Talk:Kombucha

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

Potential health risks[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

"Implicated but not confirmed"
"Confirmed"
Pick one. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have done the work, to list (above) the potential health risks in the source, which you explicitly tagged as needing listing.[1] Are you still saying every one needs to be listed? If so, I disagree. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The work needs to be done in the article, not a talk page TlonicChronic (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia should be direct and with clear citation, without deviating from the citation. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious tagging[edit]

Here.[2] 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)[reply]

If you want, you can always simply find an agreeable source and cite it TlonicChronic (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of See also sections not having citations did you miss? Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And so why should it not be linked? Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
That's totally reasonable. I agree it makes sense to have the cancer page linked TlonicChronic (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Juice in See also[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm easy either way. Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of Template:Annotated link, but if you think it's improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't define kombucha as "weird" and "health-hyped." That's the problem. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And JJ is health-hyped, correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're arguing with the text of the rules TlonicChronic (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines. It's what Wikipedians do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. So I'm following guidelines and you're flouting them in favor of "editorial discretion" TlonicChronic (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Does MOS:SEEALSO say citations cannot be requested in the see also section? TlonicChronic (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
!!!!! 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)[reply]
Even if there was consensus that it should stay, it would still need a citation TlonicChronic (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, a See also section states "These articles exist on Wikipedia." 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)[reply]
I searched "These articles exist on Wikipedia" and had no results. Can't you please copy-and-paste for clarity? TlonicChronic (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't quoting, a See also section states "These articles exist on Wikipedia." was my choice of words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It seems not. Hopefully other editors will help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Futile arguments, refusal to get the point, and edit warring. This is becoming a problem. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Definition of "kombucha"[edit]

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)[reply]

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[3] even classifies it as a neutraceutical. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... You're saying that the National Library of Medicine calls it a nutraceutical? TlonicChronic (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what? Nobody is citing the "National Library of Medicine" for anything. Bon courage (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Milk [4]
Coffee [5]
Tea [ [6]
Literally everything is called a nutraceutical (over ten thousand articles apiece). TlonicChronic (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
What happened at your school is not relevant to Wikipedia. I don't know what you think your search shows, but using your method you could claim sources say milk is called a fish.[7] Bon courage (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just my school... Got Milk? TlonicChronic (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I linked you fifty thousand (medical) articles mentioning "milk" and "nutraceutical"... TlonicChronic (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your search result is meaningless, as already indicated. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
When you say "the definition", do you mean "the WP:LEAD" or something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nothing about JJ or health stuff in the opening sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Neutral" is the objective of Wikipedia. If that's too difficult for you, this probably isn't a website for you. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia to be coy about this aspect then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "consumed as a health food" is a different statement from "purported health benefits". TlonicChronic (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes. And contentious topic require proper citations that aren't misused. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 6 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esy32 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Esy32 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kombucha&oldid=1214684276"