Talk:Koch, Inc.: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 120:

:::There are no copyright violations other than direct quotations (surrounded by quotation marks) from public domain source material (mostly US government press releases). It is hard to imagine a more reliable source for the information than the US government press releases and publications that announced the company's various guilty pleas. Casting aspersions by referencing "blogs and Twitter" doesn't change the fact that the primary source attributions are reliable (publications of the various US government agencies). The current article, as it stands, tries to downplay the allegations in various published secondary sources even as the primary source material is readily available and was part of this "enormous edit." As it reads today, the article looks like it was written by Koch Industries' PR department (and the edit history, in fact, shows IP addresses that reverse lookup to KochInd.com). [[User:Kochtruth|Kochtruth]] ([[User talk:Kochtruth|talk]]) 03:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Capitalismojo}} Please be more specific. Please try to fix before you delete. Thanks. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Kochtruth}} Thank you for your contribution. The article is grossly non-neutral with respect to reliable sources on a number of fronts, not least problematic the coverage of the subject's regulatory record. May I suggest this initial contribution, a series of one-sentence paragraphs, serve as an outline, and supplemented with secondary and tertiary sources for noteworthiness, each sentence expanded to a paragraph. Thanks again. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)