Talk:Earl Grey tea
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earl Grey tea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
External link
editThat 24health link seems placed there for advertising purposes. It links to a basic article on a site with 500 advertisements that ads nothing to the Wiki article, with speculative non-scientific information about Earl Grey as a folk cure. If anyone agrees, then there are two votes to ax it. I believe it also fails many accessibility guidelines (a requirement under Wiki guidelines for an external link) If there is any information of value on that page, it's brief enough that it should be double-checked, included, and cited -- but not listed as an external link.
Allergy
editA comment about some people being allergic to bergamot perhaps? (Not that Wikipedia should be a medical reference, but it might be useful).
Captain Picard
editHow can any article on Earl Grey Tea not include it's greatest promotor: Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the starship Enterprise, who brought the popularity of the tea storming into the 20th century? To disregard him as a fictional character is tantamount to ignoring Paddington Bear's popularitisation of marmalade or the Earl of Sandwhich to the bread bracketed popular quick meal! 94.174.148.42 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- To include this information, we would need some reliable secondary sources that demonstrate that this is notable and not just trivia. See WP:POPCULTURE for more info on that. Popcornfud (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- As someone currently drinking some Earl Grey, I lean towards inclusion. If my expertise in this leaf isn't enough, a few sources seem to support my position. Gizmodo is considered a generally reliable source–it is green-listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources–and published this article on Picard's taste in 2020 (but there's no accounting for the article author's taste, I suppose). CNET published this article on Earl Grey's place on the final frontier in 2016; CNET pre-2020 was considered generally reliable, but this approbation was directed only towards its tech coverage. Per WP:VANITYFAIR, this article from 2020 seems to demonstrate that this information is at the very minimum publicly notable. If there wasn't a significant amount of reference to Picard and Earl Grey tea, I would agree that this would be stereotypical POPCULTURE material. However, I think we have enough. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- The description for the image of the tea starting with tea, earl grey, hot, is more than adequate in my opinion. DETHREAPER (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- As someone currently drinking some Earl Grey, I lean towards inclusion. If my expertise in this leaf isn't enough, a few sources seem to support my position. Gizmodo is considered a generally reliable source–it is green-listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources–and published this article on Picard's taste in 2020 (but there's no accounting for the article author's taste, I suppose). CNET published this article on Earl Grey's place on the final frontier in 2016; CNET pre-2020 was considered generally reliable, but this approbation was directed only towards its tech coverage. Per WP:VANITYFAIR, this article from 2020 seems to demonstrate that this information is at the very minimum publicly notable. If there wasn't a significant amount of reference to Picard and Earl Grey tea, I would agree that this would be stereotypical POPCULTURE material. However, I think we have enough. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
No evidence for health benefits
editThis edit was justified because there are no WP:MEDRS sources specifically identifying health benefits of consuming Earl Grey tea or more generally back tea. The previous version also contains weak sources – a previous (blacklisted) Healthline source, a spam website (Stylecraze), and a case study, which are far from sufficient to indicate any health benefit of bergamot oil.
On PubMed, there are no usable WP:MEDRS sources to support any health effects of the small amount of bergamot oil present in Earl Grey tea.
The edit was reverted, but I will return to the only concise statement we can make. The only alternative is to have no health section because the specific evidence for Earl Grey tea having health effects does not exist. Zefr (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Zefr on this: we need exceptional sources to make exceptional claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- The second paragraph had citation needed and I understand removal. Third paragraph also makes sense to remove. What was issue with first paragraph that was controversial? It makes same claim from black tea about polyphenols reputed health benefits, but researching being inconclusive, using the same PubMed source. The claim wasn't for bergamot oil, but for black tea since Earl Grey Tea is just black tea(usually) flavored with bergamot oil. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- The first paragraph contained no reliable sources specifically on the health effects of Earl Grey tea itself. The articles on the health effects of tea and black tea specifically show no MEDRS evidence for clear health benefits of drinking any type of tea.
- In the edited version, the phrase "reputed to have cardiovascular, digestive, and cancer-preventitive benefits" cannot be supported with MEDRS sources, as it derives from folklore, alternative medicine or public misinformation. Zefr (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)