Talk:James Rosemond

Copyright problem removed (1)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20110708220249/http://czar-ent.com/founders/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed (2)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC) -- Dianna (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Please note that in the AHH article Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac on orders from Henchman. This article reference should re-instated. Secondly, the Village Voice article, also picked up by Huffington Pot and the New York times in which prosecutors noted that Henchman admitted to orchestrating the attack on Tupac in one of 9 Queen for a Day sessions, should be re-instituted in this article. Finally People's exhibit number 1 was Philips article implicating Henchman in the attack on the Quad. The PACER reference was correct. This was not only people's exhibit number 1 in his drug case (on which he was found guilty on 13 counts) but was the article that outlined Henchman's role in the Quad ambush. The reference to the PACER article and should be reinstated The infringement claims on on the two paragraphs in which this information was given supra are specious. The editing done by Diannaa corrupts history on this matter.. Scholarlyarticles (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Village Voice story is a blog entry by reporter Chuck Philips. Blogs are not considered to be adequate sourcing for defamatory material about living persons. The Village Voice blog entry is the only citation that shows that Henchman admitted in court documents to setting up the attack. Dexter Isaac's remarks are not adequate to support the claim. So that claim has to stay out of Wikipedia. -- Dianna (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

II don't think this explains why you deleted the Huffington Post articles related to the subject or the PACER articles in US V Henchman. The Village Voice is a fact checked paper The confession was picked everywhere - the New York times, The Huffington Post, the Washington post. Dexter's confession was picked up by KTLA.com and the Baltimore Sun. Besides if you're going to include his confession in the Henchman page, as you did, you should include that he admitted to ambushing Tupac on orders from Henchman. Why choose to leave that part out? Henchman's confession was written documented in a fact-checked paper - the Village Voice and was also picked up by the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Huff PO and many other papers. However I thought it appropriate to credit the original author which in these cases were Watkins of AHH and Philips of Village voice. In fact the VV article includes transcripts of the prosecutor of Henchman. I understand that Henchman is an associate of Combs and it may be embarrassing to him, whose Diannaa protects. However this is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be factual. As to why this is not yet on an administrative board, I think it's obvious. Anyone checking Comb's talk page will notice that users have said it should get the "this is an advertisement" treatment but when anyone agrees, they get attacked by Diannaa, Malleaus and the rest of the Combs cabalScholarlyarticles (talk)

Might I suggest that Scholarlyarticles has such strong feelings on this that the matter is placed on a noticeboard, perhaps in this case the BLP noticeboard, that other eyes may validate either their position or Dianna's on what is and s not appropriate in this article? That would save ad hominen accusations from being levelled in the future? I think either of the involved editors, or a third party, should bring the point up with precision and in a wholly neutral manner. At present this looks like an issue that will run and run. We have the age old problem of facts versus authenticated facts, and this often requires additional eyes. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Each time I edit of late, Dianna accuses me of vandalism, copyright infringment. She's even dinged bob Hilburns page siimply because I dared to add a section about his upcoming Cash bio. Note she didn't take out what I wrote, she took out much of this man's sterling legacy solely because I contributed to his page. The page asked for contributions and my contribution was a small and well documented one about his upcoming Cash bio. Diannaa took out that Hilburn had a 36-year history with the LA Times as well as other facts (not written by me) within a few hours or our dispute on the Combs page. I will put a note on Bob's page as well as make his biographers aware of the issue.

I realize this is a serious change. And this is a serious matter. Any time I try to restore the article she says it's a copyright infringement. Nothing I wrote was an infringement. I simply included the original stem of the article that was written by someone else, probably dxhiphop before I got here. I'm reproducing the version that I feel is correct so that DXhiphop AHH.com, and Huffington Post can comment as can others who've added to the page. To remove the US citation in People vs Henchman is inappropriate. Note that I placed it there in the beginning of June, was in NY for the trial and so there's no way I copied it from other people's work. Obviously I'd like the arbitration committee to review her work but as anyone whose tried to inject a note of reality into Combs page, or document his history can tell you, it's a scary prospect. I've begun to place notes on each of the pages she's defaced from 8/21 to 8/22. In some cases, she's put back the correct designation of origin but changed the meaning of the original articles.

This is the article that I believe is more factual than that that currently exists as a result of Dianna's edits. Much of it was not written by me but I added the Tupac song cite as well as the PACER cite in a US court and more references than AHH to the Dexter confession and the VV reference.

James "Jimmy Henchman" Rosemond is the CEO of Czar Entertainment, a record management company for musicians including Game and Sean Kingston.

On June 5, 2012 Henchman was convicted of drug trafficking, obstruction of justice, firearms violations and other financial crimes associated with his being the head of a multi-million dollar transnational cocaine selling organization. This came after he was indicted in 2011 on federal charges of drug trafficking, money laundering, obstruction and weapons charges. In February 2012, he was arrested for the murder-for-hire of Lodi Mack, an associate of rapper 50 Cent. Henchman was previously implicated in the 1994 shooting of Tupac Shakur in a 2008 article by Chuck Philips (Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1:)

On March 17, 2008 Chuck Philips wrote a Los Angeles Times article stating that Henchman ordered a trio of thugs to rough up Shakur. (Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1:) The article, which was later retracted by the LA Times because it had partially relied on court documents which turned out to be forged, was thought to be vindicated in 2011 when Dexter Isaac admitted to attacking Tupac on orders from Henchman.. Following Isaac’s public confession, Philips corroborated Isaac as one of his key sources, thus supporting Philips' 2008 LA Times article..

Henchman was also implicated in Shakur's attack in later articles which drew on Chuck Philips key research. Henchman's attorney excluded Philips from covering the trial by subpoenaing him as a defense witness, stating that Philips' article was responsible for his client's plight. However, Philips' 2008 LA Times article was placed into evidence by the prosecution (Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1:) and Henchman was found guilty on all charges in his drug case on June 5, 2012 . In a June 12, 2012 exclusive for the Village Voice, Chuck Philips reported that according to the prosecutor of Henchman in his 2012 trial, Henchman secretly admitted to involvement in Tupac's ambush during one of nine "Queen For A Day" proffer sessions with the government in autumn of 2011. . In the Village Voice piece, Chuck Philips points out that the new findings also support what Tupac Shakur rapped before his murder. Tupac recorded a song called "Against All Odds," in which he blamed Rosemond for orchestrating the assault at the Quad:

“Jimmy Henchman…

[You] set me up, wet me up…stuck me up

But you never shut me up.”

---

Well, sorry Tupac apparently someone did shut you up. That was Diannaa, Comb's fierce protector.Scholarlyarticles (talk)

Seeing the personal attacks and the strength of feeling here I have taken this to WP:ANI where interested parties may comment. Whatever the circumstances of the case, ad hominem attacks are never called for. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Presumably Henchman is actually notable for something in addition to being the really unpleasant piece of work the article portrays him to be? I've made a couple of tidying edits and I've noticed that,while the incidents are notable and verifiable, they form the major portion of the article about the man who is meant to be, first and foremost, in the music business. If there is no balancing information, so be it. But, if there is no balancing information I am not sure that the article, informative and interesting as it may be, has a place in Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues

In the section "Crimes" there is mention of "charges" and "arrests" without any indications of corresponding convictions. All of these are sourced to a court document Which does not even mention several of these allegations, and which is, in an case, a WP:PRIMARY document of a type specifically cautioned against for supporting such statements.

Then in the section "Murder for hire arrest" there is more extensive discussion of a specific arrest, for which it is stated that the subject is now awaiting trial. Obviously in that case no conviction has (yet) occurred.

These mentions of arrests without documentation of convictions, and particularly the arrests and charges sources only to a court record (and that not a record of convictions for the most part) appears to violate WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLPCRIME. Is ther any good reason why these sections should not simply be deleted? DES ^(talk) 05:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

a stubification and careful rebuilding may be the best method forward. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Something is missing as well: "since September 24, 1984, Rosemond pled guilty to Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree. In 1996,..." He can't still have been in prison on this minor charge 12 years later. Something had to happen in between. Rmhermen (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So he was arrested in 1996 in California as a felon with a firearm and sent to North Carolina to be tried for felon with a firearm by the Feds who had higher priorty than New York - were he was sent after serving his federal sentence to be tried as felon with a firearm there (all unrelated to the 1984 Possession of a Weapon charge). And sometime while in North Carolina he snitched on a county jail escape attempt and testified about the New York prison guard that falsified documents so he could get bail, jump it and go to California where he was arrested. So he ends up convicted of gun possession in NC, bail jumping in New York and then sent back to California convicted as a felon and fugitive with a gun. (And the charges for cocaine dealing in NC and gun possession in NY were dropped. And I think he was never indicted for the alleged attempted murder in NC) Rmhermen (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job on the cleanup Rmhermen. The only major WP:UNDUE issue the article has is that it needs more content related to his musical/entertainment career. Once that it resolved the tag should be removed. I see no reason to cut the criminal history, it is what he is most known by and it is what he takes a good chunk of his notability from. "Stubification" sounds like a horrible option in any case, any dubious content can be marked accordingly, there is just a slight problem with lack of third party sources, but the sources present are still reliable. STATic message me! 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

when the controversial content is inappropriately sourced "stubification and carefully rebuilding" is not a "horrible idea" - it is what policy says should be done -without discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed completely. The guy has a big, notable criminal history. Removing it to paint the man as mostly a musician would be grossly unneutral since it is well cited and a big chunk of his notability. It would be like rewriting Adolf Hitler's article to paint him as a succesful politician and removing reference to the war or controversial policies. Bit extreme of an example but it's the logic that is the same. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:13, 24 January 2014

I've struck my last post since it no longer needs to be said following TheRedPenOfDoom's clarification. Thanks TheRedPenOfDoom ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this attempted whitewash. Apparently "completely different handling" is code for we don' mention it. Or that fact that his own brother was running a rival drug ring, or the fact that he has an extensive documented criminal history or the fact that other rappers made threats against him (rather the opposite of the confession claimed in the edit summary. Rmhermen (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually you were right with the first post User: Jenova20. Serious TRPOD, discuss rather then borderline vandalizing the article. Your one sentence responses mean nothing, and yes it is a horrible idea since the content is NOT unsourced and is NOT sourced to unreliable sources. He has a huge notable criminal history and this must be covered. Also, you removed content referenced to such reliable sources as NY Daily News and Billboard, you know much better then to vandalize the article like you did.STATic message me! 18:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The new york daily news is not acceptable source for anything let alone controversial content about claims of criminal activities of a living person. Billboard is a fine source for content about music, but thats about it. it is not at all acceptable as a source for controversial claims about living people. And per policy we do not leave poorly sourced content in the article while we "discuss" - poorly sourced controversial content is removed immediately. WP:BLP-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

According to what discussion? Or are you just going to start making up things to explain your edit warring? What discussion claims that the fourth highest circulated daily newspaper in the US, it unreliable. The content you are removing is backed by reliable sources, so you are vandalizing the article and edit warring. Best believe after you are blocked the content will be back. STATic message me! 04:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

selling lots of copies does not make one reliable. Its front page stories today include "HOT FOR TEACHER: Educator suspended over semi-nude modeling snaps" (complete with cover shot of the semi nude pics), "Model reveals heart-to-heart she had with Bieber at strip club just 48 hours before star's arrest for DUI after drag racing — 'He said he can't do anything right'" "PARENTS TO KIDS: LET US SLEEP! Couple leaves hilarious note telling their children not to wake them until 10 a.m. – with do's and don'ts for the morning" If you think that is the type of publication that has appropriate editorial controls to be a reliable source for allegations of murder, you seriously need to stop editing anything remotely related to anyone who is alive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And this explains your vandalism of the article how? That is one source of the many instances of content backed by reliable sources that you removed. STATic message me! 04:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The "vandalism" being done at this article is the restoration of serious criminal allegations against a living person that you have sourced to completely inappropriate sources. WP:BLP requires the HIGHEST level of reliability for these types of claims and your inability to assess the low quality of NYDN is frightening. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That is one single source of the many that you foolishly removed including Billboard. You are wrong again and obviously I am not the only one that thought that since I was not the only one that reverted your vandalism. They are not allegations if we have reliable sources that claim/prove them as facts. STATic message me! 05:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The New York Post is no more reliable. Billboard is not reliable for allegations of criminal content. Primary source court documents are not usable. Point to one reliably sourced claim that is appropriate to the article and we can discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

According to what discussions? Or is this more of your made-up nonsense? Again, court documents can be used when there is a lack of third party coverage, but of course of attempting to add you remove. At least the original poster's removals made some sense, but yours did not at all, and again were disruptive and vandalism. STATic message me! 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not "made up nonsense". If you have a claim and a source, we can discuss specifics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Not according to discussion but according to policy at WP:BLPSOURCES. The Daily News is a tabloid. Colin Myler is the editor in chief. QED.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm going to weigh in here to try and bring this discussion back on track.
The information removed from the article by RedPen was done do because he believed it to be a breach of the policies regarding BLP. Under WP:BLP, questionable material "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If a user wish to challenge the removal, there must be a discussion and consensus reached before the information is re-inserted.
One of the Five Pillars of wikipedia is that we treat each-other with civility and Assume Good Faith. Unexplained or repetitive removal of reliably referenced material is very disruptive and can be vandalism, however, RedPen has made it very clear he believes there to be a BPL issue. I believe he has acted in good faith, and his actions have followed wikipedia policy; thus repeated accusations of "vandalism" are both an assumption bad-faith (verging to the side of personal attack) and are certainly not conducive to a civilized discussion that needs to take place here for consensus to be found as for inclusion/permanent-exclusion of material. RedPen was also right to repeatedly revert any attempts to re-insert the information before such consensus is reached; such behaviour is exempted from the Three Revert Rule (See: WP:NOT3RR), and so the attempt mentioned above to get RedPen blocked for a TRR violation has been denied by administrators.
Can those involved now please step away from the edit-waring and accusations, and start a calm and civil discussion of the material and its sources.
--Rushton2010 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of just taking sides, actually pay attention to the material. RedPen really did not take time and due dillagence in his removals. Will someone explain how Billboard is not reliable to state that "Rosemond and his Czar Entertainment had disputes with 50 Cent and G-Unit Records including a lawsuit over a DVD settled in 2005."Original 50 Cent' DVD Lawsuit Settled, or that this was removed "James Rosemond, Jr. This teenaged son was assaulted by Lowell "Lodi Mack" Fletcher and G-Unit associates, including Tony Yayo. Tony Yayo was arrested in March 2007 for slapping James, Jr. but the case was later dropped for ten days of community service. Fletcher was convicted in the assault and served nine months in prison, concurrent with an unrelated drug charge." when it is clearly backed by reliable sources such as MTV, Village Voice and AllHipHop. Also I am restoring the Tupac connection since it is backed by reliable sources entirely and a simple google search turns up much more coverage. Henchman has even publicly admitting to being involved in the incident. Everything I just brang up were not BLP violations and should have not been foolishly removed. STATic message me! 19:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

stop edit warring to reinsert problematic BLP issues. You have been asked to bring up content points one at a time for discussion and consensus. and BLP applies not only to Rosemond, but to all living people named. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny how you choose not to refute me when I bring up your obvious mistakes. NY Times, LA Times and AllHipHop are not tabloids at all, so stop now. STATic message me! 20:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You can keep ranting and edit warring and get yourself blocked, or you can lay out what specific content you think should be added and what sources support it and we can discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I just did two comments above, or do you need to clean your glasses? And about the Tupac attack, this was the content in the article:

"Most of all It was not Rosemond's various criminal convictions that made him notorious in the rap world, but his long rumored involvement in the attack that set off the East Coast – West Coast and rap wars. As The New York Times said "For years, he has denied allegations that he was involved in a feud that led to the murders of the rappers Tupac Shakur and Christopher Wallace, known as Biggie Smalls." A 2008 article by Chuck Philips was a detailed implication of Rosemond in the attack of Tupac at the Quad which set off the East Coast-West Coast rap wars. The 2008 LA Times article by Chuck Philips implicating Henchman in the 1994 attack on Tupac Shakur at the Quad said that Henchman ordered three thugs to ambush Tupac. The article was retracted by the LA Times when they and Philips learned that they had mistakenly included (among many uncontroverted sources) filed FBI 302s which turned out to be forged but corroborated in 2011 when Dexter Isaac confessed to attacking Tupac on Henchman's orders. Following Isaac’s public confession, Chuck Philips confirmed Isaac as one (among five) of his key unnamed sources. The 2008 Philips article was entered into evidence as People's exhibit number 1 against Henchman in his trial on which Henchman was convicted on all 13 counts. Henchman admitted to setting up Tupac's ambush during one of nine "Queen For A Day" proffer sessions with the government in autumn of 2011, according to prosecutors. The original prosecutor transcripts are available in Village Voice author Chuck Philips' article. The confession was also picked up by the Huffington Post among many other newspapers. Tupac himself blamed Henchman in a song about the ambush at the Quad called "Against All Odds"; Tupac rapped:

Jimmy Henchman,...
[You] Set me up, wet me up,...stuck me up
Heard the guns bust but you tricks never shut me up

— Tupac Shakur, Against All Odds

" Content is backed by LA Weekly, NY Times, Baltimore Sun, Huffington Post, and AllHipHop, all reliable sources. He admitted to the attack recently additional coverage including BET[1] and Complex[2]. STATic message me! 20:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your The use of those reliable sources is problematic and seems to me to border on synthesis. Why not discuss piecewise below?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not write the content, and I am in no way saying it should not be re-written. I am only concerned about preserving the information. STATic message me! 20:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Reinserting it in the exact same form multiple times -- thats about as close to " saying it should not be re-written" as you can get. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of copy editing it when the last two reverts occurred. Learn to assume good faith in the future. STATic message me! 00:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been absent for a while. I agree with STATicVapor who seems to be just trying to keep the integrity of the article so many people have worked on and in which the value of the sources on which it is based have been litigated (in the sense of aired and decided on). An extensive discussion exists in which many member of WP weighed in on the content, RS BLP and other issues. The discussion of a linked version was decided on as KEEP based on WP:HEY and my work. Now people will want to add to it given Henchman's sentencing and his current trial for murder. Let's try to keep this civil and preserve the work of these diligent editors. As it now stands it's quite incomplete in my view and needs to go back to the stage at which there was a consensus on the content. ThanksScholarlyarticles (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

His rumored involvement

Just starting some piecewise sections to discuss material:

Rumored involvement

Most of all It was not Rosemond's various criminal convictions that made him notorious in the rap world, but his long rumored involvement in the attack that set off the East Coast – West Coast and rap wars.<ref name="NYTimes May 14 Henchman drug trial starts">{{cite news|last=SCHWEBER|first=Nate|title=Drug Trial Starts for Figure Prominent in Rap World|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/nyregion/james-rosemond-begins-trial-on-drug-charges.html|accessdate=8 September 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|date=May 13, 2012}}</ref> As ''The New York Times'' said "For years, he has denied allegations that he was involved in a feud that led to the murders of the rappers Tupac Shakur and Christopher Wallace, known as Biggie Smalls."<ref name="NYTimes May 14 Henchman drug trial starts"/>

The reliable source is presenting them as rumors, rumors based on the claims of someone convicted of murder. We do not traffic in rumors, particularly rumors of such consequence. When (if) the authorities prove that they are more than rumors, then we can include them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. This seems like a textbook example of the reason that even reliably sourced material can be excluded from an article about a living person. Newspapers can report rumors if they attribute them to people, but there's no reason to have such material in an article here about a living person.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

He admitted to the attack recently. Coverage including BET[3] and Complex[4]. Also TRPOD how about you respond to the content in the above section as related to the his son and the Tony Yayo incident, which was backed by reliable sources. STATic message me! 20:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

see below - the sources you link to are merely repeating the Chuck Philips story from the Village Voice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the order of things, but I think the Los Angeles Times published a report on the March 17, 2008 (2007?) linking Rosemond to Shakur, then the LA Times somehow published on October 12, 2007 that it was investigating the Los Angeles Times article linking Rosemond to Shakur,[5] and then came out with a full retraction on March 28, 2008.[6] The last published article I found on this is November 27, 2013 mentioning this as "has long been suspected." There are many sources discussing this aspect of Rosemond's life. The information in the article needed to be removed since it did not comply with Wikipedia's policies. However, the Los Angeles Times linking Rosemond to Shakur and the newspaper's subsequent retraction were events in Rosemond's life. There was significant subsequent media coverage on this sub topic. This can all be summarized into this article if done per Wikipedia's policies. In other words, someone needs to look through all the reliable source information on this sub topic and write a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. It is improper to merely pick and choose a few "select" sources and summarize that information in the article since such a writing is not a thorough and representative survey of all the relevant literature. Given the wide coverage on this sub topic, the first place to look for source information to summarize is scholarly books, then non-scholarly books, then magazine coverage, and then newspaper coverage. Until someone is able to post a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on this sub topic, there's no reason to include information that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies in this article. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Retracted but corroborated article

Retracted but corroborated 2008 article

A 2008 article by [[Chuck Philips]] was a detailed implication of Rosemond in the attack of Tupac at the Quad which set off the East Coast-West Coast rap wars.<ref name="Exhibit 1" /> The 2008 ''LA Times'' article by [[Chuck Philips]]<ref name="Exhibit 1" /> implicating Henchman in the 1994 attack on [[Tupac Shakur]] at the Quad said that Henchman ordered three thugs to ambush Tupac.<ref name="James Rosemond, Chuck Philips and Tupac Shakurs attack at the Quad">{{cite news|last=Samaha|first=Albert|title=James Rosemond, Hip-Hop Manager Tied to Tupac Shooting, Gets Life Sentence for Drug Trafficking|url=http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/10/james_rosemond_life_sentence_drug_trafficking_tupac_shooting_ties.php|accessdate=13 November 2013|newspaper=Village Voice|date=October 28, 2013}}</ref> The article was retracted by the ''LA Times'' when they and Philips learned that they had mistakenly included (among many uncontroverted sources) filed FBI 302s which turned out to be forged <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/la-naw-quad17mar17,0,4923596.story|title=Times retracts Quad ambush story|date=7 April 2008|work=[[LA Times]]|accessdate=4 September 2012}}</ref> but corroborated in 2011 when Dexter Isaac confessed to attacking Tupac on Henchman's orders.<ref>{{cite news|last=Evans|first=Jennifer |title=Hip hop talent agent arrested charged with operating drug ring|url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/wpix-hip-hop-talent-agent-arrested,0,6053998.story|accessdate=2012-05-29|newspaper=[[Baltimore Sun]]|date=June 21, 2001}}</ref><ref name="Isaac admits to Tupac attack on Henchman orders">{{cite news|last=KTLA News|title=Convicted Killer Confesses to Shooting West Coast Rapper Tupac Shakur|url=http://www.courant.com/entertainment/ktla-inmate-confesses-to-shooting-tupac,0,5503225.story|accessdate=14 September 2013|newspaper=The Courant|date=July 13, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Watkins|first=Greg |title=Exclusive: Jimmy Henchman Associate Admits to Role in Robbery/Shooting of Tupac; Apologizes To Pac & B.I.G.’s Mothers.|url=http://allhiphop.com/2011/06/15/exclusive-jimmy-henchman-associate-admits-to-role-in-robberyshooting-of-tupac-apologizes-to-pac-b-i-g-s-mothers|accessdate=2012-06-05|newspaper=Allhiphop.com|date=June 15, 2011}}</ref>

we can include the retraction and apology, but to frame a "corroboration" from statements of a convicted murder are as above not appropriate until corroboration is actually shown in court. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Both sources report what Dexter Isaac said. There's no way that's enough to include the material here as a "corroboration" in Wikipedia's voice.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Chuck Phillips's confirmation

Phillips confirms

Following Isaac’s public confession, [[Chuck Philips]] confirmed Isaac as one (among five) of his key unnamed sources.<ref>{{cite news | title=Chuck Philips demands apology on Tupac Shakur|url=http://www.laweekly.com/2011-06-23/news/chuck-philips-demands-l-a-times-apology-on-tupac-shakur|newspaper=[[LA Weekly]]|accessdate=2012-05-29}}</ref> The 2008 Philips article was entered into evidence as People's exhibit number 1 against Henchman<ref name="Exhibit 1">(Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1)</ref> in his trial on which Henchman was convicted on all 13 counts.

as above, the statement by Isaac is insufficient for "corroborating" anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Isaac's confession and the Village Voice are also cited as corroboration in the Tupac Shakur Wikipedia article in the section titled Attack at the Quad Studios, 1994 and in the Chuck Philips Wikipedia article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Admission

Admission

Henchman admitted to setting up Tupac's ambush during one of nine "Queen For A Day" proffer sessions with the government in autumn of 2011, according to prosecutors. The original prosecutor transcripts are available in ''Village Voice'' author [[Chuck Philips]]' article.<ref name="Queen for a day Henchman proffer">{{cite news|last=Philips|first=Chuck|title=James "Jimmy Henchman" Rosemond Implicated Himself in 1994 Tupac Shakur Attack: Court Testimony|url=http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/jimmy_henchman_implicated.php|accessdate=2012-06-24|newspaper=Village Voice|date=June 12, 2012}}</ref> The confession was also picked up by the ''Huffington Post''<ref name="HuffPO on Henchman confesses">{{cite news|last=Makarechi|first=Kia|title=James Rosemond, Tupac Shooting: Mogul Reportedly Admits Involvement In 1994 Attack|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/james-rosemond-tupac-shooting-1994_n_1626977.html|accessdate=28 August 2012|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=2012-06-26}}</ref> among many other newspapers.

all of these "sources" are repeating the Village Voice article - by Chuck Philips the author of the retracted LA Times article - and the VV story is based on someone claiming that the prosecutor said that Rosemond had made statements in plea bargain session. Now that is a second hand telling of a third hand story by someone with an axe to grind. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are insufficient to support the addition of this material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lyrics

Lyrics
Tupac himself blamed Henchman in a song about the ambush at the Quad called "Against All Odds"; Tupac rapped: {{Quote|text=Jimmy Henchman,...<br>[You] Set me up, wet me up,...stuck me up<br>Heard the guns bust but you tricks never shut me up|sign=[[Tupac Shakur]]|source=''Against All Odds''<ref name="Queen for a day Henchman proffer"/><ref name="HuffPO on Henchman confesses"/>}}

the use of lyrics for anything BLP is beyond the pale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

article name

There are two issues,

1) most of the sources I am seeing seem to use the spelling Jimmy Henchm e n

2) most of the sources seem to use the name Rosemond (with "Henchman" or "Henchmen" just being a nickname in quotes)

Is there a reason why the article is here rather than James Rosemond or Jimmy Henchmen? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think a move to James Rosemond would be appropriate as well. I've checked a bunch of sources for this, and they all use the nickname in quotes format.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk)

TheRedPenOfDoom - Many news sources report his name as James "Jimmy Henchman" Rosemond or James (Jimmy the Henchman) Rosemond or Jimmy "Henchman" Rosemond or ... . It's clear that the sources all agree that he is known by the last name Rosemond and we should use Rosemond in the article title. With that set, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA becomes a little easier to figure out. The next question is whether to include a parenthetical or quoted form of Henchman. I think using the quoted "Jimmy Henchman" as in James "Jimmy Henchman" Rosemond makes the article title longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Also, per WP:TITLEFORMAT, quotation marks in article titles can only be used if the marks are part of a name or title. Here, the sources also use parenthesis such that quotation marks are not part of the name. The article lead presently notes that he was a convicted drug trafficker. The name used for that conviction was James Rosemond.New York Times I agree that a move to James Rosemond would be appropriate. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 January 2014

Please add as the first sentence in the section Jimmy_Henchman#Entertainment_career:

Circa 1996 Rosemond founded Henchmen Entertainment, the company that would later be called Czar Entertainment.

References

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

source

Here is a profile in Vibe that looks like it may have a lot of content that can build up the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ethan Brown (2005-12). The Score. Vibe. Vibe Media Group. pp. 24–. Retrieved 28 January 2014. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Aliases

James Rosemond's known aliases are: Jimmy the Henchman, Jimmy Henchman, Jimmy Ace, Tony Townsend, James Rosemound

See: http://api.ning.com/files/TsW*wliGIHWZLae5PzvlnSG*z8OFQDQn3dxbZhoWYzxn-IKiRSG*FyZWnPe3U7Zpxe7TfWIwifE7pWnHrZAFDGF59V6J0yjg/part4.pdf

208.105.78.10 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

court records

Court records and blog posts are not appropriate for sources for content about a living person. WP:BLPPRIMARY

On August 16, 1981, Rosemond was charged with Robbery. Source: http://api.ning.com/files/TsW*wliGIHWZLae5PzvlnSG*z8OFQDQn3dxbZhoWYzxn-IKiRSG*FyZWnPe3U7Zpxe7TfWIwifE7pWnHrZAFDGF59V6J0yjg/part4.pdf On March 20, 1983, Rosemond was arrested in Brooklyn for criminal possession of a firearm. Source: http://api.ning.com/files/TsW*wliGIHWZLae5PzvlnSG*z8OFQDQn3dxbZhoWYzxn-IKiRSG*FyZWnPe3U7Zpxe7TfWIwifE7pWnHrZAFDGF59V6J0yjg/part4.pdf On June 26, 1983 in Brooklyn, Rosemond was charged with Murder in the Second degree, robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Source: http://api.ning.com/files/TsW*wliGIHWZLae5PzvlnSG*z8OFQDQn3dxbZhoWYzxn-IKiRSG*FyZWnPe3U7Zpxe7TfWIwifE7pWnHrZAFDGF59V6J0yjg/part4.pdf On September 24, 1984, Rosemond pled guilty to Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree. Source: http://api.ning.com/files/TsW*wliGIHWZLae5PzvlnSG*z8OFQDQn3dxbZhoWYzxn-IKiRSG*FyZWnPe3U7Zpxe7TfWIwifE7pWnHrZAFDGF59V6J0yjg/part4.pdf In 1996, Rosemond was incarcerated in a North Carolina correctional facility. While there, he provided information about his fellow prisoners. Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39919102/ROSEMOND On February 17, 1996, Rosemond was charged with possession of a firearm in Los Angeles. Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39919102/ROSEMOND On January 13, 1997, Rosemond was sentenced on the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. Sources: http://api.ning.com/files/TsW*wliGIHWZLae5PzvlnSG*z8OFQDQn3dxbZhoWYzxn-IKiRSG*FyZWnPe3U7Zpxe7TfWIwifE7pWnHrZAFDGF59V6J0yjg/part4.pdf and http://api.ning.com/files/UKvvLqBZX0h*6XrXOVSU263tcI-MvHtjVAphZdSy7KqPRQa4UxACCiuBFnMLhHgL87kUMwV6gpawYrn9zCboUjWc0upIJJg9/part3.pdf 208.105.78.10 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Massive unexplained revert by Scholarlyarticles

Scholarlyarticles did a super-deep revert here and here, essentially ignoring huge swathes of discussion and agreement on this page without adequately explaining her actions. This seems deeply unreasonable to me. At least join in the indivual conversations, please.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And she undid my reversion without discussion. Sigh... Use your words, please.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We've had an extensive discussion with arbitration about what should and should not go in this article. Someone removed the pointer but it was discussed here. Please take a look at this. It went on for white a while and a mediator was involved. Most the information was voted on. (The new info included since then was his sentencing and info about the upcoming trial both added by other editors and removed in large chunks.) The outcome was keep as it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman. Someone removed the pointer to the discussion so I hope this helps. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC). As a compromise we could go back to the article as it was approved and voted on a year and a half ago. As it stands now it is incomplete and misleading. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the outcome was not "keep as it was". AFD's do not decide that. They only decide if an article should exist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Scholarlyarticles is mistaking a deletion discussion (whether an article should be kept or not) for a content discussion (what should be in the article) [7]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly seems to be the mistake she's making. Scholarlyarticles, can you maybe read over all the sections above, where a number of editors discussed the changes that were made to the article and came to a consensus about them. You're certainly welcome to add your opinion to those sections or to start new sections to discuss changes you want to make, but it's really not reasonable to undo over a month's worth of collaborative work and discussion without breaking it into smaller pieces, as many editors have done here over the last few weeks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus yet achieved

There was a consensus as of August 12, 2012 based on numerous articles and different versions voted on. The consensus was keep based on a version that was linked. Since this time, numerous excellent edits have been made as Henchman was convicted and the murder trial date was updated. The most up-to-date scholarly version is probably here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&oldid=579043879. Since this time, numerous non-auto-confirmed users have wiped out the entire page, wiped out large chunks of the discussion, re-litigated the issue of whether there's a BLP issue here (There's not: He's a convicted felon.) or simply shortened the thing so it looked like this today https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&oldid=579043879. This should not be re-hashed ad nauseam. A lot of excellent editors spent good time discussing and arriving at consensus on this topic. We can't keep driving them away by bringing up old issues that have already been resolved. There is no consensus on wiping out this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&oldid=579043879. In addition, since Jimmy Henchman is now on trial for murder the sections that have been wiped out make it extremely out of date. Thanks you. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if you want to have an effective conversation, please try to break it into smaller pieces. You can start a new section for each little part of the article that you object to. It's going to be a lot easier and you'll get a much more positive response if you do this, rather than making blanket accusations against "numerous non-auto-confirmed users" and whatnot. So really, what do you want to put in or take out? Start a section for each bit. I'm not kidding, it really works.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, most of the "wiping out" was done by yours truly as the previous version was serious violation of our WP:BLP policy. The discussions above show that the "wiping out" has either maintained its consensus for each section or has not achieved a consensus to restore the section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"...re-litigated the issue of whether there's a BLP issue here (There's not: He's a convicted felon.)" This displays a complete ignorance of what WP:BLP is about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the verdict following the discussion concerning deletion. One of the reasons for keep was based on WP:HEY and my (and others) work on it. "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Nominator moved to "neutral" position, no formal support by others for deletion, consensus to keep, per WP:BASIC, WP:HEY and Scholarlyarticles's contributions. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)"

Unfortunately The article is now less complete than it was when Trevj closed the discussion. If you will note the sources are described as rock solid. Several versions were linked and discussed and a final version was decided upon by consensus. The version as it stands erases the work of Dennis Brown, RonJohn, StaticVapor (sp?), me among so many others. The effect of the subtractions is to make the article incomplete and misleading. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown has made no edits to the article or the talk page [8], [9]. What "work" are you talking about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, he read the underlying literature and commented many times. Both by email with me and on the boards. If you want one example, you should read the AfD discussion where he refers to the sources as rock solid and to there being no BLP issue or GNG issue. Moreover, one editor who had a problem with it reverted herself and recognized her error based on his diligent information. Finally, HEY means it came up to standards as revised by me and linked on the AfD page.

And yes, Dennis Brown helped me with working within this context and made an unusual and admirable effort to understand the content area to do so. And yes Arbitration people got involved informally (off board) because of the sensitivity and frankly the danger of the subject involved. I'd really like to keep this pleasant. Let's try to make this a well-documented article about Henchman that is up to date and doesn't discount the diligent work of so many editors here. The murder trial is started and people will be looking here again. Perhaps we could go back to the last version on which there was consensus. (Apologies for long-windedness.) All the best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on the claims you made on my talk page, you'll forgive me if I completely discount any offwiki activities you were involved in. And you make misrepresentations yet again. Dennis' one comment in the AFD said there was no BLP1E issue and the subject passed GNG. These points have to do with the article being kept or deleted, not anything else. You might as well give up advocating for your preferred version and start suggesting specific changes as alf laylah wa laylah suggested above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)