This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offood anddrink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please reviewWP:Trivia andWP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the{{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,select here.
"However, the contents of primary electrolytes sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium per 100 millilitres (3.5 imp fl oz; 3.4 US fl oz) serving of unprocessed coconut water are insignificant (2–7% of the DV) and not balanced." This is a little unrealistic. Firstly, compared with the amounts present in similar electrolyte drinks (Gatorade), coconut water is about an order of magnitude higher. Secondly, who drinks 100ml of coconut water? The smallest sizes are 200ml, and the most common seem to be the 0.5L cans. Such a can would indeed provide over 1000mg of potassium and over 100mg of magnesium and calcium each. As far as "balance", it's a bit much to expect from a natural product, but these numbers seem pretty close to the mark, coincidentally, and certainly sufficient to replenish immediate electrolyte losses incurred through exercise.Drsruli (talk)03:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsruli: You're correct. The statement has no citation anyway, so I removed it. I'm always wary of any sentence in a Wikipedia article that starts out with "However". It's almost always someone's original research, written for the purpose of arguing with the topic. ~Anachronist(talk)23:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the disputed tag because this article does not seem to reflectWP:NPOV.
Just to be clear,Classicfilms, did you want to include discussion about a) nutrient contents and b) health effects, as the sources you provided claim? Regarding nutrient content, we have a USDA analysis in the table showing low micronutrient levels in actual, unmanufactured coconut water.
If a commercial product has appreciable levels of electrolytes (e.g., sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium), as claimed in the WebMD and Cleveland Clinic sources, then these minerals would have been intentionally added asfortification ingredients during manufacturing. The 3 references you used do not cite anyWP:RS sources for how nutrient contents were analyzed.
It is likely the authors were just reading off a retail product label, which would vary in nutrient levels according to manufacturer. The health claims from the 3 articles really are off the wall - there are no sources in the medical literature to support any of them, which is doubly disappointing for the Cleveland Clinic, a world-class hospital.
To have actual balance and NPOV in an article, we can have opposing views if both are supported by reliable sources, which in this case, would meanWP:MEDRS reviews, for which none exists about health benefits of coconut water.Zefr (talk)17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to see Wikipedia articles that areWP:NPOV, which means that the article does not take a particular position on the topic. I used the samples below as a guide because it seems Cleveland Clinic and WebMD at least offer different perspectives and by the way, this link does have extensive sources:
Of course the article should include all perspectives on this subject, but as it stands the article implies a general danger rather than specific situations which is true of anything. I was never intending to say that a Wikipedia article should imply that anything is a wonder drug, because that goes against how the WP works. It should beNPOV with entirely credible sources and not cherry picking. -Classicfilms (talk)18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation is generally reasonable, but calls for editing with better sources, rather than dropping a vague "disputed" tag at the top of the article. Since you raised this issue, please suggest an edit with a reliable source.
Content in the WebMD, Cleveland Clinic, and Prevention articles concerning health benefits is outrageous and unsupportable, except for the mention of rehydration, which water does just as well without the expense. Not one of the WebMD sources would support a health claim for a Wikipedia article.
As for the nutrition section, the content underNutritional profile is factual from the USDA table for unfortified, non-manufactured coconut water. The content and sources underRisks andCommercialization are all outdated, but were factual at the time. It could be modified with updated sources, if available, or deleted if agreed by consensus,WP:CON.Zefr (talk)19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I'll need a little time, so I'll get back on this. The article appears within the realm ofWP:UNDUE as it offers a great deal of text on:
hyperkalemia - which the article states is rare
a 2014 article on a particular brand that was investigated 10 years ago
"Anecdotal sources" on a fatal use of coconut water that is from an archived source from more than 10 years ago
Articles from 10 years ago for pretty outragous marketing claims, I agree on that, but again that happens in all products
-and no balancing argument. Again, I'm not pushing for an article that says this is a wonderdrug, but the absence of that discussion in conjunction with a lot of text on these points creates an article that lacks balance. And yes, I think we can just focus on these sections. I will get back with what I find.-Classicfilms (talk)22:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article can be tagged as "disputed" because one editor relies on low-quality sources to suggest drinking coconut water leads to measurable health effects. None of the listed sources comes close to meetingWP:MEDASSESS - left pyramid for the quality of evidence scale.
Specifically, you should statechange x to y, and provide aWP:MEDRS review or clinical guideline recommending use of coconut water to enhance human health. (hint: doesn't exist).
Let's observeWikipedia:No personal attacks. It is normal to addressWP:NPOV in articles that depend on just a few references to critique an entire topic which this one does. I saw nothing in the disputed tag that indicates it cannot be applied to this article. That being said, I'm not interested in edit wars. So, I'll let my point stand.-Classicfilms (talk)05:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about reference number 6[1] this is a single case study on a 42 year old man from 2014. This isn't a good source to be citing on Wikipedia. The same with reference 5[2]. This is an extremely rare risk that is limited to only a handful of case reports 10 years ago. I think that paragraph should be removed.Psychologist Guy (talk)19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thanks @Psychologist Guy, I think that this edit changes theWP:UNDUE and balance concerns that I had, and I'll withdraw my concerns. I still do think that some of theWP:RS could be better and more recent, and that there are a spaces in the article that lackWP:RS, but I'll leave that to other editors. Thanks again!-Classicfilms (talk)22:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
