Talk:Four Loko

Comments

This article was nominated twice for deletion, and the results of both discussions was KEEP. I would like to third the keep conclusion due to the fact that it is the only readily available beverage other than absinthe containing wormwood oil, southern wormwood or otherwise. It is probably inappropriate to mention that it produces an unusual effect compared to other alcoholic beverages, but alas I will anyhow. It isn't well known or popular but I believe it should have an entry in Wikipedia. Ducttapeandzipties (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The date the company was founded, and that of product introduction, needs to be clarified and corrected. Whereas the sidebar says "Introduced 2008", the article body states "Four debuted in the United States market in 2005" with citation. The cited article from April 2006, however, states "Four...is in the midst of a product launch around Midwest college campuses this spring...This summer, Four will be introduced in Illinois, Arizona, and California. The company plans to have the drink available nationwide by the end of the year. It seems the correct 'introduced' is spring 2006 (possibly before in test markets?).

The unusual thing about Four is the wormwood oil. I have heard it said that Four is only legal in four states, Arkansas being one of them. Fortunately, that's where I live, so I've been able to do some first-hand experiments. It produces an unusual buzz that is subtly different from alcohol + caffeine by themselves. Then again, that could be the placebo effect, as well as clever marketing playing with my head. Wormwood is used to produce absinthe, which is illegal in many jurisdictions. Also, it tastes like strawberry soda. Kind of. RobertAustin 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to take anything away from John Gulias, but I find it highly unlikely that drinking 3 cans in an hour could be a record unless 10 or less people have ever consumed this beverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.10.71 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"The drink has recently become extremely popular in South East Portland Oregon due to its large gay community." This statement does not belong in the article. There is no verification that it is extremely popular in SE Portland, much less that it is due to something as arbitrary as sexual orientation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.10.71 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The drink is popular in SE Portland, but not because of the "massive gay community." It's because of Reed College, located in SE Portland. We loved the shit out of Four Loko, and bought metric craptons of it at the Seven-11 nearest campus until they castrated it by taking out the caffeine.

The wiki implies that Four Loko is only 6% in Indiana, but it is most commonly found in the 12% variety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.72.24 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the dangers section, why does the word study appear in quotes? it makes it seem like the study in question is somehow not legitimate. Givengels (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As a life long drinker of Cuba Libres, 1 part rum, 3 parts Coca Cola, 1 squirt of lime, I am aghast that the combination of alcohol and caffein has been found to so dangerous as to make it illegal. I'm guessing that russian coffees and Jack and Cokes will be next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.143.106 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Josiefour and COI editing

Editors should note that edits by Josiefour should be monitored due to a potential conflict of interest. DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 19:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section to the end of controversy regarding Phusion's efforts to promote the safe consumption of their product. Hopefully this will help to promote a NPOV and will alleviate the COI edit war. DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reactions

I've cleaned up the reactions section, as day-by-day news will get very long and cluttered very quickly. Looking for more references, but I've found one for Penn State. DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 15:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Add references for Brandeis U and the state of Oklahoma. DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy - Several year ago...

The Controversy section begins with "Several years ago". Can someone stick a more precise date in its place. Several year ago from when? From 2010? From 2000? How long ago is "several" (3, 10, 50)? The current phrase is too ambiguous and is not encyclopædic, anyway. — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Drew Carey Show and Buzz Beer

The Drew Carey Show was a show that aired from 1995 to 2004 which revolved around the life and friends of the character Drew Carey between his regular office job and his home brewery of Buzz Beer (a mixture of beer and coffee). His "Buzz Beer" was one of the central memes of the show. Is this the first popular instance (even if a fictional depiction) of a caffeinated beer? If so, it may be worth a footnote mention in the article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Four vs Four Loko

Is the drink called Four or Four Loko? It's confusing because in the article the template says Four Loko but the page is named Four. Devourer09 (t·c) 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Four is the general name. It's sold in two varieties: Four Loko and Four MaXed. Wahrmund (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

More COI edits

I just removed an external ref to a blog promoting Four Loko. It had been put up by a red-inked user named ThankYouFourLoko

04:22, 17 November 2010 ThankYouFourLoko (talk | contribs) (14,680 bytes) (→External links) (undo)

Someone else to keep an eye on.

64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.218.58.38, 19 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please re-add the links to websites The Loko List and Four Loko Stories under the Controversy Section and/or under the External Links sections.

What these sites represent is a distinct cultural following of the topic at hand. They are cited in various web articles and are used as examples of the controversial side effects of Four Loko. I believe their addition helps maintain the goal of a neutral point of view by shedding a light on the user side of the product.

Wikipedia is a place to obtain information, so why should these external links be removed as spam when this controversial and current topic has such high attention across the globe and people are seeking further sources of reading in relation to the controversy that has caused its high attention.

These links are relevant and useful, not spam. Thank you for your attention.

24.218.58.38 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: While they may not count as spam, they definitely do not meet our criteria for external links. Please take a look at WP:EL, our guidelines on the matter of external links. It specifically notes, under WP:ELNO that forums are not appropriate external links in almost all circumstances. Please note that while "Wikipedia is a place to obtain information," it is not (see WP:NOT) a linking service or source of general information--it aims to provide encyclopedic information only. In general, we want only a very small number of highly relevant, high quality external links. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed the URLs as it may seem like an attempt to place direct-able link into this discussion in order to bring in traffic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Tidied up and corrected obvious errors

Someone cited an FDA article as FDA having sent warnings to 14 companies. I read the referenced article and it says four companies, so the four companies' name are now listed and the claim of 14 is removed. Phusion's press release concerning voluntary removal was on 11/16/2010, so the claim that the removal was a reaction to 11/17/2010 warning letter is incorrect.

I replaced two redundant pictures with one picture that shows the entire product line. I also removed a link to anti Four Loko blog just as others have been removing pro Four Loko blogs for neutrality concern. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Phusion Projects, LLC...?

Is it just me, or has this "brand" simply sprung up out of the wood word soon-after/during the whole FDA intervening...? The "old cans" made no mention of this "brand" anywhere, NOR did the "drinkfour.com" website......now, nearly all links on "drinkfour.com" point to this "external" site, Phusion Brands, LLC.....who may possibly be trying to play "superman" to an extent? Just seems odd, almost as if "Drink Four Brewing Company" went out of the picture once the FDA intervened.....did "Drink Four Brewing Company" sell their assets to Phusion Projects, LLC? Now, their (phusion projects....) website states they've been around since 2005 - BUT, I have never heard of this brand and I've been drinking the "Drink Four Brewing Company" products for 2+ years....another thing I noticed, there seems to be different information everywhere I look on this/these "brands" Drink Four Brewing Company is in La Crosse, WI....Phusion Projects, Inc. portfolio at manta states Chicago, IL. No location is mentioned on their website though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.253.120 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested edit from Four Loko.

My name is Elizabeth and I work for Phusion Projects, LLC, and we produce the product Four Loko. I am new to Wikipedia, but I understand and respect the rules of maintain NPOV. Additionally, I recognize that since I work for Phusion Projects I have a clear conflict of interest and will utilize the talk pages to discuss comments regarding the page. My aim for participating is not to transform the article into a glowing review, but to transparently assist with any information requests or address factual clarifications that might help continue to evolve the article so that it provides a thorough overview of the company that reflects general consensus.

With that said, the first edit we want to make is an important one for us with the title of the page. Four Loko is no longer an energy drink. We no longer use caffeinated ingredients in our products. Below I have pasted two news sources, as well as a link to our website that confirms this change to our formula: http://www.wdtv.com/index.php/home/local-news/5310-four-loko-makes-a-comeback-on-the-shelves http://www.kristv.com/news/tabc-approves-reformulated-four-loko-drink/ http://www.phusionprojects.com/media_reformulationupdate.html

Thank you for reading, and we’re happy to respond and clarify any questions. To summarize: we request changing the title so that Four Loko is no longer listed as an energy drink on Wikipedia, consistent with our reformulated product. Phusionprojects (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Phusionprojects

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Four (energy drink) → Four Loko
• Four Loko → Four Loko

– The current article current1 is a redirect from current2. The current1 is misnamed; Four Loko is no longer an energy drink as supported by recent sourced and supported edits to the article. Four Loko should be the page title, and there should be no redirection. MorganH85 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – sensible update. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Website

The Four Loko website has no "contact us" link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.148.89 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The products now claim to be made in La Crosse WI, by Drink Four Brewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.148.89 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ABV and Proof

Can someone please make a clarification between the alcohol content? %ABV and %proof are not the same thing, and in the article the infobox states this in proof(US), while the article reports it in %ABV (under the product line section). Akme777 (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of branded product inconsistencies

In the introduction, the article states 'Four branded products have been the object ...' and in the Product line section, 'There are two product lines within the Four brand:

   Four Loko — contains either 6%, 7%, 8%, 12% or 14% alcohol by volume (ABV), depending on state regulations, and is packaged in 23.5 oz. (695 mL) cans' which only contains the single product line above.

Could this be cleaned up by someone with knowledge of the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.118.182 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No reference for Puerto Rico release 2013

I’m not sure if this portion should be deleted or not, but I googled today 3/30/18 and found no reference to the 2013 release in Puerto Rico. MissTofATX (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)