Talk:Coca tea/Archive 1

Merger

This is a relatively short article, and much of the information on health benefits seems as if it would apply to coca consumed in the traditional manner (chewing) as well. I therefore propose that this article be merged with Coca. Please leave your comments at Talk:Coca. Choess 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the content dispute here has been abandoned for weeks, that there have been no votes against the merger, and that the merger was already partially done by 69.79.138.210, I'm going to go ahead and complete it by redirecting "Coca tea" to "Coca". —Veyklevar 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Content Dispute

There has been an edit war on this talk page and in the article page between User:Veyklevar and User:Joestieg, the latter being the author of the article and believed to be the properietor of perutea.com. Accordingly, I have suggested to the two parties that they discuss the changes here and attempt to reach a consensus.

The disputed content involves:

• Varieties of coca tea, and their encyclopedicity
• Purported health benefits of coca tea
• Suitability of the external link to perutea.com

Policies and guidelines that may be relevant include those on external links, advertising, neutral point of view, and Verifiability. Participants are highly encouraged to cite from these and other policies and guidelines to justify the deletion or retention of content. Please be civil and assume good faith during the discussion. Choess 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's go back and look at the article before the edit war[[1]]:

I objected to the health claims section, saying that it needs to cite some reputable sources. The only reference cited in the article is Perutea.com. This is not a reputable source. This is not an attack on Perutea or Joestieg. He may be the world's most honest Coca leaf vendor, but (A) we have no way of knowing that, and (B) that still wouldn't make him an expert on immunology or cardiology. It would also be a case of a self-published source, if I understand that correctly.

On the other hand, a medical journal would be an example of a very good source.

I also objected to the section on "Varieties", saying that the information provided was obvious and fairly trivial. It consists mostly of a list of flavourings which could just as easily been applied to any number of other teas or herbal teas, or (for that matter) ice cream. However I am not adamant on this point, and if anyone thinks it's compelling enough to put back in the article, go ahead. I won't delete it again.

And I object to the link to Perutea.com for other reasons than listed above. I don't see how it is proper to link to it, when it doesn't seem very useful to the reader. I am not trying to put down the website. But there is just not a lot of hard information there. And much of it was already copied and pasted into this article, so the reader has already seen it. The site clearly exists primarily to sell a product, not to provide information.

It also seems like it might be misleading to link to it. Perutea.com sells coca leaf tea. I am not very familiar with the drug laws of the United States, but wouldn't it be of dubious legality to sell coca leaf tea unless it was "decocainized" (i.e., had the pharmacologically active components removed)? Am I right about that? If so, wouldn't that make it a substantially different product than the traditional coca leaf tea described in this article?

I also object to what *appears* to me to be an effort to link to this article from many only tangentially related articles. It's annoying, but I don't know that it is against Wikipedia policy, or that this is the proper forum to discuss it in.

Anyway, if this conversation results in any sort of consensus being reached, I will abide by it. -- Veyklevar 10:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to each of the three points that Choess brings up. In regard to whether or not the varieties of coca tea belong on this page, I agree that this information is not important and it can be left out. This is information that can be obtained on a commercial coca tea site.

However I strongly believe that the health benefits section of coca tea should remain on this page. The source of these claims is from two medical studies: "Dissertation about the cultivation, commercialization and virtues of Coca tea" by Dr. Hipolito Unanue (a pioneer of research on the topic) and from private research by Dr. Leo Villegas, a pharmacology professor at the Peruvian University. While the medicinal benefits of coca tea are controversial, I believe this information should be included if these medical references are cited in footers at the bottom of the page.

In regard to the suitability of the external link to perutea.com, I have read the policies and guidelines on external links, advertising, neutral point of view, and verifiability. To avoid any conflict of interest or violation of the Wikipedia policy, I also agree not to add back the link to perutea.com.

I also agree to abide to any sort of consensus being reached on this matter. Thanks. -- Joestieg 10:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several health claims in the original article. Please be specific as to which of them are supported by which source.

As for the work by Hipolito Unanue, let's make sure we are discussing the same thing. Are you referring to the work known as "Dissertation on the appearance, cultivation, trade in and virtues of the famous plant of Peru known as Coca"? (Because the translation I have does not use the word "tea" in the title.) The one published in 1794?

As for your other source, I don't know what you mean by "private research". You must cite a reputable publication. As the verifiability policy says, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." -- Veyklevar 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 66.231.121.253

The medicinal part should be deleted. It's just an ad for a company that sells tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.121.253 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-15T07:07:55 (UTC)

You're right. It's also a copyvio. I've removed the section you deleted once again, and have retracted the warnings I've mistakenly given you. My apologies. --健次(derumi)^talk 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics: 'may be sold nationally'

What does this mean? Nationally in what country? Peru? USA? It's not clear to me what this means... perhaps someone can clarify? - Z 81.101.44.107 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

coco/coffee plant

the coco plant is gotten from a plant called sun light put it is used for mostly tea . it is mos41.194.53.232 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

coca tea in the united states

I would like to know who is the person who does not know united states law at all,and is continually taking out the exact number and legal statue's that pertain to this product.Wikipedia is worldwide and consumers of this product have a right to know the laws and policies governing this product!!!!!!!!!!!So who is the person who keeps taking those laws out of this article??paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must not contain personal opinions, unsourced information, or other unencyclopedic content. There's been a lot of repeated inclusion of semi-coherent text, some of which may be factual, but most of which is simply opinions - and badly written opinions at that. Efforts to clean up the tone and content have been met with wholesale reversal, including removing of Wiki markup and maintenance tags. The repeated reverting to the unencyclopedic version (which is bad for Wikipedia) is the reason the article has been protected by administrators so unregistered and new editors can't edit it at the moment. If you want to include factual and sourced information about laws and policies, that's excellent - please provide the info here, together with sources. Thank you very much for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! --bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, the disputed text is here. I have tried to extract any relevant information from it that has to do with the subject of the article and not with some individuals' personal opinions about what ought to be legal and why coca tea is different from cocaine, but it's not exactly easy to find any grain of relevance in there. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --bonadea contributions talk 06:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well just for the record,laws and statuet numbers used for those laws are not defined as personal opinion,but laws.2001:5B0:2CFF:EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk)

Edit request on 3 May 2012

Request that exact laws and regulation from the united states not be deleted.Furthermore any recently discoverd knowledge quoteing exact demostration items not be deleted.Also if these exact rules and laws and consequences for u.s.a. consumers are deleted again,please tagged that as true vandelism.This bondeos is the screen named being stated is abusing there power of tagging on wikipedia.

Paitalona (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't action this as I'm involved, but the reviewer should note that this is about the text mentioned in the section immediately above. As far as I can make out, the factual content relating to U.S. law has to do with decocainisation and the relevant snippet of text is "legally as defined by the F.D.A.. code of federal regulation title 21,section 182.20.decocainized is further defined legaly as solvent free,within the meaning of section 409 of the department of health and human service as recgonized as safe." If there is a source for this, relating it specifically to coca tea, it could very well be included with a bit of cleanup. --bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I am denying this request; the reason is simple: this is not an edit request. Please explain clearly what specific edit you want to see made to this page, and make sure that it it has consensus if it is not uncontroversial. Salvidrim! 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the administrative code section Paitalona is referring to is here. It says that decocainized coca (not mentioning coca tea) is generally recognized as safe. It does not really say anything about "solvent-free", apart from including coca in a category of "Essential oils, oleoresins (solvent-free), and natural extractives (including distillates)". Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look that up, Calliopejen1! Sounds like it is information that might belong in Coca rather than in this article. --bonadea contributions talk 21:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that elsewhere Paitalona has referred to this section as well. It relates to coca leaves, but doesn't support anything that Paitalona is claiming. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coca tea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061026013958/http://www.uba.ar:80/extension/salud/difusion/nota26.php?id=26 to http://www.uba.ar/extension/salud/difusion/nota26.php?id=26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)