Talk:Kombucha: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:18, 7 September 2018 editPeter coxhead (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors204,614 edits →Not encyclopedic: it's a fine point, but quoting would fit the spirit of WP:EDITORIAL better, I think← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:47, 29 May 2024 edit undoKlbrain (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers87,884 edits Removing one project (it might be health-related, but's is a long way from the field of pharmacology)
(256 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|search=yes}}		{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	{{Discretionary sanctions\|topic=cam\|style=long}}<!-- Note that alerts issued under ARBPSUEDO remain current for these sanctions as they are closely related (per ]). -->
			{{WikiProject Food and drink \|importance=low \|auto=yes}}
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_British_Columbia/FNH_200_102_(Term_2) \| assignments = ], ], ] }}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=low}}
			}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=cam\|style=long}}<!-- Note that alerts issued under ARBPSUEDO remain current for these sanctions as they are closely related (per ]). -->

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
Line 10:		Line 14:
	\|archive = Talk:Kombucha/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Kombucha/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Food and drink \|class=c \|importance=low \|auto=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Pharmacology \|class=c \|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Skepticism\|class=C\|importance=low}}
	}}
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/College_of_DuPage/English_1102,_section_96_(Spring_2017) \| assignments = ] }}


	== RfC on adding current research status ==
	{{archive top\|The compromise proposals on both issues have been accepted by consensus and edited into the article. (]) ]] 15:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)}}

	The health claim studies overviewed in the Health Claims section are 15+ years old. The below content is from a 2018 peer-reviewed journal and brings the reader up to date with the current status of kombucha health claim studies. Why would we not add something like the below paragraph to the "Health claims" section?

	See "Content deleted" and "Sourced content deleted" talk sections for full details.

	A 2018 review stated, several '']'' studies have been done for kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done '']'' studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol.<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018/> However, the results of biological activities have not been conﬁrmed for the purported health beneﬁts in humans.<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018>{{cite journal\|last1=Villarreal-Soto\|first1=Silvia Alejandra\|last2=Beaufort\|first2=Sandra\|last3=Bouajila\|first3=Jalloul\|last4=Souchard\|first4=Jean-Pierre\|last5=Taillandier\|first5=Patricia\|title=Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review\|journal=Journal of Food Science\|volume=83\|issue=3\|year=2018\|pages=580–588\|issn=00221147\|doi=10.1111/1750-3841.14068\|pmid=29508944}}</ref>
	] (]) 18:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}

	*'''Support''' accurate wording. For a more concise wording see ]. ] (]) 17:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

	=== Comments on RfC on adding current research status ===

	It's unencyclopedic primary research in test tubes or lab animals, of no relevance to possible effects from human consumption, leading to conjecture. Contrary to the J Food Sci report, it has no proven anti-inflammatory or antioxidant effects, nor could it have as a consumed beverage digested in stomach enzymes and acids which destroy native compounds in the tea. Fails ]. --] (]) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

	:Not adding current updates, though, leaves people to conjecture that the content presented has a high probability of being inaccurate because new information is not being presented (especially given the editorialized comments by the author of the 2003 study). The 2018 peer-reviewed J Food Sci report basically summarizes where we are now, ie, studies up to 2018 have proven no health benefit for humans.] (]) 18:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

	:It is a 2018 review commenting on the primary research. The title of the paper confirms it is a review. See "". A recent review passes ]. ] (]) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
	::Better to leave out lab research which is unlikely to be reliably duplicated per ], and state there is no evidence as of 2018 that kombucha has any health benefits. Leaving it in conveys misinformation in the J Food Sci article to non-science encyclopedia users; ], #7. --] (]) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
	:::Since we are citing a review for the lab research it meets ]. Per ]: Where ''in vitro'' and animal-model data are cited on Misplaced Pages, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans." The text is clear what type of studies were conducted and does not imply it holds true for humans. See the wording in the proposal, "'''However, the results of biological activities have not been conﬁrmed for the purported health beneﬁts in humans.'''" This confirms the lack of any health benefits in humans. Per ], #7: "A Misplaced Pages article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field." The text is well written and clear. Therefore, the readers do not need to be well-versed in the topic to understand the text. ] (]) 19:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

	I don't understand why we should censor information from an actual, recent, peer-reviewed review of multiple studies. Should we, as editors, be questioning what the experts said? Plus, the line "However, the results of biological activities have not been conﬁrmed for the purported health beneﬁts in humans" was added. ] (]) 19:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
	:Yes, we should question and exclude non-MEDRS authors (chemists, according to their affiliations) for a review of primary research in a weak, low-impact journal (1.8 IF). The full article is mainly about the chemistry and microbial composition of kombucha, with the authors stepping away from their areas of expertise to comment on supposed biological activities which are clearly weak or absent from the evidence shown in Table 3. To cherry-pick this out and discuss it in the encyclopedia article is misleading to users and violates MEDASSESS (bottom of pyramid for evidence, so earns its exclusion) and MEDANIMAL: "The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader"; it's not. Better to wait for preliminary human research. --] (]) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
	::We usually question and usually exclude non-MEDRS sources, but the source is a and meets ].
	::See ]: "The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader"; it is. See again: ''However, the results of biological activities have not been conﬁrmed for the purported health beneﬁts in humans.'' ] (]) 19:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
	:::I concur with QuackGuru: the source and content meets Misplaced Pages standards so there appears to be no reason why the paragraph should not be published. Plus - it provides an up-to-date status of the current health claim studies, which is sorely needed since the only other content in this section is 15+ years old.] (]) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
	:::Otherwise, we are censoring a review in a peer-reviewed journal, which I don't believe should be the purpose of Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

	=== Alternative proposal ===


	Old proposal: <s>"Its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans for their purported health beneﬁts.</s><ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018>{{cite journal\|last1=Villarreal-Soto\|first1=Silvia Alejandra\|last2=Beaufort\|first2=Sandra\|last3=Bouajila\|first3=Jalloul\|last4=Souchard\|first4=Jean-Pierre\|last5=Taillandier\|first5=Patricia\|title=Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review\|journal=Journal of Food Science\|volume=83\|issue=3\|year=2018\|pages=580–588\|issn=00221147\|doi=10.1111/1750-3841.14068\|pmid=29508944}}</ref>"

	New proposal: The purported health beneﬁts resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans.<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018/>

	{{reflist-talk}}

	This is an alternative proposal to the "RfC on adding current research status". ] (]) 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Oppose'''. I agree with the sentiment, but there's something wrong with the wording, particularly with the word "for".</s> ] (]) 07:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
	**{{u\|Maproom}}, I made . ] (]) 14:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
	***'''Support''' the amended version. ] (]) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

	=== Comments on alternative proposal ===

	I tried a . It is much shorter than the original proposal. ] (]) 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

	The alternative Proposal: "The purported health beneﬁts resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans." The current wording is shorter. See "the purported health beneﬁts have not been demonstrated in humans". It is missing the part about the biological activities. The current wording in the article is slightly different than the proposal. ] (]) 15:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

	I spoke too soon. The article was updated to . ] (]) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

	=== RfC on its biological properties ===

	<s>"There is a lack of understanding about its biological properties.</s><ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018>{{cite journal\|last1=Villarreal-Soto\|first1=Silvia Alejandra\|last2=Beaufort\|first2=Sandra\|last3=Bouajila\|first3=Jalloul\|last4=Souchard\|first4=Jean-Pierre\|last5=Taillandier\|first5=Patricia\|title=Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review\|journal=Journal of Food Science\|volume=83\|issue=3\|year=2018\|pages=580–588\|issn=00221147\|doi=10.1111/1750-3841.14068\|pmid=29508944}}</ref>"

	New Proposal: "There is a lack of research regarding its biological properties."

	{{reflist-talk}}

	I propose adding the content above to the ] section. ] (]) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

	==== Comments on RfC on its biological properties ====

	The 2018 review says "Even though nowadays Kombucha tea is known all over the world, its biological properties are not well understood.". ] (]) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

	If there is no objection to then I can close the RfC. ] (]) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
	:I would suggest changing your wording to something like "its effects on human health are not well understood.", but I don't find it objectionable. Here's another source if you want: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/expert-answers/kombucha-tea/faq-20058126 ]] 06:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
	::It seems this information is pretty well covered in the article already, actually. Is there a reason you feel this is a beneficial edit? ]] 06:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
	:::Biological properties means the functionality of the physical and chemical properties. Biological activity means its beneficial or adverse effects of its properties. Biological properties does not mean its health effects. ] (]) 10:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
	::::Can you provide a quote from the source that supports that the biological properties are not understood? ]] 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
	:::::The 2018 review says "Even though nowadays Kombucha tea is known all over the world, '''its biological properties are not well understood.''''". ] (]) 16:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
	:::::: Thanks. I don't see a problem with it then. Make sure to phrase it in a way that is compliant with wiki policies, specifically ]. ]] 16:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::The has not changed since I added. ] (]) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Comment/Proposal''' Have only now received an RFC. I agree with the sentiments of ] et al, and if the proposed wording is preferred, I support it. However, it seems to me that there are two concepts worth mentioning. I propose including both and rewording for clarity and ease of reading:<br>"Studies in recent decades have shown neither any health benefits, nor any biological properties of special value."<br>Append preferred citations according to taste. We do not really need to speak of the understanding or otherwise of the biological properties, whether beneficial or otherwise, being understood or not. The negative agnostic tone seems to me non-misleading and encyclopaedic. (Feel welcome to replace words like "shown" with "revealed" or "demonstrated", according to the desired tone and register.<br>"Studies in recent decades have failed to show either any health benefits, or any biological properties of special value." <br>might be slightly less ambiguous, but more cumbersome; again, take your pick.)'' ] (]) 05:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
	**Biological activities and biological properties are different. The researchers are examining its properties as well as examining the biological activities of each of those properties. For the biological activities it has not been shown to be effective for humans. I recently added similar content. I added "Its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans for their purported health beneﬁts.". See ] for the other RfC. As long as the word "activities" remains you or anyone can adjust the wording. ] (]) 05:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Disagree''' with initial "there is a lack of understanding" wording. That wording implies that the purported activities exist, but are merely not understood. We need wording that clearly indicates that we have no scientific evidence for the existence of these activities. —] (]) 22:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
	**I changed it to "There is a lack of research regarding its biological properties." There is another proposal that shows there is no solid evidence for the biological activities in humans. See "The purported health beneﬁts resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans." See ] and see ]. ] (]) 01:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Content requires a rewrite ==
	=== Failed verification content again ===

	The PDF file does not specifically mention "]s".

	New wording: "Based on the absence of human ]s, there remains no high-quality ] that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health.".<ref name=Ernst2003>{{cite journal\|author=Ernst E\|title=Kombucha: a systematic review of the clinical evidence\|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0020339/\|journal=Forschende Komplementärmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde\|year=2003\|volume=10\|issue=2\|pages=85–87\|doi=10.1159/000071667\|pmid=12808367}}</ref>

	{{reflist-talk}}

	It appears the new content mentioning "]s" fails verification. I propose the edit be reverted until the content can be verified or rewritten. ] (]) 15:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
	:"Absence of human ]s" is verifiable from thorough review of the medical literature, which indeed shows there are no such studies. The content could be revised through the usual editing process. --] (]) 17:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
	::What review or MEDRS compliant source verifies the "absence of human ]s" via review of the medical literature? The content could be deleted through the usual editing process because it fails verification. ] (]) 17:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
	:::The sentence in question concerning absence of clinical trials could be abbreviated to: "There remains no high-quality ] that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health," as sourced to Ernst. --] (]) 17:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
	::::That's duplication of other content. We can summarise the content quoted above. Did you read the PDF file before changing the wording? ] (]) 19:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
	:::::In the ''Health claims'' section, I don't see any duplication of content, and the overall coverage of the topic is accurate. The Ernst source says clinical research was reviewed and no evidence of efficacy was found. The Jayabalan source reviewed numerous primary/lab studies, giving further proof that no high-quality clinical research was available for review. Rather than beating around the bush here, make an editorial change or proposal so others can work on it. --] (]) 15:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
	::::::If the content is accurate then where does the Ernst 2003 review mention "]s"? I did make a proposal at the opening of this thread. See "I propose the edit be reverted until the content can be verified or rewritten." Content has not been verified. ] (]) 16:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::In Ernst under ''Study designs of evaluations included in the review'', there is: "absence of human randomized controlled trials, there remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health" (from the current article version), an accurate statement, as there are no other sources discussing high-quality clinical evidence for beneficial effects. The Health claims section is accurate as stated. --] (]) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::In Ernst under the heading Study selection it states ''Study designs of evaluations included in the review''. Under that section it states "Post-marketing surveillance studies, clinical trials, case reports, spontaneous reporting schemes and pre-clinical studies were eligible for inclusion in the review." There is no mention of "absence of human randomized controlled trials". That means the content failed verification. The source must make the claim, not the editor. There remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health, must also be sourced. ] (]) 17:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

	=== Sourced content replaced with vague or unclear wording ===

	See "Kombucha tea has been claimed by kombucha drinkers all over the world to have many beneficial effects on human health. However, most of the benefits were studied in experimental models only and there is a lack of scientific evidence based on human models."<ref name=Jayabalan/> Also see "There is still a dispute over the beneficial effects of kombucha drink. There has been no evidence published to date on the biological activities of kombucha in human trials. All the biological activities have been investigated using animal experimental models."<ref name=Jayabalan/>

	Previous wording: "''People drink it for its many putative beneficial effects, but most of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little ] based on human studies''.<ref name=Jayabalan/> ''There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea''."

	New wording: "''People drink it for its supposed beneficial effects, but most of the benefits are assumed from the results of low-quality preliminary studies''".<ref name=Jayabalan/>] (]) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

	::Given the sentences that precede and follow this new wording, this sentence is redundant. I say omit it altogether, and if the reference given is valuable, add it to the reference of the sentence that follows. ] (]) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
	:::Accurate content was replaced with vague and meaningless content. The part "assumed from the results of low-quality preliminary studies" is misleading or inaccurate. ] (]) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

	<ref name=Jayabalan>{{cite journal\|last1=Jayabalan\|first1=Rasu\|title=A Review on Kombucha Tea—Microbiology, Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus\|journal=Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety\|date=21 June 2014\|volume=13\|issue=4\|pages=538–550\|doi=10.1111/1541-4337.12073\|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.12073/full}}</ref>

	{{reflist-talk}}

	The . ] (]) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

	I tagged the . One sentence is too vague and the other fails verification. ] (]) 15:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

	No further comments were made to address the problems. I to improve the wording and to clarify the content. ] (]) 12:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

	New wording was:

	"People drink it for its many purported beneficial effects, but the majority of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies. There have not been any human trials conducted regarding its biological activities, and the purported health beneﬁts resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans. So far, there have been animal studies that looked into its biological activities. "

	Last year back in December 2017 it stated:

	"People drink it for its many putative beneficial effects, but most of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies. There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea. There is no high-quality evidence of beneficial effects from consuming kombucha."

	Too much content is being deleted against consensus. was previously replaced with misleading content. "People drink it for its supposed beneficial effects" is misleading. The content "Based on the absence of human ]s" failed verification "Although people drink kombucha for such supposed health benefits" is also . The source stated it was "many". The source uses a capital "". ] (]) 19:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

	=== Current research ===

	What about adding instead "Research have been conducted using experimental laboratory studies."? ] (]) 01:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
	:What is it that you are hoping to convey or add to the article with this line? ]] 02:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
	::Right now we say "There have not been any human trials conducted to assess its possible biological effects,...".
	::We currently don't say what type of research has been conducted. ] (]) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
	:::Ah ok, I understand. I would say that the proposed sentence "Research has been conducted using experimental laboratory studies." is too vague, and doesn't fully convey your message. Maybe something that details the types of laboratory experiments might be more beneficial. ]] 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
	::::"Research have been conducted using '']'' and '']'' laboratory studies.<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018/>

	<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018>{{cite journal\|last1=Villarreal-Soto\|first1=Silvia Alejandra\|last2=Beaufort\|first2=Sandra\|last3=Bouajila\|first3=Jalloul\|last4=Souchard\|first4=Jean-Pierre\|last5=Taillandier\|first5=Patricia\|title=Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review\|journal=Journal of Food Science\|volume=83\|issue=3\|year=2018\|pages=580–588\|issn=00221147\|doi=10.1111/1750-3841.14068}}</ref>

	{{reflist-talk}}
	::::This conveys the message. ] (]) 16:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
	:::::I agree that this is much more clear. However, there might be some confusion about the "in vivo" studies. Do you know what model organism they used? For the clearest message, I would suggest something like: "Research has been conducted using '']'' and '']'' laboratory studies, with (mice/drosophila flies/etc) as a model organism." ]] 17:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
	::::::"Research has been conducted using biological assays '']'' and '']'' studies using rates."<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018/>
	::::::"Research has been conducted using biological assays '']'' as well as '']'' studies using rats.<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018/>
	{{reflist-talk}}
	::::::I added a little more detail. ] (]) 04:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Which version to do prefer? Simple wording or ? ] (]) 16:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Looks good, I would suggest:
	:"Studies to investigate the (effects/properties?) of kombucha have included '']'' biological assays and '']'' studies using rats as model organisms."]] 03:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
	::The '']'' biological assays may not of used rats. From reading the source I know the '']'' studies used rats. ] (]) 04:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
	:::Since the sentence uses the plural "studies" I don't think readers will confuse the in vitro and in vivo studies, however, either of your sentences will work just as well. ]] 22:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
	::::I choose "as well as" so that the readers knows there is a difference between the ''in vitro'' and ''in vivo'' studies. ] (]) 23:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

			== Potential health risks ==
	Several '']'' studies have been done for kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done '']'' studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol.<ref name=Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018/>

			Per the cited source include:
	{{reflist-talk}}
			{{talkquote\|Kombucha has been implicated (but not necessarily confirmed) in a number of case reports, including hyponatremia; lactic acidosis; toxic hepatitis after consuming kombucha tea daily for two years; a patient newly diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus who presented with a case of hyperthermia, lactic acidosis, and acute renal failure within 15 hours of ingesting kombucha; anti-Jo1 antibody-positive myositis ; symptomatic lead poisoning from brewing kombucha in a ceramic pot; an outbreak of cutaneous anthrax reportedly from applying the kombucha mushroom to the skin as a painkiller; pellagra; an allergic reaction, jaundice, and nausea, vomiting, head and neck pain; metabolic acidosis; hepatotoxicity; and cholestatic hepatitis.{{pb}}
			Kombucha contains small amounts of alcohol. In a Food and Drug Administration investigation, the alcohol content of samples ranged from 0.7% to 1.3%; no methanol was detected. Kombucha is contraindicated in pregnant women and likely people with significant renal, pulmonary, or liver disease.}}
			Do we really want to enumerate every one? I think ] applies as Misplaced Pages is meant to <u>summarize</u> sources. People can alwys read the source if they want the full detail. Not sure ] (]) 16:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

			:"Implicated but not confirmed"
	To be fair I did not propose detailed content such as the text above because I think it might get reverted. I could write detailed text but for certain topics editors don't like it. Too bad. ] (]) 23:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
			:"Confirmed"
			:Pick one. ] (]) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::The first set are not confirmed causes, but potential risks. Komucha is contraindicated in pregnant women and likely people with significant renal, pulmonary, or liver disease, but they are potential risks. Anyway, that does not answer the question? ] (]) 17:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::"Anyway, that does not answer the question?"
			:::No. Because it needs to be in the article, without weasel words, and with citations.
			:::You'll notice how the goal-posts keep moving here? I asked for a citation for "A 2019 review confirmed the numerous health risks"
			:::You gave me a quote that directly contradicts that. And you're acting like I'm pushing junk science? I'm asking for clarification to misquoted science. That's it. ] (]) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::You tagged it with "which" and demanded that the article list them. Do you still want them listed? ] (]) 17:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yes. I want a list of all of the "confirmed ... numerous health risks". So far you have 0. ] (]) 17:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::They article says "potential health risks" (I changed it). So that's okay now? Time to de-tag? ] (]) 17:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You're still weaseling. If you care about pregnant women, talk about pregnant women. If you care about liver disease, talk about liver disease. The point still stands... which? Leave it alone, or do the work. ] (]) 17:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I have done the work, to list (above) the potential health risks in the source, which you explicitly tagged as needing listing. Are you still saying every one needs to be listed? If so, I disagree. ] (]) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::The work needs to be done in the article, not a talk page ] (]) 18:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::Pregnant women aren't supposed to have any alcohol. All fermentation creates alcohol. Pregnant women aren't supposed to have any fermented tea, because of the .5% alcohol content. This is definitely something that[REDACTED] should note. Pregnant women are advised to listen to their doctors. That isn't the same thing. Some thing goes for people with health complications. All of this can be noted. With citations. Anything medical on[REDACTED] should be direct and with clear citation, without deviating from the citation. ] (]) 17:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

	== pH ==		== Spurious tagging ==

			Here. Asking why Jilly juice ("a fermented drink with claimed health benefits") is like Kombucha (a fermented tea with claimed health benefits) seems bizarre; likewise asking why ] is relevant when Kombucha is actually ''an entry there'' is odd. Citation needs tags are inappropriate too, in a See also section, which does not have citations. ] (]) 16:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	The figure of 2.5 seems remarkably low, although it's from a reputable source.

			:If you want, you can always simply find an agreeable source and cite it ] (]) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	Commercial websites give higher values - are there any independent sources (academic researchers or food analysis organisations) that find the pH to be higher as well?
			::What part of See also sections not having citations did you miss? ] (]) 17:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::The part where you're trying to define kombucha as pseudo-science quackery and conflating it with literal pseudo-science quackery ] (]) 17:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::That seems like a non-sequitur and I just don't know how to respond. I have raised a query at ]. ] (]) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I would love some oversight here. Am I vandalizing by adding citation tags? The first see also link for kombucha shouldn't be quack medicine, alphabetizing aside. Am I crazy for suggesting this is conflating kombucha with quack science? The article is littered with poorly cited or uncited references to kombucha being dangerous junk science. This feels like propaganda to me. ] (]) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::The first link is to ], not "quack medicine". There are both fermented drinks spuriously promoted for health. See also sections do not have citations. You are not addressing these points. ] (]) 18:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't know if it's your doing or not, but the article linked starts: "Jilly Juice is a quack pseudomedicine" ] (]) 18:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::And so why should it not be linked? ] (]) 18:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Goal posts moving again: "The first link is to Jilly Juice, not "quack medicine"."
			:::::::::Now: "And so why should it not be linked?" ] (]) 18:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::You wrote "The first see also link for kombucha shouldn't be quack medicine, alphabetizing aside". We have now established that by 'quack medicine' you meant Jilly Juice. So: why shouldn't it be the first see also link? ] (]) 18:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Because it's intentionally conflating kombucha with "quack pseudo-science". I'm not removing it; I'm merely asking for a citation. If you can provide a reasonable citation that conflates or links the two, I'll remove my citation needed. That is, after all, all this is about. ] (]) 18:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::See also sections do not have citations. See also contain links to related/tangential topics. They are both fermented drinks promoted with spurious claims of healthful properties. What you are doing is hostage tagging, and it is disruptive. ] (]) 18:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::This is my point. You seem to be defining kombucha as "a fermented drink with spurious health claims". ] (]) 18:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Not me, the sources. And no, it's not a viable treatment for AIDS or cancer. ] (]) 18:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::This all started because you refused to link "the sources." Obviously drinking vinegar and tea won't cure aids... ] (]) 18:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::We already said kombucha was promoted with implausible, wide-ranging health claims, making it an extreme example of an "unconventional remedy". ] (]) 19:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::"We have now established that by 'quack medicine' you meant Jilly Juice."
			:::::::::::No. By opening the thread talking about Jilly Juice, and asking me directly and specifically about Jilly Juice, we established we were talking about Jilly Juice. Again, moving the goal post. ] (]) 18:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::@] I ran out of room in the edit summary, but in response to the berry question in the {{tl\|cn}} tag, check out ], ] (]) 19:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::That's totally reasonable. I agree it makes sense to have the cancer page linked ] (]) 20:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			===Jilly Juice in See also===
			I wonder whether the inclusion of ] is a violation of ]. Are there serious sources ''about kombucha'' which mention Jilly Juice? I see plenty in the other direction. ] (]) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

			:Thank you; this definitely seems like a violation of ] to me. Do you know what the proper steps for trying to report that are? Do I simply remove it and cite ONEWAY? ] (]) 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	Best regards
			:I think I added it. I see your point on the ] guideline, but I think it fits per ] guideline, ''"One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category."'', the relation/category being weird health-hyped ]. I don't think either guideline is obviously "mightier" here, and that JJ fits at least as well as the other see alsos. So, it's an editorial discretion thing. IMO, it should stay. ] (]) 16:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 13:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
			::I'm easy either way. ] (]) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Source says "In addition, the high acidity of the drink (pH usually around 2.5) could constitute a risk when large amounts are being consumed ." Another source can be added that reached a different conclusion. ] (]) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
			:::Never heard of ], but if you think it's improvement. ] (]) 17:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::You can't define kombucha as "weird" and "health-hyped." That's the problem. ] (]) 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::"Weird" was my choice of words, but "health-hyped" and "fermented" is part of the article, cancer etc. ] (]) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::The problem is the definition. The definition of a blueberry can't be "health-hyped." Blueberries ''can'' be health hyped. There's a major difference. ] (]) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And JJ is health-hyped, correct? ] (]) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's a quack product that was sold as a scam. It has no business on this page. Citation needed. ] (]) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:Also, I don't think having JJ in the See also section amounts to it being "discussed" or that it gives "undue weight to the fringe theory" of JJ per ]. ] (]) 17:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::It says "mentioned in the text of other articles". The See also is in the text of the article. If you want to bring up fringe products, you need reliable sourcing. ] (]) 17:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::Nope, See also sections don't need citing on en-WP, it's editorial discretion. ] (]) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::You're arguing with the text of the rules ] (]) 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Guidelines. It's what Wikipedians do. ] (]) 17:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Cool. So I'm following guidelines and you're flouting them in favor of "editorial discretion" ] (]) 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm following the ] guideline. You and I have commented enough on this for now, but feel free to try some form of ] after giving other editors a few days to comment. ] (]) 17:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Does ] say citations cannot be requested in the see also section? ] (]) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::!!!!! It does not! Do you think that is because the See also section says "These articles exists on WP"? You're coming at this from the wrong direction, it's not a citation thing, it's just consensus. If you wait, you may get it. Or not. Either outcome will not cause the end of WP as we know it. ] (]) 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Even if there was consensus that it should stay, it would still need a citation ] (]) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::No. ] (]) 18:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::"Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."
			::::::::::::It's pretty unambiguous. ] (]) 18:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::That is text from one guideline, yes. I think I've mentioned another. But other editors will tell us what they think at some point. Or not, they may be enjoying their popcorn. ] (]) 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Can you quote me the part where it says not to put any citations in the see also section? Or not to ask for them? Or a guideline that recommends removing citation needed tags based on nothing more than "editorial discretion"? ] (]) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Again, a See also section states "These articles exist on Misplaced Pages." That's it, proven by wikilink. The inclusion of specific items is a ] and consensus-thing. "External links" works in a similar way. ] (]) 18:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::I searched "These articles exist on Misplaced Pages" and had no results. Can't you please copy-and-paste for clarity? ] (]) 18:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::I wasn't quoting, ''a See also section states "These articles exist on Misplaced Pages."'' was my choice of words. ] (]) 19:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Could you please show me a quote (not your choice of words) so I can understand what you are saying? ] (]) 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::It seems not. Hopefully other editors will help. ] (]) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::Futile arguments, refusal to get the point, and edit warring. This is becoming a problem. ] (]) 20:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::::It's concerning that wanting proper sourcing and citing the rules (er... guidelines...) verbatim is a problem for you. ] (]) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::The ]s are not an exhaustive things of bad things to avoid doing. As is explained, see also sections are a way of organizing <u>internal links</u>. When there is ambiguity, it is suggested editors should add annotation. There's nothing to say you can't add citations; there's nothing to say you can't add embedded movies or infoboxes. ] (]) 18:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			My main worry is that the inclusion of Jilly Juice might be almost acting like a way to advertise the stuff for people interested only in kombucha. The less real estate we devote to that nonsense, the better. YMMV. ] (]) 01:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

			:So many words above for so little purpose :(. Personally I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Bon courage (I think) that this is a reasonable link to include in the See also section, per ]; that it is not significant enough in the context of kombucha to be discussed in the body (whereas kombucha is correctly mentioned in the body at ]); and that editorial discretion could go either way on all of the individual items currently listed as See also. I would encourage everyone discussing above to stop responding if you have nothing new to say: just make your point once in its strongest form. ] (]) 01:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
	== Changes to lede ==
			::Seems to me that Jilly Juice is different in the sense that it is, as far as I can tell, a specific recipe to make pickle brine. A link to ] in the see also makes sense to me as it is the same genre as kombucha. Trade names for bizarre recipes of specific ''types'' of fermented drinks seems like the "odd man out", as it were. ] (]) 01:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::I would be more inclined to agree with this argument if there were an article at ] (or any content at the redirect target ] about drinking pickle brine) but I can see how a reasonable person could take your view (hence that editorial discretion could go either way). ] (]) 01:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::Of course it's different, See also's are for things that are different. But there are similarities enough to include. Like 100.36. says, consensus can go either way, there is a ] element involved. As I read the above, jps is worried its inclusion may drive customers to JJ, and TlonicChronic is worried its inclusion may taint the good name of Kombucha. While 100.36., Bon Courage and myself aren't very worried about either. Come to think of it, Coca Cola could fit See also here too, there are similarities in history/shift in marketing. ] (]) 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::Essentially all ]s have their origins as tonics. Oh, that includes ], of course. Then they get incorporated into cocktails and before you know it, they're just another item that a well-stocked wet bar is supposed to have. This is how I see kombucha. I would be surprised if Jilly Juice took the same trajectory, but, ], I suppose. ] (]) 19:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}While it looks like maybe the consensus is somewhat in favor of inclusion, I went ahead and ]ly removed Jilly Juice because it really does strike me as the odd-man out on the list. If and when that stuff starts being produced by a major beverage distributor and you can, for example, actually buy it in stores, I think that would be my preferred point for including on the list. Until then, however, it looks to me to be just a bit too parochial by comparison. ] (]) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

			:Well, at least you were open that maybe the consensus is somewhat in favor of inclusion. ] (]) 12:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
	The previous wording was far better. The new wording greatly weakened the . There may also be a verification problem. The part "..ranging from promoting gut health through probiotics to curing asthma..." may not be supported by the source presented. The part "isolated adverse events may be attributable to it" is duplication of the serious adverse effects previously mentioned. See category for other drinks being promoted beyond belief. ] (]) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	: People that would drink kombucha for health reasons would primarily do it for the probiotics. The fact it was not even mentioned in the lede was really strange and the fact that it is not really delved into shows that no one wanted to do the research. ] (]) 02:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	::"People that would drink kombucha for health reasons would primarily do it for the probiotics," according to who? The only benefit is for those selling it according to the .
	::Even more problems have been introduced in the article. For example, see "Numerous claims have been made regarding the health benefits from the consumption of kombucha, ranging from promoting gut health through probiotics to curing asthma, but there is no scientific evidence to support these views." Sources 7 and 2 were combined to come to a new conclusion. The unsupported weasel word "some" was added. Too many problems to list. ] (]) 03:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::That's like Kombucha 101, it's supposed to be good for your gut. have you actually ever bought and drank the stuff? Google "health benefits kombucha" and you come up with https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-benefits-of-kombucha-tea#section1 and reason #1... you guessed it... "1. Kombucha Is a Rich Source of Probiotics". ] (]) 03:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	::::The source healthline is unreliable. You asked "Have you actually ever bought and drank the stuff?" I prefer to focus on the article than chat on the talk page.
	::::Please addresses the purported policy violations I mentioned above or you can revert your the disputed changes. ] (]) 03:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::::If you want to know why people drink kombucha: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-drink-Kombucha. ] (]) 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Here's a New York Times article if you are trying to understand kombucha: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/fashion/25Tea.html. ] (]) 04:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	::::::You did not address the SYN violation and other issues. ] (]) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	The lede changes didn't really make sense and took us away from the sources; have attempted to fix. ] (]) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:More changes have been made. The current lede is far worse than the . ] (]) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	::Yes, the edits being made by {{u\|Bodhi Peace}} are ]. Is anything particular left of concern? ] (]) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::I'm going to start a draft and fix all the problematic changes. I was surprised no editor reverted. There was no problem with the previous wording. I'm going to also review the changes to the body. ] (]) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::See "...but there is no evidence to support these claims." Both sources do not verify "these claims". ] (]) 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	::::Citation 3 was added to support the idea that it had been claimed to "cure asthma", so I moved that citation. Citation 7 is the 2003 study that doesn't recommend therapeutic kombucha imbibing.] (]) 21:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Does the other source verify "...but there is no ] to support these claims." The part "ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma," is "these claims". If it does not then add a FV tag and then I will fix it. ] (]) 21:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	::::::All I did was go to the "health" section and grab an implausible claim from the 2000 study, saying it could cure this or that, like "cure asthma". If you wish to change it to a different "cure", go ahead. ] (]) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::The 2000 source is not the 2003 source. It does not verify "these claims". Would you like me to fix it? ] (]) 22:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit. ] (]) 22:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::The 2003 source does not verify "these claims". The specific claims are "ranging from promoting ] to curing ]". The 2003 source does give specific examples of the claims that are not supported by the scientific evidence. ] (]) 22:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::I made changes to fix the SYN violation and other problematic content. ] (]) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

	=== ~~Continued~~ ~~changes~~ ===		== Definition of "kombucha" ==

			Just because a product is investigated for its purported health benefits (all foods are) doesn't make it a part of the definition of the product. If we're going to define kombucha as consumed for it's purported health benefits, we need a source that ''defines'' kombucha as drunk for health benefits, not a source that states that it ''is'' drunk for health benefits. I grew up in a public school littered with "Got milk?" ads telling me milk would make me grow up healthy and strong with good bones. That doesn't mean milk is, by definition, drunk for health benefits. ] (]) 18:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	See "Drinking kombucha as a ] is not recommended because its benefits are unclear and do not outweigh the potential harms."

			:In the first sentence we should be referring to other topics which are important to kombucha and which help establish its notability. Many of the ] on kombucha focus on its purported health befefits. This article even <u>classifies</u> it as a neutraceutical. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the possible benefits, so its use as a therapeutic food is not recommended."
			::Wait... You're saying that the National Library of Medicine calls it a nutraceutical? ] (]) 18:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sorry what? Nobody is citing the "National Library of Medicine" for anything. ] (]) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::Sorry; the Foods journal classifies it as a nutraceutical? Also, why so quick to argue semantics and spelling? ] (]) 18:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The article has been stable for a long time. ''You'' are editor arguing and trying to change things. Unlike milk, kombucha is very heavily associated with (bogus) health claims. So the sources say, anyway. ] (]) 18:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Milk
			::::::Coffee
			::::::Tea
			::::::Literally everything is called a nutraceutical (over ten thousand articles apiece). ] (]) 18:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::"Unlike milk, kombucha is very heavily associated with (bogus) health claims."
			::::::Everyone in my public school was told that milk would make them grow up big and strong. There's a giant transnational milk lobby with massive political power that has sway on markets and opinions. You're just wrong here.
			::::::(Milk is delicious, for what it's worth. I buy local fresh whole milk. Tasty as heck.) ] (]) 18:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::What happened at your school is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. I don't know what you think your search shows, but using your method you could claim sources say milk is called a fish. ] (]) 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::It wasn't just my school... ] ] (]) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::" using your method you could claim sources say milk is called a fish."
			::::::::No... by using your method you could define milk as pseudo-science that's drunk for it's health benefits. My method is asking for sources. Your method is deleting requests for sources (and mis-citing sources). ] (]) 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I don't think any reliable sources classify milk a a functional food, or neutraceutical, or discuss it primarily in terms of its bogus health claims. For kombucha, they do. This article follows that. You are edit warring and adding useless tags to the article. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I linked you fifty thousand (medical) articles mentioning "milk" and "nutraceutical"... ] (]) 20:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Your search result is meaningless, as already indicated. ] (]) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Do you genuinely not think people drink milk because they think it's healthy? Food gets massively propagandized. ] (]) 20:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::What I think doesn't matter. We follow sources, and for fringe subjects there is additionally a special need to be clear about fringe claims. If you think ] has a NPOV problem, raise the issue there. ] (]) 20:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Your search results will include every article indexed by those databases that includes the phrase, "milk is not a nutraceutical". ] (]) 08:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::The point, here, is that milk ''is'' drunk for health purposes. "There has been an increased interest in goat milk and goat milk products worldwide because of their high nutritional content and health benefits."
			::::::::::::Nazli Turkmen,
			::::::::::::Chapter 35 - The Nutritional Value and Health Benefits of Goat Milk Components,
			::::::::::::Editor(s): Ronald Ross Watson, Robert J. Collier, Victor R. Preedy,
			::::::::::::Nutrients in Dairy and their Implications on Health and Disease,
			::::::::::::Academic Press,
			::::::::::::2017,
			::::::::::::Pages 441-449,
			::::::::::::ISBN 9780128097625,
			::::::::::::https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809762-5.00035-8.
			::::::::::::(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128097625000358)
			::::::::::::Abstract: Goat milk has various effects on human health considering the total solid, fat, protein, lactose, mineral, and vitamin contents. In addition to positive effects on physical and sensory characteristics of dairy products, lipids of goat milk provide better digestibility with small fat globule size and high short- and medium-chain fatty acids content. Goat milk has higher amounts of conjugated linoleic acids playing important roles in immune stimulation, growth promotion, and disease prevention. The most important effect of goat milk proteins is their healing effect on cow milk allergy, the most common food allergy, which causes many deaths in infants. In addition, the β-casein/αs1-casein ratio (70%/30%) of goat milk proteins is similar to human milk, which results in more digestibility compared to the cow milk in relation to higher sensitivity of β-casein to the protease enzymes. Lactose is the main carbohydrate of all species of milk, and its content in goat milk is lower than the others. In contrast, goat milk rich in oligosaccharides is important in its protective function of intestinal flora against pathogens and in brain and nervous system development. In addition to higher amounts of some minerals, more importantly the bioavailability of minerals in goat milk is higher than of minerals in cow milk. The higher Vitamin A content may be the most important difference among the other vitamins in goat milk compared to cow milk. Considering the millions of child deaths every year caused by Vitamin A deficiency, goat milk is a very important source. Besides many beneficial effects of goat milk, the advantages of breeding goats, such as the lower cost of animals, the need for less feed and water, and often not requiring the specialized housing that larger livestock need, are reasons to promote the improvement of goat milk production worldwide. Goat milk is a valuable food source of animal protein, phosphorus, and calcium, especially in countries with low consumption of meat.
			::::::::::::Keywords: Composition; Goat milk; Health benefit; Nutrition; Therapeutic effect ] (]) 15:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::That might be relevant at ], but not here.
			:::::::::::::As regards milk generally, you seem to be conflating nutritional and therapeutic claims. "Everyone in my public school was told that milk would make them grow up big and strong" is a claim about nutrition, and nutrition is actually discussed in the ] article in the "types of consumption" section. Health claims made for ] are discussed in that article, appropriate because the claims are made for that particular sub-category of milk. It might be appropriate to mention this in the main milk article, but I think including it in the lead would be undue. A fork for health claims about kombucha would be inappropriate because (as far as I can see from the sources) the claims are made about kombucha generally, not some particular sub-type. ] (]) 09:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I'm not against health claims in the article, I'm against them in the definition. You can't define goat milk as consumed for health benefits. If it isn't relevant here, why are you arguing it here? You say 50,000 articles might say "milk is not a nutraceutical". That's absolutely rediculous. Why would tens of thousands of PhDs be paid to study if milk wasn't a nutraceutical. Nutraceutical means consumed for health benefits. If you define kombucha as "consumed for health benefits", you can do the exact same thing for milk (and tea, and coffee, and tonic water, and coca-cola...). That's the whole point. ] (]) 15:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::When you say "the definition", do you mean "the ]" or something else? ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::I mean the opening sentence. The one that starts with the subject of the article in bold and defines it. I kept the health mention in the first paragraph of the lead. The health stuff should 100% be talked about. It just needs proper citations that aren't meant to push a POV, which is all I'm trying to clean up. The jilly juice is massively pushing POV. Saying "confirmed" and citing a source that says "not confirmed" is straight up lying. ] (]) 14:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Nothing about JJ or health stuff in the opening sentence. ] (]) 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::A neutral opening sentence and no mention of JJ without proper citation. The same thing it's been for days. ] (]) 22:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::Afaict, the opening sentence of this article has never mentioned JJ. "Neutral" depends of the beholder. ] (]) 00:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::In the whole article. Like we've talked about this whole time. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. You can't mention fringe products anywhere in the article (without proper citation). ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::"Neutral" is the objective of Misplaced Pages. If that's too difficult for you, this probably isn't a website for you. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
			The definition of kombucha is the first sentence, essentially. I see nothing wrong with the first sentence. ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

			:Agree. ] (]) 01:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
	The previous wording is closer to the source. The part "possible benefits" contradicts the source. ] (]) 11:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	:~~Agreed that "possible benefits" does not capture the sense of the source. But~~ ~~more~~, the ~~source~~ ~~does~~ ~~not~~ ~~say~~ ~~"Drinking~~ ~~kombucha~~ as ~~a ]~~ is ~~not~~ ~~recommended" -~~ it ~~says~~ the ~~known~~ ~~harms~~ ~~outweigh~~ ~~the benefits period -~~ not ~~just when~~ ~~considered~~ as a ~~"therapeutic~~ ~~food"~~. ] (]) 11:53, 5 ~~September~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)		::I agree, the first sentence is perfectly fine now. If everyone is fine with it the way it is, let's not add any extraneous clauses back in. ] (]) 15:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
			* The reason to include the health claims in the definition is to mirror multiple strong RS and not downplay that iffy aspect of this stuff. I suspect that since kombucha has become popular in the west, editors here are unaware of its history. Even Britannica says "Kombucha, beverage made of fermented green or black tea, usually consumed as a health food". But if people want Misplaced Pages to be coy about this aspect then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ] (]) 15:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	::See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the unclear benefits, therefore its use as a ] is not recommended."
	:~~:What~~ ~~about~~ ~~this~~ ~~wording?~~ ~~The~~ ~~part~~ ~~"unclear~~ ~~benefits"~~ is ~~supported~~ by ~~the~~ ~~source~~. ] (]) ~~12:~~15, 5 ~~September~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)		*:"consumed as a health food" is a different statement from "purported health benefits". ] (]) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	:~~::"unclear~~ ~~benefits"~~ is ~~perhaps~~ ~~too-close~~ ~~paraphrasing.~~ I ~~had~~ ~~"vague~~ ~~benefits"~~ ~~but~~ ~~maybe~~ ~~"nebulous~~ ~~benefits"~~ or ~~better~~ ~~still~~ a ~~more thoroughgoing paraphrase ..~~. ] (]) 12:35, 5 ~~September~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)		*:But it's nice of you to admit your edits are directly meant to lower people's consumption of the product. ] (]) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
			*::Please don't make such very stupid comments; you have been alerted this is a ]. ] (]) 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::"unclear benefits" is not too-close paraphrasing if the source did not mention the word "unclear". Where does the PDF file mention the word "unclear"? ] (]) 12:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
			*:::Yes. And contentious topic require proper citations that aren't misused. ] (]) 15:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::The comment below does not address my question. The source does not mention the word "unclear" in relation to its benefits. If it does mention the word "unclear" please point me to the content. How was it too-close paraphrasing? ] (]) 12:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
			*:There's literally an entire paragraph about this in the introduction of the article! Also I agree with you about the quality of TlonicChronic's comments but please could you just ignore them instead of collaborating with them to create enormous walls of pointless bickering? ] (]) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I was agreeing with you (the "Yes"). ] (]) 12:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	::::::Very well then. I'm not sure about adding more content to the lede. We could add the part about who benefits from it. Something like "It appears to only benefit the people who sell it.<nowiki><ref name=Ernst2003/></nowiki>" ] (]) 13:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Yes. In fact, I wonder if we could do better still. The paper itself concludes thus:
	{{talkquote\|Unconventional remedies such as Kombucha are increasingly popular, not least because they are supported by frequent and favourable media coverage . For many of these treatments there is little clinical evidence supporting efficacy. Kombucha is an extreme example in several ways: there is no convincingly positive clinical evidence at all; the claims for it are as far reaching as they are implausible; the potential for harm seems considerable. In such extreme cases, healthcare professionals should discourage consumers from using (and paying for) remedies that only seem to benefit those who sell them.<br/>
	In conclusion, none of the numerous health claims for Kombucha is supported by clinical evidence. The consumption of Kombucha tea has been associated with serious adverse events. Its therapeutic use can therefore not be recommended.}}
	We need to be faithfully conveying the sense of this. ] (]) 12:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	:Yes, we do; and in similarly robust language. ] (]) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

			==Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life==
	=== Not encyclopedic ===
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Cornell_University/The_Microbiology_of_College_Life_(Spring) \| assignments = ] \| start_date = 2024-01-22 \| end_date = 2024-05-11 }}

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 00:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)</span>
	Numerous "implausible" claims have been made for health benefits from drinking kombucha. The word "implausible" is not encyclopedic and not needed. Another editor stated "" There is not talk page consensus for this. The previous thread did not include this language. ] (]) 00:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
	:It's a good word for ... implausible things. Per NPOV we should reflect decent sources and if they say the health claims for kombucha are implausible (that it cures AIDS, FFS!) then we do do. ] (]) 06:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
	::If it's an editorial comment, i.e. not in quotes, then it seems to me very clear that "implausible" is not encyclopedic – it's not for Misplaced Pages to say what is or is not "implausible". The solution is to explicitly quote the source that uses this word; in quotation marks, it's fine. ] (]) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::It is absolutely for Misplaced Pages to say what is implausible, if it is according to RS. There is no dispute so it should just be ]ed. ] (]) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
	::::I would prefer something like 'Claims that ... are described as "implausible"<sup></sup>', which makes the point without implying it's an editorial summary. The core point of ] is that we should "maintain an impartial tone"; quoting makes it clear that we are not taking on ourselves to say that something is implausible (however much we all agree that it is), whereas the current words read as an editorial judgement. But it's a fine point, which I why I left it. ] (]) 09:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:47, 29 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kombucha article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Potential health risks

Per the cited source include:

Kombucha has been implicated (but not necessarily confirmed) in a number of case reports, including hyponatremia; lactic acidosis; toxic hepatitis after consuming kombucha tea daily for two years; a patient newly diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus who presented with a case of hyperthermia, lactic acidosis, and acute renal failure within 15 hours of ingesting kombucha; anti-Jo1 antibody-positive myositis ; symptomatic lead poisoning from brewing kombucha in a ceramic pot; an outbreak of cutaneous anthrax reportedly from applying the kombucha mushroom to the skin as a painkiller; pellagra; an allergic reaction, jaundice, and nausea, vomiting, head and neck pain; metabolic acidosis; hepatotoxicity; and cholestatic hepatitis.
Kombucha contains small amounts of alcohol. In a Food and Drug Administration investigation, the alcohol content of samples ranged from 0.7% to 1.3%; no methanol was detected. Kombucha is contraindicated in pregnant women and likely people with significant renal, pulmonary, or liver disease.

Do we really want to enumerate every one? I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies as Misplaced Pages is meant to summarize sources. People can alwys read the source if they want the full detail. Not sure Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Implicated but not confirmed"

"Confirmed"

Pick one. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The first set are not confirmed causes, but potential risks. Komucha is contraindicated in pregnant women and likely people with significant renal, pulmonary, or liver disease, but they are potential risks. Anyway, that does not answer the question? Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Anyway, that does not answer the question?"

No. Because it needs to be in the article, without weasel words, and with citations.

You'll notice how the goal-posts keep moving here? I asked for a citation for "A 2019 review confirmed the numerous health risks"

You gave me a quote that directly contradicts that. And you're acting like I'm pushing junk science? I'm asking for clarification to misquoted science. That's it. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You tagged it with "which" and demanded that the article list them. Do you still want them listed? Bon courage (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I want a list of all of the "confirmed ... numerous health risks". So far you have 0. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

They article says "potential health risks" (I changed it). So that's okay now? Time to de-tag? Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You're still weaseling. If you care about pregnant women, talk about pregnant women. If you care about liver disease, talk about liver disease. The point still stands... which? Leave it alone, or do the work. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have done the work, to list (above) the potential health risks in the source, which you explicitly tagged as needing listing. Are you still saying every one needs to be listed? If so, I disagree. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The work needs to be done in the article, not a talk page TlonicChronic (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Pregnant women aren't supposed to have any alcohol. All fermentation creates alcohol. Pregnant women aren't supposed to have any fermented tea, because of the .5% alcohol content. This is definitely something that[REDACTED] should note. Pregnant women are advised to listen to their doctors. That isn't the same thing. Some thing goes for people with health complications. All of this can be noted. With citations. Anything medical on[REDACTED] should be direct and with clear citation, without deviating from the citation. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Spurious tagging

Here. Asking why Jilly juice ("a fermented drink with claimed health benefits") is like Kombucha (a fermented tea with claimed health benefits) seems bizarre; likewise asking why List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments is relevant when Kombucha is actually an entry there is odd. Citation needs tags are inappropriate too, in a See also section, which does not have citations. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can always simply find an agreeable source and cite it TlonicChronic (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of See also sections not having citations did you miss? Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The part where you're trying to define kombucha as pseudo-science quackery and conflating it with literal pseudo-science quackery TlonicChronic (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a non-sequitur and I just don't know how to respond. I have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I would love some oversight here. Am I vandalizing by adding citation tags? The first see also link for kombucha shouldn't be quack medicine, alphabetizing aside. Am I crazy for suggesting this is conflating kombucha with quack science? The article is littered with poorly cited or uncited references to kombucha being dangerous junk science. This feels like propaganda to me. TlonicChronic (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The first link is to Jilly Juice, not "quack medicine". There are both fermented drinks spuriously promoted for health. See also sections do not have citations. You are not addressing these points. Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it's your doing or not, but the article linked starts: "Jilly Juice is a quack pseudomedicine" TlonicChronic (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And so why should it not be linked? Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Goal posts moving again: "The first link is to Jilly Juice, not "quack medicine"."

Now: "And so why should it not be linked?" TlonicChronic (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You wrote "The first see also link for kombucha shouldn't be quack medicine, alphabetizing aside". We have now established that by 'quack medicine' you meant Jilly Juice. So: why shouldn't it be the first see also link? Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it's intentionally conflating kombucha with "quack pseudo-science". I'm not removing it; I'm merely asking for a citation. If you can provide a reasonable citation that conflates or links the two, I'll remove my citation needed. That is, after all, all this is about. TlonicChronic (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

See also sections do not have citations. See also contain links to related/tangential topics. They are both fermented drinks promoted with spurious claims of healthful properties. What you are doing is hostage tagging, and it is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This is my point. You seem to be defining kombucha as "a fermented drink with spurious health claims". TlonicChronic (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not me, the sources. And no, it's not a viable treatment for AIDS or cancer. Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This all started because you refused to link "the sources." Obviously drinking vinegar and tea won't cure aids... TlonicChronic (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

We already said kombucha was promoted with implausible, wide-ranging health claims, making it an extreme example of an "unconventional remedy". Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"We have now established that by 'quack medicine' you meant Jilly Juice."

No. By opening the thread talking about Jilly Juice, and asking me directly and specifically about Jilly Juice, we established we were talking about Jilly Juice. Again, moving the goal post. TlonicChronic (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@TlonicChronic I ran out of room in the edit summary, but in response to the berry question in the {{cn}} tag, check out Ellagic acid#See also, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That's totally reasonable. I agree it makes sense to have the cancer page linked TlonicChronic (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Jilly Juice in See also

I wonder whether the inclusion of Jilly Juice is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. Are there serious sources about kombucha which mention Jilly Juice? I see plenty in the other direction. jps (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; this definitely seems like a violation of WP:ONEWAY to me. Do you know what the proper steps for trying to report that are? Do I simply remove it and cite ONEWAY? TlonicChronic (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I added it. I see your point on the WP:ONEWAY guideline, but I think it fits per MOS:SEEALSO guideline, "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.", the relation/category being weird health-hyped Category:Fermented drinks. I don't think either guideline is obviously "mightier" here, and that JJ fits at least as well as the other see alsos. So, it's an editorial discretion thing. IMO, it should stay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm easy either way. Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Never heard of Template:Annotated link, but if you think it's improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't define kombucha as "weird" and "health-hyped." That's the problem. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Weird" was my choice of words, but "health-hyped" and "fermented" is part of the article, cancer etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the definition. The definition of a blueberry can't be "health-hyped." Blueberries can be health hyped. There's a major difference. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And JJ is health-hyped, correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a quack product that was sold as a scam. It has no business on this page. Citation needed. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't think having JJ in the See also section amounts to it being "discussed" or that it gives "undue weight to the fringe theory" of JJ per WP:ONEWAY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It says "mentioned in the text of other articles". The See also is in the text of the article. If you want to bring up fringe products, you need reliable sourcing. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope, See also sections don't need citing on en-WP, it's editorial discretion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You're arguing with the text of the rules TlonicChronic (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines. It's what Wikipedians do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool. So I'm following guidelines and you're flouting them in favor of "editorial discretion" TlonicChronic (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm following the MOS:SEEALSO guideline. You and I have commented enough on this for now, but feel free to try some form of WP:DR after giving other editors a few days to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Does MOS:SEEALSO say citations cannot be requested in the see also section? TlonicChronic (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

!!!!! It does not! Do you think that is because the See also section says "These articles exists on WP"? You're coming at this from the wrong direction, it's not a citation thing, it's just consensus. If you wait, you may get it. Or not. Either outcome will not cause the end of WP as we know it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if there was consensus that it should stay, it would still need a citation TlonicChronic (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."

It's pretty unambiguous. TlonicChronic (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That is text from one guideline, yes. I think I've mentioned another. But other editors will tell us what they think at some point. Or not, they may be enjoying their popcorn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you quote me the part where it says not to put any citations in the see also section? Or not to ask for them? Or a guideline that recommends removing citation needed tags based on nothing more than "editorial discretion"? TlonicChronic (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, a See also section states "These articles exist on Misplaced Pages." That's it, proven by wikilink. The inclusion of specific items is a MOS:SEEALSO and consensus-thing. "External links" works in a similar way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I searched "These articles exist on Misplaced Pages" and had no results. Can't you please copy-and-paste for clarity? TlonicChronic (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting, a See also section states "These articles exist on Misplaced Pages." was my choice of words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you please show me a quote (not your choice of words) so I can understand what you are saying? TlonicChronic (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems not. Hopefully other editors will help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Futile arguments, refusal to get the point, and edit warring. This is becoming a problem. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's concerning that wanting proper sourcing and citing the rules (er... guidelines...) verbatim is a problem for you. TlonicChronic (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The WP:PAGs are not an exhaustive things of bad things to avoid doing. As is explained, see also sections are a way of organizing internal links. When there is ambiguity, it is suggested editors should add annotation. There's nothing to say you can't add citations; there's nothing to say you can't add embedded movies or infoboxes. Bon courage (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My main worry is that the inclusion of Jilly Juice might be almost acting like a way to advertise the stuff for people interested only in kombucha. The less real estate we devote to that nonsense, the better. YMMV. jps (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So many words above for so little purpose :(. Personally I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Bon courage (I think) that this is a reasonable link to include in the See also section, per WP:SEEALSO; that it is not significant enough in the context of kombucha to be discussed in the body (whereas kombucha is correctly mentioned in the body at Jilly Juice); and that editorial discretion could go either way on all of the individual items currently listed as See also. I would encourage everyone discussing above to stop responding if you have nothing new to say: just make your point once in its strongest form. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that Jilly Juice is different in the sense that it is, as far as I can tell, a specific recipe to make pickle brine. A link to pickle brine in the see also makes sense to me as it is the same genre as kombucha. Trade names for bizarre recipes of specific types of fermented drinks seems like the "odd man out", as it were. jps (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to agree with this argument if there were an article at Pickle brine (or any content at the redirect target Pickled cucumber about drinking pickle brine) but I can see how a reasonable person could take your view (hence that editorial discretion could go either way). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's different, See also's are for things that are different. But there are similarities enough to include. Like 100.36. says, consensus can go either way, there is a personal taste element involved. As I read the above, jps is worried its inclusion may drive customers to JJ, and TlonicChronic is worried its inclusion may taint the good name of Kombucha. While 100.36., Bon Courage and myself aren't very worried about either. Come to think of it, Coca Cola could fit See also here too, there are similarities in history/shift in marketing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Essentially all Soft drinks have their origins as tonics. Oh, that includes tonic water, of course. Then they get incorporated into cocktails and before you know it, they're just another item that a well-stocked wet bar is supposed to have. This is how I see kombucha. I would be surprised if Jilly Juice took the same trajectory, but, WP:CBALL, I suppose. jps (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

While it looks like maybe the consensus is somewhat in favor of inclusion, I went ahead and WP:BOLDly removed Jilly Juice because it really does strike me as the odd-man out on the list. If and when that stuff starts being produced by a major beverage distributor and you can, for example, actually buy it in stores, I think that would be my preferred point for including on the list. Until then, however, it looks to me to be just a bit too parochial by comparison. jps (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least you were open that maybe the consensus is somewhat in favor of inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Definition of "kombucha"

Just because a product is investigated for its purported health benefits (all foods are) doesn't make it a part of the definition of the product. If we're going to define kombucha as consumed for it's purported health benefits, we need a source that defines kombucha as drunk for health benefits, not a source that states that it is drunk for health benefits. I grew up in a public school littered with "Got milk?" ads telling me milk would make me grow up healthy and strong with good bones. That doesn't mean milk is, by definition, drunk for health benefits. TlonicChronic (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In the first sentence we should be referring to other topics which are important to kombucha and which help establish its notability. Many of the WP:BESTSOURCES on kombucha focus on its purported health befefits. This article even classifies it as a neutraceutical. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait... You're saying that the National Library of Medicine calls it a nutraceutical? TlonicChronic (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry what? Nobody is citing the "National Library of Medicine" for anything. Bon courage (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry; the Foods journal classifies it as a nutraceutical? Also, why so quick to argue semantics and spelling? TlonicChronic (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The article has been stable for a long time. You are editor arguing and trying to change things. Unlike milk, kombucha is very heavily associated with (bogus) health claims. So the sources say, anyway. Bon courage (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Milk

Coffee

Tea

Literally everything is called a nutraceutical (over ten thousand articles apiece). TlonicChronic (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Unlike milk, kombucha is very heavily associated with (bogus) health claims."

Everyone in my public school was told that milk would make them grow up big and strong. There's a giant transnational milk lobby with massive political power that has sway on markets and opinions. You're just wrong here.

(Milk is delicious, for what it's worth. I buy local fresh whole milk. Tasty as heck.) TlonicChronic (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What happened at your school is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. I don't know what you think your search shows, but using your method you could claim sources say milk is called a fish. Bon courage (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't just my school... Got Milk? TlonicChronic (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

" using your method you could claim sources say milk is called a fish."

No... by using your method you could define milk as pseudo-science that's drunk for it's health benefits. My method is asking for sources. Your method is deleting requests for sources (and mis-citing sources). TlonicChronic (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any reliable sources classify milk a a functional food, or neutraceutical, or discuss it primarily in terms of its bogus health claims. For kombucha, they do. This article follows that. You are edit warring and adding useless tags to the article. Bon courage (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I linked you fifty thousand (medical) articles mentioning "milk" and "nutraceutical"... TlonicChronic (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your search result is meaningless, as already indicated. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you genuinely not think people drink milk because they think it's healthy? Food gets massively propagandized. TlonicChronic (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What I think doesn't matter. We follow sources, and for fringe subjects there is additionally a special need to be clear about fringe claims. If you think Milk has a NPOV problem, raise the issue there. Bon courage (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your search results will include every article indexed by those databases that includes the phrase, "milk is not a nutraceutical". Brunton (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The point, here, is that milk is drunk for health purposes. "There has been an increased interest in goat milk and goat milk products worldwide because of their high nutritional content and health benefits."

Nazli Turkmen,

Chapter 35 - The Nutritional Value and Health Benefits of Goat Milk Components,

Editor(s): Ronald Ross Watson, Robert J. Collier, Victor R. Preedy,

Nutrients in Dairy and their Implications on Health and Disease,

Academic Press,

2017,

Pages 441-449,

ISBN 9780128097625,

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809762-5.00035-8.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128097625000358)

Abstract: Goat milk has various effects on human health considering the total solid, fat, protein, lactose, mineral, and vitamin contents. In addition to positive effects on physical and sensory characteristics of dairy products, lipids of goat milk provide better digestibility with small fat globule size and high short- and medium-chain fatty acids content. Goat milk has higher amounts of conjugated linoleic acids playing important roles in immune stimulation, growth promotion, and disease prevention. The most important effect of goat milk proteins is their healing effect on cow milk allergy, the most common food allergy, which causes many deaths in infants. In addition, the β-casein/αs1-casein ratio (70%/30%) of goat milk proteins is similar to human milk, which results in more digestibility compared to the cow milk in relation to higher sensitivity of β-casein to the protease enzymes. Lactose is the main carbohydrate of all species of milk, and its content in goat milk is lower than the others. In contrast, goat milk rich in oligosaccharides is important in its protective function of intestinal flora against pathogens and in brain and nervous system development. In addition to higher amounts of some minerals, more importantly the bioavailability of minerals in goat milk is higher than of minerals in cow milk. The higher Vitamin A content may be the most important difference among the other vitamins in goat milk compared to cow milk. Considering the millions of child deaths every year caused by Vitamin A deficiency, goat milk is a very important source. Besides many beneficial effects of goat milk, the advantages of breeding goats, such as the lower cost of animals, the need for less feed and water, and often not requiring the specialized housing that larger livestock need, are reasons to promote the improvement of goat milk production worldwide. Goat milk is a valuable food source of animal protein, phosphorus, and calcium, especially in countries with low consumption of meat.

Keywords: Composition; Goat milk; Health benefit; Nutrition; Therapeutic effect TlonicChronic (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That might be relevant at goat milk, but not here.

As regards milk generally, you seem to be conflating nutritional and therapeutic claims. "Everyone in my public school was told that milk would make them grow up big and strong" is a claim about nutrition, and nutrition is actually discussed in the milk article in the "types of consumption" section. Health claims made for raw milk are discussed in that article, appropriate because the claims are made for that particular sub-category of milk. It might be appropriate to mention this in the main milk article, but I think including it in the lead would be undue. A fork for health claims about kombucha would be inappropriate because (as far as I can see from the sources) the claims are made about kombucha generally, not some particular sub-type. Brunton (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not against health claims in the article, I'm against them in the definition. You can't define goat milk as consumed for health benefits. If it isn't relevant here, why are you arguing it here? You say 50,000 articles might say "milk is not a nutraceutical". That's absolutely rediculous. Why would tens of thousands of PhDs be paid to study if milk wasn't a nutraceutical. Nutraceutical means consumed for health benefits. If you define kombucha as "consumed for health benefits", you can do the exact same thing for milk (and tea, and coffee, and tonic water, and coca-cola...). That's the whole point. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

When you say "the definition", do you mean "the WP:LEAD" or something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean the opening sentence. The one that starts with the subject of the article in bold and defines it. I kept the health mention in the first paragraph of the lead. The health stuff should 100% be talked about. It just needs proper citations that aren't meant to push a POV, which is all I'm trying to clean up. The jilly juice is massively pushing POV. Saying "confirmed" and citing a source that says "not confirmed" is straight up lying. TlonicChronic (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing about JJ or health stuff in the opening sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A neutral opening sentence and no mention of JJ without proper citation. The same thing it's been for days. TlonicChronic (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Afaict, the opening sentence of this article has never mentioned JJ. "Neutral" depends of the beholder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

In the whole article. Like we've talked about this whole time. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. You can't mention fringe products anywhere in the article (without proper citation). TlonicChronic (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"Neutral" is the objective of Misplaced Pages. If that's too difficult for you, this probably isn't a website for you. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The definition of kombucha is the first sentence, essentially. I see nothing wrong with the first sentence. jps (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the first sentence is perfectly fine now. If everyone is fine with it the way it is, let's not add any extraneous clauses back in. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason to include the health claims in the definition is to mirror multiple strong RS and not downplay that iffy aspect of this stuff. I suspect that since kombucha has become popular in the west, editors here are unaware of its history. Even Britannica says "Kombucha, beverage made of fermented green or black tea, usually consumed as a health food". But if people want Misplaced Pages to be coy about this aspect then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
"consumed as a health food" is a different statement from "purported health benefits". TlonicChronic (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

But it's nice of you to admit your edits are directly meant to lower people's consumption of the product. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Please don't make such very stupid comments; you have been alerted this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. And contentious topic require proper citations that aren't misused. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There's literally an entire paragraph about this in the introduction of the article! Also I agree with you about the quality of TlonicChronic's comments but please could you just ignore them instead of collaborating with them to create enormous walls of pointless bickering? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esy32 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jason.DeLaCruz1313 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: