Talk:Kombucha/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV and UNDUE concerns

The article has serious problems regarding NPOV, specifically UNDUE and BALANCE as the result of poorly written passages that give far too much weight to extraordinary claims of death and toxicity in the section Adverse effects. The claims are anecdotal and based on the same 23 poorly documented case reports, all of which were isolated incidents dating back 20 years or so with a rare case occurring about 6 years ago that involved a man with HIV. There is no substantial evidence confirming kombucha tea as the cause. In 1995, the FDA and Kappa Laboratories in FL. conducted tests and reported that kombucha tea is safe for human consumption. The latter can be cited to a peer reviewed journal (4.18 IF) published in 2014 which I already mentioned above. There is also information that has been omitted from the Health section of the article, information which can be cited to the same sources cited in the article now, and further demonstrates noncompliance with NPOV as well as MEDRS.

• NPOV: Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

• UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
• Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

• MEDRS - Assess evidence quality: Knowing the quality of the evidence helps editors distinguish between minority and majority viewpoints, determine due weight, and identify information that will be accepted as evidence-based medicine. Not all papers in even reputable medical journals can be treated as equivalent. Studies can be categorized into a number of levels, and in general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. and continuing to the lowest level...and non-evidence-based expert opinion or clinical experience. Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources.

Hopefully we can collaborate in GF to correct the problems without the need for DR. Atsme^📞📧 02:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Each time it's explained to your interpretation of MEDRS, NPOV, and UNDUE as it relates to case reports in reviews is incorrect. Quoting policies and then saying that you're right doesn't make you right (over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again): it clearly shows a case of WP:IDHT. You haven't even tried to see the points that anyone has made to you: you just keep repeating your view as though other editors have said nothing and that is not the case. Quite frankly, your unwillingness to see any point but your own is tendentious.

The fact is that every single review on kombucha include the adverse effects. Therefore, not including adverse effects in the article is UNDUE. Ca2james (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding: just because something is considered safe for human consumption doesn't mean that there are no adverse effects. Tylenol is safe for human consumption but can cause liver damage. Chemotherapy drugs are safe for human consumption but have a host of toxic adverse effects. Ca2james (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you realize that allegations of tendentious editing is a PA and I advise you to stop. This TP is for discussion of article content which you keep turning into unwarranted criticisms of me. The sloppy passages in the article with all the omissions and UNDUE have rightfully been challenged. Please stop the WP:OWN behavior because your opinion is not the final word on article content. If you are refusing to discuss the issues, then I'll move this discussion to DRN and wherever else it needs to go to get the problems resolved. Atsme^📞📧 03:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that nothing Atsme says above differs from her many previous comments on the subject, and given that they have already been responded to in depth on numerous occasions, I suggest that the best way forward here is for contributors to ignore this thread, and instead concentrate on the substantive content issues currently being discussed in other threads. If she wishes to initiate some form of dispute resolution, she is of course free to do so - but I would have to suggest that it would be unlikely to get very far without a clearer focus than vague assertions that policy isn't being complied with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Last time - comment on content, not editors. Atsme^📞📧 03:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

My comment was that we've heard this all before, have responded to it before, and have no need to go through it all again. Just how difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a need to discuss the article and UNDUE/NPOV issues;the article has changed since whenever you last spoke of this (a link to the TP section would be good; I have not been privy to such a convo heretofore). I am also getting tired of trying to read this TP for content regarding article improvement and finding instead grumpy attacks on people. Please stop. If you are not here because of an interest in Kombucha and the current science, but rather love kicking Atsme wherever you can find an opportunity to do so, then you are the problem and are in violation of TP guidelines. We have a lot of work needing to be done on the article. If you want to help, I can give you a couple of nice sources with which to fill out the fungus section. (I worked on the bacteria information the other night with the goal of ridding us of some cn tags, and it took a good 2.5 hours. So help would be sincerely appreciated.) petrarchan47คุก 00:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Context for evidence

As has been mentioned here before, it is best to state that few human trials have been done with Kombucha in recent years.

Instead of Although kombucha has been claimed to be a cure for many diseases, and to confer a wide range of health benefits, there is no good evidence to support these claims

The truth is better stated by saying Although kombucha has been claimed to be a cure for many diseases, and to confer a wide range of health benefits, human trials are lacking and no evidence to support these claims exists.

My change to the latter was reverted by Jytdog for 'bad grammar'. If grammar is a problem, please feel free to help me out, but the context should remain intact because it better reflects the sources and prevents insinuating that trials have been conducted with no positive results. Dufresne writes "scarce scientific information is available concerning the composition and effects of Kombucha on health", but I have run across this claim in several sources, and for those who have been participating on this talk page for the past few months, this claim is not contested. petrarchan47คุก 06:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems wordy and kind of wrong (there is evidence that apparently supports these claims, but it's in junk surces). Anyway we're meant to be summarizing the body in the lede, and the current wording is okay if a bit weak - since we're citing Ernst is may be better to mention that some of these claims are extreme and implausible. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lede to say that there's no good evidence supporting the health benefits claims. That's a summary of the situation, which is what should be in the lede. The reason why there's no good evidence - a dearth of human random clinical trials - is detail/context that belongs in the body. Ca2james (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"No good evidence"??

The editors who keep restoring this horribly written prose need to stop. WP:CIR for writing legible prose. Example: there are no good writers begs the question, are the writers "no good", or are you saying that there are not any good writers? I think the latter parallels what is trying to be relayed in this article. Continuing to revert to horribly written prose is BATTLEGROUND.

It's common in quality medical writing. If it's good enough for the BMJ, it's good enough for us. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That may be but this is an encyclopedia not a medical journal. The readers need to see quality prose not language like you see in a medical abstract. Atsme^📞📧 15:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

In the example I gave, it's not "in the abstract", it's the title. It's fine English. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was - I was merely using it as an analogy. I think we got the prose fixed - Although kombucha has been claimed to be a cure for many diseases and to confer a wide range of health benefits, there is insufficient evidence to support such claims. Atsme^📞📧 15:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's okay too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) If the problem was just the "no good" phrasing, why did the extra detail about clinical trials need to be reinserted? I don't understand how that approach helped resolve the problem. In an effort to reach a compromise, I've removed that detail again and replaced "no good" with "insufficient". It looks like this is acceptable to all parties. Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah not sure about that either. The new wording is fine, but I would not want it to be seen as a precendent for ripping out the "no good evidence" wording elsewhere, which is used very frequently on Wikipedia. As a simple search will verify, that wording is used in reputable health encyclopedias aimed at both professional and lay readers. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. I agree that "no good evidence" is technically the correct phrasing but I also see the issue with defining "good" in this context. Is there an article or wikitionary entry that defines it? Ca2james (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[1] I suppose there were enough people who used "ain't" that it finally became an accepted word. There are gooder words that are not ambiguous. Atsme^📞📧 20:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to its technical use in evaluating evidence-based medicine, which was the way it was used in this article, not the general use of "good". Ca2james (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As an English language user of many years standing there is no good evidence is perfectly fine: there is an absence of good evidence, no simply negates the statement. This is pretty basic. Could parsing 'no good' as an adjective (is that how it's being interpreted?) be a regional thing? shellac (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes "there is no good evidence" is fine English and thus I restored it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that in general the phrasing "no good evidence" is not terribly problematic. That said, another option (if the objection is to use of the word "good") to use high-quality evidence (i.e., there is a lack of high-quality evidence). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with "there is a lack of high-quality evidence" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made this change. Hopefully this will be the end of it. Ca2james (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote required?

I was taken aback just now to find sections on "Health claims" and "Adverse effects" that mention AIDS and liver failure when I came looking for information about the Japanese seaweed drink. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the etymology section mentions the drink I was looking for, but it is quite well hidden there. I think a hat note should be included at the top of the article to make it clear they are different products:

This article is about the health drink. For the Japanese drink made from dried seaweed, see Kombu#Cooking.

I've said "health drink" for want of a better word. I had not even heard of it 15 minutes ago, so I have no interest in the argument about the subject's claimed benefits. My only point is that there should be something at the top of the page to make it clear that more than one "Kombucha" exists. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good in principle, though "This article is about a fermented tea drink ... " would be better/more neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I support adding a hatnote and agree with the 'fermented tea drink' wording.Dialectric (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both Alexbrn and Dialectric for your input. I have gone with "fermented tea drink" as suggested. I have also used the alternative transliteration of Konbucha rather than Kombucha to differentiate the two. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"based on Qin dynasty records"?

The article cites Dufresne and Farnsworth 2000, with no specific page number, as saying that Kombucha is reported to have originated around 5,000 years ago in China; based on Qin dynasty records, it was known as Divine Tea and highly valued as an "energizing" and "detoxifying" drink. I find this claim somewhat dubious: what Qin Dynasty records? I'm not a specialist in the area, but ... if the only historical record of the Qin Dynasty's greatest emperor dates to several decades into the following dynasty, it seems highly unlikely that the (relatively brief) Qin Dynasty happened to leave us such detailed records of so-called "kombucha". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it at all possible the source was simply referring to an urban legend passed around among advocates of the stuff?[2] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, these pseudohistorical assertions are fabricated. The cited reference (Dufresne & Farnworth, 2000: 409) "Tea, Kombucha, and health: a review" says tea, not kombucha, was consumed in China 5,000 years ago (also wrong, see History of tea#China), and repeats the legend about Qin dynasty kombucha. However their reference (Roche, 1998) "The history and spread of Kombucha" actually identifies the so-called "Divine Che" as Lingzhi mushroom, not kombucha. All of this cruft should all be removed from the article ASAP. Keahapana (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So now I understand what all the drama board activity has been about. this edit needs justification and I have reverted it. Am very curious how this can be justified. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You don't get to ignore talk-page discussion and revert edits made after the discussion, and then open a new section to pretend that discussion never took place. The material was not sourced: the source (apparently -- I have no access to it at present, but Keahapana has apparently read it) says something completely different. Per WP:BURDEN, you need to provide some reliable source that actually verifies the claim, if you want to include it in the article, or indicate that you have read the previously-cited "source" and that Keahapana's summary of it was in some way inaccurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC) (Edited 13:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC))

Also, what do you mean by "drama board"? Did you follow me here having seen a recent ANI thread? Your section title indicates you weren't aware of this section on the talk page, and perhaps came here because you looked through my contribs because you found me somewhere else. That is a blatant WP:AGF violation. You should make edits based on discussion of this article on this talk page, not based on whether the editor has recently been involved in a completely unrelated ANI discussion. If this is what you are doing, kindly knock it off right now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC) (Edited 13:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC))

I think this is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: We need to bear in mind, though, that the "kombucha" this article discusses is a modern development apparently unrelated to the Japanese word kombucha, which may indeed have been consumed in China thousands of years ago, so saying that "beverages referred to as kombucha" was consumed in China thousands of years ago is highly misleading in this context. Your recent edits were not as bad as blank reverts of me, but now the lead states that "Beverages referred to as kombucha originated in China" and the body states that "Kombucha originated in China": these two statements are not co-terminous, because "kombucha" has apparently at least two, completely different and unrelated, meanings. If Dufresne and Farnworth actually state that "Kombucha originated in China", I would like to have an exact page number and a quote. Keahapana says that he/she has read the article, and that it actually contradicts the claim in question. Are there any independent sources that verify this? Ideally we would have scholarly sources written by Chinese and Japanese scholars who can access primary source material related to what has historically been drunk in China and why this apparently modern European beverage has a Japanese name that actually refers to a completely unrelated beverage. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the remaining OR. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I tagged the dubious citations. We've been through this "ancient oriental kombucha" nonsense before. See Talk:Kombucha/Archive 1#Alternate history and name, Talk:Kombucha/Archive 1#History section, and Talk:Kombucha/Archive 2#History, and note this twice-deleted 2009 information. While various sources repeat the myths about "divine chi/che/tsche" in 3rd-century BCE Qin dynasty China and tea-prescribing Korean Dr. Kombu in 5th-century CE Japan, they are garbled BS. The former mistake is a half-translation half-mistransliteration of lingchi or ling-chih 靈芝 lingzhi mushroom because ling 靈 means "divine; spirit; etc.". The Chinese word for "tea" is cha or ch'a not chi or che. The latter mistake distorts a Kojiki historical story about a Korean doctor Kin/Gin who cured Emperor Emperor Ingyō, without any reference to tea or kombucha. Considering the well-documented history of tea in China and Japan, note that the zh interwiki kombucha article does not mention a Chinese origin, and the ja interwiki says kombucha originated in Mongolia and Siberia (ref [1]). Keahapana (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The error is being repeated everywhere. I added it is unknown. There could be more sources that cover this in more depth. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's more of a general comment, but in my experience there are some sources (scholarly books and articles) that are almost never wrong. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Chinese historiography can tell (as indicated in my initial comment) that the claims about 5,000 years of tea-fungus consumption in China and of Qin Dynasty records indicating such are nonsense. (Clarify: We don't have Qin Dynasty records discussing the Qin Dynasty itself -- our knowledge of the First Emperor comes records written a century after his death and from some archaeological evidence -- so it's inconceivable that we have Qin Dynasty records that unambiguously describe consumption of a beverage that in modern English contexts is anachronistically referred to by a Japanese word that means kelp tea.) This is essentially an OR claim, but Wikipedia's "no original research" policy refers only to inclusion of original research in the article space: analyzing the sources and determining which ones are clearly wrong and/or unusable based on which ones appear to contradict which other ones, and discussing such on the talk page, is completely acceptable. WP:VNT does not oblige us to include factually inaccurate material just because it can kinda-sorta be found in some sources. Common sense should be applied. In this case, no matter how widespread the legends about tea-fungus are in semi-reliable and unreliable sources, they still have not been widely and directly debunked in more reliable sources. Wikipedia editors should be able to look at the reliable sources that contradict these legends without directly saying that the legends are not true, and determine that the legends should therefore not be repeated in Wikipedia's voice. It is technically OR, but the policy against OR is against including OR in the article space, not against engaging in OR to determine that something should not be included in the article space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed the wording. Sometimes sources get it wrong but I used another source to clarify the wording. It now says "It is not known exactly how or where Kombucha originated from.[1]" This can be expanded and explained better. The history section is also very short. If you or anyone else has references that would help. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Production of Kombucha

Fermentation: - Kombucha tea fermentation is produced by microbial activity by "tea fungus." -"Tea fungus" is a symbiosis of yeasts and acetic acid bacteria (other forms of bacteria are also presently used depending on the different fermentation process across the globe) - The yeasts ferment the sugar to ethanol - Each fermentation process is covered Primary fermentation: Sweetened tea inoculated with Kombucha culture. Secondary fermentation: Newly formed daughter culture covering the entire surface area of liquor is used to inoculate the this second fermentation. Second and subsequent fermentations: Small portion of beverage is added from the previous fermentation process into sweetened tea.

Chakravorty, Somnath, et al. "Kombucha Tea Fermentation: Microbial and Biochemical Dynamics." International Journal of Food Microbiology 220 (2016): 63-72. Web.

Jayabalan, Rasu, et al. "A Review on Kombucha Tea—Microbiology, Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus." Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 13.4 (2014): 538-50. Web. -Elanef (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ingredients of Kombucha

-Tea: -symbiotic culture of acetic acid bacteria and yeast (tea fungus): -sugar:

Sources: Jayabalan, Rasu, et al. "A Review on Kombucha Tea—Microbiology, Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus." Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 13.4 (2014): 538-50. Web.

- Elanef (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

|}

Facts

(Nicolehsw (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

Bias?

This article is unnecessarily biased. It appears to be dominated by one or two editors who undo any edits by other contributors. Eg: In the case of the sentence "Kombucha has been claimed to have various health benefits, but there is little evidence to support such claims." the word "evidence" is hyperlinked to the page on Evidence Based Medicine - a very limited definition of the word evidence. Several contributors have tried to insert words like "scientific" before the word "evidence" but have had their edit deleted immediately. There is unusual prominence given to health warnings on this page compared to, for instance, the Wikipedia pages on Cider or Paracetamol. May I have permission to edit? Is there any arbitration group watching this page to ensure good practice? DeirdreOLeary (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, but health claims about kombucha are subject to discretionary sanctions and WP:FRINGE applies. There is no kind of evidence about health (that Wikipedia considers) other than medical evidence, so the link is appropriate. Kombucha's hyped and bogus health claims are a notable part of this topic, and so deserve reasonable good coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one. The amount of science backing up the adverse effects is the exact same as that which backs up the health claims - as in there is very little conclusive evidence of anything, and basically all are anecdotal case reports. The fact that the causal link between adverse effects (in immunocompromised individuals!) is regarded as hard science by this article. There are also weird examples of unnecessary scare - such as citing usnic acid as a hepatotoxin multiple times and not discussing the amount necessary for hepatotoxicity or the other interesting beneficial properties of usnic acid such as its antibacterial and antitumor properties which have been scientifically studied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Mme (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Canada

This was just added to the article.

Some issues. WP:UNDUE weight in general; there is repetition here (why two sections on alcohol?); there is at least one ten year old primary source mixed in here (this one); and there is a bunch of WP:OFFTOPIC detail about Canadian law - and with that there is some WP:ORish application of that law to Kombucha by the editor. The very first sentence appears to be OR as well ("There are no specific regulations for Kombucha in Canada") And there is a link to a Baltimore Sun article mixed into the ref under the title "Labelling Requirements for Alcoholic Beverages". hm.

Food Standards and Regulations in Canada

Tea Regulations

There are no specific regulations for Kombucha in Canada, but there are identity requirements for tea. Tea shall be the dried leaves and buds of Thea sinensis (L.) prepared by the usual trade processes. Black tea shall be black tea or a blend of two or more black teas and shall contain, on the dry basis, no less than 30% water-soluble extractive, no less than 4% and no more than 7% total ash. Green tea shall contain, on the dry basis, no less than 33% water-soluble extractive, no less than 4% and no more than 7% total ash.

Alcohol Regulations

If Kombucha (or any beverage) exceeds 1.1% alcohol by volume it is considered an alcoholic beverage by Canadian regulations.

Health Claims

Kombucha must also be subjected if a health claim, function claim or therapeutic claim is made. Health claims made in respect of probiotic microorganisms in food should be scientifically validated. Subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act states: "No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety."

Labelling

In Canada, Kombucha is a food product that requires a label by the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations. Label requirements include common name, net quantity, name and address of the person responsible, ingredients list, nutrition facts table, durable life date (if storage life is 90 days or less), storage instructions, and bilingual labelling. Labelling requirements are found in the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising at the CFIA website: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch2e.shtml

Alcohol Labelling

During the fermentation of the bacteria and yeast, Kombucha is usually produced with an alcohol content of 0-0.5%. When fermentation time increases, the alcohol content may be more than 0.5%. If it is more than 1.1%, the Kombucha needs to follow alcohol labelling requirements .

Probiotic Labelling

In Canada, proper labelling is also required for foods containing probiotic microorganisms. These requirements are found in the 2009 Canada's Guidance Document for The Use of Probiotic Microorganisms at the Health Canada website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/legislation/guide-ld/probiotics_guidance-orientation_probiotiques-eng.php

The labelling of foods for which health claims about probiotics are made are required to follow:

1. The term “probiotic(s)” and similar terms or representations should be followed by a statement that demonstrates the effects of the probiotic
2. The claimed effect of the probiotic microorganism in a food should be clearly stated in a way that is not false, misleading, deceptive, or likely to create an incorrect impression or assumption in regards to the effect of or benefit from the probiotic microorganism(s) in the food
3. When a health claim is made, it is require to declare the Latin name (i.e., genus and species) and the strain of the probiotic microorganism or mixed culture that is the subject of the claim
4. The level of the probiotic strain expressed in colony forming units (cfu) in a serving of stated size of the food should be declared
5. If more than one probiotic strain is added to a food, the reccomendations stated above apply to the mixed culture.

References

Happy to discuss Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Origin

In this dif User:Daniel.Cardenas added:

The drink was consumed in east Russia at least as early as 1900.

References

I am reading that ref right now. Origin is discussed in exactly one sentence, the first, which says: "Kombucha is a popular beverage among many traditional fermented foods across the world. It originated in northeast China (Manchuria) and later spread to Russia and the rest of the world." The edit is simply fraudulent. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It was copied from "History". See "The drink was consumed in east Russia at least as early as 1900, and from there entered Europe.[23]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wife is from Siberia where it a traditional drink. I looked up the russion version of the article:

Famous Chinese written sources mention Kombucha since the dynasty of Han (250 BC. E.). The Chinese called it the "elixir of health and immortality" [citation needed 342 days] , we believed that it balances the energy of qi and helps digestion. In Europe, Kombucha became known as "the Kombucha", because in the beginning of the XX century, the name of the beverage from the fungus has been wrongly confused with a drink "kombu-cha" from "seaweed kombu " (a subspecies of seaweed ). Some argue that in Japan Kombucha called Kotya-Kinoko (紅茶キノコto: Kinoko cha), which literally means "Kombucha." On the other hand, according to experts of the scientific department of the newspaper "Asahi Shimbun" Japanese "kombutya" aka "Kotya" aka "algal nyasha" - not the same thing that Kombucha, and has very different biological nature [4 ] .

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The part about Russia is only one small part of it. The main part is that the origin is unknown. It appears sources disagree. The part "Kombucha is of uncertain etymology.[29]" is still in the body. Should it stay or be removed? QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

multiple sources talk about the manchuria thing. fixed the etymology issue. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Headline ordering should follow that of similar articles.

United Shades of America traveled to Portland, Oregon where kambucha is served in bars and coffee shops as a beverage. Never having heard of it, I came here to look it up and I am used to seeing history and etymology first on these kinds of articles. I checked other beverages like Wine, Beer, Tea, Soft drink, Whiskey and all of them have etymology(or terminology), history and production first. Soft drink has health concerns 4th. I also checked other fermented foods like Cheese and Tempeh. Tempeh is another ancient fermented product with some associated health risks if made with coconut palm leaves and that is after History, Production, Nutrition and Preparation. Cheese has heart disease risks but that also comes after Etymology, History, Production, Processing, Cooking and is placed in the Nutrition section.

A consensus about order of headings was decided here to put Etymology and History first. I'm retired and don't log into my Wikipedia account any more but when I see such glaring problems with pages, I'll step up to help out and so am going to reorder the heading back into consensus and aligned with other beverages and fermented articles. MOS:BODY

I can foresee some objection that the deaths, or unproven claims of health benefit, from the drink make those subjects important enough to place them earliest but then there are health risks associated with use of beer, wine and whiskey giving rise to liver and throat cancers, or the risks from over consumption and driving, or death from alcohol poisoning during binges and still those articles don't place the risks first. There are number of deaths from Tempe bongkrèk or Sushi (where health risks are also listed in Nutrition), but those articles still stick with customary ordering. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If some hucksterism is going on with health benefit claims then there is an added advantage that this ordering de-emphasizes the health claim section. Having it as the first section gives it more importance than the history, development and naming of a food product developed over 2000 years ago and history is what an encyclopedia is about.97.85.173.38 (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

people drink kombucha primarily for health. not a normal food article Jytdog (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Similar claims of probiotic and health benefits are made about other fermented drinks made with combined bacteria/yeast starter, like Kefir, Boza, Ginger beer and Tibicos yet those articles also follow the standard layout with etymology and history first. This stuff is sold at Walmart as Food>Beverages>Tea and a soda alternative in a beer style bottle at Whole Foods. It maybe a new fad in the US but it's an ancient culturally beverage and there's no reason to treat this article differently in layout than Kefir. I'm not suggesting taking out health concerns and or failing to squash hucksterism, (I wholeheartedly endorse that endeavor); just encouraging treating this article as all other similar articles including those that are fermented beverages that start from bacteria/yeast infusions. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There are 4 editors that agree with this layout and you are going against the consensus. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Where are you getting "4 editors"? Bizarre misreprentation. Jytdog (talk)

Do you have a source for the position that 'people drink kombucha primarily for health.'?Dialectric (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

gee i don't know - how about every source in the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to find a source for 'people drink kombucha primarily for health.' but I came across this. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, how is that relevant to this discussion? Dialectric (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I was making a note to myself to continue to search for a source to verify a similar claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Primarily an alt med product [3] and should therefore follow the order of similar alt med products. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is is a bit more on the history of the perception of kombucha in the English speaking world deleted

I'm sorry as the heading says: Why? You say "Undue witjout secondary source stating heavy influence of this." I think that means you want 2ndary sources saying that this mention in the international popular press had a heavy influence. I would argue that a 1945 popular article from an American that is published internationally that essentially contains the same narrative as the 1990's onward resurgence is relevant to the history of kombucha. It also points people to some of the German and American research that went on since 1900. As for secondary sourcing, the use of newspapers and magazines as sources is extremely extensive in wikipedia. The added text did not claim anything for kombucha, it showed the wikipedia reader that kombucha in America is not merely a 20 year old phenomenon, and it did so using a secondary source, the newspaper and magazine cited.

I believe that this is an example of what was mentioned above. An editor becoming possessive of Wiki article, refusing to allow others to edit it, refusing any addition that does not suit their 'pure' vision of what the subject is about. You deleted this edit of the article in 19 minutes, a previous substantial edit was deleted to in 36 minutes. This is a Wiki-pedia, no one editor or editors possesses ownership, other viewpoints that are relevantly cited are permitted.

Again, the history of Kombucha was not merely of scientific literature in the west and then a 90's popularization. History is never so neat, and this newspaper/magazine article demonstrates this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.209.88 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC (UTC)

"I would argue that ..." <- that's original research. Any indication that good sources have made this argument? Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The 'Sunday Times Perth' is a reliable source. While the added text may have placed undue weight on the importance of Siegwart Hermann, the ref should be included as an early example of coverage in English. It is useful to have a reliable source showing early coverage in the history section. We have the sentence "in 1913, kombucha was first mentioned in German literature." and could add "kombucha was covered in English-language publications as early as 1945."Dialectric (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not how Wikipedia works. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a secondary work. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are policies. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The actual content added (diff) and then edit-warred back in (diff) was promotional with respect to the author and to the 1945 article itself. The very brief NYT obituary doesn't mention kombucha per se but does say "Dr. Hermann was known his work on fungi fermentation products as remedies for arteriosclerosis. He held several patents in that field." The magazine article is written by Hermann and is pretty hiliariously promotional and there is no disclosure of his COI as would be standard today. In any case this is a primary, non-independent source with respect to Hermann's work.

This is kind of interesting but we do need some (ahem) actual secondary source talking about Hermann's work on this. Not a priority for me right now but I may circle back eventually. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could you clarify your point with relevant quotes from policy? Stating the date a reference was published is not original research.Dialectric (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It is if it's your discovery and contention that this is worth mentioning, and there is no secondary research. As you know this edit in question was more than "stating a date". Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a complete waste of time Dielectric. If you actually care about this please find a secondary source discussing Hermann's work in the 1940s; nobody will object to high quality editing. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kombucha - alcohol - legislation

Alexbrn Moving "poor" sources (see your ES) here so that the "poor" sources can be discussed. Please explain why the sources are "poor". Expanding in a moment.Colin McTroll (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Facebook. Seriously? Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn

1. I am having difficulty understanding your comment about facebook. The sources that I think are possibly justified in adding are the corrected bccdc link and the theatlantic refs. If you prefer not to have polis.house.gov I would not have a strong view as perhaps it's self-promotional, but I would appreciate a discussion as to whether that is or is not the case. Here's what you removed:

"The alcohol content of the kombucha is usually less than 1%, but can increase with fermentation time.<ref name='''bccdc''' /><nowiki/>{note: this was corrected from deadlink at the primary ref location] According to BCCDC’s Environmental Health Services Food Safety Specialists, "It may be debatable whether the production of alcohol is a hazard per se, but, at a minimum, it is a quality issue that must be addressed. Some US commercial producers of bottled KT [kombuha tea] were forced to recall unpasteurized KT from grocery store shelves when the alcohol content exceeded 0.5% for legislative reasons."<ref name=bccdc /> U.S. federal legislation has been proposed to address some of the concerns.<nowiki><ref>Hamblin, James Is Fermented Tea Making People Feel Enlightened Because of ... Alcohol? '''The Atlantic''' https://www.'''theatlantic'''.com/health/archive/2016/12/the-promises-of-kombucha/509786/ </ref><ref>Nicolas Pollock, James Hamblin, Jeremy Raff The Kombucha Freedom Warrior If Our Bodies Could Talk section of '''''The Atlantic''''' https://www.'''theatlantic'''.com/video/index/509909/the-fight-to-legalize-kombucha/</ref><ref>Gardner, Polis, Tipton, Introduce KOMBUCHA Act - U.S. Representative Jared Polis http://polis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398294</ref>

2. Did you also revert to a deadlink which I had corrected? Someone else has now restored that. Colin McTroll (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the dead link. I restored that. The rest of what you added was blatant promotionalism and advocacy focused on a politician who is a fan of the drink and is trying to pass legislation about kombucha. Please don't edit like that in the future as if violates WP:SOAPBOX which is policy. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog for correcting the deadlink back. I am sorry but I have already explicitly conceded a willingness above to forgo the link to the specific politician's press release - it's not the main thrust of the proposed addition, which aims to acknowledge the extensive real world reality of this aspect of kombucha in the U.S. So I respectfully disagree entirely that the changes based on the BCCDC’s Environmental Health Services Food Safety Specialists report and The Atlantic are blatant promotionalism. I will consider this for a few days to see if you might be saying something that actually withstands analytical scrutiny but my present feeling is it's the other way round.Colin McTroll (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed legislation is generally in "news" and WP is WP:NOTNEWS; again the purpose of WP is not to make people aware of the legislative effort. Please see your Talk page as well. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog A NOTNEWS argument may be reasonable; I will mull that over. Maybe it's worth stating that I not here at all trying to make people aware of that legislative effort, which by the way is bipartisan, broadly supported, both H and S, and isn't about one politician at all really. All of which I didn't know about until today, don't have a really strong opinion on, and don't really care about other than if I drink the stuff do I have a COI.

Anyway, the fundamental encyclopedic point I personally think should be included if the article is to be whole is that there has been a significant amount of real world discussion and consideration of kombucha's alcohol content. I think my estimation differs from yours in that I contend that such discussion and consideration over many years in multiple sources goes beyond the parameterization I see referred to in NOTNEWS. I will think over the next few days about whether I can find a spartan form of words which neutrally points to the issue along with quality referencing, and then bring that here for further input to check everyone is fully comfortable with it.

References

-- Colin McTroll (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 source

See "Some health disorders, such as hepatotoxicity and severe metabolic acidosis, have been linked to kombucha consumption, possibly after chronic or excessive consumption(129,136)."

There may be more useful content from the source (PMID 28115036). QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Deaths

Any references to multiple deaths due to kombucha also needs to be removed as hearsay, at least until a source that provides supporting cases can be found. Although one secondary source cited (American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.)) refers to "occasional deaths" in the plural, it and all other sources, including a comprehensive study also cited in the article (Ernst E (2003). "Kombucha: a systematic review of the clinical evidence". Forschende Komplementärmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde.), cite exactly one case from 1995 reported by the CDC. Anti-psuedoscience should be held to a higher standard and not rely on secondary sources for information when they don't have evidence-based support. Please feel free to review and read the cited articles, and I will happily concede I'm in error if any other documented cases of death can be found. - Andrew B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.87.102 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The ACS ref cited as the source clearly says "deaths". Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but a death is a case, not a summary. Just one documented case other than the 1995 CDC case would be sufficient, but the sources don't point to it. A year, a name, anything.

we follow MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and I understand the reasons for doing so, but this case looks like a propagated error in a single secondary source that is directly contradicted by other legitimate medical review articles. I don't think it's a logical extension of the MEDRS policy to defend including information of that kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.87.102 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE. We follow the MEDRS source and say deaths plural. Ernst also makes the point that adverse effects are likely under-reported. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but it's a bad editorial call to include non-evidence based claims, regardless of the source. Still, if anyone can find documentation for any additional cases of death that have been linked to kombucha, they should definitely include that information in this talk page to better inform future editorial discussions. - A.B.

I agree with A.B. It really is a bad editorial decision to propagate non-evidence based claims, regardless of the source. Stating that kombucha actually has been linked to multiple deaths is purporting a level of evidence and certainty that does not actually exist in the real world. Pigkeeper (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification "The American Cancer Society says that 'Serious side effects and occasional deaths have been associated with drinking Kombucha tea'.[3][not in citation given]"

User:Jytdog reverted my [not in citation given] edit. I am looking at the cited book. The quotation is, in fact, not in the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerntrash (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That is very strange. I have the book open in front of me. On page 551 in the Overview section, just before the bolded: How is it promoted for use? subheader, the quoted sentence is there, word for word. Please make sure you are looking at the 2nd edition from 2009. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find the book online but I did find a reference to support part of this. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's website for alternative treatments (which the American Cancer Society directs you to) states "Because of the fermentation process, kombucha can easily become contaminated. Allergic reactions, jaundice, serious illness, and occasionally death have been associated with the consumption of home-grown kombucha tea" (from https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/integrative-medicine/herbs/kombucha). The reference they use point to a few cases where severe illness or death have occurred due to contamination, one specifically states lead contamination from the pot it was brewed in. Depending on the reference(s) used by the book Jytdog is referencing maybe the statement should be changed to reflect the home-grown products specifically? I do agree with Jytdog, this does not fail verification but may a little too broad. CommotioCerebri (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Impossible to read all the changes

It is impossible that any editor will truly understand how the edit improved the content. I don't get it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The edits I made are intended to reorganize the page to be better in tune with other articles concerning beverages. It is a standard page reworking, removing duplicated content and improving the sections.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The edits disorganised the page. This page is related to medicine. The format is different for medical related pages. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

True, this page is related to medicine, but its subject is kumbucha, a fermented tea beverage. The tea has claimed health benefits, but it is first and foremost a drink. Gin for example was marketed as a medicinal beverage for centuries, and yet now it is without disputably a drink first, medicine second.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Page reworking and reformat

I have recently tried to reorganize the page, as some of this article's sections are out of order. As opposed to articles like coffee or tea, this page is not ordered as Entomology<History<Biology, and instead opens with paragraphs concerning health benefits. My reworked version of the article can be seen here User:SamHolt6/sandbox, where I have attempted to clean it up. Thoughts?--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You did not help the article: the lede for example was way too short. The main thing about kombucha is the stupid health claims. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My proposed version of the article can be seen in my sandbox (User:SamHolt6/sandbox.) Do you have any objections about the length?

It's impossible to see what the differences are between a sandbox article and our real one. I suggest if you want to make any changes you make/propose them in small workable chunks to aid the consensus-building process. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I will attempt to reorganize the page piecemeal. The new order of the sections (after the lede) will be Etomology<History<Production<Composition and Properties<Health Claims<Adverse Effects<Other Uses. This will make the article format more in line with other beverage articles. No content will be changed, only shifted around.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

An ordering from MOS:MED would be better: e.g. health first, history last. Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a drink with medical benefits, but not a medicine. Kombucha is a tea first.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a drink without medical benefits, but the health-woo aspect is by far the biggest thing about this topic (as a check of the sources, or indeed this Talk page archive, will show). Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a category (Category:Fermented tea) for fermented teas, of which Kombucha is grouped in by definition. Of the articles in said category, only Pu'er tea and Doncha are extensive articles. Both of these pages concern information on the medicinal value of their respective teas, but abide by a food and drink format. They are teas with medical value, but that is not their sole purpose. Kombucha does not cease to be a tea, which, while always treading the line between medicine and drink, is without doubt a beverage first. We should abide by precedent and present Kombucha as a beverage with purported medical benefits.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia has lots of categories, including alternative medicine. There is a MOS for medical topics, there is no MOS for tea topics. When editors say "without doubt" it usually means - there is doubt. Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS for medical topics are special cases. Most articles on Wikipedia abide by a more standard policy of article layout. My point in bringing up other types of fermented teas is that, while they all have purported medicinal benefits, they are described principally as beverages. I believe that Kombucha should be presented in the same way, as a beverage with purported medical benefits. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a tea. Lets make the layout of the article look like other tea articles (albiet with a heavy emphasis on pro/anti medicinal value information.)--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Too many changes to review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic to changing the format to the more typical beverage article. As long as sourcing and content about the health woo remains OK. This isn't first food/beverage person to swing through and be puzzled by the MEDMOS layout. Would be perhaps more stable if we adopted. Can folks live with that? Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You have my full support. Just a change in the format to bring it in line with the rest of the tea pages, no change in the content. A nice and easy shuffling.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You have made it clear what you want. Yes moving content around is not physically or mentally challenging - bringing that up is not helping you persuade anyone, nor is bulldozing forward at the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be no room for doubt what my intentions are. This article is contentious enough as it is. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Objections to format change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If I were to change the format of the Kombucha article from MOS:MED to default without adding or removing existing content, would there be any objections?--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are several, as people have already explained. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru and Doc James are against the change. I am in support of it, Alexbrn "sees no problem with it" (as long as no content is changed.) What are your thoughts Jytdog? I understand that you are critical of my handling of the matter, but do you have any suggestions for the proposed format change?--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article layout discussion; beverage or MEDMOS

Discussion has been undertaken between myself and other editors over what form the layout of the Kombucha page should take. The article in question is currently formatted according to MOS:MED. Though this will be repetitive, I want to reiterate my arguments for changing the layout of the article to standard format again. I want to mention that this article is controversial due to differing opinions on the medical value of the tea. While I am aware that a change in the layout of could be seen as favoring one side of the argument, I will make no further mention of the debate as to the medical veracity of Kombucha.

• Kombucha is categorized and described as a tea, and its page should be structured as other tea articles are. This would entail a change to Wikipedia's default MOS format.
• Tea has always been associated with health benefits[4], but on Wikipedia pages regarding types or variants of tea, the fact that tea is a beverage is always placed before its claimed medical benefits. A drink first, a medicine second (excluding pages exclusively about the health benefits of tea [5].) This would stand as a point that the Kombucha article should utilize a standard layout beginning with the Etymology and History headers.
• Kombucha is classified as a fermented tea (I have to disclose that I added this category to the page, but was supported in doing this by the definition of Kombucha in the lede), and as such it should be compared to the other pages in Category:Fermented tea. Of the pages in the category, only two, Doncha and Pu'er tea, are extensive articles. Both of these pages represent teas (not merely types of tea, but varieties) that have claimed medical benefits, much like Kombucha, and yet are formatted along Wikipedia default lines, not MOS:MED. My point in bringing up other types of fermented teas is that, while they all have purported medicinal benefits, they are described principally as beverages. I believe that Kombucha should be presented in the same way, as a beverage with purported medical benefits.
• The sources cited by the Kombucha article refer to the beverage as a tea or tonic. According to the PubMed source [6], Kombucha is "a remedy which is usually marketed as a fermented tea for oral consumption or topical use in a wide range of indications," indicating that the tea is considered a beverage marketed as healthy, not a healthy substance marketed as a tea. Of further note, the source used to actually define Kombucha [7] states that Kombucha is "A lightly sparkling beverage made by fermenting black or green tea and sugar with a culture of various bacteria and yeasts." This is the groundwork that all of the debates on the medicinal value of the beverage are based off, and I believe that the article layout should reflect this. Kombucha is a tea first, regardless of its purported medical benefits, and that means a standard page layout would be superior to the current MOS:MED one.
• I recognize that a large percentage of the sources and information on the page in question are in regards to the medical value of the beverage. However, I believe that Kombucha's classification as a tea precludes it from being organized along the lines of MOS:MED, especially since Etymology, history, and biology headers are already present.
• As articles similar to Kombucha have implemented a default page layout, I believe it should be asked why the article needs to written in the extraordinary MOS:MED format.

This being said, my proposed changes are that the page be reorganized along the lines of other tea articles. The new order of headers would read Etomology<History<Production<Composition and Properties<Health Claims<Adverse Effects<Other Uses. No information would be added or removed, as the page is to contentious for that. I am open to hearing arguments for the page format as it is now.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you just want to re-order sections, fine. But your actual edits, and the tenor of your WP:WALLS above indicates you want to adjust the content too, in ways which might not be fine. The fact that Komucha is a pseudo-medical product needs to prominent per WP:PSCI and that, as core policy, is non-negotiable, so as long as the re-ordering doesn't downplay this I can see no problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well and good. The only intent of the proposal is to change the order of the headers (possibly merge "Production" into "History" later.) Some who advocate that Kombucha is a medicine will take umbrage that my proposed changes will make the page at face value appear more along the lines of tea rather than drug (even though no content will be changed), but I believe this is the correct course of action.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The layout has been stable and was fine before. Thus have restored.

This is often portrayed as a "food with health benefits" so presenting it as such is entirely appropriateDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Kombucha is portrayed as a food with health benefits, but this does not preclude it from being a beverage. Bringing the topic into solidarity with other similar tea articles furthers the goal of the encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a list of other tea articles in order for me to NPOV those articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The most pertinent are the fermented teas, Pu'er tea, Lahpet, and Doncha. This is cherry-picking on my part, but the other fermented teas are stub articles. I could go into herbal teas, but the problem is that many herbal teas (the most common medicinal) pages only include data on the health benefits of the plant and not the tea itself, whereas Kombucha is a tea and not a plant. Listing all of the variateies of tea would entail me linking hundreds of pages. To state my thoughts again, I support organizing the Kombucha article like the other teas, no content removed.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I could not find any solid reviews. This is very little research. They are not being promoted like Kombucha tea. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In the English speaking world Kombucha is mostly sold as a food with claimed health benefits and thus IMO the article should be organized in that fashion. Not aware if the others are primarily promoted as teas or alt med products. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Kombucha is consistently marketed as a healthy tea drink. Pu'er is more of an exotic tea, and the other two are rare in the English-speaking world. All four of these beverages are claimed to have health benefits, though Kombucha is the only one that has taken it far. Still, they are all fermented teas, and currently Kombucha is the only one written in MOS:MED format.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess we could switch the others to MOS:MED formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It would put the matter to rest. Unlikely to take place though.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS:MED formatting seems best idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that this should be treated like a food. It should be treated no differently from Mushrooms or Yogurt or Dark chocolate, all of which are also "marketed as" having health benefits. Or even Beer, which was once widely believed to be more healthful than drinking water.

Speaking to the concerns that some of my friends have raised above, I am also concerned that treating it like a "drug" is going to reinforce that marketing approach. I think that – unless we are volunteering to be part of the industry's marketing team – then we need to present this as a food, and only briefly mention that some companies have recently made a few claims about health benefits to boost sales. If you format this as a drug, then readers will believe that Wikipedia believes those health-related claims are true.

You know the old saying about "There's no such thing as bad press"? The reason isn't just that any awareness is better than none. The reason is because if you spend six paragraphs talking about all the health claims that have been made and how they're based on bad science, then people aren't going to remember the details. Once they're away from the page, they're only going to have a vague impression that there was a lot of science and health talk on that page – and they're going to conclude that this must be a science-y and health-oriented subject.

Every advertiser knows this, and I'm continually surprised by how little our pro-science group pays attention to the research that advertisers have done into how the human brain processes and (importantly) remembers information. Everything from the length of the ad copy (the longer the text in the ad, the more convinced readers are that there are a lot of good things to say about the product, even if they never read that copy) to the choice of images has been studied. From the advertising POV, a long dispute about whether your product has a health benefit is good, even if the conclusion is no health benefits, because many readers will ultimately remember MyProduct = Something About Health. A long dispute about whether your product kills people is bad, even if the conclusion is unequivocally no deaths, because many readers will ultimately remember MyProduct = Something About Death.

The way you get around this problem with the human brain – the way you leave an accurate, neutral impression for the people reading this article – is that you focus the article on the most important thing-that-is-true instead of allocating a lot of space to the thing-that-is-false. In this case, if you don't want people to think that this is a science-and-health subject, then you focus the article on the indisputable fact that kombucha is a beverage. That means:

• formatting the article like any similar food,
• writing many more words about the food aspects than about health claims,
• adding pictures that make it look like a food (e.g., more kombucha in a tea cup and/or less microscope slides), and
• reducing and removing as much "science talk" or "health talk" as reasonably possible.

I understand the temptation to pound on the bad science. I understand that the health claims annoy medicine-focused editors and interest us far more than things like flavor and shelf life and sales and its use during the 2000 years before the marketing machinery got ahold of it. But if you present this as a drug-that-doesn't-work, then many readers are only going to remember your insistence that it's a drug. If that's not your goal, then you need to write the article to focus on what you think it is, not what you think it isn't. That means food formatting, food pictures, food content, and the least amount of MEDRS-needing content that is reasonably possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre and unhelpful. Our task is not to try and elicit some desired reader response by warping sources, but to reflect what's out there. Most of the material on kombucha is big on the "health" aspect so a neutral article needs to be too. That said, I see no particular problem with ordering this either like a food article or like a health article. It's no biggie. What I *do* have a problem is with the actual edits of the OP which removed quite a bit of content. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a question of "warping sources". High-quality sources should be, and can be, represented with perfect accuracy. It's a question of helping the reader retain that accurate information. If we cram the article full of health claims and science talk, then many readers will remember little more than the fact that Wikipedia said that this was a healthful and scientific subject. That means failing at Wikipedia's primary educational purpose. It's not a matter of righting great wrongs; it's a matter of doing our actual (volunteer) jobs by correctly educating people – including the many readers that are not as bright as you, as familiar with science as you, or as likely to read and remember all the words in the article as you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

When I read this article (or just the lead), I dont get the impression that this is a healthful and scientific product. "Many" may do, but my belief is that the large majority won´t. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @WhatamIdoing:'s point. My views on the page format have already been made apparent. If the change to food format is made, no content must be added or removed. In my initial attempts I did add and remove some content (sources on history conflict, and added new headers), but at this point only the change in format should be considered for debate.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Image

If someone could take a picture of some commercial Kombucha [8], it would fit well in the "Production" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That image looks promotional. QuackGuru (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Gloriously so, rebirth, reawaken, enlightened, and so on. But that´s the nature of commercial packaging, isn´t it? It´s meant to be bought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You say "Gloriously so,...". That means you agreed it is promotional. Things in it are moving. Why would anyone drink it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional like a picture of a can of redbull, or the (to me) appealing images at stout. It´s what the thing looks like, and that matters too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about a specific brand. QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

True, it´s like stout in that regard. A display like [9] could work if there's an image we can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That does not work because we can't use that image. Why discuss something you can't use. QuackGuru (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

But if someone made an image we could use, we could use that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not support adding an imaginary image. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Exclusionist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You changed your mind? That's good. We both support excluding an imaginary image. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, c:Category:Kombucha has images of the drink, including a few in commercial packaging. All of them are tagged with usable licenses and none of them are imaginary. You might consider File:01 Kombucha Synergy organic fridge 8286696410 o.jpg, since it shows more than one brand, in a real-world retail setting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I saw that one, and it´s not unthinkable, but I don´t like it, to blurry. QG has a point that just one brand of many is not optimal, I don´t know of any Guinness among Kombuchas, though the article hints that´s "GT's Kombucha". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Two images in lede

Two images in the lede is too many. The image with ice cubes is promotional. QuackGuru (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That didn´t look so bad. If the ice-glass is how the stuff is commonly drunk (I have no idea), it fits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Come back when you have a better idea. We can't just make things up. QuackGuru (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Too many images again. What is the point? QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is to show people what this beverage normally looks like when it is served. That's typical for articles about food. Coffee leads with the beverage in a cup; Tea leads with the beverage in a cup; Soft drink leads with the beverage in a cup; Cola leads with the beverage in a cup; Wine leads with the beverage in a cup. All of these articles about beverage show the beverage in a cup, ready to drink, with no brand names or labels in sight. This article is also about a beverage; why should it not also lead with an image of the beverage in a cup, equally ready to drink and equally bereft of brand names and labels? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but is this drink normally served with ice? Not even Coca-Cola has any ice-cubes on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Cola has ice in the lead image, and Soft drink has ice in the lead image, and this is perfectly reasonable even though a lot of people drink these straight from the bottle, and even though some cultures don't use ice in these beverages. (Coca-Cola leads with the company's logo, which is appropriate.)

It appears from sources such as this manufacturer's website that it is normal and popular to drink kombucha cold, including putting ice cubes in it. Despite including tea as an ingredient, it doesn't look like it's served warm or hot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are good points. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A manufacturer's website does not show that it is normal and popular to drink it with ice cubes. We don't edit based on unreliable sources. If we followed a manufacturer's website for the entire page we would be turning this page into an advertisement. QuackGuru (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We cannot have two large distracting images in the lede. If one is not removed then both must adjusted. QuackGuru (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Distracting image removed from lead. Not very far, it´s a short article. Switching place between glass and jar images is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "Kombucha tea with ice cubes" have to do with "Health effects"? QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Image moved back to lead since i didn´t have anything in particular to do with health effects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Two images in the lede again is too many. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead and body

• Current lead: "Kombucha originated in what is now Manchuria around 220 BCE"
• Current body: "The origin of kombucha is uncertain. One theory is that it originated in what is now Manchuria around 220 BCE"

Which is better from the WP-perspective? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Go with the current lede. The Forbes article [10] is a reliable source that states Kombucha originated in Manchuria, a statement the Wiley source [11] backs up. There is actually no mention of the origin of Kombucha being unknown in the citation for said claim.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Just and update, a new source has been added [[12]] that does state that the origin of Kombucha is unknown.SamHolt6 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

History

Kombucha#History is too short. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rfc about the format of the page, food or MOS:MED.

Should the Kombucha page be formatted as a food or medical article?--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support Changing the format of the page to that of a food article would increases the similarity of the Kombucha article to that of other fermented tea pages, and would serve to clarify what Kombucha is.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It can remain formatted according to MOS:MED. The health effects can be promptly featured in the lead and body. QuackGuru (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• As a medical article. It is notable mainly for its claimed effects on health. Maproom (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Summoned by bot. Kombucha is a drink, therefore it is consumed and should be formatted as a food article. Meatsgains (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment How are food articles formatted? Do they have a MOS for drinks? Keep as currently formatted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support formatting as a food article, Oppose formating as a medical article. MOS:MED begins:

  The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)...

According to the article itself, the scientific name is Medusomyces gisevii (note: red link), and that's clearly the wrong name for the Wikipedia article, and that's because it's not a drug like Ibuprofen and it's not a species like Clostridium difficile. It's a beverage with claimed health benefits, like comfrey#Medicinal use. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep formatting as a medical article as no has explained how a food article is formatted. Plus this is promoted for health uses / benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose changing formatting if it is to obscure discussion of purported health benefits. Not really clear what the difference would be but if the intent is to de-emphasize the false health benefit claims that doesn't make sense. The current layout of the lede and article looks good. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

* Support formatting as a food article (like the tea article), kombucha is primarily a drink - perhaps creating a second article on health effects of kombucha like there is for tea. MonardaDidyma (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of section on science showing benefits

I added a new section to this article, reviewing the science showing some benefits to consumption of kombucha. While the science on this substance is far from settled, this article seemed to exhibit bias by only listing negative studies. I have tried to bring it back into balance by adding cited evidence. I also made a few small edits to make the differing claims less jarring. This really needs another set of eyes on it to smooth and unify the information presented. I do greatly agree with some of the other discussion in bringing it in line with the other tea articles. This does seem to need more history and context - placing it first as a drink, and then adding a review of the different health claims and findings. MonardaDidyma (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted; none of your sources appear to meet WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The majority of the information came from the review article: Jayabalan, R., Malbaša, R. V., Lončar, E. S., Vitas, J. S. and Sathishkumar, M. (2014), A Review on Kombucha Tea—Microbiology, Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13: 538–550. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12073

should I just cite to this one article for the whole section? Find more review articles?MonardaDidyma (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources. Primary sources cannot be used for assertions in the realm of WP:Biomedical information and your "review" article apparently wasn't even PUBMED--indexed, so is not suitable for such use either. Alexbrn (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the material that wasn't from the review article and reposted. The journal is a respected one with an ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2016: 3/129 (Food Science & Technology).MonardaDidyma (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's not reliable for content on human health, and even if it were putting in a section entitled "Beneficial effects" seems rather POV. Alexbrn (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Help me, then. Because I am so confused. The review article I used was already the first article cited in the Wikipedia entry. There are also 14 cited references to primary sources in the article. (And I'll agree on the "Beneficial Effects" name - I only called it that because there was another paragraph called "Adverse Effects".) MonardaDidyma (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The source is not being used to support claims about human health, and for that it is a fine source. Alexbrn (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mood benefits from Kombucha

The drink contains probiotic. Probiotics clean out your gut. Because serotonin is mainly produced in the gut and a cleaner gut produces more serotonin (which is our happy chemical), Kombucha is a mood boosting drink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srmcgraw1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds highly dubious. Any such claims need good WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The serotonin in your central nervous system is produced in the serotonergic nerves in your brain. Your gut does also produce serotonin (and in larger volume), which your body uses to regulate intestinal action, but it doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier.

Also, producing more serotonin won't make you any happier. Your nerves have a complex system of regulation for serotonin exchange; if you have extra sitting around inside your nerves, it doesn't do anything. If you want to be happier, you need to do something to encourage the serotonin to be released to synapses or prevent reuptake, or to agonise the receptors. That's how most "happy drugs", from MDMA to Prozac, work.

Of course if you have a serotonin deficiency, more serotonin can help. But only in your brain, not your gut. Consuming serotonin precursors that can get through the blood-brain barrier might be beneficial. If kombucha really did make your gut produce more serotonin, that would use up the precursors your brain needed and give you the same kind of down you get after a night on MDMA—but, fortunately, it has no such effect at all.

Finally, "probiotics clean out your gut" isn't true in the first place. A wide variety of cultures are called probiotics, and they all do different things (well, many of them do nothing at all, but…) ranging from helping lactose metabolism to breaking down bile residues. One thing none of them actually do is clean out your gut; if they did, they'd be banned as unsafe. --173.228.85.220 (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article, maybe good for something

The Atlantic: [13]. Also, you can use it as a legal argument: [14]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's another article, at Mayo: http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/expert-answers/kombucha-tea/faq-20058126

I'd add it myself but I'm really bad at coding wiki. :x

Tabbycatlove (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A User's Perspective

I'm honestly not certain where to put this, as the threads concerning organisation of this article are scattered all over the Talk page. So I'm making a new section. If someone thinks this information would be better in another thread on the page, please feel free to move it to where it's most appropriate.

Weighing in here as an information-seeker. I had no pre-conceived notions about kombucha and was looking for information after drinking some at a pub last night that had it on draught. We had a discussion about it while drinking, and wanted to know:

• do the constituent ingredients matter? (we drank ginger kombucha, but what else can it be made from?)
• does "kombucha" refer to the process that makes the drink (similar to vodka), or the drink's ingredients, or both?
  • the article mentions a bacterial load or "mother" - is it made similarly yoghurt or cider, where the cultures are preserved from generation to generation, or more like beer, where cultures are sourced externally and may not be genetically related from batch to batch?
• the bar listed the drink as being 1.5% alcohol (3 proof) - is it top-fermented (like ales) or bottom-fermented (like lagers)?
• is the bacteria consumed during the fermentation process, or is it a live-culture drink when imbibed?
• what alcoholic strengths can it be made in? (If it's a live-culture drink, I presume there's an alcohol level beyond which will kill the bacteria...?)
• is kombucha always fizzy, or are there non-carbonated versions?

None of these questions are answered by the article in its current state.

From my perspective, much of the article seems to have a disproportionately negative (and highly biased) tone. The "Adverse effects" section in particular seems blown wildly out of proportion. At least one person is known to have died after consuming kombucha, though the drink itself has never been conclusively proved a cause of death. I can say with certainty that hundreds of millions of people have died after consuming water, but I would never expect a claim like that to make it into the Wikipedia article on H2O. As a consumer, I expect that many of the adverse affects reported stem from poor preparation practices, and not from the drink itself. (Who would allow it to be sold in a pub if the drink was actually dangerous?) I looked at the Wikipedia article on moonshine, which shares many of the dangers of improper preparation, and there is no "Adverse effects" warning section... I would suggest that any potentially harmful effects be incorporated into a section under purported health effects.

I also think it would be nice to change the first image of the article. While interesting and perhaps useful later in the article for illustrative purposes about the preparation process (the section on which is also incredibly sparse by Wikipedia standards), it is certainly not an appealing image. A quick creative commons licence search shows dozens of more appealing and representative images of the final product, which (if last night's beverage was at all representative) is a slightly-cloudy, honey-coloured fizzy drink served neat and chilled; not a stratified, bacteria-laden mess.

In all, I find myself completely agreeing with the editors who suggest organising the article as a food/beverage article. I purchased and consumed it only as a drink, unaware of any health claims, which, while interesting, are far less important than its classification as a beverage.

[Comment by 74.75.232.15 (talk · contribs) disallowed by edit filter] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I kind of agree. After reading this article, I know a little bit more about it but mostly in too scared to drink it. I hate that the health nuts have jumped onto it, but it's a traditional drink with centuries of history; it shouldn't just be categorized as a bad-snakeoil-medicine-do-not-drink-or-you-could-die. It feels kind of like the editors read too much pseudo-health stuff about if and kind of started beating a dead horse (unintentionally.) I came here wanting to find out about its history and dietary use, but I'm going to have to read more elsewhere.

But now I'm scared to drink it even if it is probiotic. :o Tabbycatlove (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tabbycatlove: Well if you find any good information from reliable sources please let us know. There is no reason the article can't be informative about the history behind Kombucha. I do think that normally "History" (and "Etymology") would be the first section(s) in the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputed history of Kombucha

I've made some edits to the history section recently, as some of the claims made about the drink are unsubstantiated, disputed or contradict known historical facts.

As the Japan Times article notes, most of the claims about it having originated 'around 221 BC' (a suspiciously exact date, even with the qualifier 'about) come from commercial bottlers. An even more dubious claim is the part about the 'Korean physicians Kombu' having brought the drink to Japan, after which it was called 'Kombucha' in his honor. I've been unable to find any kind of substantiation for this claim in Japanese, and the period (again with the suspiciously exact date of 414 AD) is one for which there is little documented history. Most Japanese-language sources mention only that Kombucha aka Kocha Kinoko in Japanese became popular in Japan in the latter half of the 20th century, without any mentions of a historical presence in the country. Also, as noted in other Wikipedia articles and associated citations, tea did not enter Korean or Japanese culture until hundreds of years later, so the Chinese loanword 'cha' was likely not in use in those countries in the 5th century. In addition, if 'Kombu' was ever a Korean surname, it has fallen completely out of use.

My personal suspicion is that these claims were invented by commercial bottlers to give the drink an appealing sense of antiquity. It is true that some normally credible sources repeat these claims, but their own citations either don't mention the history of the drink, or appear to repeat the claim without citations. The article needs more substantial historical citations that better establish these or other claims before reinserting them.

Mabewa (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Evidence-based Medicine Exceptional Claim

The remark counts on a source by one author with no citations of other studies. While this is the only study on pubmed that uses kombucha as a keyword, the bacteria-generated acids present in kombucha brews have been rigorously studied, as many are also present in various types of vinegar. The claim should probably be removed if specific sources identifying medically useful properties in individual acids identified as commonly present in kombucha brews (perhaps even by a different reliable source). Eaterjolly (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

See "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."[15] Please remove the tag because the content is sourced to a high-quantity review. See WP:MEDRS.

Also see "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."[16] QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This "Although it has been claimed to have numerous health benefits, there is no good evidence that drinking kombucha has such effects." is not an exceptional claim. And the ref is fairly solid. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Kombucha is a lay term for probiotic tea. To make health claims about kombucha is to make health claims about the specific bacteria culture used in fermentation. Depending on the bacteria culture, those have been very thoroughly studied and verified. Kombucha is too generic of a term for a single study without an economic context. An excellent source would be a meta-analysis of kombucha across all open markets, comparing the popularity of certain bacteria cultures with studies about their effects as a probiotic. According to WP:REDFLAG an exceptional claim includes "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" which this qualifies. The source itself states ingenuinely "No studies were found relating to the efficacy of Kombucha." while claiming "A wide range of information sources were searched," without defining kombucha as probiotic tea or specifying what bacteria cultures made the tea used in the study probiotic. The source claims to be a meta-analysis but by definition that means an analysis comparing multiple studies which is not possible if "no studies were found". Also, for such an exceptional claim as to invalidate the health consequences of probiotics in general, I would expect a study of more than 28 patients.

Considering the source's own text demonstrates a violation of the rules of inclusion in the publication "[DARE" not being an analysis of any studies given that apparently none exist, I am reverting the revert.

I'd like to remind everyone no text from the article is actually being removed from the article. The dubious tag only reminds the reader to exercise caution believing what they read on wikipedia over what they read elsewhere.

Eaterjolly (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the dubious tag you have added.

Yes it is fairly common to find no evidence for alt med stuff. That is not an extraordinary claim.

When it comes to the relevant community for evidence based stuff, this is the evidence based academic community. You have not provided any list of high quality reviews that show benefit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources do not need to use the marketing term kombucha to describe a liquid live-bacterial supplement, which is the definition of kombucha.

Ingesting bacteria is not "alt" medicine. The only difference between kombucha and what is used in standard practice is the transport is a liquid rather than a pill. Bacterial supplements are very common and are used to treat a wide variety of health problems, all the way from certain types of anemia to dementia onset by B12 deficiency (B12 itself is not naturally made by any known plants or animals, and only exists as a result of the work of intestinal bacteria). This source for example would contradict the source with regards to any kombucha which contains lactobactilii. Kombucha is too generic of a term to make specific health claims, every mixture will be different based on the bacteria culture used. However probiotics in general are widely used and widely accepted as a significant part of standard medicine.

@Doc James: could you explain how the source DOESN'T violate the rules of it's own publication, since the publisher states they only accept studies analyze multiple other studies while the source document claims no other studies exist?

Eaterjolly (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Lets give some other people a chance to comment.

Just because some forms of probiotics have evidence for certain conditions does not mean this drink automatically inherits them.

Or you could try a WP:RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James, Eaterjolly, and QuackGuru: - Agree the tag should be removed. That said, the statement itself seems a little clunky and could potentially be rephrased to use better English. Consider, "Although numerous sources have linked drinking kombucha to health benefits, there is little or no scientific evidence backing those claims."? NickCT (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the current wording is the use of the term "good evidence". What does or doesn't constitute "good evidence" is really sorta subjective (more subjective than "scientific evidence" at least). NickCT (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable Nick Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As under Health claims, "there is no high-quality (alternate: scientific) evidence of beneficial effects from consuming kombucha" states it accurately. The lede can be readily changed to reflect this: "Although it has been claimed to have numerous health benefits, there is no high-quality evidence that drinking kombucha has such effects." --Zefr (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The concerns are with the circumstances of the sources existence and how they are disingenuous. There are highlighted reasons why the claim is dubious that have not been address, such as the fact lactobactilii have been rigorously studied and were ignored as the defining component of at least some if not most bacterial teas, when the source stated "No studies were found relating to the efficacy of Kombucha.". The tag is more than warranted given the circumstances.

Lack of rigor with sources, despite being present in otherwise normally authoritative publications, is deeply concerning. The response to these kinds of observations should be immediate votes for removal of content. I find it disturbing that a benefit-of-the-doubt dubious tag that links to a discussion of why this type of scrutiny is important, is disapproved of. I more than expected that any discussion prompted by this talk section would be that for removal of the content, for which I would want to remain neutral. But this discussion is much more worrisome than anticipated.

Eaterjolly (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Researchers have largely stopped doing research on Kombucha because research shows it has no benefit. That's why there is very little recent research covering this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the source implies no studies have ever existed, stating none were found and the search was apparently rigorous, I wouldn't think that is relevant to its credibility. Again, I believe academics simply avoid the term kombucha as too non-specific to make a case study about, which wasn't also an economic analysis. I doubt many doctors are also economists, who can say how their research applies to large communities exchanging materials and making up non-specific shorthand of wide fields of research.

Eaterjolly (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I would rephrase to say, "aside from the effects of nutritional bacteria and their probiotic acids, regular consumption of kombucha has not been studied for its effects on longevity of life" though a different source should be cited since that is not what the source claims. An encyclopediac tone means stating information without perspective which include any moral indicative phrasing such as "benefit", we should talk about longevity of life anywhere we would otherwise talk about health "benefits" unless there is a more specific relevant health factor to talk about instead.

Refactoring the whole article to emphasize the bacteria culture as the the defining characteristic of kombucha while clearing up confusion around its health claims, ensuring readers know that any health claims surrounding kombucha would be true of any food or beverage containing live bacteria, if true.

Eaterjolly (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering sources have been used which contradict the information they have been used to cite in their abstracts alone, I am now voting to deletion of the entire section or reverting to a previous state. This all clearly violates WP:V and whom ever wrote this version section was clearly acting in bad faith. Eaterjolly (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. Editors disagreed with you just adding a tag. Now you want to delete the whole thing. Please try other avenues. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Kombucha benefits those selling it

See "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."[17] There is a benefit. The benefit is for those selling it. The claim is not a personal belief. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a moral assertion. An encyclopedia is not a judge. Eaterjolly (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OUTRAGE: "The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from neutral, independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received." Moral assertions are appropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a judge of verifiable content. The content is about who is getting the benefit. It is not from Kombucha. It is from selling it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Judging content would either be a violation WP:OR or WP:NPOV. If a person believes that something sold is "beneficial" by "virtue" of the fact it was bought, they should be able to read their encyclopedia without being "preached" to about contradicting morals.

"Should's" do not belong here. To say someone benefits is also to say what that person "should" want, which is also why it is important to talk about longevity of life instead of "health benefits".

If you are editing wikipedia, you must trust the readers will always be morally upstanding people, even when they are not. We can not put our own personal world views even into the subtext of what we write. We must not even try to imply what is right and wrong. This is the nature of an objective medium, and we do this so that world can be more vibrant with differing views held by strong people. To edit wikipedia is to believe in humanity. If a view is contrary to my own morals, I wish that person to research facts and develop their sense of morality in competition with mine. An encyclopedia is the only form of information resource which allows the reader to draw their own conclusions about what "should be" and design their own ethic from there.

WP:OUTRAGE is talking about information that induces culture shock. Something which suggests the Existence of a moral which contradicts their own, usually in a way they never thought possible, hence outrageous. It is still important for wikipedia not to take a Point-of-View even when describing the existence of certain contentious worldviews. This does not apply here.

Eaterjolly (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - With all due respect, this conservation is a little out of hand. I'm not sure we're working to improve content more than we're simply soapboxing our opinions on alternative medicine. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

For this type of content I added "Kombucha only appears to benefit those who profit from them, according to a 2003 review.[4]" The text is no longer asserted. It contains "according to a 2003 review". That should address your concerns. This source appears to be a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Restored prior version of health claims. No such thing as a "antioxidant food group". And that ref appears un pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You deleted other content and used Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center as a source. Please use one source to verify each statement. QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I am working on a draft. Please contribute. See User:QuackGuru/3. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal added minus one sentence that was mostly repetitive content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong article link

This link to another article appears to be a mistake. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are assert as fact when there is no serious dispute

The content that was deleted is a summary of the body. We assert opinions as fact when there is no serious dispute. That is not my opinion. That is Larry Sanger's policy. See WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with restoring the sourced content. I would like a better explanation why the content was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article covers the drink (kombucha) and the fungus (Medusomyces gisevii). I suggest that the contents regarding the fungus be split into its own article. --Phonet (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If I read the source in the lead right [18], under "Microorganisms of kombucha tea", that source, right or wrong, use kombucha to mean what this article call SCOBY (kombucha-making kind), and kombucha tea to mean what this article call Kombucha. Slightly confusing, but still (and per WP:COMMONNAME, we shouldn´t change the article in that respect). Per that source, Medusomyces gisevii is not a fungus:

"Tea fungus or kombucha is the common name given to a symbiotic growth of acetic acid bacteria and osmophilic yeast species in a zoogleal mat which has to be cultured in sugared tea. According to Jarrell and others (2000), kombucha is a consortium of yeasts and bacteria. The formal botanical name Medusomyces gisevii was given to it by Lindau (Hesseltine 1965). Tea fungus is not a mushroom. That name is wrongly given due to the ability of bacteria to synthesize a floating cellulose network which appears like surface mold on the undisturbed, unshaken medium."

It goes on to say that the contents of Medusomyces gisevii varies. I don´t see any big advantage of having a separate article for the Kombucha-SCOBY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So, the lead is currently slightly confused: "Kombucha (also tea mushroom, Manchurian mushroom, formal name: Medusomyces gisevii[1])"

At least Medusomyces gisevii is not a name for Kombucha (drink), maybe not the others either. Perhaps the lead should say "Kombucha (also Kombucha tea)" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for the information! Then the lead sentence should definitely be changed. --Phonet (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kombucha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619063637/http://bkaccelerator.com/biocouture-creates-kombucha-mushroom-fabric-fashion-architecture/ to http://bkaccelerator.com/biocouture-creates-kombucha-mushroom-fabric-fashion-architecture/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)