Talk:Tunnock's

I removed:

The Caramel Wafer was first released as a confection in 1962 after being suggested by the head of confection design, Alan Russell. Russell, now retired and living in the West Midlands, had the idea of a caramel and wafer chcocolate bar after being offered a similar sweet during a trip to China in the late 1950's. The Caramel Wafer won Alan Russell the prestigious 'new confection of the year' award in 1963. He also went on to be instrumental in the release of other brands of wafer over the following fifteen years, which are still available today - most notably the caramel log (a coconut topped caramel wafer) and the orange wafer where the caramel was replaced with an orange fondant. His most notable failure was that he never successfully fused the tastes of caramel and liquorice, although he spends much of his time in retirement still pursuing this goal via his still close links to the factory and the Tunnock family.

Is there a source for this please? Grinner 13:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that, as the caramel wafer was invented by my Great Grandfather Archie Tunnock in 1952.

Kind regards,

C Baird.

Hardly Athletic

I removed the following:

The company revealed that as of 2006, Andrew Barringer, the captain of Hardly Athletic, would become the face of the Tunnock's advertising campaign due to be screened that in the year. Barringer new face of Tunnock's

Further down the forum the original author admits that his contract states: "pissing about making up shit on the internet is approved and activley encouraged between 9am and 5.30pm". Hardly Athletic are not the face of Tunnocks. Grinner 14:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Grinner

Maybe I suggest a name change seeing as you seem have the inability to find things amusing... ;-)

It was funny the first time...... Grinner 10:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough mate - enough is enough.

Ta.

Cabbaging

Should a reference be included to the significance of the tea cakes in the game cabbaging (for which there is an entry)?

Krembo

Should the Tennock's teacakes be described on this page, on the Krembo page, or on a page of its own? --Twid 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think on this page, Tunnock's make them, after all. Apau98 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Snowball

I extended the description of the Snowball, added in "with the addition of coconut to the exterior of a soft chocolate shell but with no biscuit base." Of course I'm an amateur to this site, so feel free to change it. I just felt that a bit more description was needed.--Captain Capatilism 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"The infamous face of Tunnock's Boy"

What exactly is meant by this sentence? What is infamous about the Tunnock's Boy? Zacwill16 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it should be 'famous'? 109.158.81.22 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have changed it to famous in the absence of justification in the text or response to these queries. Jontel (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Company short description

We don't normally assign ethnic descriptions to companies. I'm not sure if this is prevalent in Scotland-based companies but it shouldn't be as this is a POV. A company is described by the country in which it has its headquarters, not the subnational region. In any case the Managing Director explicitly states in reference 14 that the company is British, so I don't see why there is any confusion here. Scootertop (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you read guidelines on UK nationalities before making the error of thinking this is a matter of "ethnic descriptions" or "subnational region"s.

I believe what was said there was in relation to their marketing efforts in Japan, where they had chosen to brand themselves as British. As the same source refers to the Scottish "Lion Rampant logo - an integral part of the Tunnock’s brand since 1890". If you look at the company website it is headed "MADE IN SCOTLAND SINCE 1890". Tunnock's sponsored the Scottish Challenge Cup in 2019. Their identity is as much Scottish as British, if not more, and marketing efforts solely in Japan don't change that. So there is no rational for changing what the description says. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of those guidelines; they are about people and we aren't concerned with that here. The references (13) also apply to other parts of the UK where it is not insistent on its regional identity. In fact it is standard practice everywhere in Europe, not just in the UK to place regional or local origin at the forefront partly because it adds product authenticity but doesn't require or imply ethnic affiliation. Sponsorship of sporting events has a little to do with identity but is not relevant for determining something like ethnicity. Many successful companies sponsor events in distant parts of the world and we don't try to draw conclusions about that. Anyway, we have an explicit verified statement "We're British" (and why he doesn't say "Scottish"). That can't be devalued and if you want to do so please provide a reference that says so - failing which I am editing the article back. --Scootertop (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why the guideline cannot equally be applied to companies. And I don't understand what you are arguing about ethnicity. Nothing in this article is a reference to ethnicity (which would only apply to people).

You cannot lift two words out of a quote and ignore the context. Boyd Tunnock was defending the company from criticism by saying there was nothing wrong with them choosing to use British branding in Japan, because they are British and it was this they saw as their most effective way to market their produce there. Wikipedia stating they are Scottish is not at odds with this. The company has positively draped itself in Scottish imaginary its whole history and this is the branding that the company leads with on its own website, the identity that it chooses to present to the whole world. It is also well supported by the majority of references to the company.

* "Scottish made chocolate" - Sir Boyd Tunnock

* "Scottish invention" - Tunnocks TV advert

* "World famous Scottish family business"

* "THOMAS Tunnock, the historic Scottish biscuit manufacturer"

This cannot be out-weighed by one sound-bite made about one, tiny, foreign market, and a single advertising campaign for the London market --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think it applies to companies then please show why you think so. It repeatedly refers to individuals only and companies are a very different subject. There isn't just one reference and no references are "sound-bites". We can only have a discussion on this if we deal with the facts and not opinions especially using unverified terms like "tiny". Advertising and brand imagery doesn't count as a reference. As I said before please find a reference that contradicts the actual references we have if you are so sure that the current ones are not correct. We don't need to use this talk page for trading opinions or attempts to re-evaluate verified sources.--Scootertop (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You're asking me to find a reference that says they are *not* a British company? Does that make sense to you?

I could list you dozens of reliable references where they are foremost described as a Scottish company, in addition to the ones above. Frankly, I didn't think it necessary. Do we really need go down that route?

The Japanese market is tiny in comparison to others for Tunnock's. How they may be identified there is not global or significant. Indeed, the fact there was a great deal of media clamour about it tells you how the company is identified. If they'd commonly identified as British, it would not have been news.

You have been bold and your change has been reverted. I am not convinced that this one comment, specifically about one incident, changes how the company should be identified by Wikipedia, either by multiple sources or the company itself. If you still think you have a case, I suggest you seek a third opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep stating your opinion and that is not relevant to WP policy, which is about verified content only. Why am I supposed to care that you can't find a suitable reference? That's your job. We have two references saying British (you keep ignoring one), not Scottish. You don't have a reference to contradict or undermine it so I don't know why you're so adamant. If you don't think you need to find a reference then you have nothing to dispute and telling me that shows me that we are finished here. Most importantly, YOU are the one who reverted on the basis that the valid reference should be ignored but have nothing except your impressions or thoughts to oppose it. You have convinced me that you have no case according to WP policy. I don't see that there is any need to continue this discussion now - until you produce verifiable sources and YOU can go and seek a third option.--Scootertop (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is you that wants to change long standing content, so the onus is on you to gain consensus for changing it. I can produce plenty of sources that describe the company as Scottish. I've already listed a few. I just didn't think it was a productive way to spend my time. But since you insist. You might want to count the number of times "iconic" is mentioned.

• "Scotlands Top Brands"
• "internationally recognised as uniquely Scottish "
• "the Tunnock’s range of cakes and biscuits is an enduring Scottish treat."
• "The Scottish family-run maker of teacakes and caramel wafers"
• "the iconic Scottish company have raised cheers with workers and management."
• "Last week, the iconic Scottish company ceased production at its factory"
• "Scottish brand Tunnock’s smashes £60 million sales barrier"
• "The iconic Scottish company was founded by Thomas Tunnock in 1890"
• "Tunnock's, the Scottish company behind Caramel wafers and marshmallow Teacakes"
• "The Scottish Sweet Factory Loved by the Middle East"
• "Scottish biscuit manufacturer and brand Tunnock’s"
• "Tunnock, the iconic Scottish, family-owned chocolate company"
• "thanked Scottish-based confectionary firm Tunnock's"

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Couple of other things. The sources you mention do *not* say "British , not Scottish." They say "British", which does not stop the company being Scottish. And no-one is disputing that they chose to change branding for a couple of markets. That does not change how the company is branded or recognised everywhere else. Why do you think a change of wrapper in two minor markets is enough to change the entire company, its branding, and history? You seem stuck on this, which appears to be your opinion, something you accuse me of exercising, when it it is you who are changing the article to match yours. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

All of your points are simply your point of view and seem to be based on WP:OWN. Please familiarise yourself with the applicable WP policies on respecting verified sources and not attempting to reinterpret them to suit your point of view.--Scootertop (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I've listed plenty of sources above that support the long term position of this article, and involve no "interpretation" as you claim. But instead you have chosen to edit war about this. I'm adding a warning to your talk page about this and invite you to revert your edit before I report you. Guidelines are clear that it is your responsibility to gain consensus if your edit is reverted, but you have failed to do so and instead are creating unsupported reasons why what you're doing is sourced and everything else is opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Content on Wikipedia is based on reporting by reliable sources. Many sources calling this a "Scottish" company have been provided, and the relevant guideline does not prescribe adherence to one or the other naming convention. This matter seem quite clear to me; it is appropriate to call this company "Scottish". This has little to do with ethnicity, and it is not a matter of "reinterpreting" existing sources. If the majority of reliable sources call this company "Scottish", the added specificity combined with this reporting trend indicate clearly that the article should also call the company "Scottish". Actualcpscm (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)