Talk:Earl Grey tea
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earl Grey tea Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Script error: No such module "Banner shell".
- REDIRECT Template:Archives
Template:Rcat shell User:MiszaBot/config
External link
That 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
A comment about some people being allergic to bergamot perhaps? (Not that Wikipedia should be a medical reference, but it might be useful).
No evidence for health benefits
This 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 Template:Ndash 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)
"Moseley tea service" listed at Redirects for discussion
File:Information.svg The redirect Moseley tea service has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Template:Slink until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
