Talk:World Serpent Distribution

Leavers

The article says that Rice, Pearce and Julius left the label, implying they did it of their own free will. But it is at least equally possible that they were asked to leave due to perceived incompatibility, including in political matters. Finding a source for that is not going to be easy, though. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Making this page better

I agree that World Serpent is notable but the page as it stands lacks credible referencing. This material is laughably POV:

"It is testament to the legacy that World Serpent left behind, that they still provoke reaction, with people still debating about them, nearly a decade after they ceased to be. They pushed boundaries, broke new ground, and flew in the face of the music industry[. World Serpent Distribution has been much copied and imitated, but never bettered or equaled. The legacy they left behind speaks for itself."

The material about the end is hilariously unencyclopedic too: "Misinformation and rumours of bankruptcy,liquidation, a court case that never was,had begun to circulate from certain quarters. Those in the know,knew this not to be the case.Neither the 3 directors,nor World Serpent itself, was ever the subject of a bankruptcy,liquidation, or an administration hearing. Nor did they ever lose a court case."

There should be a fair amount of referencable material online and David Keenan's book "Englands Hidden Reverse" also. John Eden (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Content Removal and References

It's been a long while since World Serpent shut its doors and it's been a long while since I've edited this article. Back when World Serpent abruptly shut down, it seemed to be pretty widely reported among associated artists that the company owed at least a handful of them money. As I recall, there were various other complaints as well. I see that the brainwashed.org complaint still stands about outstanding debt, for example. This all apparently used to be referenced. Admittedly, Wikipedia referencing policy used to be far more loose than it is nowadays, and so these references need to be relocated, probably with an archive service like the Wayback Machine, checked and reinstated. Meanwhile, it seems that there are a few users who regularly come by and attempt to clear any mention of controversy from the article. One can only guess who they are, but that's not my business. Still, if we're going to have a section on it, it's going to need to be solidly referenced. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)