Talk:The Cobra Group/Archives/2014
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Callcott1 in topic Inaccuracies for review: part 3
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Removal of primary judgement source
@CorporateM:, did you not notice that the source immediately after the one you've reverted out for a second time is a news report in the Irish Examiner on that exact judgement? Could you please explain why that is not a secondary source that establishes notability? Dolescum (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct. Primary sources are acceptable to supplement information for which secondary sources exist. Looks like I was editing a little too fast. CorporateM (Talk) 12:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Inaccuracies for review: part 3
Hello,
I appreciate your review of the entry. The latest version clearly does not reflect a balanced view of the organisation, which I clearly state that I represent.
In particular, there are 3 gross factual inaccuracies that I would like addressed immediately:
- Source number 2 is stated as being from 2014, when in actual fact the piece was produced on 26 August 2010. Please can you correct.
- Not done An incorrect date in the citation parameter is hardly a "gross error" - frankly it's not even worth paying attention to. However in checking the source to verify the correct date, I noticed it was actually an op-ed, which cannot be used for anything,. Op-eds are wildly inaccurate and opinionated; they have no use here at all. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Workforce section (third paragraph): it is entirely wrong to say that the Coulson Organisation is a subsidiary of Cobra Group (or Appco Group). As set out in paragraph 2 of the Wikipedia entry, it is a legally independent sales company. Please correct.
- Not done Not sure what this is referring to. The paragraph does not appear to state Coulson is a subsidiary. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The second paragraph under Workforce begins with: "An investigation by the media found that one of The Cobra Group's subsidiaries, The Coulson Organization...". As you can see, it clearly indicates Coulson is a subsidiary of Cobra Group, which is not and has never been the case. Could you please review as per original request above? Callcott1 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not done Not sure what this is referring to. The paragraph does not appear to state Coulson is a subsidiary. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Workforce section (final paragraph): The inference that all 12,000 complaints referred to in the BBC report were about Cobra is completely incorrect. The BBC source says nothing of the sort – it in fact says there were 12,000 complaints across the energy industry. Please correct.
- Done Your assertion here is correct and is actually an important error. I have removed it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)