Jump to content

Talk:Coconut water

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

Commercialization

[edit]

"However, the contents of primary electrolytes sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium per 100 millilitres (3.5 imp fl oz; 3.4 US fl oz) serving of unprocessed coconut water are insignificant (2–7% of the DV) and not balanced." This is a little unrealistic. Firstly, compared with the amounts present in similar electrolyte drinks (Gatorade), coconut water is about an order of magnitude higher. Secondly, who drinks 100ml of coconut water? The smallest sizes are 200ml, and the most common seem to be the 0.5L cans. Such a can would indeed provide over 1000mg of potassium and over 100mg of magnesium and calcium each. As far as "balance", it's a bit much to expect from a natural product, but these numbers seem pretty close to the mark, coincidentally, and certainly sufficient to replenish immediate electrolyte losses incurred through exercise. Drsruli (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsruli: You're correct. The statement has no citation anyway, so I removed it. I'm always wary of any sentence in a Wikipedia article that starts out with "However". It's almost always someone's original research, written for the purpose of arguing with the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag

[edit]

I added the disputed tag because this article does not seem to reflect WP:NPOV.

Just to be clear, Classicfilms, did you want to include discussion about a) nutrient contents and b) health effects, as the sources you provided claim? Regarding nutrient content, we have a USDA analysis in the table showing low micronutrient levels in actual, unmanufactured coconut water.
If a commercial product has appreciable levels of electrolytes (e.g., sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium), as claimed in the WebMD and Cleveland Clinic sources, then these minerals would have been intentionally added as fortification ingredients during manufacturing. The 3 references you used do not cite any WP:RS sources for how nutrient contents were analyzed.
It is likely the authors were just reading off a retail product label, which would vary in nutrient levels according to manufacturer. The health claims from the 3 articles really are off the wall - there are no sources in the medical literature to support any of them, which is doubly disappointing for the Cleveland Clinic, a world-class hospital.
To have actual balance and NPOV in an article, we can have opposing views if both are supported by reliable sources, which in this case, would mean WP:MEDRS reviews, for which none exists about health benefits of coconut water. Zefr (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to see Wikipedia articles that are WP:NPOV, which means that the article does not take a particular position on the topic. I used the samples below as a guide because it seems Cleveland Clinic and WebMD at least offer different perspectives and by the way, this link does have extensive sources:
I didn't suggest that they be used directly in the article as sources, and I'm aware of WP:MEDRS. The sections that perplexed me are:

Nutritional Value and Commercialization, as they are Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, and using sources such as:

Of course the article should include all perspectives on this subject, but as it stands the article implies a general danger rather than specific situations which is true of anything. I was never intending to say that a Wikipedia article should imply that anything is a wonder drug, because that goes against how the WP works. It should be NPOV with entirely credible sources and not cherry picking. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation is generally reasonable, but calls for editing with better sources, rather than dropping a vague "disputed" tag at the top of the article. Since you raised this issue, please suggest an edit with a reliable source.
Content in the WebMD, Cleveland Clinic, and Prevention articles concerning health benefits is outrageous and unsupportable, except for the mention of rehydration, which water does just as well without the expense. Not one of the WebMD sources would support a health claim for a Wikipedia article.
As for the nutrition section, the content under Nutritional profile is factual from the USDA table for unfortified, non-manufactured coconut water. The content and sources under Risks and Commercialization are all outdated, but were factual at the time. It could be modified with updated sources, if available, or deleted if agreed by consensus, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'll need a little time, so I'll get back on this. The article appears within the realm of WP:UNDUE as it offers a great deal of text on:
    • hyperkalemia - which the article states is rare
    • a 2014 article on a particular brand that was investigated 10 years ago
    • "Anecdotal sources" on a fatal use of coconut water that is from an archived source from more than 10 years ago
    • Articles from 10 years ago for pretty outragous marketing claims, I agree on that, but again that happens in all products

-and no balancing argument. Again, I'm not pushing for an article that says this is a wonderdrug, but the absence of that discussion in conjunction with a lot of text on these points creates an article that lacks balance. And yes, I think we can just focus on these sections. I will get back with what I find.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm also noticing text that lacks WP:RS and so I'll try to add refs as well.-Classicfilms (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--

This article lacks the kind of balance found in simple google searches from spaces such as:

  • WebMD:

https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-coconut-water https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1261/coconut-water

  • Prevention

https://www.prevention.com/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/a44590870/coconut-water-benefits/

  • Cleveland Clinic

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-health-benefits-of-coconut-water

The article needs a re-write. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article can be tagged as "disputed" because one editor relies on low-quality sources to suggest drinking coconut water leads to measurable health effects. None of the listed sources comes close to meeting WP:MEDASSESS - left pyramid for the quality of evidence scale.
Specifically, you should state change x to y, and provide a WP:MEDRS review or clinical guideline recommending use of coconut water to enhance human health. (hint: doesn't exist).
When reviewing marketing language for dietary supplements and "miracle" products, take a dose of skepticism. Zefr (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's observe Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is normal to address WP:NPOV in articles that depend on just a few references to critique an entire topic which this one does. I saw nothing in the disputed tag that indicates it cannot be applied to this article. That being said, I'm not interested in edit wars. So, I'll let my point stand.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about reference number 6 [1] this is a single case study on a 42 year old man from 2014. This isn't a good source to be citing on Wikipedia. The same with reference 5 [2]. This is an extremely rare risk that is limited to only a handful of case reports 10 years ago. I think that paragraph should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thanks @Psychologist Guy, I think that this edit changes the WP:UNDUE and balance concerns that I had, and I'll withdraw my concerns. I still do think that some of the WP:RS could be better and more recent, and that there are a spaces in the article that lack WP:RS, but I'll leave that to other editors. Thanks again!-Classicfilms (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coconut_water&oldid=1225982233"