From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Tea is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 9, 2004.

Health and Herpes[edit]

The paragraph on destroying viruses is copied straight from the reference cited, which turns out to be a Watchtower tract which doesn't itself contain any references to the original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

European tea plantations[edit]

The article says, "The only European plantation is Cha Gorréana, located in Ribeira Grande, São Miguel island, Azores (Portugal)." How about the Black Sea coast of Georgia and Russia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also how about small-scale growers such as the Tregothnan estate in Cornwall? (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed info about Assam teas in the lead[edit]

The bit about Assam in the lead was poorly placed. I thought about moving it lower down, but realized it was just a copy-paste job from the article on Assam tea anyway. So, there's where it belongs. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Impact on neurotransmitters Dopamine and Norepinephrine[edit]

Drinking tea in moderation increases attention, motivation and a feeling of reward. Drinking in high doses induce hypertension, migraine like headache, nausea and clouding of thoughts, which is somewhat similar to puffing cigarettes. Is it solely because of the caffeine content? Or there is something else? Anyone knows more about the chemical side of tea and whether it has any MAO inhibitor properties? And how exactly it affects the neurotransmitters? What is the half life of the chemicals that affect the brain? Sub40Hz (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The main "active ingredients" in tea that you're describing are caffeine and theanine, which is similar to, and synergistic with, caffeine. I presume hypertension, aggrivation of migranes, etc is likely a result of caffine if it is true - do you have any sources for these claims? I also wonder if these side effects are a result of tea consumption at large, or perhaps limited to certain types of tea (e.g. the bergamot used in Earl Gray has a few potential side effects when consumed in huge quantity, and certain low-grade teas have been known to be contaminated with fluoride). In regards to nausea specifically, I presume this is an effect of tannin, though one would need an RS to support that. As far as the half-life of chemicals and their specific actions on the brain, those things are best reserved for the WP pages concerning the specific chemicals. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
also - no, tea is not an MAOI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalHoodoo (talkcontribs) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Tea wiki[edit]

Can be found here [1]. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Tea[edit]

It must be noted that Turkey possibly has the highest tea consumption per capita. Though it is one of the largest producers, it does not export much, so that says a lot. Someone should also add Turkish "çay" in the language chart. A few pictures of traditional tea kettles (double decked!), traditional tea glasses (thin waisted!) and semavers would be nice too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We would need an RS to support the "highest tea consumption per capita" claim; basing this upon the production & export figures is OR. However, if you can find any information, please add it! DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time[edit]

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting {{In Our Time|Tea|p004y24y|Tea}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Argentine "tea"[edit]

Is the herb called "te negro"--produced and consumed in Argentina--from Camellia sinensis plants? Although the taste has almost nothing in common with Assam, Ceylon or China black teas, Argentina is listed as a tea producer in this article.Torontonian1 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


While teaism is in The Book of Tea, I think the concept teaism deserves its own article, just like tea ceremony and tea culture. icetea8 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TEA DESSERTS I think it would be a good idea to add dishes and desserts to complete the article.(Lomopite (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Tea desserts and other foods using tea should be added. I like Japanese green tea ice cream!Pete unseth (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't recipes go into the Cookbook section of Wikibooks? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

primary tea processing[edit]

i understand this is not a chinese tea article and is for all teas, and most of my understanding is from chinese, so please explain other processing terms (where used, india,...). This process "curing" is called "added processing" and is not need to make the classification of the 6 teas, it can be added, for example a oolong that is roasted or not roasted is still an oolong and a puer aged or not aged is still a puer. If you put in (added processing)aging and roasting then you should also include scenting and spicing(flavoring). Please look at this graph.

Primary Tea Processing (no roasting, scenting, or spicing)

i am using tea jargon fermention/oxidation, when i mean microbe fermention i use piling. "green Puer青普: sun fixation曬青 > rolling揉捻 > sun drying曬乾 > at this point it is done and can be aged but it still is green puer the thing that makes a Puer is it has to be sun fixed, the aging is an added process, yes it should be aged but it does not have to be it is still a green puer at this point. and it can be compress into cakes. "dark tea黑茶and dark Puer熟普: sun fixation曬青 > rolling揉捻 > piling 渥堆 > sun drying曬乾" (dark and dark puer have sun fixation, regular green tea doesnt have sun fixation) "white tea白茶: withering (fermentation) 萎凋 > rolling揉捻 > drying乾燥" ( yes lightly oxidation, but white tea is not high heat fixated it is withered then rolled lightly then dried, many from in fuding china) "oolong tea烏龍茶: withering(with buising/tossing)萎凋 > fermentation發酵 > fixation殺青 > rolling揉捻 > drying乾燥"" (you are correct the tea is bruised usually several times, but the chart has sun withering this is not an important step to oolongs, many oolongs are made with indoor withering an example cool long time withering like anshi iron goddess) green tea綠茶: fixation殺青 > rolling揉捻 > drying乾燥(the fixation is usually pan fixation in china/taiwan and steam fixation in japan)

yellow tea黃茶: fixation殺青 > rolling揉捻 > sweltering悶黃 > drying乾燥(similar to green tea but has a added swealtering process no added heat the tea is piled up after fixation and rolling for short-time only made in the spring)

black tea紅茶: withering萎凋 > rolling揉捻 > fermentation發酵 > drying乾燥 (key point for all black teas is first rolled/ctc/rupture cell walls then fermention)

to create the varieties of tea we do not need the "curing/added process/加工" of roasting: for example if a green tea is roasted it still is a green tea like the japanese tea (Hōjicha/ほうじ茶/番茶). oolongs can be roasted but not necessary, same is for scenting and spicing. see below.

problems of translating: taiwan and many parts of china use 初製and 加工 differently so i will put what i mean by each below: added processing 加工, here i mean soming added after the tea is one of the main varieties and cant be changed again example like once it is a green tea it wont change into a black tea: re-drying覆火, aging 陳放 (by storing), roasting 焙火, scenting熏花, spicing調味 what is important is the primary processing: Primary Processing初製from fresh leaves 茶青not all are used: withering萎凋, fermentation發酵, fixation殺青,rolling揉捻,drying乾燥, 渥堆 piling, this is the process that make a tea black or white or other variety.

icetea8 (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point that should be addressed. I'll work on clarifying. However, this is only a general overview, and as such should use fairly common language and simple concepts (i.e. it should be easy to digest for people with no knowledge of tea at all). The finer points (raw vs. cooked puer, for example) can be addressed in the articles dedicated to puer tea, ooling tea, and so on... DigitalHoodoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

preparation section[edit]

Pu'er Tea 95 to 100 °C (203 to 212 °F) (Limitless????) Several limitless, really? icetea8 (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tea or Coffe[edit]

Is teine more excitant than cafeine? nuriamt (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2001

Teine and caffeine are the same molecule.HBMount (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ITC external link on trade data[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the specific product trade data held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database referring to the specific product 5) The addition of a link to reliable cotton trade data could provide an appropriate contribution to the piece of the article related to economics. Thank you for your attention.Divoc (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish for tea[edit]

Why is herbata included under derivatives of tea? While it seems obvious to me that it is not a native word, since few Polish words start with "h", it does not appear to have any etymological link to "tea". It seems more to do with herbs/herbal (from Latin languages). It should be listed as an isolate, one of the few if I'm not mistaken. (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Tom

Health claims[edit]

Many of the individual tea articles have claims of beneficial health effects and sometimes contradictory; they should be centralize here Health effects of tea, instead of riddled throughout the articles. icetea8 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Swedish: chai??[edit]

Not officially swedish word me thinks. Can be of course used for indian type tea for marketing as it in Finland too, but not a really swedish word, but foreign loan word. No dictionary gives that form as traditionally Swedish, like the Finnish traditional dialectical terms that come from Russian. Use as it is in the table just mixes the meaning so I will take it away. If somebody disagrees - you can explain this and the traditional use in Swedish language it has (if there is one, which I don't think there is). -- (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC) (E. Suhonen, A Finn, who speaks Swedish well) -

Also would ask if the chai is used in English for general tea and not just for Indian type of tea. I think if it is used just for Indian type of tea, it should not be in this table, because it again mixes the table for givin right imbression of the issue. Please remove it if it does not. -- (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC) (brevious)

You could make a bullet point remark at the section etymological observations. Just a suggestion. It explains the English word too, unfortunately unreferenced, so I wouldnt know. -- Cold Season (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hydroxycut confusion[edit]

The connection of Hydroxycut's reported side effects to the tea extract compound is irresponsible, and makes a claim that has no foundation or evidence: "liver damage, caused in part or completely by the presence of green tea extract in these supplements; the most notable cases include Hydroxycut[...]" Hydroxycut became popular first as a version of the bodybuilder's infamous trio: caffeine, ephedra, and Asprin: in this case guarana extract, ephedra extract, and white willow bark for the natural ASA. After ephedra was banned they switched to a blend of other popular ingredients: Garcinia cambogia, Gymnema sylvestre, chromium polynicotinate, caffeine, green tea- and Citrus Aurantium, which is inexplicably not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Hydroxycut. The studies cited only attribute a causal association between liver failure and Hydroxycut as a whole: there is no reason to single out Camellia sinensis as the culprit- and given that tea is exponentially the most widely-used ingredient that happens to appear in that formula (excepting caffeine), the likelihood of the tea (a minor ingredient in the capsules)being the problem is almost nil. The Citrus Aurantium (Bitter Orange) peel, used as a source of synephrine to replace ephedrine, is the most likely culprit, coupled with excessive caffeine. Add in the new Hydroxycut Advanced, and you're talking about at least three different formulations of the product- and given the timeline, it's likely that the liver failure cases were in customers who had literally NO tea in their capsules. Specifications per dose of Hydroxycut (2000mg):

   Guarana Extract....................910mg (containing caffeine)
   Citrus Aurantium....................300mg (containing synephrine)
   L-Carnitine.............................100mg (amino compound/quat)
   Salicin Complex.......................15mg (salicylate phytohormones)
   Chromium Picolinate..............300mg (niacin-bound chromium, a trace mineral).

In short, the Hydroxycut observations are misleading, have nothing to do with tea, and should be removed from the article. (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC) In fact, I'm doing it now, and until someone provides a shred of reputable evidence linking TEA (as a singular ingredient) with any cases of liver failure, it should stay out. Its presence here is absurd. (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Tea Drinking Lead to Urbanization?[edit]

Did Tea Drinking Lead to Urbanization? Something to mention in the article. Sourced from The Ghost Map, by Steven Johnson -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Deficits of tea bags[edit]

A lot of the claims about the problems with tea bags in the 'Packaging' section are un-cited assertions about the opinions of 'tea aficionados'. Claims like "The paper used for the bag can also be tasted by many" are, I think, inappropriate. Who are the 'many'? If these claims are the results of the author conveying his own sense of the anecdotal evidence he's been exposed to, that fails the Wikipedia verifiability guidelines. I propose deleting the sentences in that section that lack citations.

Ionocube (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography Section to "Further Reading"[edit]

My understanding is that a Bibliography section is not to list the sources cited in the notes, but to give "further reading." Also different from general references However Wikipedia:Further reading is under discussion. I have edited with this in mind. Hope this works!ch (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous verbage quoted from a biased source[edit]

the article states "Certain tea has more caffeine by weight than coffee; nevertheless, more dried coffee is used than dry tea in preparing the beverage,[24] which means that a cup of brewed tea contains significantly less caffeine than a cup of coffee of the same size.".

what does this sentence even mean? the wording does not make sense. what beverage? a tea beverage, which is what this article is about? i do not know by reading this. this statement contradicts itself, as well. because what it is saying is that, at the end, tea has less caffeine than coffee because, in the beginning of the sentence, certain teas have more caffeine than coffee.

If the statement means that tea has more caffeine, by weight, than coffee, yet people use a larger, heavier by weight amount of coffee grounds when brewing an 8 ounce cup of coffee than they do when brewing tea, -- right there! what? how do we know this is true? ...then the statement goes on to say that the tea, therefore has less caffeine than coffee does. One can assume the author meant that this occurs because people add more coffee grounds, by weight, than tea leaves, when preparing coffee and tea.

additionally, the quote, #24, came from the Stash tea company, which sells tea, and therefore has a biased view. Also, the link for the original source, #24, from Stash tea, is a dead link, so one could not verify this information. At this time, one may only ponder whether this statement is true, as it is not backed up by research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakrabrat (talkcontribs) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed it. Link rot and a webshop as reference... --Cold Season (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Temperatures in "Preparation"[edit]

The temperatures for each tea as listed in the chart vs each section for Oolong, Green, etc, differ, great enough to cause confusion. For example, the chart suggests Oolong should be brewed at temperatures between 80-85C, while the actual section for Oolong says 90-100C. That's a pretty big difference when it comes to tea, so which one is more accurate? Why is one section of the article not consistent with itself? (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ITC external link to trade data[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the specific product trade data held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database referring to the specific product 5) The addition of a link to reliable data could provide an appropriate contribution to the section of the article related to the economics of tea and its trade. Thank you for your attention.Divoc (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Role of Tea in Human Health[edit]

Consumption of tea is probably beneficial to health given its high antioxidant, flavanols, flavonols, and polyphenols content.[1][2][2] It also probably helps with mental state.[3] Tea now sounds confused about this healthy characteristic, and I'd like to redo the introduction to incorporate this information.32cllou (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Looking over the article, there is dated research in the body. If the introduction is updated, we need to fix much of the body.32cllou (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article's intro is very tight at the moment, and there is another article on the health effects of tea. Don't start major rewrites or revisions without considering where the best place for this information is going to be. Also, "dated research" is a little vague :) - what do you think is out of date? I have good access to current scholarly / medical databases, as well as a comprehensive knowledge of the plant and its preparation, so I would be very happy to help you clean it up or revise content if you're interested. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The subject needs lots of work too. I'll be careful to not expand the overall length of Tea, or overlap with health effects of tea. Read Wikipedia rules about how an introduction length should reflect the body length, so that will be kept that tight. I just spent a small fortune buying the articles to include, which is all recent research finding large reduction in various types of cancer risks, almost incredible blood sugar moderation and reduction of 2 diabetes incidence (looks better than taking the new medications), improved cognition, reduced risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s. Next time I'll ask you to provide the papers!! Let me rewrite with references, and see what you think. I'll review the health effects section before starting.32cllou (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC) There's lots of junk in that health effects sub32cllou (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Linking to other Wikipedia articles worked well and to very well done content. Now to add a little in tea main text.32cllou (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yikes, I'm sympathetic - scholarly information gets expensive indeed... but that's a social ill best described in other articles ;) If you're in the US, you might check your public library for access to paid databases - many PLs provide access from home, equal to university libraries (as a librarian, I have to shamelessly promote these kinds of services). Anyway... I haven't gone over it in quite a while, but I suspect the 'Health effects" article - like you said - needs a lot of work, and these types of article always need more citations and verifiable facts. The main article (this one) has a lot of good stuff to work with already, and needs mostly polish and careful pruning. For example, we have full articles for different tea classes and varietals, preparation, health effects, tea culture, and so on; a lot of that stuff is repeated here. I would be very happy to see better coordination between this page and those. These are a set of articles I enjoy editing (they don't have any thorny BLP issues, no extreme or polarizing political arguments... it's a nice change of pace), and I'm happy to see someone else interested in improving them. I'll be around in coming days to poke and prod (busy with non-WP research); in the meantime, be bold. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
A little early commentary on your recent changes (specifically your scrapping of the ~2k words in the old "health effects" subsection of this page) - be careful that you're not scrubbing out potential health drawbacks to tea consumption or overconsumption. They do exist, even if the positive effects outweigh them for most people. :) I'm happy to see the refs, though, and can't complain about including more positive research on my favorite beverage. I will be reinserting some of the deleted text, as it provides a significant counterpoint to the positive correlations in the Alzheimer's studies, etc. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Boy, I'd already forgotten my changes but it's easy to compare back. The "increases the risk for rheumatoid arthritis" (RA) side effect text I deleted in health effects was referenced with an unrelated yahoo news page, and I can't find any RA related drawbacks to tea consumption. Certainly not what was written there. Generally, I can't find any human studies finding actual ill side effects to tea consumption. None, save the caffeine component, which might be largely mitigated by cold steeping. Recent human studies find reduced heart disease, diabetes, and broad range of cancers risk. Might be antioxidant, might be anti-inflamatory action. Somehow blood sugar in moderated. Most of those studies seem to have been completed in the last 10 years, and they negate the older largely animal research. That's what I'll try to put in the main article, but it might be short because I don't really understand much of the journal language. That will make me conservative, not so bold. I'll check out our library, but using the PC there means waiting in line and using for 15 - 30 min max. Ugg, coordination between main and subs will take lots of brainpower. What's BLP? I do read some one sided articles in Wikipedia. Thanks for the be bold.32cllou (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple notable ill effects, though not necessarily from the tea itself. Fluoride is a big one, especially in Western China and other places that drink large amounts of lower grade tea containing high fluoride levels. There are a lot of "mights" in your claims here ("Might be antioxidant, might be anti-inflamatory action. Somehow blood sugar in moderated"); to me, this is a red flag that an editor might inadvertently slip into original research, or overstating the claims and conclusions of otherwise reliable source material. Note that I'm not accusing you of anything, and genuinely assume good faith - only asking that you be mindful. (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 20:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Quickfail rationale: This article has several cleanup banners (mostly citations needed) that should have been dealt with before GAN. Additionally, there are several paragraphs without citations, which makes it impossible to a reader (or reviewer) to verify the accuracy of the text. Furthermore, all sources in the "Health benefits" section should be checked to ensure they conform to WP:MEDMOS standards. Please ensure that future GAN candidates are up to standard by checking each against the guidelines; these ill-prepared submissions sap reviewer's time and are counterproductive. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Caffeine content of tea not prominent in article[edit]

I am surprised that Caffeine is not mentioned in this article until Paragraph 2 of Section 5. Much like coffee, surely tea owes its dominant position in modern culture to the stimulatory effect of its caffeine, and not to its health benefits. I would expect a mention of the caffeinated nature of tea somewhere in the opening section, which currently reads like a advertisement for tea drinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What does eg: OP, FOP, FBOP, SFTGFOP stand for?[edit]

I failed to find anything in this article that explains all "classifications" of teas, even teas of the same kind can have different "classifications", like:

  • Assam OP
  • Assam BOP
  • Assam SFTGFOP
  • Jasmine FBOP
  • And so on...

I think this is have something to do with the kinds of leaves in the tea, but I don't know what eg. FBOP is a abbreviation of, and what thing this abbreviation tries to explain. Thanks for answers, and can someone that knows also write a section in the article? --Sebbes333 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have found some information that I seek:
  • OP = Orange pekoe
  • FOP = Fine Orange pekoe
  • BOP = Broken Orange pekoe
  • FBOP = Fine Broken Orange pekoe
  • SFTGFOP = ? Fine ? Golden Flowery Orange pekoe
But I still have no clue what "Orange pekoe" means... --Sebbes333 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Orange pekoe? Deli nk (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thats what I mean, Thanks, I will correct the misspelling. --Sebbes333 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a page on Orange pekoe I haven't read it yet but I assume it explains. Roly (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers! --Sebbes333 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Origin and history[edit]

Somebody writes this in the origin and history section, "The first recorded drinking of tea is in China, with the earliest records of tea consumption dating back to the 10th century BC" and cited two sources for it. These two sources are similar, from another encyclopedia. I took a look at the two sources and none of them has the above info.

What the source says is "Tea was cultivated in China in prehistoric times and was probably first used as a vegetable relish (as it was in American colonies and still is in some parts of Asia) and medicinally. By the 8th cent., cultivation had begun on a commercial scale in China, and shortly thereafter, in Japan. The tea ceremony of Japan was introduced from China in the 15th cent. by Buddhists as a semireligious social custom. Tea was first imported into Europe by the Dutch East India Company in the early 17th cent., and its subsequent popularity played an important role in the opening of Asia to Western commerce."

It doesn't say the earliest record is in 10th century BC and by whom. Can anybody verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2012‎

Check again. From the Beverage section: "The tea brewed from the dried leaves of this plant has been drunk in China since perhaps the 28th century BC and certainly since the 10th century BC, from which time written records of its use survive." - M0rphzone (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


I've moved this from the article because of copyvio concerns. The reference has references of it's own that should be used if someone wants to try to include it reworded, to avoid WP:V and WP:OR problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For much of the twentieth century, methods of preparing and serving afternoon tea were the subject of much snobbery. In a letter to Nancy Mitford, a social commentator and great satirist of upper class behavior, the author Evelyn Waugh mentions a mutual friend who uses the expression 'rather milk in first' to express condemnation of those lower down the social scale. This expression was used by the Georgian and Victorian elite to deride their middle-class governesses for the practice of pouring milk into the cup first, dubbing them "milk-in-first misses." [4] In the British film Gosford Park the tension is depicted as continuing to exist; Lady Sylvia McCordle sneers at the police Inspector Thomson for putting the "milk in first" and in the film he quickly realises how the act demonstrates his social "inferiority" and becomes embarrassed. Nowadays the 'milk in first or tea in first' debate is altogether more light-hearted, but nonetheless everyone has his or her preferred method of making tea.[5]

I added that because that part was for a long time in the Tea (meal) article. When Logical Cowboy removed it, [2] with the motivation that it does not belong to the article tea as a meal, but rather to tea, I put that there, that´s all. Considering that it was in the article for a long time didn’t bother much to check it. I do not know who made the initial contribution. Hafspajen (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The word "tea"[edit]

This section is way too long and detailed. A lot of it is just language trivia and should be removed. I also don't think it makes sense for us to be listing every derivation of the word "tea" in every language. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about tea, not an article for a linguistic journal about the word. Some discussion of the word is appropriate, but this is just excessive. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The plain text before the tables is sufficient. The tables are going too far. Does anybody disagree? --Roly (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the section on the word is interesting--in fact, this is exactly the topic I was looking for. I can't find any evidence elsewhere, though, that 茶 is or ever has been pronounced "da" or "ta" in Japanese. Japanese dictionaries give only the pronunciations "cha" and "sa."˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahchambers (talkcontribs) 04:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Tea Varieties?[edit]

Is there a list of tea varieties? I cannot find one. I know there is a list in the tea infobox, but it is in no way complete, and there are plenty of tea variety articles not included in the infobox. Abbott75 02:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not Tea[edit]

Hi, I'm just wondering since theres a redirect in from Not Tea, wouldn't it be a good idea to stick a little note explaining not tea and a link in to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? I figured I would make a member and ask this on the talk page instead of just doing an edit to tea without geting anyone opinion Davnoctu (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I added the template. I hope you refer to the video game and not the whole franchise. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect dates / "success" of tea bags[edit]

"In 1953 (after rationing in the UK ended), Tetley launched the tea bag to the UK and it was an immediate success."

It certainly was not a success for many years.

I grew up during the 1960s and remember significant advertising for tea bags starting during the late 60s / early 70s. The general public reception was highly dismissive, with articles and interviews taking a somewhat scornful attitude towards tea in bags, rather than being prepared in teapots from loose tea - the traditional Englsh way. It was quite a few years, perhaps mid-70s, before tea bags were considered widely acceptable rather than just a cheap, low quality convenience. This view was held throughout all strata of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Korean and Japanese words for tea[edit]

In the text, it says "The Korean and Japanese word cha comes not from Cantonese but from the Mandarin chá." There are a couple of problems with this, firstly tea appeared in Korea and Japan long before what's called considered modern Mandarin appeared, even before Old Mandarin, therefore it is not clear what the sentence is trying to say. The language of the earlier period when many words were borrowed by the Korean and Japanese is called Middle Chinese (the way those words are pronounced is referred to as Sino-Xenic pronunciations). It also somewhat contradicts a later sentence where it says "Korean and Japanese, for example, retain early pronunciations of ta and da." (although according to the article, it can be pronounced both as da and cha). So did they change their pronunciation somewhere along the way, or was there a later borrowing of pronunciation? It is confusing, and needed clarification, I have therefore added citation needed tag to make sure that there are sources for those assertions. Hzh (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia appears to affirm that "ta" and "da" are alternative On'yomi readings of the kanji 茶, however it does not provide any citations. Per ja:茶#名称:
In other words, the Japanese pronunciation of "cha" first occurred within the dictionary titled ja:色葉字類抄, which was created in the Heian era. The Go'on reading is "da", Kan'on reading is "ta", and To'on reading is "sa". (Despite the names Go'on 呉音, Kan'on 漢音 and To'on 唐音, Go'on readings actually came from Korea, Kan'on readings from the Tang, and To'on readings from the Song.) --benlisquareTCE 14:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Since I don't read Japanese, perhaps you can help edit the appropriate part of the text? The citation needed tag can be removed. From this can I also assume that the sentence "The Korean and Japanese word cha comes not from Cantonese but from the Mandarin chá" is misleading and perhaps wrong? Maybe it should be rewritten as coming "from an older form of Chinese". Hzh (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Mandarin, as we know it today, existed during the Heian period. I'd think it's safe to say that the statement is a bit dubious. However -- that's assuming that everything the Japanese Wikipedia article says is correct. The Japanese Wikipedia has a track record of not having enough citations in general throughout its articles, and the very paragraph that I quoted from there has zero references. I'll leave the decision up to you, since I don't think we have enough verifiable information here. --benlisquareTCE 19:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I must apologize: earlier today I saw the comment, above, and before I realized it was a quote from the article and not simply an editor's words, I edited the quote and fixed the grammar in it. I changed "words" to "word" (because "cha" is one word, even if in two languages). Then I had to fix the verb to go with that singular subject; I changed "come" to "comes". Then I thought, even though it is still under discussion, I would made the same changes to the original statement in the article, but I couldn't find it. So, starting from the next comment, above, you've been discussing a slightly different version of the statement than was originally there. Sorry about that.CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I finally found the sentence. Here it is again:
"The Korean and Japanese words cha however come not from Cantonese but from an earlier form of Chinese."
If the wording is kept as it is, it appears that cha is one word; in that case "words" needs to be changed to "word" and "come" to "comes" (as I suggested above). An even better wording would be:
"The Korean and Japanese word for tea, cha, however, comes not from....", or
"However, the Korean and Japanese word for tea, cha, comes not from...."
Also, I think saying "comes not from Cantonese but from an earlier form of Chinese" suggests that Cantonese is not a dialect of Chinese. I read the discussion above, and I realize there are difficulties with naming what language or dialect it comes from, but I think something needs to be said. – CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It might be better described as "pronunciations" rather than "words". My knowledge of Korean and Japanese is extremely limited, but they appear to be same word in Hanja and Kanji, so I'm not sure if they can be considered different words. It appears that the word was borrowed into Japanese multiple times and acquired different pronunciations depending on when the word was borrowed. We can consider rewording it or deleting the sentence entirely and explain it further elsewhere. The Cantonese pronunciation appears to be only relevant for a later period in Chinese history (16th century onwards?) and not relevant to the period when the word tea went into Korean and Japanese usage when there was probably no Cantonese as we know it today. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The section on Japanese pronunciations remains very problematic. In practice, ta and da simply do not exist as words for tea in the Japanese language. Common general-purpose dictionaries such as Daijirin do not even mention them; ordinary Japanese people have never heard of them. The Japanese word for tea is cha, period, and the text currently that claims Japanese has words ta and da with cha as an 'alternative' is deeply misleading. Frankly, in the absence of a clear explanation, let alone a single reliable citation, it is not obvious that any of that belongs in the article; at best it seems to be a historical note on ancient usages that have not left any traces in the modern world. (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Expanding "Processing and classification" section[edit]

Section "Processing and classification" should be expanded. Yes, there is the "main article" link, but is too short anyhow.

(We have a very long The word "tea" section, for example, I think is even more important to be able to understand (a little better) the different kind of tea (which are often cited in this article) without moving to another article. -- (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you made the suggestion, but according to Wikipedia guidelines any expansion to information on tea processing should take place in that article, not here. This is done to avoid creation of what is known as a content fork and to prevent this article becoming too long for readers to navigate comfortably.  Philg88 talk 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Data incorrect in 'Production' Section?[edit]

The Visual Chart of Country Production is inconsistent with the Tabular data. India is listed as <20%, while Turkey is listed as > 20% of world production. This isn't consistent with the Tabular data which shows India producing > 20% and Turkey as < 20% of the world production. I do not know which one is correct, but the data should be aligned. (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Image galleries[edit]

Image galleries are needed to make this page more readable and more suitable for display on non-PCs.


This branch still has the intact gallery tags --

I have done a lot of overall maintenance with respect to tea related articles, but the article only recently has developed so many images that the need for their proper organization has become necessary.

Eyreland (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Role of Tea in Human Health: An Update". Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  2. ^ a b "Hot vs. cold water steeping of different teas: Do they affect antioxidant activity?". Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  3. ^ "L-theanine, a natural constituent in tea, and its effect on mental state". Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  4. ^ Austin, Jane (1813). Pride and Prejudice. Chapter XV of Volume III: T. Egerton, Whitehall. ISBN 9781426455377. 
  5. ^ UK Tea Council. "Milk in First or Tea in First". Tea Council website. Retrieved 21 November 2012.