Talk:Green tea/Archive 1

For Consideration
It might be appropriate to link directly to the Oregon State University paper than a secondary write-up, in place of ref #24. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/jun/mechanism-discovered-health-benefit-green-tea-new-approach-autoimmune-disease — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.220.164 (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Snobbery?
Both in the caption of the photo and within this discussion, gunpowder tea has been referred to as being low-grade (particularly Twinings). Is this an objective measure, or simply a matter of subjective and arguable taste?

No... its just bitter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.211.38 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would call it astringent, and it can be curbed with lower temperatures and or steep times. However, Gunpowder is usually a cheaply priced tea. I don't know how tea is graded though. Tea culture, particularly in the West is full of "snobbery." Taste is always subjective. DaBOB (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to keep this page as objective as possible. Without citing a reliable source, I think it is inappropriate to talk about something being high-grade or low-grade.  These words can sometimes have objective meaning (as when referring to grading based on the size of tea leaves) but they can also be WP:Weasel Words.  Many tea companies have a financial interest in maintaining the culture of tea snobbery, and thus, I think no tea company qualifies as a reliable source for this purpose.  Cazort (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

- It is easy to cite export price range of most tea varieties if this is counted as a point of objective description of whether a variety is high grade or low grade. However, I think this would be destructive to the tea trade. In terms of pricing, gunpowder, at least those accessible in the West, are almost entirely number graded products that are not even in the grade levels of 1 to 10. Most certainly one can argue that they taste as great as any so called high grade tea, if such comment can be of any objectivity at all. Even rare quality gunpowder productions are never as high price as normal grade teas of traditional origin, because the "gun-powder" as a green tea form has a bad reputation of being an export only product.

In terms of production quality, all export grade gunpowder products are very cheaply made to cater for the low price demand by importers in Middle East and the West, some of whom always threat to import from some other third world countries where they can squeeze even much lower price. Producers who can produce products that can fetch better price do not produce this tea. As a result, the production of gunpowder remains in regions which are conditionally restrained to low grade tea.

Therefore, I advise letting the comment of gunpowder being a low grade tea remain. Bill Ukers (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

When to avoid green tea
Suggest this topic be limited only to actual RESEARCH done on the subject -- just as the green tea health benefits described seem to be limited to Western research. The only research I have seen related to avoiding green tea is during pregnancy, not the other conditions previously noted.

Japanese Characters
It is unneccesary to include the Chinese/Japanese characters for words in the English language version of this topic. Providing them adds nothing of value to the article. --will381796


 * I think conterary, there is no reason to remove and I am asking for a revert. If someone wants to search google.com using a googles translator the characters are important in finding the tea. Hence I am reverting because the article has been needlessly. Due to the range of names given to tea the chinese characters can be important in more ways than one. --Iateasquirrel 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the article but preserved the changes that were not removal of Chinese characters. --Iateasquirrel 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You should note, however, that most English-speaking users don't have the font installed on their computer (or read Chinese/Japanese), making the characters appear as nothing more than annoying question marks. Perhaps some kind of note to readers that if they want to see the characters, they must have the Japanese font installed on their computer? I still fail to see how having the Japanese characters can provide any useful information to an English speaker, considering that this is the English version of the article. English-language encyclopedias do not provide foreign language characters for names that exist in their language. --will381796 17:03 03 October 2005 (CST)


 * Modern operating systems do have East Asian fonts installed by default. Japanese and Chinese names rendered in roman letters alone are usually not understandable, you need the characters to be able to understand the meaning.  Anyway, the Manual of Style for both Japanese and Chinese says to include the characters for Japanese/Chinese concepts.


 * I will, however, note that the characters are unnecessary here if they can be found in a more specific article. Jpatokal 11:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Jpatokal, I merely reverted the article because the removal of content was without any discussion; The space taken up in the article is generally (not technically) visually un-noticable and most computers have Asian fonts installed (I am using Mozilla on FreeBSD and it works without any extra configuration; it certainly works on IE) however such browsers as Links in graphical X11 mode fail to render the characters. Its really a matter of a balanced choice? What is more suitable to an article. --Iateasquirrel 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In general, as a matter of English Wikipedia-wide policy, English language Wikipedia articles should not include Chinese characters, Japanese, etc. unless these can be shown to be relevant. For my part, I've removed Japanese characters from articles like Japanese language where they clearly weren't relevant and had just been added by someone wanting to show off his "kanji powers". In an article on green tea, Chinese characters and Japanese characters need extremely heavy justification which I don't see. Whether they can be displayed or not is totally irrelevant; most English speaking users can't read them anyway, and they often represent a kind of meddling, silly mentality of the same sort that goes around adding pointless, silly links to dates like 1955 even when the link goes nowhere relevant to the article; again note that this is contrary to the Wikipedia convention. In short I agree with the user who removed the Chinese and Japanese. --DannyWilde 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it Wikipedia rules or merely a type of polite-ness that a discussion takes place before any types of edits? I was under the impression that if we see something that should be changed, we should change it as long as it is a good edit that does not harm the article. I shouldn't have to start a discussion regarding removal of the Japanese or Chinese characters as long as the reasons behind its removal are stated, which I did. There seems to be some agreement that the foreign characters have no place in an English-language article. In regards to your comment about the fonts, I use both Firefox and Internet Explorer and neither of these browsers have the characters on default, and I have the most up to date version of Windows XP. So obviously, unless you go into your settings have have the fonts installed, they will not be present. I will remove the foreign characters again. will381796 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, this argument has been over for a long time. But East Asian Fonts (Japanese and Chinese characters) are isntalled by default.  You usually have to unselect a check box in Windows XP to not see them.  Also installed by default in Vista.  I am definitely a fan of the chinese characters for topics that relate to China, but that is probably because I study Chinese and my free time and it is a quick way to find out such things as geographic names, official name of china, etc.  Tony, 20 September 2009.


 * Though I shall not argue since it is probably correct. Did you check that the character were listed on each of the tea pages before you deleted them? It is however very important that you dont give people the impression to go around and delete the Chinese characters from individual tea pages where there is heavy justification. The clear message should be that no more characters are removed in individual tea pages. --Iateasquirrel 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also just to note that I just checked and its not yet correct to remove the characters on Oolong page (because they are not fully incorporated into articles, yet) and Black tea (because there is nothing major there anyway).

I am highly critical of what DannyWilde is saying in that they are pointless and I hope that he agrees that Chinese characters are very useful on in-depth tea pages as they often allow a user not knowing Chinese to search using a translator (such as Google Translate) for tea pages in Chinese and with the more obscure varities this is often very relevant. --Iateasquirrel 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Chinese characters might be useful here for the names of the teas, for regions of China or Japan, specifically Japanese or Chinese varieties of tea, etc. But the top of the page should not say "green tea 緑茶" any more than the page on milk should say "milk 牛乳". In all cases, use common sense to decide what is necessary for a general English speaking audience, with the premise that we are writing an encyclopedia article. --DannyWilde 00:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For an individual tea page, I still don't think that the characters should be included. The english pronunciation of the chinese/japanese word...sure. But once again, what does having the symbol in the english language version add? Nothing. But I won't take action on the more specific pages. will381796 01:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You still fail to understand that they must be included, for the purposes of identification and web searching. Your word action is very appropriate; you certainly wont take action. I fail to see what this is doing, you should be adding content to the tea pages. No offense required but scholarly argument over a topic you clearly dont understand is as pointless as it sounds. As neither of you, again no offense meant, has written/contributed to an article on a specific tea you may not know how hard it is to find credible information and how characters help.


 * Please dont apply your personal opinions onto topics you dont understand. --Iateasquirrel 14:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no requirement in Wikipedia that entries must be made so that they can be searched for using Japanese or Chinese on the WWW. English Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia in English. --DannyWilde 15:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I fail to argue with a pure and impossibly irrelevant comment that the Wikipedia requires etc. Articles are supposed to explain the topic and you clearly have very little idea of what topic it is. Since quality tea comes from China (or Japan is some cases) it is important to be able to identify rarer teas using some common set language.


 * Basically you should only make removals from articles when you know exactly what you are writing about and have some clear idea of what you are doing. Hence we have come to the conclusion that on all releveant pages where the Chinese characters for the name of the tea are availible they will be listed in the Tea Infobox as required. There is no Infobox for Japanese tea though you could easily extend the existing one. We shall end it there.


 * This discussion can further be continued here on the talk page. --Iateasquirrel 16:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I agree that in this case Chinese/Japanese characters are extremely important. If you want to be able to pronounce the names (for example, say you're in China looking for a certain kind of tea), look them up online, etc. I think we should list the characters for each type of tea in addition to the main article heading. --rwclark 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

rwclark, couldn't someone make that same argument about looking for, say, a public restroom? Should a wiki article in English on public restrooms include Asian translations? Why not Russian translations? Why not ALL translations, then? You can make this case about anything. "Tea" is in and of iteself not more important to translate than anything else. In fact, things like "restroom" or for that matter "heart attack" and "stroke" and "choking" are a lot more important. 216.135.213.106 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure wikipedia doesn't require the characters to be there, but it doesn't require them not to be there. I think a good enough case has been made for their use, but I can't see why it matters enough to the opposition to remove them. Why is it such a big deal? 202.81.18.30 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia expert, in fact, I am new to this, but I live in Asia, and the Chinese/Japanese characters are extremely important when trying to communicate in these languages. There are sometimes as many as 25 different Chinese characters for the same 'word sound'. These characters, as others have said, allow someone with a translator to get specific information about the different types of green tea. I still don't understand who is "in charge" of allowing/disallowing edits, though. Keep up the good work. It benefits everyone. Barondugger 10:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese characters are also important because the 'english character' names are transliterations and are pronounced and hence written in many different ways in different chinese dialects. Thus only the character is unique and original. Otherwise, who decides whether to use the Mandarn, Cantonese, local variant etc? I would prefer to see Chinese characters for all the chinese teas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.209.98.158 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of English speakers have no use for non-western alphabets. This is the English Wikipedia. There are many other Wikipediae in many other languages, including one in Japansese, where these characters are appropriate. As a reference work in English, no other language is appropriate in this Wikipedia, except perhaps in an article about said language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.246.17 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

When buying green tea from Asian markets the packaging often contains little or no English, so the Japanese/Chinese characters can be very useful to us westerners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephbharrison (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lost Matcha
Its mentioned in the article, why mention it here? It would make the page too long? My view. --Iateasquirrel 22:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
There has been vandalism again by 161.51.91.43 (contribs) adding links to the anywhere, everywhere and just annoying to any page he can find. This is pure vandalism because it is spammin of external links and reference on a big scale. I am not going to revert this page because I have done so many times on the other vandalised pages, some had links to admin sections of the site and others to products that they dont have pictures for and dont list, its seems like very targeted vandalism. The user also uses this IP. Please help?! --Iateasquirrel 20:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that in the name of being fair the current link list should be pruned too. Some of the sites seem very commercially oriented. On the other hand, for example Greentealovers.com seems to go much beyond the similar Wikipedia article, though I don't know if the site has correct information. Aapo Laitinen 16:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some sites that sell tea do have good articles on tea I sometimes cite when I write something, but you have to be sure of their sources; this Golden Teahouse linking was just on a grand scale, basically adding it to every tea related page, even some chemistry and geography pages. There is a difference. --Iateasquirrel 18:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Chinese green teas
There was some text in the chinese green teas section which was not displaying due to it being enclosed in markup brackets. I have pulled it out of there and deposited it here. First there was an encouragement to add more varieties:



Then there was an entry on pearl tea which one person seems to have added and then someone else seems to have diasgreed with. Instead of following the normal editing practice this person appears to have 'disappeared' the text by enclosing it all in markup brackets:



So now the text is visible here and removed from the article page where it was cluttering up the edit markup without actually displaying in the article. Oska 10:18, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

BTW this disappearing text by commenting it out in the markup is a really silly thing to do on wikipedia. While it is a standard practice with programming code it does not work on wikipedia where people read the rendered text and not the raw markup code. Wikipedia aims to make edits as transparent as possible. Disagreement with text should be put on the talk page and not in embedded markup "comments". Oska 10:26, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Japanese green teas
I've heard about varieties called kokeicha (made from matcha?) and tamaryokucha (sencha with extra processing?), but found no mention of them in Wikipedia. Could these be mentioned on this page, or if they are too much of a specialty, somewhere else in Wikipedia? Aapo Laitinen 13:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Green tea soda?
Recently, many US soda alternatives (many of which are touted as organic) are based in green tea (such as Steaz sodas, Zota sodas, Cricket Cola) - does anybody know more about this? Why is this done? Who did it first? (Steaz claims to be the "original green tea soda," but as all of these soda producers are largely local endeavors, it may be hard to determine).

"True" tea?
Why is it a "true" tea? Since it's said in the first sentence, it got me wondering. I'm presuming because it's not a Herbal tea, that it's in fact made from the tea plant, so why not say something a bit more explicit in that direction? Shermozle 09:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's OK for you to edit that way if you like, you don't need to come to talk to discuss it. --DannyWilde 14:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes clearly adding information should not be discussed. Be bold is what it says, doesnt it? I am presuming this is the continuation of the Herbal Tea debate from Talk:Tea. --Iateasquirrel 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Link spam
Concerned that the references are being arranged in a haphazard fashion and some people clearly trying to promote their rather commercially orineted so called references. Are there any general rules that can be applied here? For the moment I've put them in age order as it seems to be reasonable here. --Iateasquirrel 22:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

黑茶 (hēi chá) vs. 红茶 (hóng chá)
The article said that Pu'erh tea is "黑茶 (hēi chá)", but I've never heard that term before. Perhaps the writer is thinking of what is in English called black tea, but in Chinese that's actually called 红茶 (hóng chá) - literally red tea. I removed the information about 黑茶 (hēi chá). If I'm wrong, feel free to put it back in. --LakeHMM 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that what Westerners refer to as black tea translates to red tea 红茶 (hóng chá) in Chinese. As you may know from reading the Pu Er article, this kind of tea has two primary varieties, sheng (uncooked/raw) and shou (cooked). As a shorthand some people refer to uncooked pu er as green, medium cooked as red, and fully cooked as black pu er. It could be that the original author was using that short hand, though I think it's more likely that it was a mis-translation. Anyhow, Pu Er shouldn't be referred to as either hei cha or hong cha, since usage of hei cha requires a lot of context to make sense, and hong cha refers to a completely different kind of tea (non-fermented, oxidized teas). When referring to cooked Pu Er (the darker variety), it should simply be called shou pu er. That said, the current version of the article doesn't seem to reference pu er at all, so I guess it's a moot point now. Thoward37 (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Citations
GraemeL and I have been having an issue regarding the removal of a citation.

Back in the earlier days of Wikipedia, Greentealovers provided background information on Green tea and in particular Japanese green tea for wikipedia. In fact, most of the Japanese Green tea information has come word for word from the greentealovers site (I did the formatting of this section as well). Greentealovers referenced the page on its site where the information came from in the reference section of the appropriate wikipedia pages. At some point a new policy regarding what citations were appropriate was introduced and the greentealovers.com citation was dropped, but all its copyrighted information remained on Wikipedia. Interstingly enougth this only happened in the green tea section. In other sections where it had contributed both the data and citations remained.

When I (greentealovers webmaster) revisited the green tea wikipedia page to readd the citation I was told that my site no longer qualified as a reference -- although my green tea data still existed on the Wikipedia green tea page without its validity ever having been questioned by the good readers of wikipedia. I have no problem with relevant information greentealovers provided to Wikipedia remaining on it - but I also want an appropriate citation accompanying it. In fact both the data and the citation existed on the wikipedia green tea page for months without any issue.

I have been told that because greentealovers is MY site and because it sells products as well as providing a significnat amount of information on green tea - that it is innapropriate any longer for it to have a reference on the green tea page. My counterargument is that on the same GREEN TEA page -- Whole Foods -- A huge retail marketer, is cited as a resource for providing information on the Health Benefits of Green tea - What I don't understand is how a major vendor's general information about tea (not even green tea) can be cited - while greentealovers cannot, even though it specializes in the providing information on the subject, in fact contributed information directly to the wikipedia green tea page and had both its data and citation on the green tea page unquestioned for months. On the Tea Ceremony page as well -- the Reference for Tea Muse -- also sells items along with the information it provides

GraemeL and I have decided to put the question to you readers of this discussion page and abide by your decision. Should Greentealovers be allowed a reference on the green tea page to cite the information it has provided on that page?

P.S. GraemeL and I have both agreed to maintain both the citation and the data on the page until you have weighed in with comments.

Webmaster Greentealovers


 * I don't think your site — however well intentioned it may be — qualifies under the guidleines as a reliable source. It would not be appropriate to link to it. The fact that there are (probably hundreds or thousands of) other inappropriate links on Wikipedia is not an excuse.  If you would like to help remove some of those links, feel free.  It would be appreciated. I've deleted dozens of them this week alone and I'm worn out. —Veyklevar 00:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I don't think they are appropriate to tea. --Iateasquirrel 21:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greentealovers is relatively new to the world of green tea and nearly all of the information provided by them has been obtained from other, longer established websites. No commercial sources of green tea should have citations to them, period.

Then I will remove all the items I put up on Wikipedia related to Green tea that originated from my page. Webmaster - Greentealovers

Western Medical Establishment?
"Objectively speaking, skepticism of green tea's medical benefits would not be the first time an ancient medical remedy practiced successfully in Asia was initially called into question by the Western Medical Establishment. The FDA cannot be characterized as an infallable resource either [4]."

This seems rather poorly-written and clearly opinionated...

-> You have to admit though that the article has an aura of being anti- green tea overall. Some of the many studies showing its benefits need to be cited, and maybe something about how the backward days of the FDA summarily dimissing the benefits of foods like this as hocus pocus are well over now.

I wouldn't trust the FDA...In my opinion they are nothing but a "bouncer" for the many corrupt and misleading drug companies in the USA. Take Renne Russo (famous Hollywood director) for example, in the US he was told he was a goner when diagnosed with cancer and that nothing could be done for him apart from drugging himself up to the eyeballs and lying down and waiting to die. So he looked outside the US and instead got a 2nd opinion in Germany, and long story short, received some cutting edge treatment and is now healthier than ever. Of course the FDA would have been 100% behind Russo's US doctors and the drug companies waiting in the wings..

Green tea and cardiovascular disease prevention
See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10062-green-tea-makes-for-healthier-hearts.html for details.

Schizmatic 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Only recently more widespread in the West?
Japanese sources I've read suggest that tea originally exported from China were mainly green with some oolong, and black tea was not commonly exported until the 18th century. I don't have authoritative sources on hand for that, but is there an authoritative source that suggests black tea was commonly consumed in the West from the beginning (e.g. 16th century)? Zogmeister 05:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost caffeine
In the excitement of deleting a section the only reference to caffeine being present in green tea was also obliterated.

No matter the opinion on instructions on Wikipedia, the act deletionism reduced useful contents. Please try to make some editing rather than mass indiscriminate wipeouts. --17:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Smoking
this will seem odd to most people but green tea can be smoked in [jonits] and does have some efficts because it containes [LSA] mild from of [LSD] and [THC] recently this has be discoved and has formed a kind of tea under ground but little is know about the health efficts as of now, should this article have something on that.

Yes, it may seem silly, but this is true. I've tried it, and it works. Nestea seems to work the best. It may in fact contain LSA, but this is not proven. --Santa Dog 72 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Yeah that tops my list as the most random thing I've seen on here...--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that makes no sense scientificly. Frankly, it's nonsense. LSD, similar to LSA, is destroyed upon combustion, therefore making it impossible to smoke. LSA has a similar chemical profile. Also, there is no literature that indicates the presence of THC in tea leaves.--Metalhead94 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
I flagged a contradiction on this:
 * "Traditionally, unlike darker teas, green teas are usually brewed using water that is at the boiling point (about 80°-90°C), as water that is too hot is believed to turn the tea bitter."

"At the boiling point" is 100 deg C, not 80-90 deg C, which is considerably below the boiling point at or near sea level. So this statement is confusing. I came here looking for tea info so I don't feel qualified to make a correction on this subject. -Timvasquez 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Eliminated contradiction ... good spot :) Abtract 09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Liver Problems?
To keep a long story short, my great-aunt was told quite firmly by her doctor not to drink green tea because there was a patient at the hospital waiting for a liver transplant because of liver problems attributed to drinking green tea.

Are there any studies or evidence to suggest that green tea negatively affects your liver? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.253.231 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't know of a study that shows it causes damage, and I expect it wouldn't since it's been found that soaking livers in green tea extract before implanting them increases success rates. It's not unequivocal and it's a different situation, but if soaking a liver in green tea extract is OK, I'd hazard that drinking it would be fine.

I am not aware that drinking green tea causes liver damage, but there have been case reports for those consuming green tea extracts. []

It is not proven that green tea extract causes liver problems, as the supplement contains other stuff. But taking lots of green tea extract is definitely toxic (see same link).

The most serious side effects of drinking green tea that I am aware of comes from its fluoride content, which has caused skeletal fluorosis in one individual. You can read it here []

If anyone knows of any serious side effects of green tea it may be good to mention it here.

Juliantai 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The polyphenols found in green tea can cause liver toxicity in large doses. Lambert et al 2007 Possible Controversy over Dietary Polyphenols: Benefits vs Risks, Chem Res Toxicol. It doesn't look like any of the above editors consulted any journals apart from "amazing green tea.com" before making their claims... 160.62.4.10 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Health Benefits changes
I just did some major edits to the health section and wanted to summarize my changes so they could be discussed, if necessary.

Judging by the wording of the article there's a deal of contention over the claimed health benefits of green tea and what, if any, scientific evidence supports them. It seems logical to subdivide the category into Unsubstantiated Claims and Scientific Evidence to allow controversial benefits to be listed, but seperate from those which have been studied. I also seperated history and added a section on the FDA. I cleaned up the references to point to more authoratative sources with the exception of the unsubstantiated section. I moved any supported claims to the SciEv section and moved unsupported claims and those supported by minimal evidence and/or poor references to the unsubstantiated claims section. If you think any of these have been substantiated and would like to provide academic citations for them, feel free to move them after you've added the citations. I combined some claims that cited the same article, restated and re-linked some to reference the journals, and added a bunch of links.


 * Good work but most of this should be on the main article Potential effects of tea on health with a simple summary here. Abtract 15:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"unsubstantiated"
More recent studies have been published about weight less and tea: see http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/11/2848 and http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/122?SEARCHID=1134586148539_9107&hits=10&gca=ajcn;81/1/122&FIRSTINDEX=0&TITLEABSTRACT=green+tea&RESULTFORMAT=1&, both of which seem to substantiate claims of weight loss more concretely 70.71.186.133 (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"The weight lost might also been due to replacing a high caloric drink such as coffee with a lower caloric drink such as green tea." Coffee has zero calories so it's pretty incredible to call it high-caloric.

Coffee does not have "zero calories". Not even black coffee. http://kroger.staywellsolutionsonline.com/RelatedItems/1,4000 When you add milk and sugar, as many people do (or even cream), that makes it into something that can certainly be considered high-caloric 160.62.4.10 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

several of the claims in this section are in fact substantiated (appropriately or not) in the previous section on health effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.228.109 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Major concern" in the unproven claims?
From article:
 * "The major concern with drinking too much green tea is the high amount of caffeine it contains."

This makes it sound like green tea contain excessive amounts of caffeine, which is pretty far from the truth. As far as I know, green tea use to contain not even quarter the amount of a cup of strong coffee. Black tea is stronger than green, and coffee is often stronger than black tea. What's the "major concern" with drinking too much here? I suspect you'd get a full stomach from it before getting the caffeine jitters, at least if we're talking green tea. If this is so much of a concern, coffee drinkers must be putting their lives at risk? :-p &mdash; Northgrove 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked up this article to look up how much caffeine green tea has. I did tone down the line in 'unproven claims' and also added the half-of-coffee statement to a new section called "Caffeine" for lack of a section called "Ingredients" or "Contents" or "What chemicals are found in green tea".  (I did this because I didn't think a simple assertion about caffeine belonged in 'unproven claims', and indeed the current line in 'unproven claims' is out of place.)  And, the caffeine article states that caffeine found in tea goes by another name, but it is not a name familiar to the public; it's a synonym for caffeine; and the caffiene article doesn't make it clear when it is technically correct to use this other name; so I didn't substitute it here.  But, yes, the half-of-coffee assertion needs a citation, and also I assume different varieties or different processing would affect the caffeine content, and this should be discussed; and are there brands that are fortified with extra caffeine?  Tempshill 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reguardless of caffeine content, I don't think caffeine is a drug with enough known health dangers to be of "major concern" to many people.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Caffieine does cause heart arrhythmia (pvc) http://www.drhull.com/EncyMaster/A/arrhythmia.html Many weekend atheletes find this out in the spring. 208.90.100.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

This should not be in the Unproven Claims section. This reads like a side effect. Many points in the Unproven Claims section directly contradict statements made in other areas of the article and some of the statements are not even Unproven Claims about green tea. This section needs to be updated/cleaned up.--67.241.44.89 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine Discussion II
This article at one point says that Green Tea has about a quarter of the caffeine of coffee (in the caffeine section), and later says that it has half the caffeine of coffee (in the unproven claims section). For anybody who wants to incorporate it, here's some data I from the Mayo Clinic website

Green tea, 8 oz. 	25-40 milligrams of caffeine

Coffee, Plain, brewed, 8 ounces (oz.) 	135 milligrams

Instant, 8 oz. 	95 milligrams

Espresso, 1 fluid oz. 	30-50 milligrams

Flavored, 8 oz. 	25-100 milligrams

Decaffeinated, brewed, 8 oz. 	5  milligrams

Decaffeinated, instant, 8 oz. 	3 milligrams

Starbucks' Coffee Grande, 16 oz. 259 milligrams

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211

KYJustin 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose it is appropriate data, because even in Japanese green tea, the caffeine consistent differs in each kind of tea, Gyokuro: 0.16% Sencha: 0.02% Bancha: 0.008% (in infusion)  --82.228.233.54 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Caffeine in Green Tea discussion page for a quick read: Green Tea --99.243.120.36 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Per USDA database (http://199.133.10.140/codesearchwebapp) Green tea, item #92302000 = 36mg caffeine per 6 oz. Regular coffee, item #92101000 = 71 mg caffeine per 6 oz. It appears from this that the "half the caffeine of coffee" can be supported but "one third" or "one quarter" cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.100.27 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this paper from University of Leeds "Caffeine contents of black teas (22-28 mg/g of DM) were significantly higher than in less fermented green teas (11-20 mg/g of DM)".Rocator (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I was reading this article to get some information about Green Tea and caffeine, but this phrase, "Normal green tea itself may contain more caffeine than coffee" does not seem to be supported by any other information in the article and sounds contradictory. From reading all the other references and numbers in the article, there does not seem to be any scenario in which it would contain more caffeine then regular coffee (135 milligrams). It seems out of place. Just because someone, in some unusual situation can brew Green Tea with more caffeine, does not mean it belongs there. If it belongs in there at all, my humble suggestion to this group would be it could say, "Certain kinds of Green Tea, brewed long enough, could even contain more caffeine than coffee. However the majority of Green tea brews contain closer to a third as much..." or something like that.--JoeSeo (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My (unscientific) experience is that good matcha powder can really buzz you out, which I have interpreted as meaning matcha (powdered green tea) delivers higher caffine content than brewed green tea - a distinction I don't see mentioned here. So if there is a lot of caffine in a green tea leaf, effectively locked into the leaf, and released not by infusion, but by pulverising the leaf, then yeah, green tea has a lot of caffine. Anyone know how much? If black tea has "more" caffine than green tea, where'd it come from anyway? The fermentation process created it? Was it not there all along?

173.120.244.2 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Erectile Dysfunction???
It's at the very end of the article. It is not sourced. It reads like someone bullshitting and trying to sound scientific:

"A study in June, 2004 shows that green tea may be a cause of ER, erectile dysfunction. Green tea keeps the human body at a more relaxed state. In turn, the male body decreases its testosterone causes something known as hormonal disorders." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.215.184 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Upside-down
Why are the details of the types of Green Teas before the more basic information? While this detailed information is good, shouldn't it follow the more basic information on green tea? Dkalweit (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Header Spam
Jamie: thanks for taking that out. Do you have any idea when it was added? Looks like it was in there for a while and it's surprising that no one noticed it. Alexwoods (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Units
The article says "2.25 grams of tea per 6 ounces of water", which is rather silly. "grams per gram" and "ounces per ounces" would make some kind of sense, but I think better would be "grams per deciliter" and "ounces per (whatever the appropriate sized Imperial unit for liquid volume is)". I'd change this to g/dl, but I'm not sure what is meant by ounces here, as the ounces article says there are multiple meanings. Presumably it is "international avoirdupois ounce", or maybe "international troy ounce", or possibly "metric ounce" (as that would sort of make sense when saying "grams/ounce"). Quite confusing. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Processing
The article on Black tea has a very nice section describing how black tea is processed, which explains how it is different from white tea. I think this article would benefit from a similar section, and in particular a synopsis of what makes green tea different from white and black teas. Meekohi (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

mushicha
蒸し (mushi) 深むし (hukamushi) is the second name a different type ? (a late growing and long steamed one?) FCartegnie (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

fukamushi/hikamushi seems a generic term for long steamed tea —Preceding unsigned comment added by FCartegnie (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts
 (Copied a discussion from User talk:Phoenix7777 in order to catch the attention of more editors. Subsequent discussion should be made here not there.) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Took me lots of time collecting infos. Please discuss before reverting a whole set. All teas are from what I find and what I've bought in stores. aracha sencha japanese might be 煎茶の荒茶 rather than 荒茶煎茶 aracha gyokuro

Koicha / Usucha 抹茶

konacha

Then you can't reasonably place genmatcha as a type of tea, as this isn't a tea but a mix. Same thoughts with aracha (raw), and houjicha (roasted sencha with can also be bancha).

Might need some more cleanup on this article, as most the the tea names are just different processings of gyokuro, sencha, bancha... Might need to sub-categorize.

FCartegnie (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits with an edit summary of "Generally inaccurate edits. What is the source?"".Then your answer is "All teas are from what I find and what I've bought in stores. This is what is called "a personal opinion".


 * Your edits are basically consists of three edits:
 * Categorization of Japanese tea.
 * Addition of three types of Japanese tea; Aracha, Fukamushi, and organic.
 * Addition of explanation to Matcha.


 * Categorization of Japanese tea
 * Categorization of Japanese tea is very difficult even for the expert of Japanese tea. What is the grounds of your categorization of "By origin" and "By processing"? Kamairicha, Matcha, Konacha, and Tamaryokucha are apparently differentiated by processing. Bancha and  Sencha are differentiated by picking season. Sencha and Gyokuro are differentiated by cultivar. Gyokuro and Kabusecha are differentiated from Sencha by cultivation method. The use of the word "origin" is too simplified to describe the "origin" of varieties. Japanese famous tea manufacturer Ito en categorized the Japanese tea quite differently. (in Japanese) ie, Cultivation method, Picking season, Pre-processing method, Final processing method, and Special processing method.
 * Can't we just use their classification as guideline for categorizing ? FCartegnie (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition of three types of Japanese tea.
 * There are many varieties of Japanese tea, So we should limit the list only with the very popular one. See Japanese article.
 * Aracha is basically the semi-processed goods. Although it may be sold in the market, you can hardly buy at a teashop or a supermarket in Japan. Moreover your explanation "produced by farmers before being sent to refineries" is inaccurate, because it may be refined in the same factory.
 * I don't have much objection about Fukamushi, however its name should be Fukamushicha. See Japanese article].
 * "Organic" is not a variety of Japanese tea. It is not appropriate to mention in this list.
 * Not a variety, but a different production process. FCartegnie (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition of explanation to Matcha.
 * The description about the difference of Koicha and Usucha whether it is "Made from plants younger than 30 years" is incorrect. It may be in the past, however now it seems to be determined by the quality of materials. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot to comment on your addition of Konacha. I agree, however the name Gyokuroko should be placed as an explanation, because Konacha is a common and generic name whereas Gyokuroko is a kind of a marketing name. So it is better to add an explanation like "it is also marketed as Gyokuroko or Gyokurokocha". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I should note the very fundamental comment. Wikipedia is not for the editors who wish to edit but for the readers who wish to know the "fact". Your edits are generally inaccurate, in other word, "not factually correct". You should have more systematic knowledge of Japanese tea instead of a partial knowledge from your personal experience or Google search. Did you read a reference I added about the variations of Japanese tea?  This book may even be a POV of an author. We should consult other resource to be confident of the classification of Japanese tea. This may require to consult a Japanese language source like I gave above.
 * As I already pointed out above, current version of this article is not factually correct. So why don't we start from the seemingly stable version? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia couln't help me identifying some teas and after getting information on them I added it to the pages. If you have better sources, fix my edits. The "list" is becoming a raw list of tea names which doesn't help: That's why I try to categorize them. FCartegnie (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, current version is incorrect regarding the classification of Japanese tea, Please restore it by yourself to the previous raw list with your addition of several teas. Then I will edit to improve the article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we could use the japanese wiki classification which seems more accurate, except it separates matcha from the main tree but it is still made of. I'll try to embed some ito-en classifications into this one.
 * Done FCartegnie (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tea generally or Green Tea specifically?
This whole article seems to miss the focus of the specific article title. The "tea plant" which provides the leaves for any variety of "true" tea (that is, a tea beverage based on the leaves of the "tea plant") is a variety of camellia having the scientific name Camellia sinensis. If those leaves have not undergone fermentation in the process of making them into the substance that is used to make the "tea" beverage (Camellia sinensis leaves infused in hot water, or Camellia sinensis leaves milled into a fine powder and then blended with hot water, or whatever), they belong to the general category of "green tea." The tea traditionally associated with Japan is this non-fermented sort of Camellia sinensis leaf, while the tea traditionally associated with China comes from semi-fermented Camellia sinensis leaves, and the "black tea" traditionally popular in England and other areas of Europe comes from fully-fermented Camellia sinensis leaves. There are many varieties, grades, and forms of non-fermented Camellia sinensis leaves processed for making many kinds of "green tea" beverage or, recently, "green tea" food ingredient. This article should be focused on these. The wikipedia has other articles about "tea" in general, and the different sorts of semi-fermented and fully fermented tea.

I agree.Tksb (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to Health effects
This article has too long descriptions regarding health effects compared to other similar articles like Black tea and Tea. As there is a main article Health effects of tea, most of the descriptions should be moved to there (if it is worth while) or removed. The word counts are as follows;
 * Green tea	5,817 (100%)
 * Health effects, Caffeine, Safety	3,796 (65%)


 * Black tea	2058 (100%)
 * Health and nutrition	239 (12%)

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tea	13837 (100%)
 * Health effects 539 (4%)
 * One month past without any objections. So I removed most of descriptions about health effects. If someone wish to add additional information, please consider writing to Health effects of tea article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that there's undue weight, but much of the removed text was cited content specifically about green tea. Suggest refining and contextualising rather than blanket deleting. Greenman (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK your revert action is to keep all those undue weight materials intact. No one will make "refining and contextualizing" them. Why don't you do that by yourself without reverting all? Deleted materials will not disappear from Wikipedia. Anyone can restore them, if they are thought to be worthwhile. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented out them instead of deleting so as to easily be restored. If you cannot do "refining and contextualizing" by yourself, please do not restore all of them again instead of restoring what are thought to be worthwhile. Otherwise, you are considered to be endorsing the undue weight. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Commenting out large slabs of an article is not generally acceptable. The Health effects section is indeed large, but I'm not sure it can be described as tendentious editing, because it's very well referenced and goes out of its away to analyze claims pro and con (that is, there is no undue weight given to any view in particular), and all the cites do appear to be specifically about green tea.


 * I do agree that the section is rather too long and overlaps in large part with Health effects of tea &mdash; however, the content will have to be well incorporated into that article before it can be removed from here. Jpatokal (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you do that instead of reverting? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is better with the cited edits in, rather than out. Wikipedia is written by volunteers, so why are you asking others to do this work for you? So to clarify, I am endorsing the "undue weight" version over the "lite" version. Since two editors (inluding myself) seem to disagree with removing the text and the citations, please seek consensus before making this change again. Greenman (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that two vs. one is not considered to be a consensus formed. Cited materials are irrelevant to this problem. You can write a hundred page well cited inappropriate section in this article. I somewhat understand if someone who contributed to the deleted portions objects to the deletion. However both of you seem to have contributed to this article very little. As both of you seem to have a slightest idea to improve this article by yourself, I bet you will not participate in solving this problem for ever. If you commit to participate to solve this problem rather than relying on others, I will willingly withdraw from this discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. Wikipedia is not a casino or a trading game though, and the object is to make the articles better, bit by bit, not try and lump off work onto others. The article is better as it stands with the content rather than with the wholesale deletions. This is not "consensus", as you seem to imply I said, it's the opinion of two editors interested enough to comment. One editor is even less of a consensus. As soon as there's a disagreement, the principle is to try and reach consensus before edit warring. It would be better with further changes as discussed, but I'm not expecting you or anyone else to do them, and nor should you. Greenman (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better myself. Jpatokal (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Greenman and Jpatokal, we were too much focused on the discussion about the wholesale deletion. Both of you already expressed the agreement on the fact of the undue weight. We should change the discussion more constructive to improve the article. The current health effect section occupies 65% of the article. This should be reduced at most to 30%, the half of the current volume. Is this target acceptable? Then could each of you suggest what part should be kept or removed in this article? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree. "Undue weight" means giving too much weight to something to support a view, which is not the case here.  As said, I don't agree to removing anything from the article unless it's moved to a better place first. Jpatokal (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the undue weight in this discussion, it is "undue weight to the health effect section" not "undue weight to any particular view". If undue weigh is inappropriate, please read it just too long. You said I don't agree to removing anything, then please suggest what should be moved where and how. Please be constructive. We don't need unconstructive critics in Wikipedia. If you can't, please get away from here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate Citations again: History of Tea in China
The reference to About.com regarding Shen Nung (Pinyin: Shen Nong) is stated as if it were history. In fact, it is only useful as a popular or legendary origin of tea--definitely not as historical (as the Wiki page read--now changed). Needham's _Science and Civilisation in China_ would be a good place to start researching tea's Chinese history, and there are probably many more recent books that give a reliable summary of the history of tea in China. Also, the section on history should be linked to the other Wikipedia page, History of Tea. Sorry that I've no time to do this myself now. Apeman (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine
This section should have scientific study for the reference sources. icetea8 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Tea Flower"?
I've heard of a tea variety (actually, more of a "packaging" variety) that consists of tea leaves bound together to form a "flower". For preparation, one flower per cup is used, and the tea is ready when the flower has "opened". (IIRC, my recollection is vague). However, I couldn't find it here. Anyone knows what I'm talking about? -- megA (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Jasmine tea and Flowering tea . Oda Mari (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that's it. Thank you! -- megA (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
I'm aware this article is horridly messy, but a direct contradiction is just ridiculous. It states both that Green tea helps prevent cancer, and then claims that it is not proven that Green tea helps prevent cancer a little further down in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.104 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * About health claims, editors should also check Health effects of tea. icetea8 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is contradictory. In fact, here's a very recent study from pubmed which appears to validate the cancer-fighting and cancer-preventing effects of green tea. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21827739 Ajkochanowicz (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep health claims centralized in the main Health effects of tea article. icetea8 (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea Wiki
Can relevant information - types of tea etc - be copied over to the Tea Wiki at. Further contributions are of course welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea Guardian a reliable source?
I'm failing to see how http://teaguardian.com is a reliable source. Looks like an ad-heavy blog to me. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential references
--Ronz (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chacko, S.M. et al. ”Beneficial effects of green tea: A literature review”, Chinese Medicine (2010),5:13.
 * Schönthal, A.H. “Adverse effects of concentrated green tea extracts”, Molecular Nutrition & Food Research (2011),55(6):874-885.
 * Yang, C.S. et al. “Cancer prevention by tea: animal studies, molecular mechanisms and human relevance”, Nature Reviews Cancer (2009),9(6):429-439.
 * Yang, C.S. et al. ”Green Tea and Cancer Prevention”, Nutrition and Cancer (2010),62(7):931-937.


 * These reviews – added to the “further reading” - section – is meant for readers who would like to know more about the article subject. (WP:FURTHER). Please elaborate on your reasons for why something else than the Wikipedia guideline for the “further reading” – section should apply for the “further reading” – section? Granateple (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion at Talk:Cranberry --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS needs to be applied better to this article
Looks like individual studies are being over-emphasized, rather than following WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support_vote.svg|15px]]agreeYen10k (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Unproven Claims" Sources Contradict Section Title
The sources for all of the items in the "Unproven Claims" section actually report a positive effect. Essentially, the sources completely contradict the title of the section. Sure, a few studies is not enough to consider something "proven", the title implies that the effects listed DO NOT have the suggested results, which is also incorrect. I suggest merging the section with the previous "Scientific Studies" section. LiamSP (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Oxidative stress
The article mentions oxidative stress and cites a study that suggests green tea may help to cause, rather than prevent it. I think the way it's worded currently is a little one sided, given that other in vivo studies[1] have concluded to the contrary.

[1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16698148

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to reword the sentence in question, to better take into account both sides? I'd have a go at fixing it myself, but the bizarre reference syntax totally puts me off trying.


 * After reviewing,
 * "There is also evidence suggesting consuming large volumes of green tea, and in particularly green tea extracts, may cause oxidative stress and liver toxicity.[17],"
 * http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/tx7000515, ACS (American Chemical Society) is a widely read publication
 * www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16698148
 * I believe the ref does seem to give adequate support for the statement. Although, I must admit it is confusing because of the contradiction that green tea has many antioxidants, electron acceptor molecules, however in sufficiently high quantities, oxidative damage as well as liver toxicity occurs. I do wonder if these high quantities of certain green tea products obtained in the laboratory experiment could be obtained physiologically (given the quantities many cultures consume seemingly without many ill-effects). Anyway again, in my view it is okay as stated ("consuming large volumes"), but I also agree, it does seem confusing because it is a contradiction. Perhaps additional clarity could be found, by adding, "despite the antioxidants in green tea, in large quantities...".Yen10k (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Research and health effects, section
section seems not cohesive, and needs more organization, as the two paragraphs both start off positive but finish negative. Perhaps the info should be separated into sections, like positive effects, negative effects, and controversial/inconclusive, or perhaps those paragraphs should just be reorganized. Thoughts/suggestions for improvement? Yen10k (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the single-line, single-source dismissal of all health benefits from green tea to reflect that, conservatively put, there is at the very least a lot of scholarly debate and mixed research results on the question. I didn't even bother linking to the Health Effects of Tea page because it's so lacking. Ethanjrt (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever failures there are you are making worse by edit-warring out-of-date primary sources into the lede, contravening both WP:LEDE and WP:MEDRS. If there are good secondary sources on green tea, bring them forth but don't put shaky health information into Wikipedia, and try to ensure the lede does not drift further from being a proper summary of the article. Alexbrn talk 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Medical citations. 2006 is not "out-of-date," and a peer reviewed study is not a primary source. To the extent that the lede strays from being a proper summary of the article, it is because some editors (including yourself) have previously been very active in removing health-related information from the article. At any rate, editing the line about health benefits to make it more accurate neither diminishes nor exacerbates the "drift" of the lede.


 * Re: Our conflicting edits. I see and appreciate that you have been a prolific and experienced contributor to Wikipedia. However, I notice that your primary activity in this article has been to undermine and suppress information regarding the possible health benefits of green tea, while linking it to pages like "Ineffective Cancer Treatments" -- you have even fought the very conservative claim that scientific controversy exists. Finally, though I may be new to editing, I /can/ read, and your behavior in this case -- reverting changes multiple times without going to the Talk page; making my user page into an ominous Edit War notice, then continuing that edit war yourself -- is not acceptable. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit-warring_behaviors. Ethanjrt (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2006 is out-of-date when there are newer better studies; it is a primary source you added - please read WP:MEDRS where this is explained. I will revert edits to pages which place iffy health information on Wikipedia because it is considered very important that our medical information is accurate and up-to-date. Alexbrn talk 17:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right about primary/secondary sourcing, and I apologize. I have updated the Health Effects section to include multiple secondary source literature reviews which have found indications of health benefits of green tea. The only conclusion here is that pronouncements within this article such as "has no effect" and "does not prevent" constitute editorializing. Taking a look at your Talk page, I see that the suppression of information regarding natural remedies has been an ongoing problem. If you choose to continue to delete conclusions straight from literature reviews published in well respected, peer reviewed medical journals, I will raise our discussion for third party review or bring it to the attention of an administrator. I may be new to editing, but I'm not new to reading; the difficulty I've come up against so far in attempting to simply add nuance at the expense of an entrenched bias on the part of a prolific editor has left me extremely disappointed. The ethos of Wikipedia is to avoid bias, not embrace it; and to provide readers with more information, not less.


 * Re: Your emphasis on the European Commission results -- it's worth noting that this meta-analysis did not address the larger question of whether green tea improves health or increases longevity; it addressed specific subsets of that question, and mechanisms. (Hence my inclusion of the 2006 Japan study, which fell afoul of the secondary source preference -- it was an attempt to speak to the larger question.) So, for future reference: a study addressing one question does not supersede a study addressing a different question simply on account of newness.Ethanjrt (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "continue to delete conclusions straight from literature reviews"? I removed a primary source. Alexbrn talk 05:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability
- you've put "but reviews of existing studies have concluded that long-term consumption of catechin-rich green tea could provide some level of chemoprevention in prostate and breast cancer" sourced to an article which states "Although laboratory-based results demonstrate the chemopreventive effects of green tea extracts these must be tempered with the findings from epidemiological and interventional studies which show that habitual green tea consumption may not provide the anticipated protection against most malignancies". How does that work? We can't make statements about human health based on lab work; as in other areas the article is saying further study show these do not translate into heath effects (as so often is the case). Alexbrn talk 06:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC) (Add) In fact the evidence in gives us the state of play better wrt prostate cancer. Alexbrn talk 08:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Most malignancies" seems not to include prostate cancer in particular, nor is this only "lab work" that was drawn from -- see Boehm et al Main Results, stating, "In prostate cancer, observational studies with higher methodological quality and the only included RCT suggested a decreased risk in men consuming higher quantities green tea or green tea extracts." The other study I cited in tandem speaks to breast cancer as well -- as does this newer one (for younger women): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156033/. I think the 2014 Lin et al study you bring up here should definitely be included, but I'm not sure that it supersedes Boehm et al per se. In general, how do you go about determining whether the publication date of a paper means that it supersedes a previous paper, or just that it indicates disagreement? For example, ad absurdum, as encyclopedia editors it would be unreasonable to find two highly cited reviews in equally prestigious journals -- one of which, published on 12/22/2014, states that "there is evidence for X"; and the other of which, published on 12/23/2014, states that "there is no evidence for X" -- and assume that the 12/23 paper supersedes the 12/22 paper. Instead, a reasonable editor would cite both and note that "disagreement exists within the scientific community over X." (Edit: Clarified.)
 * In general, I'd say that if an editor shows a facility for discovering highly cited reviews in prominent journals indicating evidence of Y (in this case, failure to find support for particular claimed health benefits of green tea), paired with an inexplicable lack of ability to turn up highly cited reviews in prominent journals indicating the contrary (in this case, indications that green tea may in fact have certain health benefits), then it may be time to step back and reassess whether he is able to make unbiased contributions to this page. This is even more true if that selective vision is occurring within the same source: if you've cited two papers to support the statement, "There is no conclusive evidence that green tea helps to prevent or treat cancer in people," it's worrying that you have also chosen to fight the inclusion of wording from the (very brief) Conclusions sections of those very same papers. (E.g., "There is some positive evidence for risk reduction of breast, prostate, ovarian and endometrial cancers with green tea.")Ethanjrt (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In general later high-quality secondaries supersede earlier ones especially if they cite them; there are also levels of strength/quality to be taken into account per WP:MEDASSESS. Your continued personalisation of this topic is unhelpful and disruptive: all we need to do is to WP:FOC & summarize the best sources accurately. If there is disagreement between good sources we say so too. The Cochrane review is probably our best source and to see how to summarize this accurately we need look no further than the NHS who state in reference to it "There is no evidence that drinking green tea protects against different types of cancer". Not sure why we need to have a deviant message? Alexbrn talk 22:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the most recent secondary sources say there is no clinical evidence that drinking green tea prevents cancer. it is not uncommon that preclinical results are not borne out clinically - see Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial for a prominent example.Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Chin Med
, in your recent edit summary (seen here: ) you said "not a good journal". Can you clarify why you believe this to be the case? I just want to know the thought process behind the (apparent) dismissal of this journal. I looked up the journal (was unfamiliar with it before) and it looks like it has an acceptable impact factor, is affiliated with BMC, and appears to be indexed appropriately (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, etc.). Thanks in advance for expanding on why you believe this is not an acceptable source for information. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chin Med is not MEDLINE indexed which is a WP:REDFLAG, esp. for broad claims about green tea and CVD which stronger sources don't mirror. Alexbrn talk 07:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While the link to Redflag doesn't make any specific mention of indexing or Medline indexing that I can see, this is fair enough justification for the edit summary. Thanks for the clarification. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:REDFLAG gives us the general principle that exceptional sources are needed for exceptional claims. The MEDLINE aspect is mentioned in WP:MEDRS: "Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE ...". As always it's a judgement call but the wide CVD claims here are exceptional and out-of-kilter with other sources (there seems to be some evidence of tea maybe reducing stroke risk however). Alexbrn talk 08:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Add) I've removed this reference and the health material sourced to it. We have a better review on the same topic in any case. Alexbrn talk 06:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Study Limitations
Alexbrn, in this edit (which was reverted and therefore really should have been discussed first before reverting again per WP:BRD guidelines by the way as is common editing practice), you state that the justification for wording the evidence as weak is that the study's authors discuss the limitations of the study (your edit summary is: "see the para starting "There are also some limitations in the present study ..."). Every single study has limitations. This is simply inadequate justification to call the evidence weak-this is clearly, unequivocally your assessment of the evidence and not the authors' (and that's inappropriate). If you have additional information proving that this is weak evidence (and is stated so in this paper or another review article reviewing this paper), please present it. Otherwise, I must insist that you revise this error as it violates the long-held policies of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as this assessment of the evidence being weak is not explicitly stated (or even strongly implied) in this paper anywhere. As it says on WP:OR's page, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." This is clearly a violation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sheesh - if we're zero-ing in on a better text via interative tweaks & edit summaries, then going full WP:BRD seems a waste of time, but since you raise it ... I've changed the word to "limited": the limitations are such I think we're bound to allude to them to summarize the key finding & doubts of the paper accurately. It's very common to add this kind of qualification when summarizing such sources. Alexbrn talk 17:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the limitations in this study are severe - 1) first of all, the effect is slight - the paper itself says " this meta-analysis indicated that green tea consumption was slightly inversely associated with EC risk, and it was more evident in Chinese population;" 2) Secondly, the paper points out that the studies themselves are weak; the paper says "Among the included studies, there was only 1 cohort study (including two cohorts from Japan) (13), and a statistically significant inverse association of green tea with EC risk appeared after exclusion of this study. Cohort studies possess less recall and selection bias, and so more cohort studies are warranted to further examine the association of green tea consumption with EC." (emphasis added). In other words, when they took the best evidence out the effect disappeared..   3) all the studies are observational/epidemiological - they are not double-blinded randomized clinical trials, so we are swimming in a sea of "associations" with tons of possible confounders.  "WeaK" or "limited" is appropriate and necessary to not oversell this paper.Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jyt, you're missing the point. The point is that your assessment of the limitations is that they are severe. This is not stated anywhere in the paper. I understand fully that this is a meta-analysis of observational data and not of randomized controlled trials (which would obviously be optimal), but everything you've said above is your analysis, not the authors'. Period. Stating that a paper has a section on "limitations" as basically all good papers do is not sufficient reason to call evidence weak and that was what Alex cited in his edit summary. I already used the word "slightly" in the context of slightly lower risk Jyt (or didn't you notice?). I don't recall seeing the word weak mentioned once in the paper Jyt (I think that's your assessment and I'm not stating whether it's right or wrong, but it is yours nevertheless). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the current content is fine; the word "limited" is a good paraphrase of the sections of the article i quoted above.  period. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, limited is a more appropriate word. I don't actually disagree with your analysis of the actual paper's limitations, but there is a difference between your analysis and what is explicitly stated in the paper by the authors. And Alex, "sheesh"? You've nitpicked and reverted me for far smaller issues than this. Let's not act like I'm being the nitpicky one when there are legitimate concerns about word choice. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Cancer and CVD
Concerned about recent additions of findings of "association" between green tea consumption and reduced cancer risk in a "Health effects and research" section; the implication is that we're making statements about health effects. And Nutrition journals for cancer medicine? Their implications unduly complicate the findings in stronger more relevant sources. Also, the statement that green tea drinking "significantly lowers systolic and diastolic blood pressures" is sourced to, which does not appear to be MEDLINE indexed; other pieces are then added as reinforcement ( & - nutrition journals again) when in fact even their conclusions are more tentative than this. I am concerned this section is drifting from properly summarizing the accepted knowledge in the best sources (e.g. why not use rather than nutrition journals?) Alexbrn talk 04:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but nutrition journals make sense since this article is about green tea. Also, let's not act like all of the sources cited are nutrition journals (e.g., World Journal of Surgical Oncology or Oral Oncology). Are you really going to take issue with a journal like the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition? Really? That seems pretty ridiculous. This is well-sourced information from secondary sources from journals with respectable impact factors that are MEDLINE-indexed. There are three meta-analyses all in agreement about the blood pressure. Are you suggesting the Scientific Reports secondary source is from a journal that is not MEDLINE-indexed? Here is proof that it is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=%22Sci+Rep%22[Title+Abbreviation] not to mention it's a journal of the Nature Publishing Group (a highly reputable source). If the concern is that PubMed in process bit, feel free to switch it out with one of the other meta-analyses that is in agreement with this finding but already has the PubMed processing completed (this comes off as a very nitpicky issue to take with a well-sourced meta-analysis). What stronger/more relevant sources are you referring to exactly in your above comment? As for the reinforcement bit, the only thing it says is that these meta-analyses reached similar conclusions. Is that untrue? If so, how? This is also well-sourced information from respectable journals with acceptable impact factors and MEDLINE-indexed journals. Please explain your assertion that the conclusions in these meta-analyses are "even more tentative". Where in the respective conclusions is this stated or strongly suggested? As for your question of why are we not using, the answer is we already are. These meta-analyses are more updated than that source and take more studies into account. Besides, the Hartley source says something quite similar about significant drops being seen with green tea consumption as well (further implying these more up to date meta-analyses from respected journals are consistent with Cochrane). I do not think these objections are well-founded in evidence and I do not think you have demonstrated that this section is drifting from properly summarizing accepted knowledge in best sources to something else. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Add) Also, per your comments to Ethanjrt above, "In general later high-quality secondaries supersede earlier ones especially if they cite them; there are also levels of strength/quality to be taken into account per WP:MEDASSESS." I realize we're talking about Cochrane the gold standard here, so I'm not suggesting that these articles necessarily "supersede" it, but these are strong sources that you seem to be dismissing and they do cite this Cochrane review (e.g., ). Also, I forgot to acknowledge your first point about using the term "association". That term is necessary because causation has yet to be proved, but it's an appropriate term since these health effects have been suggested (or not depending on which cancer we're discussing as seen in this section). These are indeed suggested health effects by these articles, but not yet definitely proven (hence why we say limited evidence (especially for meta-analyses of observational data and not of RCTs) and association instead of making stronger statements suggesting something causative since the evidence base does not support such a statement at this time). The term association is perfectly justified from these numerous studies.
 * Sigh. Okay, you're going to oppose with ("ridiculous!") rhetoric rather than engage. On a point of fact, is not MEDLINE indexed and the indexing status for this OA journal appears to be selective, so I wonder if it will be. Are you sure it will? For  you say gren tea "significantly lowers systolic and diastolic blood pressures" (problematic word, "significantly") and then say two other journals have similar - we are to understand - strong & "significant" conclusions. But the first of these only "suggests" tea "could" do this; the second "suggests" it "may". These are therefore more tentative, and not straightforwardly "similar" to the first study's bold claim. And yes, I am worried about using nutrition journals for cancer information as this it rather outside their field, and especially when their content from weak-seeming data seems to run counter to what we read from Cochrane, the NHS and CRUK. I also agree about statistical associations needing to be carefully handled, it's all to easy improperly to imply or even state causation, as you did here when you referred to a "benefit". Lay reader often understand association or "links" as implying cause, and I do worry about being clear what is meant when we are treating vital health topics. Alexbrn talk 09:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric? Sigh? Give me a break. I engaged every single point you laid out. As for, I just rechecked the journal and it is MEDLINE indexed so I have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about when you say it's not unless you're complaining that next to the PMID number it currently says "PubMed in process" (please note I said in my above comment that you can feel free to switch it out with a different meta-analysis already in the article that does not have that issue that has arrived at a similar conclusion), so your point is really moot. Even if you're right about that one meta-analysis of three, you're not considering the other two. As for , that's THEIR wording (also, I'm sure you're familiar with the term statistical significance?). This objection of yours tells me that it is unlikely you looked at the paper. First sentence in the discussion section: "Our meta-analysis showed that green tea consumption significantly lowered BP and this effect was not altered when we pooled the data according to BP status." I see the word significantly used directly in that sentence (and others). Whose assessment is it that the word significantly is problematic? Yours? On what grounds? The content here is supposed to reflect the authors' conclusions and that's precisely what was done here. I have yet to see you prove otherwise. Nowhere in the section is anything said (or inferred) about the strength of the conclusions, you are completely reaching, especially when you consider that the room for misinterpretation of the word significance is quite small given that the strength of the effect is quantified (about 2 mmHg is directly mentioned and appears lower than that mentioned in the Cochrane review).


 * It's not outside the field of nutrition journals to discuss the benefits of green tea. Previous stable version also used a nutrition journal for the reduced stroke risk claim too. As I said earlier, I understand you're concerned, but these are highly respected journals with appropriate impact factors, MEDLINE-indexed, and are secondary sources per WP:MEDRS guidelines. Can you even acknowledge that not ALL of the information added comes from nutrition journals? That would be a good start. I do not think you can speak on behalf of all lay readers and say that the majority interprets the word "associate" or "links" as causative. If they do, that's just a grievous misinterpretation of what's written as these are not terms that imply cause at all. As for, the wording was completely justified and I was agreeable to the addition of saying "limited evidence" already, so why throw that in my face? Are you holding a grudge? Sure comes off that way, either let it go or admit you're holding a grudge but you can't have it both ways. And Alex, here's the thing, the studies with these positive associations ARE implying a benefit (but one which needs to be confirmed with additional high quality data-resulting in the need to qualify it as an association or as a conclusion based on limited evidence, etc). What do you think it means when they say their study suggests there is a lower risk of a cancer or a decrease in SBP/DBP? You think this is not implying a possible benefit? Our job is to reflect their conclusions. If you're unhappy with these various sources, perform your own review, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal of your choice (a non-nutrition journal if you wish), and get it published. If you're worried about being clear about the word association or link, it's more helpful to propose alternatives than to simply mention your concerns. I find it interesting that you don't seem to include the sentences about gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, or prostate cancer (i.e., the inconclusive or negative findings) and only seem to focus on any sentence that seems to have a positive finding about green tea. Is that coincidental? I have my doubts. Sounds more like your POV coming into play to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I tried. You do understand that articles being indexed is different from the concept of journals being indexed right? You're familiar with MOS:MED that calls out "significant" as a term that needs care? You're aware you didn't include an edit which referred to "possible benefit" which would have been fine, but just "benefit"? You know I never wrote all the journals you're using are nutrition journals, so why raise this straw man? You know negative findings are unexceptional and so don't require such strong sourcing, I assume? Still you aren't engaging at all but arguing and focusing on me. Disappointing. Alexbrn talk 17:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read what I said above. I was attempting to discern if your earlier objection was to the article not being MEDLINE indexed or the journal (it was unclear to me at the time which one was your concern). I suspected your objection (since you kept saying it) was to the article itself rather than the journal and you have now confirmed that. I do understand that articles being indexed is different from journals being indexed thank you. I have already proposed an easy solution for that above (twice). Again, if you have an issue with the term significant, propose a suitable alternative so we can discuss it. That's the point of the talk page! This is supposed to be a collaborative effort and I do not see any effort from you to be collaborative. All I see is a list of grievances and no meaningful attempt to work toward any kind of compromise or solution. I raise the point because your assessment of what I did is unbalanced and it seems to be a pattern. You only acknowledge what you have an issue with and fail to give editors their due credit. I never once asserted that you used the word "all" when it came to the nutrition journals, but it's the only thing you mention. I have added another meta-analysis (from a cancer journal this time).


 * Negative findings are just as important as positive findings and I do not agree with you at all that we can use sources that are not as strong for them. We should strive to use the strongest sources available regardless of whether the findings are positive or negative. The disagreement we are having is simply your taking issue with these various journals. What is this distinction of engaging vs. arguing? Very unclear. If you had such a major problem with the "additional study required to determine if this benefit extends to other populations" esophageal cancer sentence vs. possible benefit wording, all you had to do was add the word possible. Instead, it was removed completely to tighten up the content and remove anything stating that more studies are needed, etc (which I can understand). You seem to be the one having a semantics argument on that issue so you can do that by yourself. I didn't object once to the removal of that entire sentence. If anyone is not focusing on content here, I don't think it's me. If anything, I'm the one who is disappointed in you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Consumption in S Korea
Moving this here from the article

Drinking of green tea in Korea is not popular compared to other East Asian countries. Commercial production of green tea in South Korea began in 1970s. Even in 2012, production of tea in South Korea is 20% of Taiwan and 3.5% of Japan and tea consumption per capita is less than one tenth of other East Asian countries.
 * Korea

I looked at the sources here, and as far as I can tell the FAO charts used in the content and the figures are: a) about all tea, not just green tea; b) have to do with production, not consumption. I don't see the content as being supported by the sources, nor how the sources are relevant to this article, which is about green tea in particular. Interested to hear others' thoughts on this. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will consider to find other sources. However, please note that "Food supply quantity" is the actual consumption of "Tea" in Korea:
 * Food supply = Production + Import - Export - Stock - Waste. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your assessment Jyt. As you said, the graph says tea overall (which likely includes black + green + oolong and potentially myriad other varieties) and this article is strictly about green tea. There are plenty of research articles studying things about tea overall but we try to stick to sources specifically discussing green tea here. We have a different page that discusses tea overall. Aside from those points, the justification in the last edit was about popularity with an arbitrary cutoff. That seems fairly subjective to characterize it as not popular. What consumption level are we using to distinguish popular from not popular here and with what sources to support this statement? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already withdrawn my edit because it is not limited to green tea as User:Jytdog pointed out. However the fact "tea consumption per capita is less than one tenth of other East Asian countries" is apparently support the description "Drinking of green tea in Korea is not popular compared to other East Asian countries." If the source were about green tea, my edit was no problem at all. By the way, this source says "In South Korea, There is almost no habitual practice to drink Green tea compared to Japan..." (韓国においては日本のように緑茶を飲む習慣がほとんどなく...). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still probably would have opted for different wording but it's a moot point now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the information is up to date, although the “import of Japanese tea” is not. What is written does not really relate to the import of Japanese tea, it could have more history. This section has also not been updated in more than five years.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The part of the article that does not have reliable sources is the “green tea by country” section.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

cynthiaCmart35 (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)