Talk:Dilmah

Neutrality
This article is not neutral at all. It reads like a marketing brochure. I strongly suggest that it be modified. &mdash; Yama 11:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-Seconded, also could the rumour that dilmah is not actually fair trade be sustainiated/squashed. 203.184.33.206 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

-Thirded. It it still not neural at all and the page is basically marketing for the brand. As the page has been marked as needing a rewrite for two years and nothing has happened, I have marked it as marketing and requested deletion, unless it is urgently updated. &mdash; Kahis 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
...really have to wonder why bother contributing to WP at all... So tell me why my changes were wiped? Copyright? Are you an expert in copyright law? Try to explain how you can include the company's logo, but not excerpts from a public note! And wiped while editing was in progress — try to learn some manners! —DIV (128.250.204.118 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Just because a note is public does not mean that it is not covered by copyright. Wikipedia does not permit copyright violations.  --Yamla 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Luckily Wikipedia also does not permit me to tell you precisely what I think of your actions.
 * There is no copyright infringement in extracting passages of a public note. If you think otherwise, prove it.  Give me an example of just one successful prosecution, under any jurisdiction you like.
 * I can legally quote a memorable passage from a novel in a newspaper review, despite the fact that the novel is copyrighted. The pertinent points are the proportion of the full work and the purpose of the quotation.  I should not do the same for a private manuscript (without permsission).  The pertinent points are whether the work is public and the effect on the copyright owner.
 * See also Copyright for a very basic overview.
 * You also managed to ignorantly wipe out other users' improvements to the article, which should have been reinstated, but apparently no-one looks at the histories to see that the pathetic stub that exists is actually the stump of a nicer version that got hacked.
 * —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Yamla is right that verbatim copying of a publication - even one intended for free distribution - is a violation of copyright. However, it is not violating copyright to restate the insert's contents in your own words.  It's POV, but so long as you write it as the company's stated position rather than a fact, or source it from an unbiased third party, there should be no problem. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy
Dilmah is a brand of MJF Group, according to their website. I'd correct the article, but someone who 'knows better' would probably change it back :-p —DIV (128.250.204.118 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Speaking of slash-and-burn editors, in your rush to defend copyright(?!), you've wiped things wholesale so this really is a stub (again) now. For example, the link to the charitable Foundation — that link was a violation too, I suppose?  Oh, sorry, you're too busy to fix things to make them better :-P —DIV 128.250.204.118 (talk)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
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) 14:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dilmah
A tag has been placed on Dilmah, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Dilmah and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 88.112.37.37 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag because I did not feel that speedy delete is the most appropriate for this article. I do agree with your assassment that it reads like an advertisment. The company is well established though and I think that the article can be saved, if rewritten. On a side note, I have never edited this article and have no invested interest in it other than the overall improvment of wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the text that made this article seem like blatant advertising had been lifted from the Dilmah website. I have removed it now. This is not the first time this article has had copyright violations added to it, and I should have kept a closer eye on it. - Mark 00:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceylon Tea Services PLC,
On the List of companies of Sri Lanka links here - but there is no obvious indication why. Can someone clarify please? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Company vs brand
Dilmah is a trading name of Dilmah Ceylon Tea Company plc. Certainly, Dilmah came to be used as a brand, but on WP we mostly use company as the primary meaning. As you can see, Airbus and Boeing are thus a "company division" and a "multinational corporation" respectively rather than "aircraft brands". Similarly, Tetley is "an Indo-English beverage manufacturer, and (...) tea company" rather than "a brand of tea". It is quite common that over time, company names become synonymous with their products ("buying a Porsche", etc.) but we should strive to stick to the primary meaning IMHO. Regards, — kashmiri  TALK  23:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this, but the Airbus article does not say "Airbus is a company". It says "Airbus SAS is a division of the multinational Airbus Group SE". Similarly, the Boeing article does not say "Boeing is a company". It says "The Boeing Company is an American multinational corporation". I believe it is important to be precise, even on Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic definitions should be precise (the short name can be used later in the article, but not in the initial definition). Wikipedia does make the distinction. I can see many prominent articles here that differentiate between a brand name, a trade name and a company (e.g. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Lipton, DivX, Sony, and yes, Porsche, too). This is the common practice on Wikipedia, and the correct way to do it. So I suggest something like "Dilmah Ceylon Tea Company Plc is a subsidiary of MJF Teas (Pvt) Limited that produces tea under the brand name Dilmah", or "Dilmah is a brand name of tea produced by the Dilmah Ceylon Tea Company Plc" (the latter probably looks much better).—J. M. (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I would remove the word "Ceylon" from the initial definition (just "is a brand of tea" instead of "is a brand of Ceylon tea"), as Dilmah offers not only Ceylon tea, but also teas from other countries such as India, Korea (, many of their green teas do not seem to be Sri Lankan, but they do not reveal the country of origin in the description, I can only guess some of them may be Chinese) or even rooibos , which is probably South African. Again, the term "Ceylon tea" is a marketing description that Dilmah uses, but Wikipedia should be precise.—J. M. (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)