Talk:Merlin Network/Archive 1

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, the page has been written into prose and amended to be from a neutral point of view. As such, please remove the timeline and amend the article to read as below:

Thanks, K E O'Leary (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done @K E O'Leary: Keri (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit seems fine, and as you know the timeline list was a bit of an eyesore imho. Although I have altered the article to reflect the rewrite, please bear in mind that it is not now carved in stone and other editors will still be at liberty to make whatever alterations they see fit, within policy. Thanks for taking the time to do this, and for being upfront about the paid editing, btw. Keri (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

In light of the 2016 Libera Awards and Merlin's 2016 Members Survey (see citations), I would like to suggest the following amendments:

Current text -

"Merlin is the global digital rights agency for the world's independent label sector, with a membership accounting for more than 10% of the global recorded music market.<ref>{{cite web|title=Independent Labels Reach Digital Tipping Point - Driven by Streaming|url=http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/independent-labels-reach-digital-tipping-point-driven-by-streaming|website=Music Business Worldwide|accessdate=21 June 2016|date=26 June 2015}}</ref> [...]

CEO Charles Caldas received the IMPALA annual outstanding contribution award in 2013, while the organisation was named ‘Independent Champion’ at the 2015 A2IM Libera Awards.<ref>{{cite web|title=The 2015 Libera Award Winners!|url=http://a2im.org/news/the-2015-libera-award-winners|website=A2IM}}</ref>"

Suggested amendment -

"Merlin is the global digital rights agency for the world's independent label sector, with a membership accounting for more than 12% of the global recorded music market.<ref>{{cite web|title=Members of Merlin Report Digital Gains in Annual Survey|url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7408756/members-of-merlin-report-digital-gains-in-annual-survey|website=Billboard|accessdate=21 June 2016}}</ref> [...]

The organisation was named ‘Independent Champion’ at both the 2015 and 2016 A2IM Libera Awards,<ref>{{cite web|title=Alabama Shakes (ATO) And Kamasi Washington (Brainfeeder) Were The Top Winners At A2IM’s Biggest Libera Awards Yet‏|url=http://ventsmagazine.com/2016/06/17/alabama-shakes-ato-kamasi-washington-brainfeeder-top-winners-a2ims-biggest-libera-awards-yet%E2%80%8F|website=Vents Magazine|accessdate=21 June 2016|date=17 June 2016}}</ref> while CEO Charles Caldas received the IMPALA annual outstanding contribution award in 2013.<ref>{{cite web|title=Impala Annual Outstanding Contribution Award Goes To Merlin’s CEO Charles Caldas|url=http://www.impalamusic.org/content/impala-annual-outstanding-contribution-award-goes-merlin%E2%80%99s-ceo-charles-caldas|website=Impala|accessdate=22 June 2016}}</ref>

Thanks, K E O'Leary (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Keri (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this intended to be an advertisement or can other points of view get reflected too?
Nothing is mentioned about for example their frequent frivolous takedown orders, which should be considered a bare minimum if the article is intended as anything except an advertisement for the highly controversial organization that is the topic for the article.
Article protection status can't be allowed as a tool to block well known and substantial information only because a controversial organization might consider it negative for their public relation value.
Calling widespread criticism "vandalism" when you (explicitly stated) work for the criticized organization is disingenuous and abusive.
83.233.47.220 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable 3rd party sources to back up your claims? As the article states that they are actually in the business of digital rights, there would need to be some substantial sources for content claiming that they were "abusing" (for want of a better word) their authority. Reddit, YouTubers, Twitter, etc, are not reliable 3rd party sources, incidentally; credible journalistic articles might be. Keri (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)