Talk:Indian tea culture

Proposed merger

History of tea in India is an motherfucker with content that appears to be a subset (some content is identical) of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadum (talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 September 2009

Yes, but at least its content matches its title. I propose a reverse merge, i.e. merge this article into that one. An article is probably needed on Indian tea culture, but this one is currently about the industry rather than tea culture. Have a look at other countries represented in category:Tea culture, e.g. Moroccan tea culture. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

After 8+ months without comment, there doesn't seem to be consensus for this so I have removed the proposal without merging the articles. I recommend editing the two articles to narrow their focus, similar to Chinese tea culture and History of tea in China. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient India and the Ramayana

I suggest renaming this section more precisely, like "Tea in ancient india" or "Earliest records of tea in India". Also, with the section:

It is highly unlikely that Camellia can be identified with Sanjeevani and to try and do so is a real stretch. Sanjeevani was used to bring people back from the dead, in this case Laksmana who was on verge of death. Stimulating as tea may be, it will not bring one back from the verge of real death.

What the heck is that doing there in the article? :) --— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 14:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

sourcing

I deleted most of the sources. There's one left, and it's sketchy in my opinion because it's an opinion piece, and although it's in a source that has editorial oversight, it's used to cite material that is not opinion. I may go back and delete this source too. I think there's a problem with WP:CITESPAM here too...most of the links were to commercial sites that came nowhere near meeting WP:RS guidelines. The teamuse article was an exception--but again, only because the author of the article is well-known for publishing a book on tea. I think it would be better to directly cite that book. Cazort (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Kafziel re-added some of the sources I removed on the page Indian tea culture. Per wikipedia's guidelines WP:RS, I believe these sources are not acceptable, because they are all self-published, so I removed them. If anyone believes they are, then please give justification here of why you believe they are reliable sources, based on Wikipedia's guidelines, before re-adding. I think such justification is needed because the sources are self-published and they in turn do not demonstrate any editorial process or verifiable source to their material. It is not a valid argument to claim that I or any editor needs to replace the sources with better sources in order to removing existing sources that fail to meet guidelines. Cazort (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

They may not be ideal, but they're better than nothing. It should be an easy fix; they don't need to be removed in the meantime. It's not an emergency. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree, but in the interest of advancing this debate and avoiding a gridlock, I have added two print sources that are published by actual (not self-published) presses.

I want to clarify though. I believe that if a source is not reliable, listing it does considerable damage. A self-published source, such as a company website, can say anything at all. A fact seeming noncontroversial might make it less likely to be challenged on the company's website--and this could contribute to it being even less reliable. One of the sites removed, [1], is loaded with weasel words: it begins "Legend has it that..." and provides no sources for anything. Such sites can and do often contain wrong facts, which then get passed on. The content on wikipedia is widely reproduced and is extremely widely visible online, and providing links to these sites gives them an unwarranted air of authority; because these sites are usually commercial, there's also the problem that they may profit off increased visibility--for no warranted reason. Call me a stickler but I believe in maintaining the highest standards of quality here on wikipedia and I think that allowing a self-published source to slide because no better sources are available, and without giving any justification for using that source--especially when an editor objects--is never an acceptable course of action on Wikipedia. I think it would be strongly preferable to always delete questionable sources and the content they are used to source. Cazort (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Objecting to a source does not automatically give you the right to remove it. If that were the case, think how many POV pushers could declare a source "unreliable" and remove it just because it disagreed with their views. I'm not saying that's the case here at all, but this is why we discuss these things.

More to the point in this case, by removing them without using a tag of any kind, you are creating the illusion that those statements are so widely accepted as facts that they don't need to cite a source. Which is, of course, the opposite of your intent. If you think sources need to be improved, use the appropriate tags to call attention to them. Very few people will ever read the talk page of an article like this unless they are following up on a request for help on the article page, so deleting sources and posting a note on the talk page doesn't help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying about it being inappropriate to delete sources without deleting the material they are used to source, unless the material itself is widely held to be true. I will make a conscious effort to take more time with this in the future.

However, I don't think that it is necessary to wait and use a tag before removing sources, unless it's reasonable to assume that it would be controversial whether the source met WP:RS. I only did these edits without using a tag and waiting because I believed that there would be no controversy over them and also because, as I pointed out above, tea-related pages have had a fairly heavy problem with WP:CITESPAM by tea companies and self-published informational sites seeking to gain visibility and traffic to generate ad revenue or sales. Given this, waiting for discussion for sites that solidly fail to meet WP:RS and are possibly citation spam is nonconstructive and unnecessary. Cazort (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly true. Maybe the first time you removed them you thought it was uncontroversial, but what about the second time? My restoring them means at least one person (me) thinks they should be there, so you can see that it is controversial, at which point you should leave them, tag them, and discuss.

And I did NOT say you should delete the source and the material at the same time; I said you need to use {{fact}} tags to ask for better sources. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added tags where the cites used to be so you can see what I mean. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kinds of Tea in India

I plan to add a new section to the article, explaining the types of Tea in India, by region and also by type. Any inputs and contributions would be appreciated. Please leave your comments on my talk page. -Ambar wiki (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)