Talk:English breakfast tea

Opening heading

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)

The article suggests that this tea is commonly drunk black. However, as far as I'm aware, the majority of British tea drinkers would consume this tea white with milk and, maybe, sugar. Also, it would be very unusual to add cream to tea in the UK. Thecharmingguy (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Misleading to British nationals"?

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)

Having gotten no response, I'm just going to go ahead and strike that paragraph. Ibadibam (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I wrote that when I was in Montreal, and had to ask in an international supermarket where I could get some indian-style dried-tea-dust-in-a-bag style teabags, so that I could avoid wanting to spit out my tea every morning. As you noticed, I was pissed-off enough to sign into Wikipedia to correct the internet. If you have a better way to phrase/verify my claim, please pipe up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsuren (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. This format is preferable per the MOS. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

• English Breakfast tea → English breakfast tea
• Irish Breakfast tea → Irish breakfast tea

– Unless I'm mistaken, these pages aren't properly following WP:LOWERCASE. They aren't people, places or trademarks. Ibadibam (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Looks like a common-sense move to me. bobrayner (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Looks common sense to me too. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Straight forward. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. This might not be as straightforward as it seems. Looking at ngrams for English and Irish teas, you'll see it's about 50-50 when it comes to capitalizing "breakfast". In this case, I think that capitalization serves a real purpose: "English Breakfast" is a type of blend, and capitalizing it helps to distinguish that particular type of blend from "English breakfast tea", which could easily be read as any old tea drunk at an English breakfast, or any old English tea drunk at any old breakfast. Not sure if this rises to the level of oppose quite yet, but something to think about anyway... Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The area under the curve is the total number of booksThe percentage each year is mostly, and is clearly greater in both cases for lower case breakfast. English breakfast tea has been appearing in books since about 1850.[good point - it is a percentage of each years books, not a percentage of all books][1] Apteva (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

    I agree. I'm just saying that there is a reasonable readership-serving argument that can be made for leaving the capitalization how it is, and that real-world usage would support it. Dohn joe (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

    I believe that's incorrect. The ordinate is a percentage in each year's texts, it appears, which was probably done so that the huge numbers of more recent books wouldn't totally swamp the older books. Integrating makes no sense in this context. Not that it matters here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CAPS and clear books n-gram evidence that these terms are not "consistently capitalized in sources". The fact that some sellers use it as a name for particular products doesn't mean we should forego the traditional generic interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's not a brand-name issue, though. "English breakfast" is like "Earl Grey" (or "curry" or "chili powder"): it's a type, or a category. Without the caps, the phrase can be ambiguously read as either "English breakfast" tea (which is what it is), or English "breakfast tea" (which it is not, at least inherently). Look at the Google Book results, and you'll see that nearly all publishers that capitalize "breakfast" in running text do so in a generic fashion - not referring to any particular product, but to "English Breakfast tea" in general. Capitalization, while not stictly required, does seem to reduce the ambiguity, and thus aid the reader. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm really not sure I understand that argument at all. I could understand somebody advocating English Breakfast Tea, on the grounds that it is a proper noun, but English Breakfast tea? After all, the tea is drunk in England at breakfast time, but does not have to specifically accompany an English breakfast. You would most likely find that the tea would also be served with an Irish breakfast, as Irish breakfast tea is a product designed for the North American market, and rarely served in Ireland itself. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, how would you explain so many publications using "English Breakfast tea" in a generic way, especially in the last 25 years or so? Dohn joe (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Because those publications hadn't heard about the Wikipedia MOS ;) Ibadibam (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's not clear what argument you refer to. I don't see anyone advocating for "English Breakfast tea" (that is, the RM is unopposed). But it's not at all hard why it is sometimes used that way, with generic tea and product name "English Breakfast"; it's just not suitable for WP style. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  As I already mentioned above, "English Breakfast" is not a product name - it's a type of tea blend. Regardless of how you capitalize it, "English breakfast tea" is a generic phrase. Dohn joe (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  That may be in response to Dohn Joe's assertion that the capitalization reduces ambiguity, something I'm not sure is true. Why wouldn't English "breakfast tea" be an appropriate interpretation? Ibadibam (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, because "English Breakfast" here is a particular type of tea blend. ("What sort of tea would you prefer - Earl Grey, chamomile, Darjeeling, English breakfast?") The question I posed is whether "English Breakfast tea" does a better job of reducing ambiguity than does "English breakfast tea". The fact that you might interpret it as English "breakfast tea" I think shows it might help in that regard. Dohn joe (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  I get what you're saying, and in informal use, there's some merit to the form "English Breakfast tea". At the same time, ambiguity is not a reason for necessary capitalization under MOS:CAPS, so we probably want to look to that standard here. Ibadibam (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose English Breakfast tea is a name for a type or style of tea. It does not mean a tea that is necessarily or served at an English breakfast, or at any breakfast. If we were writing in a language that did not capitalize words like English , then it could be clearly expressed as "english breakfast tea" But since the word is always capitalized in the present language, the only clear way to do it is to capitalize either the next word also. Ditto of course for Irish. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with that comment, my understanding is that this is not the "english" type of "breakfast tea". It is a type of tea, and the name of the type is "English Breakfast". —BarrelProof (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't oppose the move but I understand DGG's statement, it is English Breakfast. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I know of no stylebook, WP:MOS included, that indicates that the presence of a capitalized word in a compound common noun necessitates the capitalization of any others. It's interesting to note, as an aside, that many references don't even capitalize the "french" in "french fry." Ibadibam (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Unsure but likely opposed to both the current and proposed name. I decided to see what is actually used. I have two boxes of this home. One is labeled English breakfast black tea and the other English Breakfast Black Tea. So I can see support for both options if you add black to the title. I don't know if that has any impact on the Irish part of the nomination. I guess part of the question here is does retail packaging help establish common usage? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's tricky to look at individual brands. These may be considered trademarks, which MOS:TM suggest should always be capitalized. The question here is how tea varieties should be considered in the abstract. Ibadibam (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There are yet to be any arguments opposing the move that are actually based on article title policy. We appear to have rough consensus in support of the move. For the opposers, would it help to include the second capital in the lead? As in,

  English breakfast tea (also English Breakfast tea) is a traditional blend of teas originating....

  It's a bit heavy handed to write an alternative title just for a capitalization variation, but if that would help to reach full consensus, perhaps that would be for the best. Ibadibam (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Common brands

I reverted 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)

ingredients

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)

"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)

confusion in categories

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).

breakfast tea is not a definite term

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).

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: [2], [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I dispute that English/Irish Breafast Tea is a defined blend rather than a name that is (can be) used by any manufacturer to anything, while traditionally the tea-varieties listed in the article were used to make the blend for the properties (harsh color and taste) as well listed in the article. Actually I am not sure anymore if I want to change the article at all. Perhaps there could be more stress put on saying that E/I Breakfast is just a marketing name rather than a defined blend composition. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC).

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{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) 21:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Brand Names

Should the main brads of the UK be listed? For most it doesn't seem to matter, but for Yorkshire tea, it would be different. The main brands being what the British people know as english breakfast/tea.Halbared (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the above but are you advocating that the main brands in the range of tea companies be listed here, despite not being branded as English breakfast and despite many of them additionally having an English breakfast tea in their range? Clearly not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Do people from Yorkshire actually have breakfast? I thought they were too tough. But yes, tend to agree with Mutt Lunker. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

English breakfast is colloquially, just 'tea'. Many brands in the UK have dropped the 'breakfast' but as superfluous.Halbared (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I see. Do you have any source(s) for that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this one OK? https://www.yorkshiretea.co.uk/brew-news/why-is-it-called-yorkshire-tea Halbared (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean this part:

"English Breakfast tea caught on – and its composition became a little more standardised and refined. Ultimately, it provided the inspiration for most of the black tea blends Brits drinks today. And the source of its name has passed into tea-making tradition too."? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I looked at different pages, the gravity of wiki doesn't help. But as time went on, the full name was just dropped.10:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How would you determine what are the "main brands"? Ibadibam (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2019

Sales.Halbared (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

According to this article the top 5 tea brands in the UK, irrespective of variety, are PG Tips, Yorkshire, Tetley, Twinings and Typhoo. The next group down are supermarket brands. Taylors, which was once counted in this article as a Does that seem representative? Ibadibam (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

These are not "breakfast teas", of which there is no mention in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What sort of teas are they?Halbared (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

They're not teas, but rather tea brands. As has been documented on this talk page, not every brand that offers a "breakfast tea" labels it as such, representative of the category though it may be. I was not able to find aggregated sales data on breakfast teas alone, although I suspect this category makes up the bulk of each brand's sales. I imagine for data on specific tea varieties one would have to request it from each company. Ibadibam (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is conjecture/plain wrong. They are not labelled as breakfast teas because that is not what they are. At least some of these are quite weak and feeble blends. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

PG Tips is not a proper English breakfast tea? I suspect they'll hold you up at Gretna Green on your next trip south. Ibadibam (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Your reliable source for it being so? Donkey piss is stronger. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This shows why this article has been fairly dependent on OR, and why much recent discussion has been further fueled by OR. There is no industry- or government-defined definition of English breakfast tea, and whether a particular tea belongs in that category is either voluntary on the part of the producer or subject to the consumer's experience. So unless some reliable source comes along that attempts to define the category and name specific brands, I don't see how we could include a reliably sourced list of brands. Ibadibam (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

So stop perpetuating the OR. This thread has no useful value to the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Do assume good faith on my part. If you see my above comment of 26 March 2013 you'll see that I have long been concerned about this very question and its verifiability. And as I'm sure you're aware, OR applies only to articles, and not to talk pages. At any rate, this discussion has illustrated some of the trouble we face in documenting this poorly documented and defined area of the food industry. Ibadibam (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not know why you are perpetuating this discussion of OR here and I have not made any accusation that it is due to your bad faith. If it is because you advocate it's inclusion, as OR this would not be acceptable. If it is as a general discussion, WP:NOTFORUM. Either way, if you don't have sources for the view you are promoting, stop wasting time on an inappropriate discussion. The Yorkshire tea commercial site quote would require considerable interpretation to provide support for your view in regard to that brand alone, let alone in its application to bog-standard tea brands in general. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you're talking to me as if this were my proposal or I were supporting it. There are four editors in this discussion and I'm not the OP. Ibadibam (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether the OR you are espousing is yours or someone else's or the first bit of OR in the thread. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think this thread may have now outlived its usefulness. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Tea culture in Ireland

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not sure of your point but would amending the second sentence to "It is one of the most popular blended teas, common in British and Irish tea culture." satisfy you? (I'll note that this is unsourced.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Origins

I note that the article states:
"Accounts of the emergence of the blend in the UK trace its origins to Scotland around 1880, where it was initially known simply as "breakfast tea"."

It is quite easy to find earlier references than this in the British Newspaper Archive. For instance:

The 3s. 8d. per lb. is an excellent strong Breakfast Tea, of the true sort, and generally sold at 4s. per lb.

The 4s. 0d. [ditto] Breakfast Tea is a full-bodied, rough, Pekoe-flavoured Congou ; much resembles Teas called by some "the first class," and frequently sold as high as 4s.4d. to 4s.6d. per lb. ; it is the best we ever sold at the price.

The 4s. 6d. [ditto] is a superior Breakfast Tea - rich Pekoe Souchong - a True First Class Tea, possessing amazing strength and flavour.
Bury and Norwich Post - Wednesday 02 January 1850, pg 1 column 5.

Also,
Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette - Saturday 25 May 1850, pg 1 column 4 :
"Congou at 3s. 6d. will be found a very useful Breakfast Tea."
John Bull - Saturday 11 May 1850 pg 14 column 3 :
"A good sound Breakfast Tea, at 3s. 0d. per lb."

I note that all these adverts capitalise the term "Breakfast Tea". I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject to know if these teas are likely to be similar to modern "breakfast teas".

The earliest entry I can find is in Saunders's News-Letter - Monday 24 July 1786, pg 3 column 2 : "BREAKFAST TEA at 4s. 4d. [per lb.]". May be worth adding that this is an Irish publication (Dublin).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Good research. Being primary sources though, not sure how to frame it here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Scottish references, there's one in The Scotsman on 21st March 1838 for "FAMILY BREAKFAST TEA". The earliest references to the phrase "English breakfast tea" appear to be from November 1862. (I've run out of my free searches though and am not subscribed to the archive.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

...and at The Scotsman's own archive there's a 17th January 1835 reference to Breakfast Tea. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There's also a 22 August 1801 ad in the Ipswich Journal, showing that there is use of the term "Breakfast tea" in Ireland, England and Scotland preceding the proposed coinage of the term preceded by "English..." in 1840s America. With the aim of reflecting earlier usage of the term but respecting that so far we only have WP:PRIMARY sources, so no interpretation, how about something like:

"Accounts of its origins vary. Drinking a blend of black teas for breakfast is a longstanding British and Irish custom. The term breakfast tea has been applied by vendors since at least the late 18th century.(etc., further refs e.g. including the Ipswich one and the 1835 Scotsman one; as mentioned, I've reached my limit on free links)

The practice of referring to such a blend as "English breakfast tea" is claimed...etc.

In the UK, the popularisation of breakfast tea has been attributed in part to Queen Victoria. At Balmoral in 1892 she tasted and enjoyed a blend so-named and returned to London with a supply. Despite this tea's Scottish origin, it subsequently acquired the prefix "English"."?

References

Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It strikes me that the attribution of the popularity of Breakfast Tea to Queen Victoria is not supported by the evidence of substantially earlier newspapers. I suspect that these sources did not benefit from the recently available search facilities of the British Newspaper Archive. That would make them outdated sources. I note that they also appear to be commercial sites: the primary purpose of their content is to sell tea. Looking at other commercial sites one can find "Drinking a blend of loose leaf black teas with breakfast is a long-standing British custom, known to derive from Queen Anne’s reign in the 16th century." [4] Obviously this does not date the name "Breakfast Tea" but it appears to date the concept. The Queen Victoria story is prominent in Yorkshire Tea's site ([5]), but it really does sound as though this was written by the marketing department. Furthermore, it could also refer to the precise blend used by Yorkshire Tea - it is not totally clear.

Whilst there are clear dangers of primary sources and original research here, there are also the hazards of commercial sites trying to sell a product. I have contacted Brodie teas to see if they can substantiate their claim to a pivotal role in the origin of breakfast tea. Unless they can come up with something substantial and independent, I suggest that it is complete nonsense. (That does not mean that Queen Victoria did not fall for it - it is entirely possible that she travelled home from Balmoral with an ample supply of their tea. But this would not, on its own, be of sufficient significance for inclusion in the article.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It had entirely slipped my mind that I attempted contact with Brodie some time ago but received no response. I hope you have better luck.

That the term was used at least on some occasions prior to the period of the Victoria popularisation story is significant but it would be interpretation to say the term was in wide currency on the strength of a count of its use in several newspaper articles. We are talking comparatively few coinages as yet, aren't we, rather than scores, hundreds or thousands? It may have existed as a relatively marginal concept, to become one of the most prominent blends on the basis of Vicky's liking for it; we don't know as yet. Whether the story is true, it is verifiable in Wiki terms, which is what counts here and we can also add a proviso if something comes to light to cast doubt. Should the story be proved to be false but widespread, that is enough to support its mention in the article. The story is mentioned in numerous commercial sites but it is included in these books as well:[6], [7], [8].

If you have a subscription to the Newspaper archive, could you add the additional refs to the sentence ending "the late 18th century", the Scotsman and Ipswich ones, and possibly elaborate the existing refs with further detail? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Things could get very tricky at Wiki without Vicky. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The first of the three books appears to be self-published but the other two are not, Blacks certainly a reputable publisher. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Trying to get a grip of the information in the British Newspaper Archive - if I search for: "breakfast tea" -service (the exclusion of "service" is to cut out adverts for people selling crockery - this only works with partial efficiency) I get:
440 hits in 1750-1799
54,385 hits in

1800-1849
547,894 hits in 1850-1899
326,190 hits in 1900-1949
57,684 hits in 1950-1999
3,356 hits in 2000-2019 Drilling down into the detail, the majority are adverts for tea placed by retailers and wholesalers. This does not seem to be an insignificant number. Given that these newspapers are all British and the majority of them are English, one might consider that it is redundant to put the word "English" in front of "Breakfast Tea" if that is what you are selling. There is no massive increase in usage in the last decade of 1850-1899, (it just appears to go up on trend) so I don't think we see the "Victoria effect" with any great clarity there.

A search for the exact phrase "English breakfast tea" gives
177 hits in 1850-1899
26 hits in 1900-1949
45 hits in 1950-1999
3 hits in 2000-2019
Without doing a statistical analysis, but judging by eye, there is no surge in usage following Victoria's experience in 1892 over the period 1890-1899. Sampling some of the hits for "English breakfast tea", you find things like comments on staying in American hotels, an article on how people eat (breakfast with the newspaper propped on the table, etc.), a joke, travel on Canadian railways.

All of the above I would consider to be original research - so I am not sure what use it is. I am trying to identify quality sources on the subject - to my mind that does not include marketing pieces based on a company's (presumably) oral history, especially when the BNA suggests that at least some of what that history says is highly questionable.

Not sure that I understand which book you are referring to that is published by Blacks - perhaps that will make sense in the morning (when I might get to insert the precise references you ask for).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's the second of the 3 links to books that I noted, The English Breakfast by O'Connor. Sorry if it seems obvious but, to the extent I could browse without an archive sub, the bulk of the hits I saw were of the nature "breakfast, tea (e.g and supper)" etc.. Were you able to filter out such instances, with a comma between the words? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a good question about ensuring that BNA hits are actually what you want. Ultimately you have to look at each hit individually. Instead, I sampled the first 3 pages of hits for 1850-1899. Pg 1 gave 8 good hits (which were tea adverts) and 4 bad hits (adverts for hotel, crockery and marmalade). Pages 2 and 3 gave 12 out of 12 good hits on each. I quickly scanned up to page 11 and did not spot any bad hits. Digging into the later pages (e.g. pg 20) there did seem to be a significantly higher proportion of bad hits. I have yet to understand exactly how the BNA search engine works and how it orders its results. I do know that if you repeat an identical search a few days later, it will give different results. On close examination, I see that I searched for - "breakfast tea" breakfast tea -service - so doubling up on the wanted words. I did not go further on this, since it appears to be original research to me.

Taking an alternative search strategy, I used - "breakfast tea" breakfast tea lb congou -service - so as to pick up specialist tea adverts (though I would expect this to diminish the number of hits in later years as customers talked less about the tea types that dealers bought). This gives pages 1 to 5 (60 hits) of good hits for 1850-1899. I also sampled page 15 and found 100% good hits on that page but by pg 20 the results became a lot poorer with just a few good hits per page at best thereafter.
For the prior period, 1800-1849, the first 4 pages of hits seem to be 100% good.
I don't really want to be writing a doctoral thesis on the subject (!!), but I think it is clear that there is usage of the term "breakfast tea" in the British press throughout the second half of the 19th century, as well as broadly similar usage in the preceding half century. (The number of newspapers produced massively increased in the second half of the 19th century.) It is also clear that the BNA search engine, at least in my hands, has limitations.

I realise I have dodged some of the other questions - but am out of time to look further on this right now. Perhaps more tomorrow.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

First sentence phrasing

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)