Talk:Kombucha

Spurious tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jilly Juice in See also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life

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

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

History Missing/Inaccurate

I cant access the big book of kombucha, which is citied as the source of the bohai origin claim, but i did find this paper from Institute for Cultural Heritage and History of Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing that states that Tea Fungus and fermented tea was introduced from Japan to China during the 1980s, which this article claims caused a health fad that lead to the buzz that created Kombucha in the US. I think this beverage is relatively recently developed, and people are pointing to a mythic origin around the bohai sea to give it credibility. https://jdn.ucas.ac.cn/public/uploads/files/664c3d57d6c21.pdf 87.209.142.192 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"SCOBY" used when "pellicle" is more accurate

I didn't want to make these edits myself, since I'm new to this and want to review the editing guidelines more thoroughly first.

However, I did notice that there's a number of instances where "SCOBY" is used to refer to the pellicle/zoogleal mat rather than the microorganism culture. The culture of microbiota exist in the entirety of the kombucha, not just in the pellicle; in fact, the pellicle likely contains in/on it less of the SCOBY (i.e. the bacteria and yeasts) than the liquid it sits upon.

While SCOBY and pellicle can be interchanged colloquially (e.g. teaching beginners how to make their own kombucha), it isn't quite accurate. DeepSixing (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

i agree with this – i'm not making the change yet, but definitely support anyone who chooses to Eugenia ioessa (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If the WP:RS about kombucha generally use SCOBY, so should this article. I haven't checked. Fwiw, Pellicle (cooking) seems to say that SCOBY is a more specific term. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I looked at the Pellicle and Scoby pages and it seems both of those refer to the SCOBY as the biofilm. I'll check some sources before editing to see if there's anything more definitive re: scoby vs pellicle :) DeepSixing (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)