Jump to content

Talk:Tate & Lyle

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pterre (talk | contribs) at 08:21, 5 October 2011 (→Section on advertising). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLondon Unassessed Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can we add Domino sugar to make a list of brands?


How do GNR and BBC reckon T&L to be the UKs oldest brand? According to the article T&L was founded in 1921 out of two companies (the oldest Lyle being founded in 1865).

Either date is way too late as UK's oldest brand when you consider that Lloyds was established in 1688, Bank of Scotland 1695, Crosse and Blackwell 1706, Royal Sun Insurance 1710, Whitbread 1742, Wedgwood 1759, Yardley 1770, Bass 1777... and so on (in fact under brands, Wikipedia has a useful list of businesses going back to c1000).

Against this T&L is an also ran!

It can't even claim to have the oldest registered UK trademark as Bass had No1 on 1st January 1876. Perhaps what they meant was that T&L has the oldest pack design. Even so, I would have thought that the likes of Colman's mustard, Bass Light Ale and .. if not UK, bottled Guiness (and Camp Coffee until recently) could maybe beat that as well?). NeilW 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article is clear that it's the packaging from 1885: presumably the others have changed too much to qualify. . dave souza, talk 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article is confused as there is a difference between brand (of which many predate T&L) and the tin design (of which it may be the oldest packaging) Sadly the requirement of Wikipedia is verifibility and not truth or facts (which is a fundamental and monumentally stupid flaw) so the reference is permitted in the bizzare world that is Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.42.88 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

208.50.89.58 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Hi, Subject to the conflicts of interest rule, I can not edit this page. However, I would appreciate someone updating some of the facts listed on the page as follows:[reply]

In 4th paragraph of 'History' should be changed to the following text, all referenced from the History page of their website [1] - In 1988 it acquired a 90% stake in A. E. Staley, a US corn processing business and in 1998 it brought Haarmann & Reimer, a citric acid producer. In 2000 it acquired the remaining minorities of Amylum and A. E. Staley.

In the first paragraph of 'Operations' it should say the company operates over 45 production facilities (not 50) and A.E.Staley should be changed to read "Food and Industrial Ingredients Americas (formally A.E. Staley)"

In see also, the references to Redpath Sugar and Western Sugar Cooperative should be removed - they are no longer associated with Tate & Lyle.

In external links, I don't understand why there is a link to a biography of 'Carl I. Hagen - he has nothing to do with T&L as far as I am aware - can anyone spread any light on this?

Many thanks 208.50.89.58 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amended as requested except that the operations section already reads as you had intended so I have not touched it. Please clarify if further edits are needed Dormskirk (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on advertising

I have removed the section about the litigation involving the marketing slogans for the Splenda brand. Tate & Lyle was not involved in the legal battle; it involved McNeil Nutritionals which markets the Splenda brand. Therefore I don't think it belongs in this article. It is appropriately mentioned at Splenda and can probably be added to McNeil Nutritionals, though. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of sugar business

63.85.198.98 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Due to confilct of interest I can not edit this page. Following the disposal of the Sugars division this article is quite out of date with regards to the mentions of Sugar. A lot of the info should be moved to the American Sugar Refining page who now own Tate & Lyle Sugars Ltd or a new Tate & Lyle Sugars Ltd page needs to be created. Additionally the company is no longer set up as per the divisons mentioned (TALFIIE, TALFIIA), the new structure can be found on the 'About Us' section of www.tateandlyle.com Thank you 63.85.198.98 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any suggestions about how this is handled? As I understand it Tate & Lyle has sold its sugar business (including for example the London refinery) but nevertheless continues to trade as "Tate & Lyle". However the brands "Tate & Lyle", "Lyle's Golden Syrup" etc appear to have gone with the sugar business and for the time being remain in use. Pterre (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.tateandlyle.com/TateAndLyle/our_business/history/history_timeline.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tate_%26_Lyle&oldid=454042712"