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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Sunday Times article on UK tax avoidance in the Caymans
The Sunday Times is arguably the top UK paper and largely supports David Cameron. Although she had left by the time the degree of tax avoidance became clear, the Cayman system must have been set up long before and she would have been aware. I note the entire article is largely written by WP:SPAs. If Shields disputes the accuracy or implication of the Sunday Times article she should contact the biographies of living persons noticeboard at the top of this page. They could prevent others reinserting the article. JRPG (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I note 2605:A601:D8E:FA00:8882:D3CA:63F0:79C5 and 18.104.22.168 both reverted my link to a Times article on Shields & Facebook tax in the UK. Both provided the same reason but 2605:A601:D8E:FA00:8882:D3CA:63F0:79C5 also suggested that the Times has retracted its mention of Shields. Really? ...the article is unchanged! Given you are both wp:SPAs could you look at wp:COI and wp:Paid-contribution disclosure? If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help ..see the first item on the talk page. I'm quite prepared to discuss it further with intent to improve the article or ask others to look at it but the article is also important because of what it says about HMG's views on tax avoidance and I am therefore about to re-insert it. JRPG (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The I/P has reverted again saying see talk page -but hasn't written anything! I will request page protection should this happen again. You know what to do if the Sunday Times is wrong. JRPG (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
JRPG - we have reverted the changes made to Baroness Joanna Shields Wikipedia page (which are in no way missleading) for the following reasons. 1. The Times article erroneously included a reference to Shields but this was corrected and it no longer references Joanna Shields or any involvement on her part. 2. This story and allegation is not related to Shields who left the company in 2012. The story is about accounts filed in November 2015 for the 2014 year for which she has no part as she left the company in 2012. 3. In Shields role she was developing products and building operations and team for Facebook not tax policies. She was never a registered director of the company at companies house. Her remit did not include tax policy so this is completely innacurate. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06331310/filing-history 4. Showing this, CLEARLY information is misleading and inaccurate HENCE WHY IT HAS BEEN REVERTED.Cjlewis43 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Cjlewis43 Firstly thanks for using the talk page, it should make it much easier to get a consensus consistent with Wikipedia’s objectives & I’ve added standard advice on your talk page. Please read these, particularly those relating to wp:Conflict of interest and WP:NPOV.
Whatever the beata.companieshouse says the current article states that Shields was recruited “to run Facebook in Europe, Middle East & Africa as VP & managing director” Contrary to what you have said The Times article is completely unchanged –so my earlier comments apply. I’m here to build an encyclopaedia and want the article to be as informative and accurate as possible using wp:Suggested sources#Current news. Please resolve the apparent contradictions in your story. If nothing is done I will reinsert the quote and /or request additional assistance ..but I hope this isn’t necessary.
JRPG - Thank you for sending me the article. I can understand why you are making this connection and I am happy to have the opportunity to set the record straight. The Times article by Simon Duke was indeed changed in the following ways but it remains misleading: 1) First the reporter originally alleged that Baroness Shields was the VP MD at the time that Facebook filed the set of accounts in question with HMRC. She was not. The tax period in question is 2014 and Shields left the company in 2012. The compromise the Times made was to remove that link and a huge photo of her on the middle of the page but they kept the reference to the fact that Shields did work for the company until 2012. This, whilst a statement of fact is misleading in this context of this article and it is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth and to unfairly make Shields a scapegoat. 2) The person who was in charge of Facebook during 2014, the period in question is Lady Nicola Mendelsohn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Mendelsohn who is not mentioned in this article or any article about Facebook and tax. This in and of itself is misleading as Mendelssohn has been in that role now for nearly three years. If the journalist had done even a tiny bit of research, it would be easy to discover the right person to reference for this story but presumably this is an ad hominem attack on the government and unfortunately Shields is just collateral damage. The facts in this article have nothing to do with her. Time and time again, journalists take what one has written (even if false) in one article and repeat it in their own so it keeps happening repeatedly which is why one has to be diligent to be sure of accuracy. Ironically, Lady Mendelsohn’s husband Baron Jon Mendelsohn is also in government. He is the Labour Shadow Business Secretary in the Lords and she is also in government as she is the co-chair of the Creative Industries Council. Yet no mention of her as the person at Facebook who held that position during the time in question and for the past three years! Finally 3) if you check Companies House records https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06331310/officers, Shields as I said in my previous message was never part of this “deception” Duke references. She was never the executive responsible for tax affairs and never served as ‘registered director” of the company. To say otherwise, is unjust and untrue. I hope that you as a wiki leader/editor of some stature will tell the truth and in this case. There is no ambiguity here. Cjlewis43 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)