Talk:English breakfast tea

message: Could someone include in this article the difference between Scottish, Irish, and English Breakfast teas? Because I can't distinguish them, myself. Though I've never sat down and had them side by side.. But the Irish breakfast tea article describes it as 'malty' and similar to stouts, but I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, as I've never been reminded of a Guiness when drinking it. Thanks for your help. :) Carl.bunderson 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening heading

message: I don't understand the claim that the name is misleading because English tea makers don't use fermented teas. I propose the sentence be revised or deleted. Ibadibam (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Having gotten no response, I'm just going to go ahead and strike that paragraph. Ibadibam (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Misleading to British nationals"? 

message: I  the recent addition of a company that I believe is not a "common brand" of English breakfast. This calls to attention the fact that there is no explicit threshold for what brands should and should not be included in the list of common brands, as per WP:DUE and WP:VERIFY. Nor is there any justification for this list in the first place. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to improve this information? Ibadibam (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common brands 

message: There's no mention as to what's actually in the tea blend.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "The black teas included in the blend vary, with Assam, Ceylon and Kenyan teas predominating, and Keemun sometimes included in more expensive blends." It might be interesting to include the formulas for major brands if found, but that one sentence seems to fairly well sum up the contents. Ibadibam (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ingredients 

message: section: origin says "started with a base of Congou and added a bit of Pekoe and Pouchong. " this is confusing because congou and pouchong are different tea VARIETIES, while pekoe is a GRADE of the black tea variety. (black tea can be further divided to varieties or subvarieties, but the term pekoe still refers to a certain quality grade of those black tea varieties and should not be used as a category similar to the categories congou and pouchong.) i understand that the sources of this statement might not be very enciclopedical (some weekly tabloid article) but then either more research is needed in the literature, or a rewording of the WP aricle, like instead of pekoe say "black tea of pekoe grade" - this at least makes the reader aware of the vagueness of the information given and does not imply the false notion that tea varieties and tea grades can be used interchangibly. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion in categories 

message: as i understand - please feel free to correct me - the term english-/irish-/(or just plain)breakfast tea is not a strictly defined term. what is commonly accepted that these refer to blends of teas that seem to brew a dark, robust tasting tea (relative to other tea varieties). the actual composition is either not known or can vary by vendor and probably has changed since the beginning of use of the term and can be changed in the future at the discretion of the brand manufacturer(s). if my notion is correct than this should be reflected in the article as well. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You dispute "... in a style traditionally associated with a hearty English breakfast"? Although I see that "Scottish tea master" named Robert Drysdale sometimes gets the credit: , . Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

text: What did Drysdale create exactly? Was that a blend? Can blends change over the years and between different manufacturers? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  breakfast tea is not a definite term 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on English breakfast 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/20131104015739/http://food.oregonstate.edu/glossary/englishbreakfasttea.html to http://food.oregonstate.edu/glossary/englishbreakfasttea.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110033413/http://www.logoi.com:80/notes/english_breakfast_tea.html to http://www.logoi.com/notes/english_breakfast_tea.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Stop adding  Tea culture in Ireland in the "See also" section, without consensus. You may think it is reasonable but, as you have been told, per WP:BRD, if your bold edit has been reverted, discuss it here instead. To add it 3 times is WP:WARing. As you have also been told,  WP:SEEALSO is there to include "links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". What would be said about Irish tea culture in this article? You have made no case for a place.
Irish breakfast tea, already included, looks like a reasonable candidate to fit this bill. It would seem to be a subset of tea culture in Ireland, so listing of the broader topic is superfluous with the specific one listed. The culture link makes no mention of breakfast tea, English or otherwise. The "See also" section is not there to a house a general miscellany of tea-related subjects. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: UK and Irish tea culture grew simultaneously and were inter-linked, the main UK tea drinking culture is linked into he first paragraph, which seems sensible, a link in the also list at the bottom to the analogous Irish culture doesn't seem out of place or not needed as a helpful link. Halbared (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer the points I have made. What would be said about Irish tea culture, specifically, in this article? It would need to be sourced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of tea culture in the UK is covered in the first article. Irish tea culture arose out of English merchants bringing the tea to Ireland. It is a direct tributary, the tea sent to Ireland was of cheaper quality, hence the tradition of stronger brewing than it's english counterpart. The two are not cultures that grew independently but simultaneously, but cultures that were connected from the beginning, one growing out of the other and had particular growth due to the limitations of the product shipped from England https://www.enjoy-irish-culture.com/irish-tea-culture.html Halbared (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

text: OK sure. I wasn't expecting that, but if you think that is the best way to illustrate the connection, it seems good. Halbared (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not necessarily advocating that (not least because it isn't sourced, including the existing version of the sentence). I'm making the point that if something is deemed appropriate to add to the see also section of an article, the implication is that the topic is worthy of inclusion in the article. I'm trying to find if you believe that to be the case and, if so, what its place would be. If you do not believe it has a direct pertinence to the article itself, it shouldn't be in the see also section either. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused what your argument here is about. It seems like quite a reasonable and non-controversial thing to include to me. Alssa1 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's an argument, no wonder you are confused. To recap, as a more specific subset of Irish tea culture (Irish breakfast tea) is already listed in SEEALSO, to list the broader topic is at best redundant, unless the proposer believes there to be further aspects, distinct from IBT, which ought to be "present in a comprehensive article on the topic". I'm attempting to ascertain if Halbared does and if so, what the aspects are. It's known as a discussion. You wouldn't be trying to pick a fight or is it just a fluke that our interests in two unrelated topics coincide? What's more this discussion may be superseded or augmented by the one below, whereby there may be scope to link within the article, removing any requirement in SEEALSO. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

text: I think considering the two histories are linked and one is derived from the other, it is a reasonable opening sentence.Halbared (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tea culture in Ireland 

message: Evidently the phrasing of the first sentence of the article has been changed from listing types of tea to places. However this has two issues: 1 - the articles linked are still to the tea types, and 2 - Ceylon is no longer a place. There are as far as I can see three solutions. 1 - revert the change to listing them as teas, not places. 2 - add the following parenthetical to Ceylon (now known as Sri Lanka) perhaps with a link to the Sri Lanka page, 3 - change Ceylon to Sri Lanka and the three links to those of the wiki pages of the locations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikko338 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence phrasing