Talk:Kombucha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


pH[edit]

The figure of 2.5 seems remarkably low, although it's from a reputable source.

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?

Best regards Notreallydavid (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2018 (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 [5]."[1] Another source can be added that reached a different conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes to lede[edit]

The previous wording was far better. The new wording greatly weakened the undisputed content. There may also be a verification problem. The part "..ranging from promoting gut health through probiotics to curing asthma..."[2] may not be supported by the source presented. The part "isolated adverse events may be attributable to it"[3] is duplication of the serious adverse effects previously mentioned. See category Health drinks for other drinks being promoted beyond belief. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Bod (talk) 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 2003 review.
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.[7][2]" Sources 7 and 2 were combined to come to a new conclusion. The unsupported weasel word "some" was added. Too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 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". Bod (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to know why people drink kombucha: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-drink-Kombucha. Bod (talk) 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. Bod (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
You did not address the SYN violation and other issues. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The lede changes didn't really make sense and took us away from the sources; have attempted to fix. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

More changes have been made. The current lede is far worse than the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the edits being made by Bodhi Peace are WP:PROFRINGE. Is anything particular left of concern? Alexbrn (talk) 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. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
See "...but there is no evidence to support these claims.[7][3]" Both sources do not verify "these claims". QuackGuru (talk) 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.Bod (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Does the other source verify "...but there is no evidence to support these claims." The part "ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma,[3]" is "these claims". If it does not then add a FV tag and then I will fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Bod (talk) 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? QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit. Bod (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The 2003 source does not verify "these claims". The specific claims are "ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma". The 2003 source does give specific examples of the claims that are not supported by the scientific evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I made changes to fix the SYN violation and other problematic content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued changes[edit]

See "Drinking kombucha as a therapeutic food is not recommended because its benefits are unclear and do not outweigh the potential harms."[4]

See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the possible benefits, so its use as a therapeutic food is not recommended."[5]

The previous wording is closer to the source. The part "possible benefits" contradicts the source. QuackGuru (talk) 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 therapeutic food is not recommended" - it says the known harms outweigh the benefits period - not just when considered as a "therapeutic food". Alexbrn (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the unclear benefits, therefore its use as a therapeutic food is not recommended."
What about this wording? The part "unclear benefits" is supported by the source. QuackGuru (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"unclear benefits" is perhaps too-close paraphrasing. I had "vague benefits" but maybe "nebulous benefits" or better still a more thoroughgoing paraphrase ... Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2018 (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"? QuackGuru (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2018 (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? QuackGuru (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you (the "Yes"). Alexbrn (talk) 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.<ref name=Ernst2003/>" QuackGuru (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Yes. In fact, I wonder if we could do better still. The paper itself concludes thus:

Unconventional remedies such as Kombucha are increasingly popular, not least because they are supported by frequent and favourable media coverage [15]. 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.
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. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we do; and in similarly robust language. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic[edit]

Numerous "implausible" claims have been made for health benefits from drinking kombucha. The word "implausible" is not encyclopedic and not needed. Another editor stated "Now "implausible" is not encyclopedic, and should be removed, but this didn't seem to be the reason for your tagging." There is not talk page consensus for this. The previous thread did not include this language. QuackGuru (talk) 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. Alexbrn (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely for Wikipedia to say what is implausible, if it is according to RS. There is no dispute so it should just be WP:ASSERTed. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer something like 'Claims that ... are described as "implausible"[ref]', which makes the point without implying it's an editorial summary. The core point of WP:EDITORIAL 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. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I think attributing it like that is unnecessary and may even give the false impression it's in dispute, or is just one source's view. The idea that drinking fermented tea can cure HIV/AIDS fails a prior plausibility assessment - there is no disputing that from any sane quarter, either in RS or in real life. Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The word "implausible" does not maintain a neutral tone. I'd rather remove it all together. QuackGuru (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that "neutral tone" argument we hear about words like "pseudoscientific" all the time. This wording is neutral alright because it is factual and used by RS. The idea that drinking tea can (e.g.) halt/reverse retroviral disease progression is, literally, implausible: there is no plausible reason to suppose such an effect would follow. I'd be happy to replace it with "ridiculous", "far-fetched" or "preposterous" though. If in doubt ping WP:FT/N and ask if we should call implausible things implausible. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Kombucha Day[edit]

TheCalculus As noted, facebook.com and kombuchacenter.com are not considered reliable sources. Furthermore, your facebook link didn't even back up your claim. A kombucha seller stating that they've heard that the mayor is going to announce a kombucha day isn't the same thing as the mayor announcing a kombucha day. Please find sources that comply with WP:RS to add. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made the corrections to the citation, as you have noted. Thanks for the feedback. (TheCalculus (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC))

TheCalculus Thank you for listening to feedback and working to improve the content, but there are still issues. I see no evidence from the Portland mayor's office that they are involved in a Kombucha day. I'm not saying it isn't true, but wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so we can wait over the next few to see what shakes outs. Your well+good citation fails WP:MEDRS for the same reasons that kombuchacenter.com did. I have looked, and aside from the kombuchacenter.com link that also links to the well+good article, I cannot find evidence of Square making such claims. Again, not saying I know the information isn't correct, but the current citations don't prove the claims to the standards of wikipedia. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Basilosauridae Thanks again for your feedback. I agree that a citation directly from the mayor's office is the best source. I'm not sure if their site is where this information can be found, but I will keep checking in the meantime. Not that any of the following necessarily constitutes as a proper source, but this event was reported by numerous local news stations, in addition to affirmations from the mayor's social media account of him making such declarations, as can be seen here: https://twitter.com/WesleighOgle/status/1037326310610108416.

Purported vs. supposed benefits[edit]

@Alexbrn: Not a big issue at all, but doesn't the article say that these claims are not supported by any science (i.e. are false or anecdotal at this point) and that kombucha may even have ill effects? I think "purported" is equally valid to "supposed" and they both have a slight implication that this is a false claim. "Purported" highlights that these claims are being promoted by certain people making "numerous implausible claims" which is also in the lead. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree and think that purported is the best word for the context. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view; "claimed" might work too. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
See WP:CLAIM. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"Claim" would be fine here - since its negative connotation (like that of "purported") is warranted. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Subjective Claims...[edit]

Alexbrn OK, I don't know WHY you keep putting these extremely subjective claims back up on the page. Exactly who says that kombucha is "not recommended for therapeutic use", and why is that OK to put on an objective Wikipedia page? Now, it would be fine to quote somebody saying that, but for you to keep putting these subjective and partially untrue (as a matter of fact, Kombucha DOES have a lot of notable health benefits, which is actually proven here: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-benefits-of-kombucha-tea) claims back on the page (especially without an opinion on a different side of the issue) is simply not acceptable.--Neateditor123 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

In a word, the WP:PAGs. We reflect what reliable sources say. We don't indulge "the different side" when it's silly, because WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn While I do understand your point of view, the thing is, the way the statement was said makes it extremely objective. Again, why would the extremely subjective statement "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use" be on a completely objective Wikipedia page? As I said before, you could just quote somebody making that statement (ex. "According to Dr. Nick, kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use") and that would be OK, but as that statement currently is, it's not OK for Wikipedia to use. Plus, as it currently is, the page has an extremely negative view towards kombucha and the results of consuming it, which isn't even remotely neutral. Hopefully, we can work out a reasonable solution to these issues.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
We reflect RS. And we WP:ASSERT what is not in doubt. Nobody (sensible) is recommending kombucha as a "therapy"; RS is saying it's not recommended. So Wikipedia does too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn Even if those claims are true, they're still way too subjective. Seriously, how is "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use" not a subjective sentence? As I've been saying this entire time, couldn't you at least just quote the person who wrote the sourced article saying that so you know it's just that person's opinion?--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
It's an evidence-based therapeutic assessment. By your reasoning you seem to be saying that every such assessment (the goal of evidence-based medicine) is "subjective" and then somehow (not clear how) problematic on Wikipedia. We should be summarizing, not quoting; we should be asserting what is not in doubt. Your objections seem to inhabit a parallel reality to the WP:PAGs so I'm finding it hard to engage. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn Look, I'm not saying these statements are necessarily wrong or don't belong on a Wikipedia page. It's just that it looks out of place without somebody actually being quoted on that statement. The purpose of this Wikipedia page is to educate viewers about what kombucha is, not to tell them whether it's right or wrong to use.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
"not recommended" is expanded on in the Health claims section. Also, "not recommended" is different from right and wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn, Gråbergs Gråa Sång At the very least, the claim should state who says this (ex. "According to many doctors, kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use"), if not quote that person.Neateditor123 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
No, because then it gives the misleading impression this is "just" one person's opinion, when this is rather the uncontested state of human knowledge on this topic. See WP:ASSERT. Alexbrn (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn "this is the uncontested state of human knowledge on this topic". Says who? Seriously. That entire sentence is bullshit and you know it.--Neateditor123 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

───────────────────────── There seems no point continuing this. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn As a matter of fact, there most definitely is. Again, I don't want to delete these statements. I just want to modify them so its clear who's stating this. There's a big difference between saying "Time Magazine says Paris is the capital of France" and "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use by doctors".--Neateditor123 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Roxy the dog, Alexbrn While I probably shouldn't have kept reverting everyone's changes to my edits, I only did them because Alexbrn said that "there seems [to be] no point [in] continuing this", which lead me to believe that the discussion was over (especially since he didn't revert my edit to the sentence "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use"). Again, as I've been saying the entire time, the page should state that doctors say that kombucha is not recommended for people with poor immune function (to name just one thing), not just state that itself. Also, just because something is sourced perfectly well doesn't mean that Wikipedia's statement about it shouldn't also say who says this.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123