Talk:Kiwifruit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kiwifruit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modern Chinese transliteration
The article says:
"In modern-day Chinese, the fruit is often referred to as qíyìguǒ (Chinese: 奇異果), a transliteration from English."
... but it doesn't seem like a transliteration to me. In particular, while it seems obvious that 奇異 sounds like "kiwi", 果 doesn't seem to represent any word I would want to say next; "guǒ" doesn't sound like "fruit", or like any other suitable words I can think of. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Early use of name Chinese gooseberry
Apologies, refraining from editing at present, in the Trove Australian historic newspapers, earliest mention of CG is: A PIECE OF CHINA. (1859, August 1). Empire (Sydney, NSW : 1850 - 1875), p. 6. Retrieved September 18, 2025, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article60401713 Yang tao (the fruit) is mentioned later: "USEFUL WORK." Daily Standard (Brisbane, Qld. : 1912 - 1936) 2 June 1924: 5 (SECOND EDITION--3 p.m.). Web. 18 Sept 2025 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article198540049> For the record, earliest mention of the fruit "kiwi fruit" (note 2 words, which was the common usage) is: Advertising (1966, June 30). The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995), p. 25. Retrieved September 18, 2025, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article136930670 203.221.145.124 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in review by Zespri-affiliated authors
This 2018 review in the Euro J Nutrition was removed from the article out of concern that it promotes the New Zealand Zespri kiwifruit industry. One of the three authors is employed by Zespri, and the other two appear to be marketing consultants for Zespri, creating an apparent COI.
The publication is not a WP:MEDRS source, as it reviews only a few preliminary human studies mainly for evidence on the approved European Commission health claim: "Consumption of green kiwifruit contributes to normal bowel function by increasing stool frequency", which requires the caveat that 200 g of green kiwifruit be consumed daily (estimating that this is 3-4 peeled green kiwifruits per day).
The EJN review nevertheless makes elaborate statements that green kiwifruit is "highly nutritious" (an exaggeration: except for a high vitamin C content, it is unremarkable - see USDA nutrition tables and discussion in the article) and has "beneficial effects in gastrointestinal function in healthy individuals as well as in individuals with constipation and other gastrointestinal disorders" - this is conjecture and exaggeration because only stool frequency (overcoming constipation) is a clear enough effect to be acknowledged by EFSA and the EC.
Eating 3-4 kiwis per day for an extended period is an unlikely dietary regimen for most people just to have regular visits to the toilet. Zefr (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Why did you revert the last edit, I tried to stick to the best sources? Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- The best WP:MEDASSESS source is the approved EC health claim which encompasses all the available studies as reviewed by EFSA in their scientific opinion here. Zefr (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)