Talk:BNP Paribas/Archives/2015

BNP Paribas conviction
As other editor already mentioned, the addition of the same content in three different sections seems a little too much. Nobody can deny BNP Paribas was found guilty of charge, but I think saying it three times is indeed bashing or, more clearly, a violation of NPOV policy. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Sanctions violations" section already provides significant coverage of this event, it looks like it just needs to be updated to reflect the final terms of the conviction. The new section added in "History" is out of chronological sequence, has an excessively long title (with improper capitalization), and gives WP:UNDUE weight given the existing content. The quote from a press release from the DOJ isn't ideal because it is an involved party. It can be referenced for the facts but there is no lack of coverage of this event in reliable, independent sources, citing those would be preferable to using the press release.  The brief mention at the end of the history section serves as a "lead" to notify readers of the content in the "Sanctions violations" section. Vrac (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no so much significative development in the case beyond that already mentioned in "Sanctions violations", at least I didn't find something relevant searching through the web. We just need to update the wording as BNP Paribas indeed pleaded guilty. Perhaps, we can also include the $140 million fine and the chairman's resignation led by all this (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/01/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-sentencing-idUSKBN0NM41K20150501, http://www.wsj.com/articles/bnp-paribas-to-pay-140-million-fine-in-sanctions-case-1430508971 and http://www.france24.com/en/20140927-france-bnp-paribas-banks-chairman-prot-resigns). The new DOJ source is only a detailed, legalese-style account of the same things already covered, better third-party sources if available. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)