Talk:Scott Cohen (music industry executive)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added Short Description. Does it work?
[edit]I pulled it from the Article and one of the References. If there is a better way to summarize this BLP’s Notability, please go for it! Thanks— Left Central (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Reverted changes
[edit]Hello, I recently reverted a wholesale rewrite of this article, and was asked by the editor who made the change to discuss my justifications for doing so. Some examples:
The company revolutionized the way music was distributed online...The Orchard’s success played a key role in shaping the music industry's transition
These are the kinds of claims we would want multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources for. They were instead unsourced.further solidifying Cohen’s reputation as a leading innovator in the music industry
This flattering claim was sourced to a mildly reworked press release which contained nothing to support the statement given in our article.Cohen’s vision for JKBX is to create a transparent and innovative marketplace for royalties, offering a new model for both rights holders and investors.
this claim about someone's business vision was entirely unsourced.- Those are specific examples, but there were many other issues. Overall, the article was poorly sourced, provided a PR-like portrait of flattery, not a balanced, neutral encyclopedic summary, and did not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. The entirely unreferenced "Legacy and Impact" section was particularly egregious, reading more like a press release than an encyclopedia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)