Chrrev

November 2012

Hello, I'm Acroterion. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 9/11 Truth movement seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at 9/11 Truth movement, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As has been discussed at length and repeatedly on the talk page, Wikipedia presents facts when discussing fringe theories. The article being about conspiracy theories does not change this. The facts (or "official accounts" as "truthers" and other paranoids like to call the) are not an alternate interpretation, they are reality, and the 9/11 Truth movement denies that reality for their own delusions. It would be shameful for Wikipedia to support those delusions by giving them equal validity with reality. Anyone trying to crusade for the lunatic fringe will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

History vs legend on health effects of tea

Hello Chrrev. You said: "I would beg to differ on the limitation you seem to have arbitrarily imposed on the notion of history. 4700 years ago implies 2700 BC. If as you suggest there was no "reliable" historical record for this timetable then you would dismiss the entire ancient Egypt history as legend... among others... Doesn't make sense. At least, legend is inappropriate." Egyptian history is founded on tangible, datable evidence such as petroglyphs, statues and pyramids, allowing a timeline of "history". There is no solid clinical evidence for the health effects of tea in 2017, so how can we assume there was evidence in 2700 BC from which no records exist? This is myth, legend, folklore - take your pick. Watching for your reply here. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Zefr, I would suggest that whether there is or isn't any clinical evidence, the fact remains that the health effects (whether conclusive or inconclusive, the rest of the article will show that) of tea HAVE been investigated from as far back as thousands of years ago. Now to introduce the "according to legend" piece is to my way of thinking unnecessary. Could we not then start the article with "The health effects of tea have been examined ...etc" Secondly, the piece on the boiling of water as an annex to the actual properties of tea is also contributing to giving a misleading impression for the layperson as to the real benefits of tea by shifting its virtues to the actual boiling of water. Thirdly, the idea that aluminium is intrinsic to tea cultivation is clearly preposterous, would you in an article on fish declare that ocean fish contains high levels of mercury and/or radioactive material... Overall, the tone of this article is clearly biased, broadbrush and misleading which is why it should be corrected.

It's an overstatement and concession to myths to state that tea has been "investigated" or "examined" for its health effects for thousands of years. There's no ref to support such a statement - which is my point: this is a long-perpetuated myth. Any quality evidence for health effects from tea drinking history is hard to find. Without a good ref, it remains folklore. As for boiling, I don't feel it's needed in the lede and is not referenced, but is an obvious point. The aluminum statement is referenced. I sense your feeling about bias in the article is the result of the valid abundant literature: little-to-no evidence exists for any health benefits of drinking tea. Why would there be a benefit, as tea contains no nutrients in significant content other than manganese, and the polyphenols have no proven health benefits? --Zefr (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)