Talk:Lipton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 19 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khatc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lipton today[edit]

I removed the sentence 'Canada and the United Kingdom continue to prefer Tetley over Lipton which remains in second place' as first of all, we ccould provide a very extensive list of markets where Lipton is not a leading brand, not just Canada and UK. second, there is no data to back this claim up about Tetley (and it should belong on the Tetley page really). Third, in the UK Lipton is not even second as the brand is not widely available there in leaf tea, so the statement was factually incorrect. The largest tea brand in the UK appears to be PG Tips, not tetley, according to the Unilever website, but again, that doesn't belong in an article about Lipton. Mtl1969 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice(d) tea[edit]

since Lipton seems to uses 'Iced Tea' for its products in the USA, and 'Ice Tea' in Europe, I wrote 'ice(d) tea'

That's very uninteresting.

Advertising[edit]

I still feel like it was written by a Lipton employee. ("Health benefits" rather than "affects," "best-known" is unsupported in the first sentence, Lipton Today section only addresses its popularity and success, etc...) Artoonie (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address most of the concerns, rewrote in a neutral style and added references--194.60.106.5 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page still reads like an advertisement for Lipton. Can this article be flagged as such? Bigheadjer 04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as "Lipton represents around 10 percent of the world market for tea" is not backed up by a citation i suggest removing it. --Whmice (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an advertisement. Can we get someone to look into this? 75.73.153.18 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the statements above -- this article has clearly been 'touched up' by Lipton's marketing people and needs major work to improve its neutrality and factual accuracy. Dunks (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a template for that, you know. LokiClock (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If there is any further doubt about this article being written by Lipton all one needs is to read this excerpt from 'Lipton today': "Like most branded teas, Lipton teas are a blend selected from many different plantations around the world, from well-known producing countries like India, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and China. Lipton Yellow Label is blended from as many as 20 different teas[5] in specialized tasting rooms in seven regional hubs scattered all over the world."

Seriously, tea isn't that awesome, nor is making tea that awesome. Especially that last sentence, as it's not only unverified but indescribable. What is a tasting room? What makes a tasting room specialized in comparison to a 'normal' tasting room? Why do they need a regional hub for specialized tasting rooms? Why would they need seven of them? Why are they scattered across the world? If I gather them will I get a magic wish? More importantly, why would Unilever pay the import/export taxes on 20 different teas grown around the world when Lipton always tastes like acidic donkey piss and could be much more profitable if grown by third parties that Lipton just buys tea leaves from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.185.146 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea is good, and it's easy to make. Maybe you've had some bad tea. Yes, it looks like there might have been some copy-and paste of advertising materials going on there. A "tasting room" is a station or lab set up to regularly sample coffee, tea, wine, beer or other food products that are blended or otherwise might vary in flavor with yearly crop fluctuations, or production variables without monitoring. Specialized could be in reference to whatever their internal practices are, not like how those savages at XYZ Tea Co do it. Seven of them, perhaps they sell a lot of tea. Would you get a wish, nah, but they might send you a glib letter if you write them about it. It's obviously very, very hard work to make a product that is consistently, internationally, mediocre. Maybe they get good deals on 20 different kinds of floorsweepings and blend them to a near-tea beverage, who knows. Maybe they don't want those people in the tasting rooms to talk to the other tasting rooms other about how bad the tea is? Whitebox (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tea blending page: Tea blending and additives. Whitebox (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lipton Approach - advert[edit]

I feel the Lipton Approach section is written like an advertisement, or maybe has weasel words. Just the name "Lipton Approach" smacks of commercialism to me. I've marked it as such. There is some genuine content in there, though, so I did not simply delete the section.Erich Blume 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advert banner was removed on May 15 2008 by user Fremte, with the explicit request to discuss here if anybody disagreed. Today an advert has been added again, by an unregstered user, without any explanation here. I have gone ahead and removed it again- please discuss here if you disagree. I feel that if this needs an advert banner, you might as well place an advert banner on every article about a brand or company. thanks Mtl1969 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking[edit]

This article appeared to have been blanked out, so I've made a restoration. Pepso 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled by its blanking too and was about to restore it in a reduced form myself. There was no mention of it in the articles for deletion lists. But it did read like an advert. Lumos3 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability[edit]

This section was edited to say that Lipton's move got mixed reviews, without providing any support for that. hence, I have removed this. Itw as provided by an unregistered user. Criticism for the Rainforest Alliance can be found at that entry. Mtl1969 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent1, you state 'The move has received mixed reviews: Rainforest Alliance certification, dubbed "Fairtrade lite" by various observers and news sources, is questioned in the industry[3] and was described in January 2005 by Oxford University professor Alex Nicholls as "an easy option for companies looking for a “flash in the pan at a cheap price”.[4]'

I can find no evidence that Unilever/Lipton's received mixed reviews. please provide those. a 2 year old quote regarding the Rainforest Alliance cannot be seen to apply to a move that happend in May 2007. accordingly, i have removed your edits The criticism of Rainforest Alliance exist but is extensively covered at their page Mtl1969 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious doubts have been raised about Unilever's claims regarding its socially and environmentally sustainable supply chain. For example, a recent expose of appalling working conditions in Unilever factories in Pakistan has tarnished one of company's biggest global brands, Lipton. Human rights violations and the appalling working conditions of its employees in Pakistan threatens a public backlash. Lipton is one the global brands in Unilever’s so-called billion-dollar brands portfolio. more information: http://www.iuf.org/casualtea/ http://www.unileverwatch.org/ Lipton.casualty (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be integrated into the article until it has been demonstrated that this has any kind of notability. It is clear that you are campaigning about this issue. That is your good right. However, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a campaigning tool. It is supposed to be a repository for shared and common knowledge, and to take a neutral Point of View NPOV. If indeed this campaign is widely reported upon in reliable sources then it warrants inclusion here. All the websites you name are directly related to the campaign and therefore can not be counted as reliable, independent sources of information Mtl1969 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Does anyone know the email address for this company, cause the comment thing just ain't workin' out...

Lipton Milk Tea[edit]

Can anyone add 'Lipton Milk Tea' in this article. It is being sold in Asian markets. I only know 3 Flavors: original, vanilla, and goldhttp://pinoyfood.nimrodel.net/2008/04/21/lipton-milk-tea-2/. I don't know about American and European markets but these products are very popular (yet expensive) in our country (Philippines) Triadwarfare (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Mtl1969 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flavored tea discontinued[edit]

back in the 70's lipton sold a flavored tea entitled 'black rum'. it never stayed on the shelves in the stores long, was quite popular, i loved it. it disappeared rather abruptly and i was never able to find out why. this took place in new york state. is it still being sold and so where. wilk356@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.201.155 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the European drink Jagertee which it may have been flavored after, so if you don't mind the extra kick, mix some up yourself, or look for other imported brands. Whitebox (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Suggested merger from Lipton Iced Tea. I think the iced tea article could be a short section of this article. Please comment. Thanks. --Fremte (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merger completed. some copy editting required. --Fremte (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i did some editing- feel free to comment.Mtl1969 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay. I wonder about the need for a comprehensive listing of all the flavours. Green tea with tuna, Iced tea with lark's vomit etc. Is it necessary to have them all? --Fremte (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps not, but you merged the article, and now you propose to delete the majority of the content of the original article. In the stand-alone article it was OK to have his level of detail- the the broad Lipton article is does seem a little off-balance, i agree. but in that case the original article should have been marked for deletion (which it wasn't) or it should remain a stand-alone, with a link to it from this main article. Mtl1969 (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, that's why I did not do anything about the content and left it. There had been a deletion disc about the iced tea article before, and I thought this merge was the right decision. Rethinking it, maybe the balance issue is that there needs to be expansion of the other parts? I was trying to be humourous with my silly flavours comment. Please do whatever you think is good. --Fremte (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i had already beefed up some of the other parts but based on your suggestion i have done some more research and gone a little further. I didn't want to create excessive lists of flavour variants but added some examples to give people an idea. I think this should do it for nowMtl1969 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! --Fremte (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other products?[edit]

What about "Lipton Noodles & Sauce", AKA "Lipton Side Dishes/Sidekicks", "Big Foot Soup", "Alligator Soup", "Chicken Noodle Soup", "Vegetable Soup", chewy fruit snacks, ... 142.167.165.105 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this article was written primarily from a Tea perspective. The food brands are still around, and possibly just need a section. ~ К3вину (RSVP) (What) 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer of the pyramid-shaped tea bag?[edit]

Sorry, but wasn't PG Tips doing the pyramid-shaped tea bag long before Lipton? Is it correct to say that Lipton was a pioneer in this regard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.67.248 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PG Tips began using pyramid teabags in the 1990s, when did lipton start? Evalowyn (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal testing[edit]

This article really needs to be rewritten, and maybe something about the animal testing reports from PETA should be added? Evalowyn (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was just rewritten [1] by Wenttomowameadow to remove the promotional content. If there are any reliable secondary sources showing that the animal testing is a notable controversy, it could be added. Right now a press release from PETA isn't sufficient. Dayewalker (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about Unilever's own announcement that it was stopping non-human–animal testing of tea? — President Lethe (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that notable? It sounds a bit promotional, i.e. "Look how ethical we are!" and it's a bit strange to write about something bad that a company doesn't do. I think we should stay neutral about this sort of stuff. I'd like to hear reasons why we should add this, though. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lipton Teas in the UK[edit]

A number of the teas (as tea bags) are available in the UK - in both supermarkets and (a slightly different range) in smaller specialist food stores. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which was sold to Argyll Foods the supermarket chain or the tea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.133 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Lipton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added flawor[edit]

was curious about lipton's yellow label. it says on the packing "contents: tea and flaworing". sadly the article contains no information on what is added to the tea. i see there have been efforts to improve the article but, it still seems to contain only information that would be released by the company's "introduce the brand to the targeted consumers" statement. maybe the article can avoid being labeled as an advertisment by aviding to say directly "best product, order now" but this isnt enough to reach an encyclopedical standard. the historical section seems okay as far as i care for that, but apart from that theres hardly any information that could not be found on the products' label. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lipton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lipton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lipton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lipton&oldid=1207331640"