it is limited to a very exclusive and very small market. I love Wiki, this is my first contribution, and I HATE to think some of the stuff I have read the past few years is as sloppy and innacurate as the contributions you have made. It was just sheer fabrication and speculation by you - for whatever your motivation. You have wasted hours of my time doing research YOU should have done. Wellness does not justify ANY particular mention on the Enviga page. It is completely different formula with a completely different target market. Your next statement 'the first to use more than 100 mgs' etc etc. Where is the proof? Give me the proof - any proof it was the first. Bear this in mind, the product produced by Roche was designed to sell to ANYONE who wanted to make a green tea beverage. That includes Veritee - but includes ANYONE interested in marketing green tea beverages. Why do you cling to this nonsense Enviga copied Veritee. Coke couldnt would not give a stuff about Veritee - they are just too small. They are one of hundreds of green products Coke are competing with. Why would they obsess over just one of them that has not gone beyond 3 small European countries in the 4 years they have been in business. Coke are a gigantic, $multibillion, multinational,company - they can crush anyone in this space - except perhaps in Asia. Coke owns the refrigerators in corner stores all over the world. They dominate the supermarket trade. Do you think consumers in America and other parts of the world are going to say - o well, I am not going to buy Enviga because some obscure guy called netquantum says that Veritee marketed a product containing green tea extracts before Coke. Thats just pure twaddle. In a boxing match, it is not the one who lands the first punch that wins, it is the one that lands the last punch. True ? Coke knows that it can time its launch anytime it wants - because it owns refrigerator space and supermarker shelf space all over the world. Their only real competition are fellow monster companies like Pepsi. The Veritees of this world are not even a blip on the radar. They will be left with a very small, niche market. So, why should Veritee get a special mention on the Enviga page. It might be worthy of mention on a page dedicated to 'Green Tea Beverages' of which it is one of hundreds if not thousands of competing products. Bear this in mind, the Japanese were seling bottled green tea back in 1985, 17 years before Veritee was marketed, and you have the hide to suggest everyone is copying Veritee - when it contains the same basic EGCG as everyone else ! In any event whether Veritee was the first with 60mgs/100ml of ECGC - or whatever the arbitary, magical,figure YOU have created in your mind, it is mostly irrelevent. Now here is my hopefully constructive suggestion to you. It might be helpful to list various competing products to Enviga on the basis of

1. The amount of EGCG, L-theanine, and caffeine each of these contain, 2. The cost per 100mls of product, and/or 3. The cost of the product per gram of EGCG. 4. Calorific content

Now, THAT might be useful information for consumers (who dont appear to get a passing thought in your mind) trying to choose a suitable product to get their hit of EGCG and L-theanine. Do you want to research that aspect - and incorporate it at the bottom of the Eviga page, or link it to another page ? You can incorporate your beloved Veritee reference in that way. However, it does mean you will have to make some genuine effort at researching, rather than just thoughtlessly and shamelessly publishing whatever fantasy pops into your head. So far it feels like I am dealing with a 10 year old doing a very bad school project. Are you interested in making a genuinely useful contribution ?

Do we have a deal ?

Pete


I have seen the Veritee product for sale in france for 1,20 Euro per bottle.--Netquantum 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon netquantum, can you provide a little more than that. ? How about finding out which countries Veritee sells in, and the typical retail price in those countries. Fire them off an email and see what response you get. If it is accurate information we can (for example) recommend - on the Enviga page - that those wanting a bigger hit of EGCG than that provided by Enviga - can get it from products like Veritee - for the same money. Mind you I prefer to list all of them, not just Veritee. That is far more relevent right now than they were the first to do this or that. But understand this, all of this information on Veritee is of NO interest to the 95% of the world that cannot buy Veritee, even if they wanted to. So for that reason alone, we cannot realistically devote a large amount space on the the Eviga page to Veritee. Its one of the reasons I have been urging you all along to compose a separate page for Veritee for those who CAN actually purchase it locally. You can do a whole big comparison with Enviga. The Enviga page should instead be devoting more space to those more directly competing with Coke/Enviga on a global basis - that is, the other 95% of the world's population. This is far more relevent in terms of providing useful consumer information on the Enviga page.

Anyhow, on this discussion page, can you list which countries sell the product, how is it retailed, is it available from the corner store/supermarket or is it sold only through multilevel marketing, container size, and list of ingredients - including the amount of EGCG and L-theanine I would like to be certain the formula contains these higher levels - and it is not just speculation. We can make brief mention that there are other green tea drinks with higher levels of EGCG than Enviga - but it should be that, a brief mention - at least until such time at Veritee is a product that competes with Coke on a more global basis.

Pete

Veritee was deleted by consensus, and apparently subject to Amoona's hysterical over-reaction, from this edit [1] - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Tags on page

[edit]

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)[reply]


    • In general the article is not relevant to wikipedia, its not even a mainstream product and, millions of products like this one are out there and its pure advertisement, so must be removed. We dont want millions of products to be shown as adverts on wikipedia. --Netquantum 13:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

We generally already do - see here, here, here, here, here and so on... Instead of whining please explain which SPECIFIC element of the article reads like an advert? --Charlesknight 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Netquantum, you are a dead-set serial pest. You have attempted to destroy this web page on Enviga ever since you stumbled across it. Your original intention was to turn it into an a free advertisement for a competing product ( Veritee), compare Enviga unfavorably to Veritee, make a whole lot of wild assertions which were COMPLETELY baseless (Nestles-Enviga stole Veritee's formula, Enviga is a low-end copy of Veritee, Veritee patented the EGCG extracts, Veritee was the first to have green tea extracts or first to carbonate - when in fact Veritee came 17 years after the first carbonated green tea in Japan. All your weird claims - turned out to be completely FALSE. Veritee simply purchases their tea extracts from Bayer - like everyone else. So, when all your claims were exposed for the sheer nonsense they are, you unilaterally decided to trash virtually the entire Enviga page and contents which I spent many hours contributing. This page on Enviga is intended to provide OBJECTIVE nutritional information for those contemplating purchasing green tea beverages, and in particular in this case, Enviga. Unquestionably you are either mentally unbalanced, and/or commercially associated with Veritee, and/or you just hate Coca Cola. There can be no other logical explanation for your weird behaviour. This web page is NOT an advertisement for Enviga. There is FAR more criticism of Enviga in my content than there is praise. I have VERY strongly criticized Enviga's caffeine content. I have suggested people make their own green or white tea beverages in preference to carbonate beverages, or take EGCG supplements instead. I have strongly criticized Enviga's weight loss claims. Wikipedians are entitled to read all this information, without YOU unilaterally preventing them from doing so. Maybe my mistake was to not recommend people drink your Veritee instead of Enviga ??? Is that your beef ? In the absence of any information on 'your' product - which you have continously refused to supply, that is not possible anyhow. I want to emphasize, there is no connection between Enviga and Veritee. None ! They do not compete with each other in 95% of the world market, they have COMPLETELY different formula's, they have a completely different target market. To think otherwise is a figment of your imagination. There is no reason whatsoever to include Veritee on the Enviga page, other than mention Veritee as one of hundreds of beverages that contain green tea extracts. I have completely lost patience with you. Unless you can make a meaningful contribution to this webpage just BUGGER OFF ! Do something useful you twit and create your own webpage on Veritee - and stop censoring information to Wikipedians just because you have some hidden, self-serving agenda.

Pete

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)[reply]

removed content

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Great suggestion Netqueerperson, and why not block yourself whilst you are at it ? You seem to spend your entire life trying to push this obscure drink from Switzerland (Veritee) on the Enviga webpage, and then you accuse ME of being a Coke/Nestles flunky. Thats really rich. Obviously you dont even bother to read the criticisms I have made of Enviga. Do they really look like the comments of a Coke flunky you bird brain ? And what do you mean I am an 'Enviga officionado' ? Would you prefer someone who is totally ignorant of the subject to contribute to the Enviga page - like you perhaps? For the record I study nutrition. I am principally interested in antioxidant and anti-inflammatory nutraceutical foods and beverages - sometimes referred to as functional foods. I am not employed by Coke/Nestles - and indeed never will be because my interests are well and truly elsewhere. My intent in contributing to this page is to provide scientific data to those contemplating the purchase of green tea beverages, in this case Enviga. For the benefit of Netqueerperson, this might be my first Wiki contribution, but again it does not make me a Coke flunky. It does however make me quite ignorant of the Wiki process and rules. I have contributed a great deal of information on Enviga to assist those induced by the Coke marketing hype to establish the product's pro's and cons - particularly in regards to weight loss claims, caffeine and EGCG content, and possible alternatives. I do not see how one can have a meaningful page on Enviga without delving into these issues. I mean, we could just have a photo of Enviga and a short description, like Enviga has a blue and pink label and is packaged in a can that is 6 inches high by 4 inches wide. I mean how superficial and trivial are we supposed to be with our contributions ? I know my format is all wrong, but I was hopeful someone who is more au fait with the process would take my content and massage it into shape, rather than just delete it en masse. If however, the Wiki process precludes this then I will just withdraw, and spend my valuable time more productively elsewhere. But I will say this, as it currently stands the edited content tells the reader absolutely bugger-all about Enviga. For all its formatting deficiencies, the content I provided readers gave them a heap of very helpful information. So, whether or not there is a compromise position betwen the two extremes I dont know, but pipe up anyone if there is.


Charles, I take your point on linking to the history of green tea, but a lot of that evolved because of Netqueerperson's obsession with Veritee being the first to do this and that (all baloney as it turns out, but thats besides the point) before Enviga, and my providing some historical context to that assertion. As it turns out, I should not even have tried to pander to his off-beat obsessions.

Guy, thankyou for your explanation that the Enviga page should not be a buyer's guide for "those contemplating the purchase of green tea beverages". Certainly, that has been my intention. If it is inappropriate to present information in this manner then I will withdraw. Alternatively, if there is a compromise position please speak out anyone.

Finally, to Charles. I do not wish to overstate this point, but Coke/Enviga DO rightfully claim to burn calories, albeit the research is limited, and if you wade through all my content it puts that benefit into context.That is, one can is the equivalent of a 5 minute walk etc. This is the sort of useful info which my content provided, but which now sits on the editing floor. I understand that presentation/formatting is important, but so also is content.

Pete

Have I missed something?

[edit]

A drink is claimed to BURN calories; how? This seems like blatant advertising, but maybe I missed somethingAbtract 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you missing? the article says that ACCORDING to Coke Cola - this is their claim. That's what the article claims. If they claimed that it would give a big head we would report that - that says nothing at all about the claim being true. If you are unhappy, I'm sure someone in a verfiable source has said this is a lot of bollocks. --Charlesknight 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of course you are right I was just so surprised to see it. Abtract 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Content to add.

[edit]

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)[reply]

for my money [[2]] looks well thought out though in need of wikifying but it is surely in the wrong place as it is about canned green tea. Maybe there should be an article so named Canned green tea (as spinoff from Green tea and then this (and other brands) would be a spinoff from that. Anyway I only stumbled across this article so I will stumble away now; good luck. Abtract 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Abtract, I agree with you this article is pure advertisement or needs lots of clean up editing..... --Netquantum 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we delete and reorganise

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


--- I totaly agree with Abtract --Netquantum 11:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to think about how a canned tea article might look. If you are interested go here and comment or edit as you feel suitable. Please bear in mind this is not the finished article ... indeed since this is wiki it never will beAbtract 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an article Canned tea using a small part of this article and bits of others. I suggest that Enviga be deleted now and someone starts to add canned tea brands to the main article. Unless of course others disagree? I don't know how to formally suggest this especially since the article is blocked. Abtract 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I think that us white middle-aged, middle-class Englishmen should stick together, the question here is whether the product (as a product of two major brands) has independent notability. That has very little impact on the canned tea article, which is a good one, albeit warranting more and in some cases somewhat better sources. Netquantum's opinion can safely be discounted due to conflict of interest, which leaves no immediately apparent consensus for merge and redirect, although I am by no means opposed to this in principle. Enviga has obviously been hyped at least a bit, as there are over 40,000 Google hits for enviga green tea including numeorus trade journals which would qualify as sources. Since this is a short article anyway I don't see much to gain from nuking it. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
But of course Englishmen, in the gender-neutral sense of Britons :-) Guy (Help!) 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had this conversation before - which SPECIFIC bits are a "blantant commercial article"? I think stuff like this and this show there is a need for the article. --Charlesknight 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

German article

[edit]

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)[reply]

Lawsuits

[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enviga&oldid=1201773185"