Talk:Tea

The sentence "In Pakistan, both black and green teas are popular and are known locally as sabz chai and kahwah, respectively" is problematic. With 'respectively', it must be the black tea that is named sabz chai, yet sabz chai means literally "green tea". Moreover, other sources (including other Wikipedia articles) claim that both kahwah and chai sabz are made with green tea. So this needs to be resolved. Either the positions of sabz chai and kahwah need to be switched, or else, if the beverages actually are both made with green tea, the sentence needs to be changed altogether. I'm not able to edit the page, however, so someone else will have to resolve the issue and correct the sentence. 2600:382:1151:64AD:A1DA:3199:5CEC:EBA3 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article that is citated as Number 71 for Tea being grown in Scotland, refers to someone who has now been found guilty of fraud for passing off tea grown elsewhere as being grown in Scotland: https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/25207382.man-conned-luxury-retailers-fake-tea-sussex/

However, there is an organisation called Tea Scotland which is an association of actual tea growers in Scotland, so maybe their website could be the citation instead? https://www.tea.scot/ Camundongo (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: I've removed the citation for being unreliable. Kudos for catching that. I haven't deleted the claim of tea being grown in Scotland as the Tea Scotland website does seem to support that, but I don't think the website can actually be cited as a source as it wouldn't meet WP:RS requirements. For now, I've replaced it with a citation needed. SI09 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

in calling tea an aromatic beverage the chemistry concept of aromaticity is linked, but I think it's supposed to refer to aroma compounds. Burndownbanks (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There are four varietals of Evergreen Tea, Pine, Spruce, Cedar and Fir. Should these be included, or should they go somewhere else? WindBorneListener (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Great question -- and I'm intrigued to try these teas :) Thanks!! It looks like other types of tea have their own pages (Black tea) and narrower types even have their own pages (Darjeeling tea, Assam tea) . Would Evergreen teas fit under Herbal tea? (Herbal tea#Non-caffeinated and non-psychoactive infusions) I see Pine tea listed there and you could list these other ones there? . ... I'm wondering if evergreen teas technically herbal teas / tisanes. This tea page seems focused on teas from the tea plant specifically. But I like the idea of adding these varieties somewhere on Wikipedia! Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Herbal teas does not seem appropriate, as conifers are not herbaceous plants. Favourite evergreen teas include western hemlock, nootka cedar, and sitka spruce. WindBorneListener (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The sitka spruce page mentions it can be made into tea under "Uses" - I could see you adding that use to the other pages -- Nootka cedar has "Uses" section for example but doesn't mention tea. YET! As for this tea page, at the end of the intro there is a sentence about herbal tea - I could see adding a sentence at the end, something like "Tisanes are also made from conifers such as western hemlock, nootka cedar, and sitka spruce."

or changing that whole last paragraph to

The terms herbal tea and tisane distinguish similar drinks from Camellia sinensis. They are the infusions of fruit, leaves, or other plant parts such as steeps of rosehip, chamomile, rooibos, or conifers such as western hemlock, nootka cedar, and sitka spruce.

What do you think? Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)