Talk:Tata Group

"Mass killings"

See https://archive.md/dC2U

You MUST discuss changes here. I have justified every source.

There have been at least 4 IP-address editors or editors with a single edit who try to remove this content. You must discuss it here. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah you should remove the mass killing part as it cannot be justified with just one internet article and if you just want to add that add in controversy part and not in the top of the article Master bolt (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

and the link 17 and 18 both are not working Master bolt (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

and link 12 is page not found ,and 13 does not specify anything related to mass killings Master bolt (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You are the 5th account without any edit history trying to remove this. I will point out that your account was created today. This is your first edit. Curiously, you seem astonishingly precocious in understanding Wikipedia's policies and talk page discussions. IN encourage you to disclose previous Wikipedia accounts on your talk page.

As stated by @Swadge2 , the links are accessible via archive.

If you believe more citations are needed, I suggest looking up Kalinganagar Massacre, Singur Oppression, or many of the other Tata actions conducted via police operation.

The "mass killings" is part and parcel of a method of operating, well cited throughout the article, that can best be described as "semi-governmental cronyism". It is well cited that Tata enjoys significant latitude to operate outside the law, to the extent of India's "rule of law". It is not WP:OR to state this on a talk page. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, vandalism to remove this last paragraph in lede, this time by IP editor 199.67.140.47 a history of vandalism.

Again, the account was newly created, and again it was an IP account. Its other edits include changing the name of an article on a U.S. judge to "Fart Pinknose". DenverCoder19 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: what should the type field say?

Moved from Talk:Toddy1
Hello, I have recently noticed that you have reverted my edit on Tata Group twice. I would like to elaborate on why I changed it from "Corporate group" to "Private because below the Type, there is the Industry section that perfectly describes it as a "Conglomerate". Since groups can't be owned by any member, it is private. Thank you for understanding. Other examples of "Private" used to describe groups:

• 1. Toyota Group
• 2. Samsung Group

WiinterU (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense to me.

Tata Group is a group of 29 publicly listed companies. It therefore fits the definition of a corporate group. Some editors in the past have made a POV push that the family is the real owner of the company and misrepresented what cited sources said to fit their story. Before your talk-page post above, I thought that your edits to the article were another attempt to push that POV. But the message above suggests that you have a different point.

Perhaps you could provide (on this talk page) some quotations from reliable published sources that explain whatever it is that you are trying to get across. Please may sure that they apply to Tata Group. Maybe then we could evaluate your point (if any).-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

First, Corporate group doesn't perfectly describe what the company is. Per a sentence in Corporate Group: "If the corporations are engaged in entirely different businesses, the group is called a conglomerate." Second, under the "Company type" section, Conglomerate is already there. It perfectly describes what the group is better than Corporate group. Also, "Company Type" is meant to describe a company like this with an example company

{{ubl

|Private: S.C. Johnson and Son

|Public: The Walt Disney Company

|Subsidiary: Waymo

|Public Subsidiary: T-Mobile US

|Division: Fox Entertainment

|Joint venture: Yahoo! Inc.

}}

It should not have anything like "Corporate Group" "Incorporated" "Corporation" "Limited Liability Company" "Limited Partnership" "Limited Liability Partnership" "Limited Liability Limited Partnership" (yes, that is a real thing) "Subsidiary of Company" "Division of Company" or "Conglomerate". WiinterU (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about a field in Template:Infobox company. The field name is "type". The documentation on that page says:

Type of ownership in the company (not their legal form of incorporation), wiki-linked where appropriate. To list percentages owned of a private company, use the ownership parameter.
Available types:

• [[Privately held company|Private]]
• [[Public company|Public]]
• [[Subsidiary]]
• [[Division (business)|Division]]

But it is not really any of those. It is a group of companies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Curry houses?

Someone has entered first line describing Tata as a chain of curry houses which is untrue and is at best tacit racism, not sure what this should have read prior. 217.45.11.12 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversies

anything controversial should bed added to the sub wiki criticism and controversies remove it from the top of the wiki page 117.202.87.41 (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No it should not. Criticism section are deprecated see WP:CSECTION. The lead section is mean to be a summary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Corporate Group

Tata Group is a group of companies - i.e. a corporate group. It is not a subsidiary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A corporate group is an entity made up of other entities. The entity can either be owned by it's own members or a clear owner. In this case, Tata Sons is the parent company, making this a subsidiary. Corporate group should not be used in company_type because the only accepted types are Private, Public, Subsidiary, Division, and Joint venture. If this will use infobox company, it will need to follow the documentation. WiinterU (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)