Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields

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 74.64.37.175 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.  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.
 * Regards JRPG (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

Edits to Joanna Shields page
My name is Laura Taddei and I work for Joanna Shields. recently (correctly) tagged the article for conflict of interest issues. I'm not sure if WP:COIU#5 applies here, since I am not the same individual. However, I would like to help correct the conflict of interest issues and bring the page into compliance with Wikipedia's rules. A few notes:


 * I think most of the issues could be resolved by completely deleting the following sections: "Honours and awards", "Industry recognition", "Government honours", "Board service & affiliations" and "Founding of WeProtect Global Alliance".
 * I've put more detailed notes on issues with the page here
 * I think the above notes show there is not much properly-cited biographical material on the page and it might be best to blow it up and start over

If or someone else doesn't mind reviewing, I'd like to circle back with a draft, proposed overhaul of the page to share that would be a more neutral, biographical, and properly cited work that thoroughly eradicates the promotion. Thoughts? Best regards. LauTad89 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Stubbing
Hi. My name is Linden and I work for Ms. Shields' marketing firm, Legendary. As indicated in the banner warnings, most of the page has clearly been written by someone affiliated with Ms. Shields at some point in the past. The page is flooded with promotion, primary sources, emphasis issues, and uncited content. I was hoping to clean up these past improper edits in a manner that complies with WP:COI.

Although it is an imperfect solution, I think the best first step would be to stub the page down to something basic to purge the improper editing and create a foundation for future improvement by more impartial editors. I've put together a proposed stub here for an impartial editor to consider, though the large trims suggested above would also be a good starting point. Bakerlr (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I draftified it. I believe you could go ahead and get it to proper standards, then submit it via AFC review process as a COI/U editor. I believe this is a reasonable flow process., thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , why did you move it back? Because User:RKWallace, who seems like a regular COI editor/SPA, wasn't notified? Drmies (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I just had a crack at WeProtect, whose SPA overlaps with this article. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From one of the suggestions you made in one of the many Greg fiasco, I believed this draftification was reasonable. How you did it is one way to do it, although having a COI/U user that recognizes blatant promotional contents added in the past fix it up themselves in draft space, then submit for AFC would be a way to address COI issue. Other editors could "have a crack at" fixing it up, but that consumes editor time. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was perfectly happy with your draftication. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chipping in. Isn't Articles for Creation for creating new pages? The current page has issues in most paragraphs, so a proposed draft righting the ship seemed the only sensible approach. Let me know if there's anything different I can do to help. Bakerlr (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Trimming
In my opinion, the Industry Recognition section and the awards (citations 7 & 8) should be trimmed.Bakerlr (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Superboilles (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi You marked the requested edit as completed, but the page still has the Industry Recognition section and citation 7. Did you mean to reject those proposed trims? Bakerlr (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, by "these should trimmed" I understood "shortened", not removed altogether. I have no strong opinion either way, so I've removed it. Citation 7 comes as a consequence to the previous sentence so it would make sense to keep it IMHO (meaning that launching Bebo Originals is not particularly notable; it becomes so because their first one got nominated for two BAFTA awards). I would also suggest moving the Government honours text to the Honours and awards section further down, but this is your call to make. Superboilles (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Early Life & Career Sections
My name is Linden and I am affiliated with the article subject, Ms. Shields. I'd like to request impartial editors consider the following changes:


 * 1. Early Life

References


 * Explanation: The current page doesn't say anything about her education in the body of the page.


 * 2. Career history

References


 * Explanation: The page's current content is cited to a speaker profile, a list of Netapp press releases, and nothing, respectively. The current page content has details not available in any Wikipedia-compliant citations. This proposed edit would replace the first three paragraphs of the career section with properly cited content.


 * 3. Government honours section


 * Explanation: This would consolidate the "Government work" and "Government honours" sections, pursuant to the Manual of Style, which discourages extremely short sections.

Bakerlr (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)