Talk:Barley tea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

alcoholic?[edit]

Just curious, is this drink alcoholic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.129.137.114 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Not at all. It's just roasted barley that's boiled. It's a simple, tasty drink that refreshes without added sugars, chemicals, colorings, or fizz. I drink it quite diluted, as my Korean friends do. They call it cold "water". The first time I asked for water and they gave me this drink, I thought there was rust in their faucet! But after tasting, it's become my favorite! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.162.224 (talkcontribs) 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
for folks who havent tasted this, it is somewhat reminiscent of very diluted coffee (so diluted that you can see through it) although i think it's better than that. And roasted barley is used in coffee substitutes probably for this reason. I agree that it is refreshing when cold during the summer, but I find that some Euro-Americans like it but others dont (so it's kind of hit or miss). It is served in Japanese hospitals for its health benefits (as mentioned in the article). – ishwar  (speak) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning that in Korea this is served somewhat lukewarm in winter, although you can certainly request it hot. In that case, the waitstaff will just microwave it for you. Consider it more a water substitute than a separate beverage served along with water at a meal. Note that tea preparation can kill off bacteria and other bio-contaminant, and such a step was prudent during the more unstable part of Korea's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.228.33 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This reference url (ttp://ezinearticles.com/?Tea--Can-Tea-Reduce-Your-Stress-Level?&id=476929) is blocked as spam at contribution. Therefore I removed it from article. --Nightshadow28 17:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

  • Move to Roasted barley tea. Neutral title will accomodate both Japanese and Korean varieties under a single title, as the beverage is quite similar between the two countries. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this makes more sense to me. The words mugi cha or mugi or bori cha or bori are generally not known to English speakers — quite unlike sushi and kimchi which are clearly English words now (although you may have to be in the know a little to know kimchi). – ishwar  (speak) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious, do Chinese drink the "tea"? And also in Gone With the Wind, Scarlet drunk a roasted corn tea or something like that instead of coffee, so is there any chance American people in the southern part drinking that kind of "tea"?--Appletrees (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I think there is a roasted barley tea in America, used as a coffee substitute. This would be all very good and important to follow up on. It would also seem strange if Japanese and Koreans had a drink that Chinese never thought of, so let's check on that too. Badagnani (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in Chinese it's dàmàichá (大麥). These websites mention it in Chinese culture:

Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and I thought "roasted barely tea" is a neologism but the site shows the name. --Appletrees (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In http://www.teashopchina.com/en/cp/Barley_Tea_300gms "Roasted Barley Tea" is the product name and in its description is "roasted Barley Tea". The picture there also shows "BARLEY TEA" along with its Chinese name. Unless there are other kinds of barley tea that make the term ambiguous, shorter "barley tea" is preferable. --Kusunose 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without roasting the unhulled barley, a very light liquid similar to the liquid produced when cooking rice is produced--which is not very flavorful or desirable to drink. I believe keeping "roasted" makes it more clear that the beverage is always prepared from pre-roasted barley, and for the Chinese package I believe it's understood that this tea is made from roasted barley, even if the word "roasted" doesn't appear on the package. Badagnani (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If shorter "barley tea" is commonly used for this "tea" and there are no other kinds of beverage that is called "barley tea", "roasted" part is not necessary, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Is "barley tea" ambiguous that need to be disambiguated? --Kusunose 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barley tea is always roasted before boiling, and thus "roasted" is a very important component to the title. Badagnani (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to explain it in the article but I disagree that it is an important component to the title. If simply saying "barley tea" is understood as reference to this beverage, "roasted" is redundant. WP:COMMONNAME states titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. --Kusunose 05:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once Badagnani said, some people in English speaking world people traditionally drink the beverage, we should consider using the name first. In case, searching and presenting reliable sources is required before quarrelling. --11:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"a coffee substitute in the United States" is called "Barley Coffee", according to the reference. Are you suggesting to use that term? --Kusunose 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I say that gathering sources to back up each other's claim is required first? You're speaking a totally different story. --23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Presence of Cancer-Causing Acrylamide[edit]

Does anyone have a cite for a study showing the level of Acrylamide found in Mugicha? There is mention of the high level of this cancer-causing compound in the generic “Roasted Grain Beverage” article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roasted_grain_beverage#Safety so I thought it would be a good idea to include a section here on the possible health hazards of consuming Mugicha.

The FDA has tested numerous foods for the presence of Acrylamide and one of the test samples with the highest overall levels was Postum, also a roasted grain beverage. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/acrydata.html Since the manufacturing processes are similar, it may be safe to suspect that Mugicha has very high levels as well.

It would be nice to have a specific study, however, before adding a section on Mugicha’s potential cancer-causing properties.Mingus19 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an important issue to cover with many other foods as well, such as roasted buckwheat kasha. Badagnani (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation of spam[edit]

Please do not allege that another long-time, productive Wikipedian is adding "spam" to Wikipedia articles. The link, as we do with any cuisine-related page, serves to illustrate an example of the commercial product described, and to serve as a source proving that such a commercially produced roasted barley beverage exists. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Badagnani (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the source fails WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:SOAP. The information is also already included elsewhere in the article, making it redundant. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your testimony does not hold up. It's clear that you removed the fact that the product is ground, as well as that it commercially available in this form. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and always keep our readers foremost in our minds when we edit. Providing no source showing such a commercial product does a disservice to our readers and in fact sheds doubt on the fact that such a commercial product even exists, which is why we use sources in the first place. As mentioned earlier, this is typical of cuisine-related articles, where there is often little documentation in newspapers, books, etc. of particular products or recipes. The link is not any form of "spam" but simply serves to illustrate the product described in the article, and serve as a source that such a product exists. Badagnani (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you seek further comments on this or otherwise follow up per WP:DR, and review WP:TALK and WP:AGF before you do so. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. this is not the first occasion to witness the insistence. Either of you, why don't you just provide other reliable links to back up for the claim that "barely coffee is a substitute for coffee". Well, the commercial link with no further information actually falls under the criteria as a "spam". Reliable sources are required. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the claim, which is already mentioned at the beginning of the article, "It is also used as a caffeine-free coffee substitute in American cuisine." My concern is the link, especially combined with the needless repetition of the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I clarify my stance. I think that link is a spam. I would add a reliable link as a replacement instead of it.--Caspian blue (talk)
I think the link is inappropriate per WP:SPAM as well. I suggest Badagnani follow WP:DR rather than edit-war over it. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research[edit]

I found what appears to be the source for the second sentence, but didn't verify the info.

Both the studies mentioned should be presented per WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Discussion of a merge can be held in a different section separate of this RM, though it's not recommended. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Roasted barley teaBarley tea – Is there any other kind of barley tea? Grains are usually roasted to make tea. Brown rice tea is made from roasted brown rice. Corn tea is made from roasted corn kernels. Besides, all of the native language words listed in the page (Chinese 大麦茶, Japanese 麦茶, and Korean 보리차) literally mean "barley tea". Luxvn (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – per WP:CONCISE, as the shorter name adequately defines the subject. As an frequent drinker of the stuff, I can say that it is usually sold as "barley tea", and not as "roasted barley tea". For example, look at the packaging of the common 'House' brand. RGloucester 16:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but any consideration of the page title needs to include the question of whether barley water is in fact a separate topic. If it's not the same thing, the title should be sufficiently distinct to make this clear. If it is the same, the title should be whatever is most inclusive. I would note that neither page specifically discusses grain-based coffee substitutes, which are yet another category of non-alcoholic barley beverage. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and RGloucester. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with either the move or the current title, but this article should probably be merged into barley water. There's not much material in either and they both cover the same thing. —  AjaxSmack  20:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move to barley tea. But barley water is a very different drink, so I would oppose a merger of the two articles. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, oppose merge. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONSENSE. Oppose merge. That's a different (content and scope) discussion, and not a WP:RM (titles) matter. Aside from the procedural objection, I agree they're different topics.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.