Talk:The Cobra Group/Archives/2014

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)

• 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)

The final sentence under Workforce still erroneously implies that Cobra Group received 12,000 complaints in 2002. Can you please review again to ensure that it is clear this statistic refers to the industry NOT Cobra Group? Callcott1 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanksCallcott1 (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)