Talk:Ensure

Slanted POV

Whoever wrote this is using this as a way to project a point of view about G'tmo. This is not appropriate for this article. It should be said it can be used to force feed people and left at that. That way the use is know but the exact use is up to the reader to find out 99.4.106.235 (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Vera Ferguson

What point of view is intended to be projected about the Guantanamo Bay detention camps?

Why is the mentioning of specific uses inappropriate for this article? Hyacinth (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that Abbott markets Ensure specifically for force-feeding, then it's relevant, and the source would make a fascinating addition to the article. Otherwise, it's like mentioning that the products of a particular rubber tubing manufacturer are used for waterboarding -- needlessly inflammatory. --Yaush (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Length

Can someone make this page longer? Torax's Rage 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

other editor (anonymous): it would certainly be nice to see where Ensure lines up compared to products like Huel, Soylent, etc. How do these products compare in terms of providing something close to a complete nutritional package? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.62.167.26 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to manufactures website.

Should there be a direct link to the manufactures website on the disambiguate page? Shouldn't this be a link to the wikipedia article on the product instead? Ochbad (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

meant to be fed through a nose tube ??

According to the manufacturers web site it's a drink AKA a shake. They don't say anything about force feeding being the "intended use". This needs cleaning up. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Upon reading this page, I was a bit disturbed that the majority of this stub article focuses on force-feeding of this product. Any information about force-feeding practises should be moved to articles relating to specific incidents or practises, rather than mentioning it in this article. It's no fault of the manufacturer that certain entities use their product in malicious ways. TheFrozenFire (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to remove the references to force-feeding? --Yaush (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

no 172.58.22.229 (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's commonly ingested through nasogastric tubes by patients with anorexia. --Chickenflicker (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts, ideas and information

This product is available in both powder and liquid form. The directions on a bottle of Ensure are: Shake well. Serve cold. It does not mention administering.

The powder may be mixed either with milk or water.

Medical and dental professionals may recommend this product following extensive medical or dental procedures to maintain proper nutrition during the patient's recovery.

Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

http://abbottnutrition.com/Products/ensure says, "For oral use." Hyacinth (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

June 12, 2012: Please accept the edits to this Ensure Wikidpedia page by me. My name is Scott Stoffel, and I work at Abbott in Corporate Public Affairs, and the edits I am providing are all factual. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to access my contact information, found here: http://abbott.com/news-media/contacts.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottStoffelAbbott (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Milkshake?

I saw a link to "Milkshake" in the "See also" section. It looked weird to me, so I removed it, although I added Infant formula, which sounds quite related to the subject of this page.

@Jytdog: reverted it and said that it's not infant formula. That's correct—Ensure is indeed not infant formula, but it's certainly not quite a milkshake either.

If everybody thinks that infant formula is unrelated, then I guess that the whole "See also" section can be removed, but "Milkshake" definitely seems out of place. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits today

User: Weijiasi if you have any questions about my edits, please ask here. For any content that is WP:Biomedical information please use sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. For all other content, please use sources that comply with WP:RS; in general please avoid press releases and blogs. Thanks.

I did a search for good sources about Ensure a month or so ago; hard to find many good refs. The Ohio History site was nice find! Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Flavor variant

Hi User:Jytdog. First, let me say, thanks for the edits and appreciate the Wikipedia rule references. Quickly getting me up to speed. I respectfully disagree with your removal of the "available in flavors" for each variant.

you mentioned: "available in" is a) trivia; b) changeable, and impossible to keep updated; c) unanchored in time)"

• trivia - that is subjective. The flavors are closely tied to each variant. Without it, readers are missing much information. It's somewhat similar to listing just original flavor coca cola and not including the different variations added over time. It's just not the same. It's good for historical purposes.
• changeable and impossible to keep updated - Changeable applies to any wiki page. Not a reason for removal. It's not like flavors are added every month. New ones can reasonably be added. The cola page will have to be continually updated as new variants added also.
• unanchored in time - The same reason we include discontinued products (e.g. for historical perspective and completeness sake) should also apply to the flavors. The flavor lists displays what flavor were & are available, even if they are removed at a later point in time.

Also, I think it's best to keep discontinued products in the same lists. There are other products that are discontinued but because I couldn't find references, couldn't label them as such. By separating we are indicating the long list of products are definitely "alive", when that may not be the case

--Weijiasi (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is not an advertisement for the products. People can go look at Abbott's website or go to the store if they want detail. Listing the different products within the line is already pretty spammy. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weijiasi there is no need to repeat the WP:LAUNDRYLIST of products in the infobox. Please read WP:PROMO.

In this dif you also again added a "TM<" mark. For the second time, read MOS:TM.

this ref is a press release. Please do not use press releases as refs. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

--Hi User:Jytdog

1. I didn't think the product list was spammy at all. I was mimicking the Coca-Cola page and how it was organized. (i.e. how coke's brand portfolio section listed different variants with inception and discontinued date) Figured that was a good model to follow. But don't worry. I won't be adding the product list back on the wikipage or infobox. Feel free to remove all mention of products. I'll rely on your experience. Though, just for my learning, can you help me understand why the coke page lists their products both on the page and the infobox and still not considered a promotion? Is it because it is a huge and well known brand and the wiki page has a lot of content?
2. re:the TM mark. Sorry, that was truly accidental. I simply copied and pasted.
3. re: Used to read the Metro newspaper so assumed the site was a news item. My mistake.

Weijiasi (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why people made the decision they did on the Coke article. That is a much longer article and the duplication is not as pointless as it is here... but I cannot tell you. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jytdog --- Weijiasi (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Various ideas about this maybe not being the primarytopic, but no consensus for that or for a new title. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Ensure → Ensure (nutritional supplement) – or Ensure (meal replacement). This brand-name product seems obscure enough that Ensure, like Insure, should redirect to Insurance. See also the somewhat-related discussion at Talk:Soylent (food). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support, NB Ensure (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I wouldn't object to Ensure (drink) or Ensure (shake), but calling it a "nutritional supplement" or "meal replacement" in the title buys into the company's branding. These are high-sugar drinks. The original has 15 grams of sugar per 237 ml. Top three ingredients: "Water, Corn Maltodextrin, Sugar". SarahSV ^(talk) 05:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are not disagreeing with the idea that the article should be moved, but you dislike the particular suggestions. I wouldn't object to Ensure (drink) or Ensure (beverage), although I note that the brand includes at least one non-drink variation (a pudding). Regarding the sugar content, my understanding is that the drink was originally developed as a medical product for use by people with serious health problems (cancer, AIDS, wasting syndrome, inability to eat solid food, etc.). It was only later that the company came up with the idea to expand their market by trying to convince ordinary healthy people that it was appropriate for them too. High caloric content was, perhaps, desirable as a medical property for the original purpose of replacing ordinary food intake. People with life-threatening health problems need adequate blood sugar to survive. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Ensure (brand)? Or just leave it where it is. It's a pretty well-known product. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - ensure and insure have different meanings, so I don't understand why this page title should rdr to insurance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You have a point. However, I still doubt that this branded product is a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Ensure". Perhaps the dab page should be at the base name. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree with you, but the only other entry at Ensure (disambiguation) is an insurance company in Nigeria that I've never heard about before. I imagine that many people in North America (perhaps elsewhere too?) have heard of the Ensure brand of products before due to its widespread distribution/marketing and availability in the vast majority of convenience and grocery stores in the United States. Consequently, a reader on the English Wikipedia searching for this term would likely be looking for this article; in contrast, on the Wikipedia associated with the primary language spoken in Nigeria, the insurance company would probably be the primary topic. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it wasn't linked to anywhere in the article, I've added a link to the ensure DAB page in the article's hatnote. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. No other article currently on WP could reasonably take the title "Ensure", so there's no need to disambiguate. The topic is not at all obscure, and leaving it at its actual name relieves us of the subjective decision as to whether it's a drink, a supplement or a brand. Station1 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ensure (insurance company) could take the title Ensure. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Ensure Insurance is currently at its best title, and would not take the informal shortening of the company name as a title even if it were available. But even if one disagrees with that, this article would still be the overwhelming primary topic of the two.[1] - Station1 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not totally against the move but still don't see the need. As others have mentioned, ensure and insure mean different things. And it' a fairly known product. --Weijiasi (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

WikiLink pointing to Boost

Hi User:BarrelProof

In the sentence below, you added a wikilink pointing to GSK's Boost page section

   In the 1990s Ensure and other nutritional drink brands like Sustacal, Boost and Resource were fiercely competing to capture market share among healthy adults...

However, the NY Times article that that information was referenced from was talking about a different Boost. It was referring to Ensure's known competitor, Boost by Nestle (the nutritional supplement drink similar to Ensure)

If you look at your linked GSK section, it says:

   GSK's consumer healthcare division... sells oral healthcare...and drinks such as Horlicks, Boost, a chocolate-flavoured malt drink sold in India, and formerly Lucozade and Ribena

That boost is an Indian product. Not the right Boost from Nestle. (This is the problem with similarly named products)

I tried to find the appropriate Wikipedia page for the Boost drink by Nestle but looks like no one has created it yet. Anyway, I removed the wikilink. If you find the right Nestle Boost wikipage, please add back. Or, if you find a wikipage for Sustacal, feel free to add as well. (Which funnily enough, is also made by Nestle)

Cheers

--Weijiasi (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding the name of the parent company (e.g. Mead Johnson & Nestle) is unnecessary and clutters up the sentence.

"In the 1990s Ensure and other nutritional drink brands like Sustacal (a Mead Johnson product), Boost (a Nestlé product) and Resource (a Nestlé product) were..."

But I'll leave it to others to review and chime in. --Weijiasi (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I see two good reasons for including that information: 1) In a discussion of competition, it's important to understand who the competition is between, and if we don't know who makes the products, we don't know who is competing. 2) If we don't have Wikipedia articles that we can link to about the individual products, it's nice to have somewhere to send readers who are interested in more information about these products (e.g., so they don't go searching randomly and assume its some product in India that's different), and the manufacturers have Wikiarticles. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not totally against it. Just seems unwieldy. How about: "In the 1990s, Ensure and other nutritional drink brands like Mead Johnson's Sustacal, Nestlé's Boost and Nestlé's Resource..." Just an idea. --Weijiasi (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Done (but avoiding duplication of Nestlé). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Good catch! --Weijiasi (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)