Jump to content

Talk:Unilever

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 27.32.5.187 (talk) at 12:26, 21 August 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Unilever. 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) 08:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Anglo-Dutch to Dutch

I know they've picked Rotterdam as their new and only headquarters, but does that really mean it's now exclusively a Dutch company? Someone with knowledge of company structure should look into this. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They already scraped the plan to move from London to Rotterdam. Since the Board of company faced the real owners of Unilever which are British as the majority of shareholders are British. Not Dutch. Dutch is not a rich country which has no billionaires or millionaires. Dutch has nothing to do with owing the Unilever company since the major owners of the Unilever company are British which they voted to scarp the plan to move to Rotterdam. Unilever was founded in London by British Lever Brothers. Not Dutch

Now the Dutch in the board company that made the plane to move to Rotterdam are facing the British owners which they want to fire them all for making this plan. And get rid of Unilever in Natherlands

Here are the sources

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45756738 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/06/arrogant-unilever-fire-botched-plans-ditch-britain/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.24.190.53 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Margarine Unie into Unilever

The subject is notable but the article contains too few details. As is should be trimmed and merged into Unilever. The other companies at the roots of Unilever have entries that are long enough. gidonb (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. The subject is important as one of the two main companies which created Unilever. I agree that there are too few details in the article but, in my view, they should be built up and properly sourced. Dormskirk (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done some trimming and cleaning up on the article. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Gidonb says, Margarine Unie is notable, and that is the main issue here. The best chance for someone to come along and do it justice is surely to leave it as it is. NB, there are articles is several other Wikipedias. Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of national subsidiaries into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I see that WP:PROD templates have been placed on Unilever Indonesia, Unilever Bangladesh Limited and Unilever Ghana. The articles should not be deleted (in particular the Indonesian company seems very notable) so I will remove the deletion proposals, but it might be a good idea to merge the content into a section of this article covering the various national subsidiaries. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, SOFTDELETE and redirect beats just delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unilever Nepal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unification

The legal unification of the company was completed on 30 November 2020 and the company is now headquartered in London. An IP keeps changing it back to London and Rotterdam. If the IP has evidence that the unification has not happened they should engage here: otherwise such changes could be deemed to be edit warring. Dormskirk (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has been more edit warring which involves removing the citation about unification. As previously stated, if any editor has evidence that unification did not take place, then this is the proper place to discuss it. Dormskirk (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested page protection because there is constant edit warring by IPs who fail to engage here. Dormskirk (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

missing word

In the first paragraph: "It is one of the multinational companies..." there is some adjective missing. I assume the author wanted to say: "It is one of the largest multinational companies..." Dojcubic, 28 December 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have resolved this. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurizing -> pressuring typo fix

Under Controversies, "Pressurizing media to promote skin whiteners" should be "Pressuring media to promote skin whiteners", I believe. There's nothing in the English citation that talk about pressurizing, but they do talk about pressuring. --Awillisson (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Awillisson:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

Hi there,

This section requires major updates. I've tried to make edits twice but they keep getting rejected - a lot of the information in inacurate. What should I do?

Thanks, Charlotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlotteFaiella (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - The information you added was not properly sourced as required by WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Also some of the material you added was copied from the company website rather than independently sourced. But first of all, please confirm that you are not an employee of the company or any of its marketing agencies. If you are connected with the company in any way you should read WP:COI. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dormskirk,

Have just messaged you on your page regarding this.

I do work for the company but have looked at the COI page which does not preclude employees from making changes, it is just discouraged.

I wanted to correct some inaccuracies - for example, Unilever does not sell a lot of the products listed in the first paragraph including pregnancy tests and chewing gum for an example. And the 13 brands with sales of one billion does not include brands such as Marmite and Surf but the page suggests they do.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks, Charlotte

--Dxter10 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you wait a few days and then, if there are no objections, as the changes do sound relatively minor, I would have no objection to you implementing them. (You should however not make any changes other than those that you have proposed.) Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for getting back to me Dormskirk. Understood that I should only make the suggested changes above when I'm able to, do you know where this will be? It looks like there is a block on the page at the moment, when will that be lifted? Thanks again! --Dxter10 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag. Please free to go ahead with the limited changes you have specified. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think the page is still semi-protected as I'm unable to make adjustments to the top section of the article. There is no option for me to edit source only from History can I edit. Sorry if I'm being silly. Thanks! --Dxter10 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore me! I was looking in the wrong place! --Dxter10 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dormskirk. Thanks again for your help. I have made the suggested corrections and updated the turnover as what was reference was 2017 so quite out of date. Just one question, the box on the right hand side with all the key/summery info is still showing a lot of the brands that we do not own, how can I go about updating this? Thanks! --Dxter10 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - The infobox is linked to the article List of Unilever brands. I agree that the list(s) in that article look as if they could do with some further updating. I suggest that you post a suggested revised list (with proposed citations) on the talk page for that article and it can then be considered for inclusion in that article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sunshine" owned by Unilever

This article claims that Sunshine is owned by Unilever, but the link goes to the article on light produced by the Sun. Should this link be moved to an actual project, or removed entirely?

I have delinked "Sunlight" which I assume is what you were referring to. Dormskirk (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this new parent company?

I have seen someone put on a new parent company named 'Hollandsche Vereeniging tot Expolitatie van Margarinefabrieken' in the infobox. Should this be here or not since I can not find any information about online

It looks like complete nonsense: it may have been factual in the 1920s but it is not now: I have deleted it. Thanks for pointing this out. Dormskirk (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lifebuoy link.

Lifebuoy link leads here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifebuoy It should lead here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifebuoy_(soap)

Sorted. Dormskirk (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Unilever leaf tobacco"

A recycled plastic pallet maker in Indonesia ( Range international) cites current contract for supply of recycle plastic pallets to "Unilever leaf tobacco". [see ASX announcments https://www2.asx.com.au/markets/company/ran quarterly activities report 28/2/2021]

The selling of tobacco is not listed in this wikipedia page. It is plausible that (1) Unilever Leaf tobacco is not associated with Unilever international ( seems unlikely), that RAN are wrong about the name of a major customer ( seems unlikely) that ULT does indeed exist and is indeed a subsidiary, but no longer sells tobacco ( entirely plausible), or that somewhere in Asia they have a tobacco business they do not like to to talk about.

Since I a confident somebody from Unilever reads this page, I expect that this will all get clarified soon enough, so to anybody who does know the answer, it would be a nice addition to the page to clarify Unilever's history in the Asian tobacco industry.

But, BTW, good job on buying recycled plastic pallets. Get them in a green color, so they look nice when they are washed.

The announcement is no longer at the link you provide, and I cannot find at at https://www2.asx.com.au/markets/trade-our-cash-market/announcements.ran. I have found reports of a deal between Range International and Unilever OleoChemicals.[1][2] I think it is unlikely that Unilever is in the tobacco business. "Unilever Leaf" might refer to their tea business. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Corporate documents from RAN now refer to 'Unilever Tbk', which is clearly identified as an Indonesian company related to Unilever OleoChemicals. I also doubt very much that Unilever is currently involved in the Tobacco industry. It would not surprise me at all to discover that they were once involved in the Indonesian tobacco industry, and that they have a subsidiary that never got around to changing it's name. An explanation from somebody who knows would be a nice addition to the page. What is the history of Unilver Tbk, Indonesia? 27.32.5.187 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unilever&oldid=1039897095"