Talk:Tata Steel/Archives/2011

Merging article
Merging should be other way round, Corus was acquired by TATA so it is corus that should be merged with TATA.

But lets wait for a while, the merging process will take time and is still not clear as to what structure and name the new merged entity will bear

spacejuncky 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

suggestion to merge this with Corus Group
there is no need to merge this section with corus group because the two companies are not merging and neither will their brands merge. both companies will continue to exist as they do now, with the only difference being that tata steel will be the largest stake holder in corus with management control, or, to put it another way, corus will be yet another compay in the tata group. i'm removing the "merge" flag from Corus Group too. -- mowglee 09:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please let'd not jump the gun anyway. I have removed all references in the Corus Group document to Tata Steel having 'bought' Corus Group because the deal is not yet complete.  The result of the auction process was a revised and final offer, this has since been recommended to shareholders but still needs to be accepted at a formal EGM and ratified before it can be concluded.  The EGM will likely be called by around mid-march.  The issue of whether the companies will merge o not is still to be decided.  Initially the idea is to run and brand them seperately but that may change as time goes on.  Either way until the deal is confirmed the two companies remain completely seperate anyway. Hackerjack 15:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. if someone who knows the 'real' figures can undo the work done by whoever changed the details to being the worlds 5th largest producer back to the pre-corus takeover figures it would be a reflection on reality. I can't be bothered to do the same edits here adn also do not know the original document well enough. Hackerjack 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Too much written about Enviroment cricitism & Burma issue
Indian Govt themselves closed their mouth on Burma issue, they continue to sign energy & infrastructure development deals. why should Tata be concerned about it.

And it looks the whole article is dominated by environment criticism. Please note that India is a democracy & without Govt or environment approval tata cannot move an inch. Its as if only Tatas projects are doing damage to enviroment. there are many other projects stucked in enviromental issues.

one can write tons about what Tata is doing to the country, Tata Steel alone, the tens of thousands of jobs it will create.

Extremely biased against Tata
The manner in which the latter half of the article is written is extremely biased. It does not follow any existing norm regarding addressing controversies as evident in other company pages and pushes extreme point of view. It also does not reflect the general consensus of good will attached towards Tata companies in both India and abroad. --Blacksun (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

''TATA Steel involves in such projects to not to show their involvement in corrupt practices in other fields. They had the services of same company through which A Raja had illegitimate liason with to get 2G Spectrum from government. They are sad company who talks about pseudo philanthropic activities to overshadow money hungry policies of its trust which is a tax saving cover of this greedy company.'' - no citation or reference provided, seems like an act of vandalism.--Krishna Kumar 04:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksquarekumar (talk • contribs)

Please address these concerns
1) In 2000, Tata Steel allegedly bulldozed a spring that was the only source of water for the indigenous people of Agaria Tola – a 22-household hamlet on the periphery of Tata’s coal mines. Besides yielding water, the spring was the centre of social interaction for the nearby villagers.[8]

Problems: Allegedly?? Ok, this is an encyclopedia not a magazine. Furthermore, reference 8 does not even mention Tata in it. What is this?

2) Business with Military Junta: Tata Motors is striking deals to supply the oppressive Myanmar military government, shunned by much of the world for myriad human rights violations, with hardware and automobiles. This is despite the recent military crackdown on protesters in Burma and when several multinationals like PepsiCo have pulled out of Myanmar in a bid to pressurise the military government to give way to democratic forces.[citation needed]

Problem: First of all how is this under environment section? Secondly, you are passing judgment and again indulging in original research.

3) Luxury Resort in Tiger Country: Again provides no citations.

4) Kalinga Nagar Massacre: Not a single citation provided holds Tata responsible for the atrocities committed by the police. This article is about Tata steel, not Indian police's heavy handedness or how the government acquires land for private companies. There is far too much coverage of random controversies going on in this article.

Please address these issues. --Blacksun (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Corus Group is part of Tata Steel
There is seems to be some confusion. Corus became a part of Tata Steel and it is clearly mentioned in Tata Steel Website. It reported Revenues for 2007-08 which includes Corus. Tata Steel is the worlds sixth largest steel maker. Corus is owned by Tata Steel UK.

if you any further confirmation, check Corus Group website. It is clearly mentioned below that Corus is a subsidiary of Tata Steel. http://www.corusgroup.com/en/ --60.243.161.52 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PBT and PAT of Tata Steel for the year 2009-2010
The figures given appear to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.162.198 (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio removal - entire history section
Reverted company history which appeared to be copyied from a document posted to Scribd.com on 2010-08-20. It's hard to tell who's copying who, the scribd text may have actually been copied from this article. The Wikipedia text was suspiciously plonked down all at once on 2010-05-01 by an anon editor and matches search results from yet another probable copyvio at fundinguniverse.com which helpfully identifies the original source: International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 44. St. James Press, 2002. The best course of action seems to be to leave the text deleted. — Brianhe (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)