Jump to content

Talk:Lancashire Tea

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

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton-le-Williows

[edit]

Just like Chicago Town Pizza is made in Germany, Lancashire Tea is made in Merseyside. Newton-le-Willows is in Merseyside, period. Let's not have an edit war about it being in Lancashire, traditionally or otherwise. The fact that it is made in Newton-le-Willows has no connection with how Lancashire is used in the title until a source says otherwise. See also WP:PLACE. --Jza84 |  Talk  04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, I feel it's pertinent to the article to attach the cultural heritage of Newton-le-Willows to the product which the company feels best represents the 'county palatine' rather than the current ceremonial county [1]. If not in the way that I wrote, but in another form which best suits everyone. As for the Chicago Town Pizza being made in Germany; it is in no way synonymous with Newton-le-Willows and the lineage attached to 'Lancashire' Tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by An index of metals (talk • contribs) 06:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire Tea promotes the historic county of Lancashire. There are currently different types of county in the UK - Newton-le-Willows is in the ceremonial county of Merseyside and the historic county of Lancashire regardless of your own personal view - the Wikipedia take on counties is ridiculous because it ignores the reality. I've been searching for this so-called consensus on Wikipedia county policy and have only located an argument between a number of people calling for the recognition of the continued existence of the historic counties and a few voices wanting to deny it. There should be recognition that Newton-le-Willows is part of Lancashire, even if it isn't the Lancashire of the County Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.151.46 (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again per policy. Wikipedia is not obliged to maintain this company's advertising claims. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"(rv. Also part of St Helens NHS Trust and St Helens North constituency. Wikipedia is not obliged to maintain Lanc's Tea advertising claims)" There is no need to be facetious. The NHS Trust and Constituency are irrelevant, but a reference to the County Palatine of Lancashire is clearly relevant to a brand using *Lancashire* in its name, promoting its base as part of that county, and promoting the historic county on its packaging. A remark about the County Palatine is explanatory to anyone who wonders why the company is based outside the area it is so obviously associated with.
"per policy" - I did not remove the reference to Merseyside and mentioned the historic connection - *historic* connection in brackets as an explanatory. How does this violate policy exactly? I thought this article was meant to be informative?
"The fact that it is made in Newton-le-Willows has no connection with how Lancashire is used in the title until a source says otherwise." The sources which you deleted did show the connection between Lancashire Tea's use of 'Lancashire' in the name and Newton-le-Willows.86.162.151.46 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I have looked at WP:PLACE where it says under what is ACCEPTABLE: "Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the historic borders of Warwickshire". My edit was along these lines: "Based in Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside (which is part of the historic County Palatine of Lancashire)". I therefore followed the guidelines at [WP:PLACE]]. How are you justified in deleting this? 86.162.151.46 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
County Palatines are not counties and have little meaning here to the casual or even informed reader. They're effectively highly ceremonialised dukedoms, which the County Palatine of Lancashire recognises the post-74 counties and counties ([1]): "Nowadays the County Palatine comprises the modern administrative counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Furness in Cumbria. The Duchy of Lancaster continues to exercise functions such as the appointment of High Sheriffs [to Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside]. The Lord Lieutenants for Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside are the current Keepers of the Rolls [in the palatine]." Furthermore, WP:PLACE states "we use the modern, administrative counties"; county palatines are not precluded in the policy, just like we do not use NHS trust boundaries or cultural regions, or geographic regions or constituencies.
Does Lancashire tea's situation within the palatine have any bearing on its business practices? No. Does it even say the palatine is part of its brand? No. Does a foodstuff that carries a geographic name have be from that county? No (Chicago Town Pizza is made in Germany for example; Boddington's (the Cream of Manchester) is made in Wales; Scotch egg is a dish from London). Is Newton-le-Willows in Lancashire? No. Was Newton-le-Willows' postal county Lancashire? No. Is London Gatwick Airport in London? No. Should we permit Lancashire Tea to be granted preferential treatment to maintain its brand credentials? No.
--Jza84 |  Talk  01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples as given above aren't really applicable. Was Germany ever in Chicago? No. Was Wales ever in Manchester? No. Was Scotland ever in London? No. Was Gatwick ever in London? No. Was Newton-le-Willows ever in Lancashire? Yes - and thus I think common sense should apply here: that whilst Lancashire Tea is produced in Merseyside, Merseyside is a part of the historic County Palatine, which features on the packaging. WP:PLACE would seem to allow for that. A line explaining the brandname would be approriate. Divy (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Just because the tea is made in Newton-le-Willows doesn't mean that's why it's called Lancashire Tea. That's original research on your part. People are just assuming it's called Lancashire Tea because of its base - when it's not. The reality is much more likely that the tea is marketed as Lancashire so as to jump on the success of Yorkshire Tea. My points above about geographic locale isn't about counties, but how things are branded to make money. Also, does this mean we add that Birkenhead and Saddleworth are in the historic County Palatine of Lancashire? ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No An index of metals (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think so. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this argument seems very petty. As noted above, it is within Wikipedia's guidelines as stated at WP:PLACE to refer to the historic county when it is relevant. It IS relevant here - every time I have read about Lancashire Tea, there has been a connection made between Newton-le-Willows and its place within the historic borders. There is no harm in mentioning that. The Duchy of Lancaster may include the whole of Merseyside, etc in the Palatine, but I don't think that is really relevant to the point the user was making - people refer to the palatine to distinguish it from admin/ceremonial Lancashire, which seems to be what he was doing (as here on these signs erected in 2004 Historic Lancashire Border sign - A59. The majority here seem to want a mention of Newton-le-Willows and its place within Lancashire, so I cannot see why you are refusing it, especially when it doesn't conflict with WP policy! You say that Newton-le-Willows is not in Lancashire now, but that is your opinion! It is within the historic county, the boundaries of which have not been altered. Even the present government acknowledges that, and Lancashire County Council acknowledges it (hence their granting of permission for the above signs)! Notice that the Duchy of Lancaster website refers to "the modern administrative counties of..." - it calls them administrative counties to distinguish them from the historic one. Orexis bouleutike (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone direct me to the consensus on county policy. Thanks. Orexis bouleutike (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Newton-le-Willows is in Merseyside is not a matter of opinion. Wikipedia's stance on counties can be found at WP:PLACE, where it states "We should use the current, administrative, county". That Newton-le-Willows was part of historic Lancashire has nothing to do with the name of the tea. The name was chosen as a marketing ploy, to rival Yorkshire Tea, not because Newton-le-Willows has Lancashire connections. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not question the use of Merseyside or remove it! I know the stance on place and amended the article to be in line with that stance! Nor have I claimed that the tea is called Lancashire because it is based in Newton-le-Willows. I really don't see why it's irrelevant to say that the tea is made from within the historic borders. I give up! Orexis bouleutike (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Um, the historic borders of China or Malaysia? I don't believe there are tea plantations in Newton-le-Willows. Unless you have a source? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the current admin County of Lancashire were established in 1974, they were deliberately described as administrative counties and if I remember correctly upheld the historic (meaning tradional, not as in past, therefore still existing). If Lancashire was not recognised, where is Lancashire County Cricket Club based? Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old Trafford ;-) That's not the point though. The point is, is it relevant to mention that Newton-le-Willows is historically a part of Lancashire? I don't think it is because the brand name isn't based on where Newton is or isn't, the company could be based in Yorkshire and still be called Lancashire Tea. Nev1 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm in stating that Newton is historically part of Lancashire. As being a resident just up the road of Newton I am well aware that Lanacashire is still well used. Darkieboy236 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about all the fuss it's causing here? It should of course be mentioned in the Newton article, but it's not relevant here. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darkieboy, where were they described as administrative counties? What part of the act upheld the traditional counties? Where did the term "traditional county" first appear? I know the answers, but I'm trying to dispell the myths here. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My references are from a debate that a recall in the House of Commons. Darkieboy236 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that memory is not a source acceptable to wikipedia. I invite you to review and note WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to check Hansard.Darkieboy236 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that speaks for itself Darkieboy236. I recall the Sky is brown, you're welcome to check my library. I jest of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also recall the sky being brown - I do not jest, of course.Darkieboy236 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent reply to Darkieboy236) Setting aside the issue of "Burden of Evidence" obligations which do not rest with me: see WP:V#Burden of evidence, which I invited you to review earlier, I offer the following as information: It is not a good idea to base one's actions here on half-remembered parliamentary debates about county boundaries. Indeed, even if the memory was perfectly accurate, it is a memory of statements from MPs who have to say things to pander to various pressure groups deemed influential in their own constituencies on occasion. It is far better to go with the various widely-recognised authoritative sources concerning boundaries and so on here. Such an authoritative source for such matters in Youngs' book (Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270..)

On the matter of the existence of "Historic Counties" or not, Youngs book does not mention "Historic Counties" at all: the correct form of words in use by him and other expert local historians are: Ancient County (in use from the time that area was shired to 1889, when they were abolished); "Administrative County" (from 1889 to 1974, when they were abolished); and (for Lancashire) "Non-Metropolitan County" (from 1974), with (for Merseyside) "Metropolitan County" from 1974. (pages 676 and 709 of Youngs book.) Merseyside is now used in a ceremonial way.

Now for the current position of Newton-le-Willows, we see that in 1974, when the former Urban District of Newton-le-Willows was abolished (pages 190, 676 of Youngs), it was transferred from the Administrative County of Lancashire to the Metropolitan County of Merseyside (pages 190, 676, and 709 in Youngs.)

From this we can conclude that: (a) There is no official term "Historic County", instead it should be one of the forms listed above; (b) Newton-le-Willows is no longer in the Administrative County of Lancashire, and the Ancient County of Lancashire ceased to exist in 1889 (c) Youngs clearly states it was in Merseyside in 1974, and no one has offered any evidence that a significant boundary change has happened since reassigning its county allocation.

There is no problem with mentioning Newton-le-Willows previous administrative arrangements when it is apt to do so in relation to the name of "Lancashire Tea", but I consider it should not be given undue weight, and should only be used to explain why the name of "Lancashire Tea" was chosen, if indeed it can be verified that the name was chosen on the basis of the old, now abolished, county arrangements. So, the binding of "Lancashire" should primarily be to "Lancashire Tea" rather than "Newton-le-Willows".  DDStretch  (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This view is shared in W. Eric Jackson's 1963 book Local Government in England and Wales (which uses "ancient counties") and D. Wilson's and C. Games's 1994 book Local Government in the United Kingdom, and N. J. Frangopulo's 1977 book Tradition in Action: The Historical Evolution of the Greater Manchester County. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."

(Government statement, The Times, 1st April 1974) "The Local Government Act 1972 did not abolish traditional counties, only administrative ones. Although for local government purposes some of the historic counties have ceased to be administrative areas, they continue to exist for other purposes." (Department of the Environment Sept 1991)Darkieboy236 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are misattributations from the Association of British Counties that you've likely copied from facebook. The first quote is not a government policy statement; it was the commentary of an anonymous official (you think the government published its policy in a newspaper on the day of the act? Who said that quote?). The second quote is part of a debate in the House of Commons from a junior Parliamentary Under-Secretary; it was the MPs opinion, not part of law. Don't believe me? - check the references at their primary source. Again, once you check your facts you will see that these myths don't stand up. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/content/articles/2006/07/18/lancashire_tea_feature.shtml
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lancashire Tea. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lancashire 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lancashire 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lancashire_Tea&oldid=1203477914"