[civilized]

I think that context about the company in the article is context about the article, but I understand your difference of opinion.

To see my point, consider this pull quote from Wells Fargo which is contained in the article:

> “Wells Fargo holds employees to the highest standards and does not tolerate unethical behavior,” a company spokesperson said in a statement.

It is important to understand that this is coming from a company whose recent unethical behavior went far beyond what anyone really thought plausible.

[VoidWhisperer]

You make a fair point on the relevance with that quote. I may have been being a bit pedantic on specifying what the context was for :)

[add-sub-mul-div]

That's appealing to emotion and outrage about something unrelated that happens to involve one of the parties, which is an organization made up of over 100,000 people. There could be bad food in their cafeteria as well, but it wouldn't make sense to invoke that here either.

[civilized]

Providing objective, accurate, relevant contextual information that reasonably makes people outraged is not in itself an appeal to emotion and outrage.

The information is relevant to how we view Wells Fargo as an ethical entity. Bad food in the cafeteria would not be relevant.

[senordevnyc]

Is it reasonable to consider a group of many thousands of people as an ethical entity at all?

Additionally, should WF no longer have any internal ethical standards because some members of the organization acted in an unethical way?