Talk:Benjamin Cohen (journalist)

message: The "Ben Cohen" or "Benjamin Cohen" disambiguation issue is corrected - it obviously should not lead only to a single subject, it should offer the Wikipedia reader the choice of all five of the Wikipedia subjects in question. JudyRobinson 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: - In process following third and fourth opinions. JudyRobinson 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also came from the third opinion page; and I agree with Amatulic; this should be a disambiguation page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I came here from a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Addressing some comments above:
* The Wikipedia community never "voted to keep the page as is." They voted to allow the page to remain on Wikipedia rather than deleting it. Pages on Wikipedia are never static, so keeping it "as is" is meaningless.
* The proper way to organize biography articles with the same name is to use a disambiguation page. It is also proper to reference that disambiguation page at the beginning of each article that the disambig page points to. It is not correct to use one article as a disambiguation resource for another. This violates WP:NPOV by implying that Wikipedia places greater importance on one biography over another.
* My recommendation is to move this article to "Benjamin Cohen (journalist)" and convert this Benjamin Cohen article into a redirect page, redirecting "Benjamin Cohen" to Benjamin Cohen (disambiguation) -Amatulic 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: - In process following third and fourth opinions. JudyRobinson 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also came from the third opinion page; and I agree with Amatulic; this should be a disambiguation page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I hate to be the third or fourth, or perhaps even the fifth - I can't count the rather many threads on this - person to remind User:Philsome  that Wikipedia is not a personality PR agency.  That user seems to have a long and consistent history - based on documented edits here - of making this particular article biased and favorable towards the article's subject, and I think that is wrong and against WP founding principles.
Mr Cohen is a person that has a somewhat interesting, even colorful past, and that is not always reflected by reporting only on corporate success.
His actions prior to becoming noticed here and which are evidenced by independent verifiable sources belong in this article. And not only in ways that reflect favorably upon the article's subject, but in line with the documented facts.
That includes what he tried to do to Apple iTunes, other corporate actions in the past and so on, which User_talk:Philsome seems to prefer are not included here as facts in this article. Why, we can suppose.
It is not in any way Wikipedia's function to make any subject of any articles here feel or look good. Neither should it be User_talk:Philsome or any editor's role to protect and favorably polish any individual article. To do that looks decidedly suspicious to people here. Actions like that must be reverted.
I want to assume WP:AGF and WP:NPOV with User_talk:Philsome - but I am yet to find any edit they have EVER made to this article that anyone could see as not being positive towards the subject. That bothers me a lot. I wonder what is the relationship between that user and the subject of this article - anyone bothering can see a disturbing trail of edits that lead me to a conclusion I am not allowed to voice here.
It disturbs me as to who User_talk:Philsome really is in the real world, but also I know that is not a topic to discuss here, but whomever they are, their editing behavior does leave you wondering what their real motivations are in editing this particular article.
Edits like User_talk:Philsome's most recent edits to this article, if left to endure, will in their own small way become part of the death of the WP project, IMHO.
And, for the record, anyone that cares to check through the links I took the trouble to find for current version of this article will discover that the facts relevant to this article's subject are somewhat, some would say quite a bit, different to the version that User_talk:Philsome had selected. 
Let the community decide.
--Satellite9876 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it important to note to the community that within minutes of my edits - an editor reverted. On what basis? Who does he know? Interesting to ponder...
--Satellite9876 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also - most important - where does User_talk:Jebuss think any of my edits which were reverted are "unsourced" - as claimed? Every edit in question was backed by a verifiable reliable source. Could someone in the public eye be protecting their WP entry? Now there's a story...
--Satellite9876 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)]]

message: There has been editing on this article around the value of the shares. The WP:RS I have seen say that the subject of the article sold his shares for £40k and since it is him the article is about, that seems the correct figure to include in this article. My view regarding the share valuation is simply that the article should most relevantly discuss the share value of the individual the subject of the article in question, and as reported in the Daily Telegraph. Other editors hold differing views, with the net effect of making the value of the shares when sold far greater than the Daily Telegraph states to be the case. Actual sales price is ultimately the best determinant of a share's real value, hence I prefer the Telegraph report on the sales price. The relevant quote from this Daily Telegraph report is as follows: 
:"The business was valued at £5m at the height of the internet boom, although Cohen sold the site to Totally, an Aim-listed rival which runs totallyjewish.com, for £310,000 in an all-share deal. By the time Cohen sold half his stake, the shares were worth just £40,000 (emphasis added)."
--Satellite9876 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shares valuation 

message: I can only feel exasperated by the actions of various fellow contributors seeming to want to make this article always read favorably to the subject. I also think that using talk pages to communicate is surely always preferable to leaping onto noticeboards. What concerns me is that a small number of users seem to appear somewhat determined to have this article become a 'more lilywhite' account of the history of the article's subject. I personally think that is utterly against what WP stands for. Nobody's history is that 'Disney' - and certainly not the subject of this particular article based on my reading of the WP:RS.
--Satellite9876 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages have a good purpose 

message: *Who uses these quotes at ? Are they really from someone noteworthy? 
*This whole article sounds like what he said in . "Porn was an easy way to get publicity." Then "All publicity was good publicity."
But then in  Mr Cohen says that back then "The value of a company could be based on how much positive publicity you got."
*Anyways, with his hook ups at  he is given a lot of publicity. And as I read the archive I see he has no problem advertising his many important internet ventures.
*Why is this article here?
Slaytanic-3 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article here? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Benjamin Cohen (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507173919/http://www.channel4.com:80/news/authors/benjamin%20cohen/105875 to http://www.channel4.com/news/authors/benjamin%20cohen/105875
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110205172839/http://www.wisethoughts.org:80/patrons.php to http://www.wisethoughts.org/patrons.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120218234112/http://blogs.channel4.com:80/benjamin-cohen-on-technology/why-i-made-an-it-gets-better-video-on-being-gay-and-jewish/3210 to http://blogs.channel4.com/benjamin-cohen-on-technology/why-i-made-an-it-gets-better-video-on-being-gay-and-jewish/3210
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Benjamin Cohen (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120107031108/http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk:80/living/features/cohen-breaking-not-making-news to http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/cohen-breaking-not-making-news
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified