Talk:Green tea

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

Unsourced section[edit]

moving here per WP:PRESERVE as this section is almost entirely unsourced. Per WP:BURDEN do not restore without adding reliable sources at the same time.

Green tea by country
China

Green tea is the most popular form of tea in China. Chinese green teas are made from over 600 different cultivars of the Camellia sinensis plant, giving plenty of variety and regional teas. Chinese green teas are traditionally pan-fired, unlike the Japanese steaming process. Other processes in China include oven-dried and sun-dried. Due to the different production process, Chinese teas are said to have a more "earthy" taste than Japanese teas.

  • Zhejiang Province is home to the most famous of all teas, Xi Hu Longjing (西湖龙井), as well as many other high-quality green teas.
Maybe the most well-known green tea in China; originates from Hangzhou (杭州), the capital of Zhejiang Province. Longjing in Chinese literally means dragon well. It is pan-fired and has a distinctive flat appearance. The tasteless frying oil is obtained from tea seeds and other plants. There are many fake Longjings on the market[1] and in less-scrupulous tea houses around the country.
Named after a temple in Zhejiang.
A tea from Kaihua County known as Dragon Mountain.
A tea from Tiantai County, named after a peak in the Tiantai mountain range.
A tea from Tian Mu, also known as Green Top.
This popular tea is also known as zhuchá, originates in Zhejiang but is now grown elsewhere in China. This tea is also the quintessential ingredient in brewing Maghrebi mint tea, which is brewed green tea with fresh mint.
A plate of Bi Luo Chun tea, from Jiangsu Province in China
A Chinese famous tea also known as Green Snail Spring, from Dong Ting. As with Longjing, inauthentic Bi Luo Chun is common and most of the tea marketed under this name may, in fact, be grown in Sichuan.
A tea from Nanjing.
originate in Jin Tan city of Jiangsu Province.
Camellia sinensis, the tea plant
  • Fujian Province is known for mountain-grown organic green tea as well as white tea and oolong tea. The coastal mountains provide a perfect growing environment for tea growing. Green tea is picked in spring and summer seasons.
A tea with added jasmine flowers.
Meaning "furry peak".
  • 翠剑 Cui Jian
Meaning "jade sword".
A steamed tea also known as Gyokuro (Jade Dew) in Japanese, made in the Japanese style.
An example of a Chinese green tea, called Mao Jian.
A Chinese famous tea also known as Green Tip, or Tippy Green.
Meaning "precious eyebrows"; from Jiangxi, it is now grown elsewhere.
A well-known tea within China and recipient of numerous national awards.
A tea also known as Cloud and Mist.
A tea from Huangshan also known as Big Square suneet.
A Chinese famous tea from Huangshan
A Chinese famous tea also known as Melon Seed
A Chinese famous tea also known as Monkey tea
A tea from Tunxi District.
A tea from Jing County, also known as Fire Green
Wuliqing was known since the Song dynasty. Since 2002, Wuliqing is produced again according to the original processing methods by a company called Tianfang (天方). Zhan Luojiu a tea expert and professor at the Anhui Agricultural University who revived its production procedure.
A medium-quality tea from many provinces, an early harvested tea.
Also known as Meng Ding Cui Zhu or Green Bamboo
A yellowish-green tea with sweet after taste.
  • 百美绿茶 Baimei Green Tea
A green tea from the Han Zhong.
Japan
Japanese green tea
Genmaicha
Aracha

Green tea (緑茶 Ryokucha?) is ubiquitous in Japan and is commonly known simply as "tea" (お茶 ocha?). Tea was first used in China, and in 1191, was brought to Japan by Myōan Eisai, a Japanese Buddhist priest who also introduced the Rinzai school of Zen Buddhism. Teas from Japan may be referred to as "Japanese tea" (日本茶 nihoncha?).

Japanese green teas are mainly made from Yabukita (やぶきた), a cultivar of the camellia sinensis plant. Unlike Chinese green teas which are pan-fired, Japanese green teas are steamed giving them a more "vegetative" or "leafy" taste. The exception is hōjicha, a Japanese roasted tea. Japanese green teas are categorized by the age of the leaves: young leaves are called sencha[citation needed] and the more mature, larger leaves are called bancha. Types of tea are commonly graded depending on the quality and the parts of the plant used as well as how they are processed.[2] There are large variations in both price and quality within these broad categories, and there are many green teas that fall outside this spectrum. Here shows well-known tea-growing districts in Japan; Shizuoka Prefecture (Shizuoka-cha, the largest yield in Japan), Uji tea (宇治茶 Uji-cha) from Uji region of Kyoto Prefecture, Yame (八女 yame?) region of Fukuoka Prefecture (Yame-cha), Kagoshima Prefecture (Chiran-cha).

The first and second flushes of green tea made from leaves that are exposed directly to sunlight. This is the most common green tea in Japan. The name describes the method for preparing the beverage.
Sencha, which, in the processing of the leaves, has been steamed two times longer than usual Sencha, giving it a deeper color and producing a fuller flavor in the beverage.
Gyokuro is a fine and expensive type that differs from Sencha (煎茶) in that it is grown under the shade rather than the full sun for approximately 20 days.[3] The name "Gyokuro" translates as "jade dew" and refers to the pale green color of the infusion. The shading causes the amino acids (Theanine) and caffeine in the tea leaves to increase, while catechins (the source of bitterness in tea, along with caffeine) decreases, giving rise to a sweet taste.[4] The tea also has a distinct aroma.
Kabusecha is made from the leaves grown in the shade prior to harvest, although not for as long as Gyokuro. It has a more delicate flavor than Sencha. It is sometimes marketed as Gyokuro.
Tamaryokucha has a tangy, berry-like taste, with a long almondy aftertaste and a deep aroma with tones of citrus, grass, and berries. It is also called Guricha.
Lower grade of Sencha harvested as a third- or fourth flush tea between summer and autumn. Aki-Bancha (autumn Bancha) is not made from entire leaves, but from the trimmed unnecessary twigs of the tea plant.
Kamairicha is a pan-fired green tea that does not undergo the usual steam treatments of Japanese tea and does not have the characteristic bitter taste of most Japanese tea.
  • By-product of Sencha or Gyokuro
A tea made from stems, stalks, and twigs. Kukicha has a mildly nutty, and slightly creamy sweet flavor.
  • Mecha (芽茶?, buds and tips tea)
Mecha is green tea derived from a collection of leaf buds and tips of the early crops. Mecha is harvested in spring and made as rolled leaf teas that are graded somewhere between Gyokuro and Sencha in quality.
  • Konacha (粉茶?, (coarse) powdered tea)
Konacha is the dust and smallest parts after processing Gyokuro or Sencha. It is cheaper than Sencha and usually served at Sushi restaurants. It is also marketed as Gyokuroko (玉露粉?) or Gyokurokocha.
  • Other
A fine ground tea made from Tencha. It has a very similar cultivation process as Gyokuro. It is expensive and is used primarily in the Japanese tea ceremony. Matcha is also a popular flavor of ice cream and other sweets in Japan.
Half-finished products used for Matcha production. The name indicates its intended eventual milling into matcha. Because, like gyokuro, it is cultivated in shade, it has a sweet aroma. In its processing, it is not rolled during drying, and tencha, therefore, remains spread out like the original fresh leaf.
Bancha (sometimes Sencha) and roasted genmai (brown rice) blend. It is often mixed with a small amount of Matcha to make the color better.
A green tea roasted over charcoal (usually Bancha).
Half-finished products used for Sencha and Gyokuro production. It contains all parts of the tea plant.
First flush tea. The name is used for either Sencha or Gyokuro.
Milled green tea, used just like instant coffee. Another name for this recent style of tea is "tokeru ocha," or "tea that melts."
Korea
Green tea
Korea-Boseong-Green.tea-09.jpg
Hangul 녹차
Hanja
Revised Romanization nokcha
McCune–Reischauer nokch'a
IPA [nok̚.tɕʰa]
Further information: traditional Korean tea

Green tea, called nokcha (녹차; 綠茶) in Korean, can be classified into various types based on several different factors. The most common is flush, or the time of year when tea leaves are plucked.

  • cheotmul-cha (첫물차; "first flush") or ujeon (우전; 雨前; "pre-rain")
    Ujeon tea leaves, of "a bud", "a bud and a leaf", or "a bud and two leaves" stage, are plucked before gogu (around 20–21 April when the Sun reaches the celestial longitude of 30°).
  • dumul-cha (두물차; "second flush") or sejak (세작; 細雀; "thin sparrow"), also called jakseol (작설; 雀舌; "sparrow tongue")
    Sejak tea leaves, of "a bud and three leaves" stage, are plucked after gogu. The name jakseol was given as the tea leaves are plucked when they are about the size of a sparrow's tongue. The leaves plucked during the seven days starting from gogu is also referred to as gogu (곡우; 穀雨.
  • semul-cha (세물차; "third flush") or jungjak (중작; 中雀; "medium sparrow")
    Jungjak tea leaves, of "a bud and three leaves" stage, are plucked in May.
  • kkeutmul-cha (끝물차; "final flush") or daejak (대작; 大雀; "big sparrow")
    Daejak tea leaves are plucked in June and after.

The mode of preparation also differs:

  • ipcha (잎차; "leaf tea") or yeopcha (엽차; 葉茶; "leaf tea")
  • malcha (말차; 末茶; "powder tea") or garucha (가루차; "powder tea")
  • tteokcha (떡차; "cake tea") or byeongcha (병차; 餠茶; "cake tea")
  • jeoncha (전차; 錢茶; "money tea") or doncha (돈차; "money tea")

Leaf teas are processed either by roasting or steaming.

  • deokkeum-cha (덖음차; "roasted tea") or jeungje-cha (부초차; 麩炒茶; "roasted tea")
    Roasting is the most common and traditional way of tea processing in Korea. Roasted tea leaves are richer in flavour.
  • jeungje-cha (증제차; 蒸製茶; "steamed tea")
    Tea prepared with steamed tea leaves are more vivid in colour.

Southern, warmer regions such as Boseong in South Jeolla Province, Hadong in South Gyeongsang Province, and Jeju Island are famous for producing high quality tea leaves.

  • Banya-cha (반야차; 般若茶; "prajñā tea")
    a steamed tea variety developed by Buddhist monks in Boseong. The tea is grown on sandy loam near mountains and sea.
  • Illohyang (일로향; 一爐香; "bamboo dew tea")
    a roasted tea variety developed by O'sulloc, using young tea leaves grown in Jeju
  • Jungno-cha (죽로차; 竹露茶; "bamboo dew tea")
    a roasted tea variety, made of tea leaves grown among the bamboo in Hadong

Green tea can be blended with other ingredients.

  • hyeonmi-nokcha (현미녹차; 玄米綠茶; "brown rice green tea")
    nokcha (green tea) blended with hyeonmi-cha (brown rice tea)
  • remon-nokcha (레몬 녹차; "lemon green tea")
    nokcha (green tea) blended with lemon
Other countries

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

discussion[edit]

Agree entirely. The article has become a burdensome indiscriminate collection of Asian sources, with seemingly endless, unverifiable calligraphy not useful for the English encyclopedia. WP:IINFO and WP:V are violated. Some calligraphy could prevail for origins, but most of it among this long list should go. --Zefr (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand that this your statement is obviously racist? Cathry (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not a matter of race but of language and content per this. This is the English encyclopedia for people who read English. The native speakers of Asian languages have other sites to visit shown in the link. --Zefr (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
this wikipedia can use sources in any language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources Cathry (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It can but that misses the issue that the content is almost entirely unsourced. Wikilinks are not sources; WP itself is not a reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
There are mostly links to rs in wp articles, as already said. Also, you deleted "Heiss, Mary Lou; Heiss, Robert J. (2007), The Story of Tea: A Cultural History and Drinking Guide" with text, which may be source to deleted info. Cathry (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If there are refs there, then it will be not that much work to bring them here. You need to do that if you want to restore any content above. Yes, the bits of content that are reliably sourced can be restored. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Cathry about this and this, as I noted here and here, if you add content to WP you must supply a source when you add it, per WP:BURDEN. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me there is some loss of value in deleting all this material (though of course it has been preserved here, and I found it!). Namely: it used to provide a structure for understanding the variety of green teas that exist. After removal, there is a completely unstructured separate list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_teas but that is Chinese only: nothing else for varieties of Japanese green tea. I am not the right person to start restoring: I am someone who buys curious teas and then tries to look up information on the names. Other sources seem to be mainly vendors' websites, which describe what they are selling: probably not Reliable Sources, but actually on the tea I have today (Kokeicha) they all say the same thing, that it is compressed & reformed Matcha, which is interesting information.

Looking at wine for comparison, I see I can go down from Wine to Bordeaux Wine, ... and get to Cotes de Bourg (for example) but no further on Wikipedia (not to individual vinyards). It seems to be that having something similar for green tea would be reasonable. So I guess I am hoping that someone with more knowledge picks this up and identifies sources for the list. They may all be in the deleted reference "The Story of tea" but that is published on paper and my enthusiasm does not extend to buying a copy. Alan-24 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that there's a loss of value in the deletion. Sure, it takes time to gather up all the sources for the info and clean up everything that can't be sourced, but for the most part the overview is quite useful as a way to reach the more detailed articles, some of which have the sources we want. Now the article fails to serve one of the main purposes I would expect it to serve, and is totally lopsided. It would have been better to resolve the issue incrementally rather than blast the whole thing away all at once, which is lazy and forces somebody else to do the real work of writing, sourcing, and editing. --diff (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Everyone is free to find reliable sources and rebuild. Per WP:BURDEN. Wasting time complaining is just that; wasting time. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that using time to find sources to reintroduce this material is a better use of time. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says the burden is on the original author(s) who wrote the material to source it properly. It doesn't say the burden is on other editors who happen to work on that subject area. The way the article was before, with the problem tagged, said editors were "free to find reliable sources" whenever they could find the time for it. Now you're forcing them to do so as quickly as possible so the article can be usable again, because right now it's rather worthless and fails to adequately cover the subject, as has been pointed out. If you'd just brought it up on the talk page, you could've easily rounded up an editor or two to fix the section, instead of blanking it and making the article useless in the meantime. Anyway, what's done is done and I will volunteer to do some of the work on this. If someone else can help on the Japanese side of things, I can cover the Chinese section. --diff (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Progress[edit]

Got a start on sourcing and cleaning up the China subsection today. Just a blurb and a list of links for now so people can get to the detail articles, but there should be enough in the sources to put together a sentence or two for each tea in the list in the second pass. I've also removed all the teas that either didn't seem notable enough or just didn't have solid enough sources readily available. If nobody wants to work on the Japan and Korea subsections, I could try my hand at those too, but it would be better to have someone with more knowledge in those areas. --diff (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

China and Korea are basically done (thanks Epulum). Still need Japan and other countries, so I moved the stub template down into those subsections. --diff (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

CJK characters[edit]

Since we don't seem to have established consensus in the previous discussion, and I don't want to start an edit war in the Korean subsection, I wanted to bring this up again. MOS:CHINESE explicitly says that when a term is wikilinked to an article that defines the Chinese characters for that term, the characters should not be provided again. If you want to see them, you can just click the link and go to the article. I like this policy quite a bit. I recognize that this policy doesn't apply to Korean or Japanese but the same reasoning applies. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We already have Wiktionary for that. The article text flows much better when you can focus on the actual content, not individual word translations. Long lists are already potentially problematic for flow, multiscript parentheticals inside lists are even worse. The literal definitions of the characters are even more irrelevant. We're already describing what the thing is, in plain English. If there's a wikilinked article, I would argue just use the WP:COMMONNAME, give a short description with citation, and that's it. Only if it's not wikilinked would I include the Korean language template for a term at all, but that's assuming we really need the term, and in many cases, we don't. For example, do we really need to define (multiple!) Korean terms for roasted tea, steamed tea, loose leaf tea, etc.? After all, we use the English language terms to describe these very things for teas from other cultures with no problem. --diff (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mortality risk[edit]

Is this section ok from the WP:MEDRS perspective? If so, I´ll consider buying some. The sources are [1] and [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mortality risk

Daily consumption of green tea is significantly associated with a lower risk of death from any cause; an increase of one cup of green tea per day is linked with a 4% lower risk of death from any cause.(ref name="Tang2015"/) A separate analysis found an increase of three cups of green tea per day was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause.(ref name="Zhang2015"/)

The citations are both high-quality MEDLINE-indexed secondary sources (in this case systematic reviews/meta-analyses, granted of observational studies but at least they're prospective) and both of them are from journals with respectable impact factors. One reason to take the information with a grain of salt is that both studies came out of China and there have been concerns with study data being falsified there but otherwise these references are certainly MEDRS-compliant. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The content should be tweaked to note that these are correlations only. There are boatloads of potential confounders (like other lifestyle choices) with studies like this. Will make those tweaks. Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
True, the RRs had high heterogeneity so the confidence in these estimates is still shaky but stating that would be our interpretation of the cited SRs and thus WP:OR. We need secondary sources to interpret it and reflect what they say. I agree there are significant limitations to the available data used in these studies. These limitations come with the nature of observational evidence (though they're marginally better for using prospective cohorts out of observational evidence). Of course, SRs/MAs of RCTs would be preferable but there aren't any that address this specific aspect of green tea consumption yet. I check PubMed SRs/MAs now and again to see if anything new has popped up but not yet. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The abstract for the second ref (Zhang 2015) does not say green tea, only "tea". Does anyone have access to the complete PDF? If the article is about tea it cannot be used as a reference for this entry. Green tea and tea have major differences in polyphenol types and total content. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that the abstract does not explicitly specify green tea but it does within the article. I have access to the whole PDF (you can email me if you would like a copy) but here is the pertinent quote from the article verbatim: "Similarly, we found that a 3 cups per day increase in the consumption of tea was associated with a reduced risk of cardiac death if the participants were women, Asian, European, or consumption of green tea; an increase of 3 cups of tea per day was associated with a reduced risk of stroke if the participants were men, Asian, or consumption of green tea; an increment in tea con- sumption by 3 cups per day was associated with a reduced risk of total mortality if the participants were women, Asian, or consumption of green tea. (my bold)"
Thanks for sharing this, TylerDurden8823. So this is our source for "A separate analysis found an increase of three cups of green tea per day was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause." It seems to say that "total mortality" concerns people who are asian (and? or?) women, so perhaps we should be more specific too. Also, tea/green tea seems to have the same effect here, so we should change the text to "three cups of tea or green tea", otherwise we imply that green tea has this effect but tea doesn´t. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
We should specify green tea. Many studies have found that green tea and other teas (e.g., black tea) do not have the same effect when looking at certain outcomes and do have similar effects when looking at others (so it depends on what is being discussed). In this case, I think we should be specific. I have no objection to specifying that the separate analysis found this association in Asian people and women. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Not in that sentence with that source we shouldn´t. The source (at least the part quoted) treats green tea as more of an afterthought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree with that assessment. That's mere speculation on your part. We don't know that the authors were thinking that so it's merely interpretation which falls afoul of WP:OR. Also, "from any cause" refers to all-cause mortality (please note this is a very frequently used term in the medical literature). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"Afterthought" might be a sloppy choice of words, how about "not more prominent than" (in this context). If "from any cause" is the usual term that´s ok, of course. My thinking was that to a lay-person such as myself it can (but probably won´t) be read as including things like murder and lightningstrikes, this article is not medical literature. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The article in its entirety is not but the section in question is about its health-related properties. All-cause mortality is a very common and well-accepted synonym for total mortality. I think your rephrasing/revised word choice here on the talk page is more consistent with how I would read it. Of course, further study will be required before firm conclusions about green tea consumption and total/all-cause mortality can be reached. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Japanese tea[edit]

Just making a quick note that the redirect Japanese tea points to a nonexistent section of this article, but it may be better to spin off a separate article for that. Since most Japanese teas are green teas, I can understand why the redirect was there, but surely Japanese teas are worthy of an article of their own, since there are already articles for the individual teas. Right now there is no good place on Wikipedia to find a good overview on the subject of Japanese teas. --diff (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a doable article, I also miss Indian tea. We do have History of tea in Japan and History of tea in India. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)