Talk:Panama Papers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

suggestion for organization

how about we have one section for reactions from *governments* ie we are investigating. and another for people/companies and their associated denials? Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

with all due respect, why did you not post this in the section of this Talk page which already discusses reorganisation? I'm sorry, but i'm having trouble taking this seriously when your Talk page posts are not organised logically. All the best. Boscaswell talk 16:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

possibly because I did not get an answer to the question I posted there? Assuming that's the section you are talking about? I actually give only a very small damn whether you take me seriously or not. But I am making an effort to play nice, since this is a rather massive change that I am proposing. You might try responding in kind. As matters stand, the article is a poorly written and ungrammatical salad of errors and writing that makes it clear that some editors do not understand corporate governance. But that's ok, they are trying to improve it, and I can would with ignorance; it's when it's coupled with arrogance that it becomes a problem. The issue is this: it makes little sense to organize as companies vs individuals, since these holding companies are in effect individuals in most cases. On third thought though, you can't separate out governments either, because many of these individuals *are* governments, such as the King of Saudi Arabia. It would perhaps be better to separate into:

• 1. Leak, logistics of, comments on importance
• 2. Consequences of the leak
• 3. THEN go to a country by country analysis, to include any investigations launches, politicians involved and their statements. This would make it easier to break the article into separate chunks as it grows, because that will probably become necessary

I welcome comments or suggestions, even the cranky unhelpful ones ;) As I did above in some of the posts Boscaswell finds so illogical, I will leave the matter pending until I can get a feel for consensus. Meanwhile, the prime minister of Iceland has a dramatic story, but it clearly should not be in the lede, so imma gonna go fix that. Elinruby (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Boscaswell I see you *did* answer; it must have been recently though. In any event, yes, by all means let us avoid working at cross-purposes, but I still do not understand your proposal.

@Elinruby: this is what I'm proposing:- under People, we keep the generalisations (eg. "....of more than 40 countries"; there are several paragraphs like this

agreed, general should be higher in the article

and here I'd maybe include minor mentions of allegations, those which don't warrant a separate country subsection) 

not sure what would be a minor mention of allegations, and to me it does not make sense to have minor stuff above more important. For instance, the first mention we have or wrong-doing is that perhaps the mayor of Buenos Aires should have declared his interest in an inactive holding company. Or maybe not. That's not exactly gripping, especially when there seem to be companies making a profit from the Syrian civil war and from the dangerous paranoia of North Korea.

and follow those with substantial stuff country by country.

seems like we agree here? Do you agree that it makes more sense to put all the UK together? The way I have the United Kingdom section for example? Elinruby (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

again under People, we follow each set of country allegations with the reactions official or otherwise. This is surely logical for a good flow of information and allows for balance.

why do official reactins go under People?

@Elinruby: So maybe leave out completely the section *title* 'People'? Note that I said *maybe* where I suggested that minor allegations should come before the more major ones (which to be listed country by country). But I think that it is *very* important to (a) facilitate the flow of information for the reader, and (b) to avoid the mess we are in now, and (c) so that people can see that there is balance, that reactions to allegations go immediately after the particular allegations. Please ping me with any response aimed at me. Thanks. All the best! Boscaswell talk 19:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: I think we all want thatElinruby (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I think we all want what? Boscaswell talk 19:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: "to (a) facilitate the flow of information for the reader, and (b) to avoid the mess we are in now, and (c) so that people can see that there is balance" Elinruby (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Swedish translation

Companies section has "The Prime Minister of Sweden Löfven said in response to the leaks in 2016 that he is very critical to the conduct of the Nordea bank, and their role." I cannot read the source, but suspect that this should say that he is critical OF Nordea; at present it implies that Nordea could not have acted without his participation. Davidships (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean the comment that is present in this article lead? "Statsminister Stefan Löfven är mycket kritisk till storbanken Nordeas roll." (the original source seems to be down..). It means "Prime Minister Stefan Löfven is very critical to the role of the big bank Nordea". Here in the context where he is critical to how they acted or didn't act. Löfven has no approval role of their doings except in removing or creating laws. The regulatory authorities of course can also act. Btw, it's much easier to figure these things out if the specific source is linked.. Sq8q (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP violations on related pages

Could editors please try to keep their eyes on biographies related to individuals (and company articles, for that matter) implicated. There are WP:BLPVIOs turning up all over the place. Just a reminder of the big 'what Wikipedia is not': WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Thank you, in advance, for your vigilance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

cite errors

there are two cite errors. that is a petty bad look for a high profile article and one that is protected at that! 203.118.164.184 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Already done Any citation errors that may have existed in previous versions of the article seem to have been fixed. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am getting ""Panama Papers: The Elites’ Shield From Laws Imposed On Us". Investor's Business Daily (Los Angeles). April 4, 2016. Retrieved April 6, 2016. Cite error: Invalid "ref" tag; name "IBD" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)."" even after a refresh. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Hm, that's odd. I'm not seeing an error with that citation, even after a purge. (Of course, it may have been fixed since your post.) Are you still getting a citation error there? /wiae /tlk 03:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

RT conspiracy peddlin' and WP:SYNTH

Please do not use non-reliable sources, like RT, to insert desperate conspiracy peddling into Wikipedia articles, like here or here. The stuff about Soros is part bullshit spin from RT (non-reliable), part Wikipedia editor's own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There's no need to give Peskov a forum in this article by putting in long blockquotes from the guy. Yes, we get it, Putin's government says that this is a conspiracy against Putin - you can - indeed, should - put that in. But please don't use Wikipedia as a forum for fringe crazy opinions. Blockquotes and the like are most definitely WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

With regards to Soros and the first edit: Is the Investor's Business Daily considered an unreliable source? I understand the Guardian bit shouldn't be there per WP:SYNTH, but the source used to accuse Soros (so to speak) is IBD, not RT (although admittedly discussing a Kremlin allegation). – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you absolutely kidding me, Volunteer Marek? It's flat out completely unreliable now? Is this what Wikipedia has become, where only Western sources are reliable anymore? No, I do not believe it has. But you make it seem as if that is the case. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It has always been unreliable except for the very basic statments of fact. Check WP:RSN. And no, it's not that "only Western sources are reliable" - I, nor no one else, has said that. Reliability is determined as always - reputation for fact checking and accuracy. RT has neither, it's in the same league as "western sources" like Breitbart or VDARe or zerohedgefund. Just crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would be reliable in this case, and even then you still have a WP:UNDUE problem. If other sources pick it up then maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's probably reliable for the Kremlin party line.Elinruby (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for a short description of what the Kremlin line is, without the absurd conspiracy theories presented as if they are true. Without UNDUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying otherwise. I have not looked at the Russia section in quite a while, dunno what's there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my addition of contested material, I feel it really ought to be mentioned given recent WikiLeaks comments, which I personally think qualifies as "other sources pick[ing] it up". – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 22:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

THat still doesn't make it reliable or WP:DUE. ""Other sources picking it up" means LOTS of other sources, and it means RELIABLE sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added some other sources (Fortune and CNBC). – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tobby72 - please explain what is "undue" here. This is straight from SD which is the source which released the papers and this article is its own analysis of them. There's no way that the first paragraph which you removed can be said to be "undue". Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Refs for RT conspiracy ref. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] SaintAviator lets talk 23:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: good on you for all your battling here. As to Tobby72 removing several paras (without describing which ones or precisely why) I'm sure you understand that if something is critical of Putin or friends of, it automatically becomes undue. As things stand on Wikipedia, it's open season for this kind of abuse. "Who let the dogs out?" It's my belief that such actions (woefully inadequately explained yet highly contentious deletions of material) should lead to automatic blocking of the account. I'm not joking. This is a collaborative project. Some are ignoring this basic tenet of Wikipedia. Boscaswell talk 05:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Have the journalists running the investigations spoken further to release timelines?

I see that in May 2016 a full list of corporations is to come, but have they spoken to further expected releases of further individuals, from more countries, etc? I note that only a single American has been listed yet, for example. Ujjwiki (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything more than what you mentioned, but there was an online Q&A with the reporters in German. twitter.com/ploechinger has a link. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Software security

According the Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/04/05/panama-papers-amazon-encryption-epic-leak/#6264c6601df5 the leak might have been due to out of date software with known vunrabilities. The article goes into quite a bit of detail on the technical side of things. --Salix alba (talk): 05:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've put some of this in Mossack Fonseca. Not sure if it makes any sense in this already sprawling article. —Luis (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Their web site had a bunch of vulnerable software but nobody has connected that with the leak. A 2.6TB exfiltration would have shown up in their bandwidth bills! Spy agencies would have picked up on it even if the internet carriers didn't. An earlier leak of similar material (to the German IRS) from the same company was known to have been done by an insider. It's also surprising that documents going back to the 1970s were digitized and online. So again that sounds like an inside job (someone carried a hard drive out of the office), but that's just me guessing. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

who deleted my United States info?

and why please?

Also the text that replaced it requires explanation. Used a 90yo man how? And why does his age matter. Also, "known businessman"?Elinruby (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)at

I see, it got put at the end of Companies. That KINDA makes sense but a lot of these companies are in reality one individual; is this really the organization we want? Leaving for now pending discussion. I mean, though, now we have, under companies, the fact that four Americans with criminal records show up in this database.Elinruby (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to companies because the US section is under 'Official reactions', which it was not. I didn't look through the source, but it appeared that companies was the best section for it at the time. Hollth (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I calmed down once I realized it wasn't just randomly reverted but thanks for answering. I kinda disagree with the entire structure as it stands but I left the part about US companies there. I moved the bit about the people who went to jail back to United Stes, because, well, they aren't compaElinruby (talk)nies. We might need slightly different headers but for now I am going to let fresh eyes worry about it.Elinruby (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The 90yo man thing was smelly if not outright incriminating, and the BBC article explains it pretty well. I'd support adding a few more words to our summary of it. The presumed implication of the guy's age is that he won't be around too much longer and probably isn't very active now, so he's unlikely to cause problems for the scam the way a younger person might. But the BBC didn't spell that out so we can't either. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again, US

Most of our sources are from the US, where this story has apparently blown out of proportions. But something that shows up in several sources has not yet been mentioned in the article. Where are the Americans? See: New Yorker, Independent, NBC News, Pravda.

An update is that now the US State media, Voice of America, has addressed this (with a certain COI, naturally:) Why So Few Americans Named in Panama Papers?. When even the State Media is having to explain it, how can it still not even be discussed here? I'm almost scared to edit this article myself since Russia is always a hotbed for touchiness. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a paragraph covering the issue to the section on the US. It's based off a BBC source that explains it. I've tried to keep on topic with the Panama Papers/Panama rather than a detailed background of how tax havens operate in the US. More than welcome for other to edit away at it, but try to keep it under 1 paragraph long. If inserting new citations, please try to resort to one citation per sentence, so we don't get lost. Jolly Ω Janner 23:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like it if we had some contributors here who could help us with non-English sources. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Panama Papers leak

This "navigation box" is being considered for deletion. Thought it might be worth bringing it up here since almost no one watches the template page itself. Entry is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Template:Panama Papers leak. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 08:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Craig Murray

A blog from Craig Murray is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. I will remove it now, please reply on here if you want to discuss. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUBLISH "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications": Murray had works about politics published by reliable sources including print (Mainstream Publishing company) and per WP:RSOPINION, his statements were clearly attributed to him in the article.--Der Golem (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that RS was not a sound reason for removal (looks very reliable to me), I do have to agree that the section was better removed. Perhaps I am being ignorant, but it looks to me that the criticism being an editorial on the media is outside of his area of expertise. Secondly, it does seem to give a fair amount of weight to him in particular, verging on wp:undue. If you could find other sources that also express the view, I'd probably change my mind. So for me, I still lean towards excluding it, but I could be swayed otherwise. Hollth (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. I agree that solely Murray's publication is not sufficient to express the view here, so I added more sources expressing these views.--Der Golem (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

None of this conspiracy crap belongs on Wikipedia. None of the opinions by these select few individuals such as Craig Murray are represented in mainstream sources. We already have a section in the US covering why it featured so little in the Panama Papers. Jolly Ω Janner 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy crap? That sounds rather POV. Glen Greenwald of The Intercept is mainstream reliable source, so are others that were blanked along with the rest.--Der Golem (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• SaintAviator, I find it a little patronising when you are edit warring over this content and citing BRD when you haven't even engaged in discussion here. It's almost as if you have a POV to fight for... Jolly Ω Janner 06:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I needed a cup of tea. Now, Brd is good we all know that. Are these 3 K edits over hasty? SaintAviator lets talk 06:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • I just noticed an editor breached 3RR. I have warned him / her. This is not hows it done. Der Golem is still discussing SaintAviator lets talk 07:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, lets dismiss Craig Murray in an encyclopedic consensus as a "conspiracy crap"--Der Golem (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, let's just say it doesn't meet WP:RS for this sort of purpose. There's endless commentary on this issue already, and it will only grow; we can't include all of it, and there are no grounds for including this sort of self-published stuff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Allright, fair enough.--Der Golem (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• See that was not hard, Discuss is best. Nomoskedasticity remember 3RR next time OK SaintAviator lets talk 08:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a question for you on my talk page. Please reply there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplication of Hameron's dad's company

Here:

"Ian Cameron, the late father of David Cameron, ran an offshore fund through Mossack Fonseca that avoided British taxes for thirty years. Cameron had residents of the Bahamas, including a part-time bishop, sign the paperwork.[126][127] His company, Blairmore Holdings, moved to Ireland,[128] another country known for its lenient tax rules, because its directors believed it would "come under more scrutiny" after the younger Cameron became Prime Minister.[129] In response to his late father's inclusion on the firm's list of clients, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron initially said his family's taxes were "a private matter"[66] but later issued a statement saying that he, his wife and children receive no benefit from the company, Blairmore Holdings, which is still in operation and has assets of £35 million. The company paid no British taxes for thirty years and moved to Ireland the year Cameron became prime minister because its directors feared it would come under scrutiny.[66] Cameron, who has denounced offshore tax havens, inherited £300,000 when his father died.[66]" _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Top 10 banks that requested the most offshore companies for clients

Are not the banks more important than the know individuals? --91.10.9.196 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The most important graph in the #PanamaPapers - the number of intermediaries (banks, accountants) in each country.: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/716795010751049728 - --84.170.84.95 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"contents" header ?

What? We needed better headings but I don't think this is it. Contents of what? The companies? The papers? The article? Seriously, I just don't under stand this, but we do need different categories because People vs Companies doesn't sort real well, especially with the ones that are also governments and according to what we have now could also go into the official reaction section also. I think we should sort on country, personally... that is what people want to know and you need to have room for every single statement from each government promising an investigation and every single person's protestations of innocence, you can put all that high up in the article, people will just get really bored plowing through random statistics and people being shocked, shocked. So I have done mmm like a first-pass rewrite for organization and readability from the beginning through the end of the People section, and also of the information on Iceland and the United Kingdom. This article will inevitably get split up; it's already long and we still need a section for Uganda and Azerbaijan, and I am sure there is more. It's 40 countries over 30 years. I would appreciate it if a couple of people would red those sections and let me know if anything is wrong or confusing. Elinruby (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Content presumably refers to content of the Panama Papers. What is odd, is that reactions, consequences and Mossack Fonseca's response are under subheadings of 'content' when none are actually contained in the Papers. I'm grouping them at the bottom of the article and making it so they are not subheadings of 'content' Hollth (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, go for it, II am afk for a while Elinruby (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Free trade with Panama

The sentence "The Panama Free Trade Agreement, which allegedly allowed and made the abuses documented in the Panama Papers worse" is an opinion and even if an "alleged" thrown in, it's just an idiosyncratic opinion. Furthermore, this article really shouldn't be used to fight political battles related to the US election, for example by being used as a forum for Bernie Sanders. Those quotes are a bit too much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

mm.I kind of agree even though that wording there is mine; it's better than what was there before is all I can say; I was doing copy-edit at the time. Personally I think that we have way too many really boring quotes in this article, but I have not attempted to tackle that yet. However, I think it *is* material that it's become an issue in the campaign, especially since Obama and Clinton have also issued statements now. Perhaps we can quote someone on the damage and let all three of them have their say? And without blockquotes, I agree, Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be simply removed. It's a single opinion and not a well informed one at that. For example according to the Newyorker the reason for why there aren't many Americans on in the PP is precisely because the PFTA "obliged Panama to provide to the U.S. authorities, on request, “information regarding the ownership of companies, partnerships, trusts, foundations, and other persons, including . . . . ownership information on all such persons in an ownership chain.” Higgins pointed out, “If Panama had ever been an attractive destination for American offshore storage of funds, this agreement shut the door on that possibility.”". This is a much better source then the political spin from a political campaign or idiosyncratic opinion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, there actually are some Americans though so I don't want to feed that too much. McClatchy released some names last night but they aren't in the article yet. And I think it can be done in an non-partisand way. Tell you what, I need to do some stuff just now but how about I make an attempt to address the problems in that section a little later when I add something about the names that were just released? Or of this is really really bothering you I suppose I could find the references again when I come back to this. Or you could put the existing text here under a hat? Elinruby (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Newyorker says "about the only American citizen" so something very small. There might be some folks with dual citizenship or something like that which is probably where this "about" comes from. More generally, the point is that Sanders' statements, or of similar opinion pieces are incorrect - the agreement made it HARDER for Americans to store money in Panama, not easier. But yeah, take your time - but at some point I will move the text here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo of Lionel Messi

Shall I change the image of Lionel Messi to a more suitable image? The image of him in tears looks suitable for a sleazy newspaper. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's not become a evening news media house. Why does a photo of Messi matter at all? and why bother with emotions that happened for something completely unrelated? He's not in a position of government function nor of a major corporation. Irrelevant person really. Soap55z (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither is Jackie Chan. Someone already added a photo of him there. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Otoh, I have at least seen him.. :-) Anyway, all the photos are now starting to interrupt the text flow so perhaps it's time to remove most of them, unless they are current head of state etc. Soap55z (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Icelandic PM resigned; an image of him must remain in the article. I already removed an image of the Saudi king, who is not mentioned in the article. Poroshenko must also be retained in the page. --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Persons that have important government position at the time of the publication of the leaked documents and then resign for whatever reason, obviously is important enough to have their photo in the article. Especially if they resign as a consequence of what the leaked documents reveals. Iceland is getting really interesting. Soap55z (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Back to Messi, shall I change, keep, or remove the image? --George Ho (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I would remove it. And the reason is relevance. The person is not in a position of relevant power. Soap55z (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove it. In an article like this, images should be reserved for only the most major topics (in reality, images aren't very helpful in explaining things here, but they make it less heavy to read!). Icelandic PM is the only one that comes to mind at the moment. Remember that this is an article about the Panama Papers, not the people in it. Jolly Ω Janner 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Switched so we can actually see his face. George Ho, this is Wikipedia, not every single minute detail needs to be discussed, if you think a better image should be used, just use it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, The Rambling Man. However, the image of him was removed by someone else who cited WP:BLP as a reason. George Ho (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is invalid in this case, but your initial reasoning of changing Messi's photo is just one of the controversial press gimmicks to belittle the antagonistic figure. I think you would be a better journalist than Wikipedia editor. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why would the BLP be "invalid"? The BLP is valid everywhere. Bongomatic, I can't look at the actual article right now, but I have serious problems with pictures of "implicated" persons being posted here. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• I took out one, but the article is full of them. Good luck y'all chasing the news reports around. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Complete reorganisation of the article is required, and soon

This article is growing at a fast rate, and rightly so, with what is being disclosed.

Right now this is how it is presented:

• In the People section we have some generalisations and some detailed allegations. Ditto for companies.
• Under the strangely titled Reaction section we have more detail re. specific cases
• Then under the Official Reaction section we have reactions to all of the earlier sections.

The result is a hopeless mess, confusing to everyone. Wikipedia is being let down by the low quality of the article.

I propose the following: - under People, we keep the generalisations and list by country those with anything more. - reactions official or otherwise, should follow in each case. This keeps it very simple and should make it easy to read and easy to access.

Can I have some agreement, please? Or alternative suggestions of course. A major problem is that the article is being edited so frequently that I can't see how to change it all, and there would have to be some merging, without causing major disruption. But I feel that it must be done, somehow or other. Boscaswell talk 10:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it be done in order of country or am I misunderstanding you? Personally, I would dislike that. I don't have a problem with the current layout, although half of the reactions section are not reactions and needs to be moved. To me the format is attempting to be background => Content/people => Repercussions/reactions. The only problem I see is that the content/people is being mixed with the reactions. E.g. Azerbaijan's or China's reaction section. Xi having relatives linked is not a reaction, it's content. The reaction is the censoring of the Papers. Hollth (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that organization is an issue but I am not sure what you are proposing. Elinruby (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree to moving all the reaction outside of the poeple section. I did that a while ago but people added more reactions. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: and that is the problem. It needs to be kept simple. I've wasted good time, just as you have, dong the same thing.

@Elinruby: this is what I'm proposing:

- under People, we keep the generalisations (eg. "....of more than 40 countries"; there are several paragraphs like this, and here I'd maybe include minor mentions of allegations, those which don't warrant a separate country subsection) and follow those with substantial stuff country by country.

- again under People, we follow each set of country allegations with the reactions official or otherwise. This is surely logical for a good flow of information and allows for balance.

@Hollth: as I've said, it's essential to keep it simple. You may not like to have allegations listed by country, but it is the only logical way, n'est-ce pas? The result of not having it simple is the awful mess that we now have, with various editors posting allegations in the reactions section and others posting reactions in the allegations section. And what's worse, we currently have two different places for allegations, the People section and the Accused one. This is totally crazy and is guaranteed to result in the mess we have now. Yesterday I spent a good while deleting repeat allegations re. Putin from the reactions section, which involved dealing with refs. which were in the rest of the Reactions section (only as "ref name" repeats, ie. no url etc.) And then guess what, the editor who had repeatedly reinstated the allegations in the wrong place went and put reactions to allegations to Putin (which are of course as things stand supposed to be in the Reactions section) in the People section. Of course, it's logical for flow of information for him to to do that, but as it is organised at the moment, it's wrong. People, please think about this. It's a terrible mess and has to change, right? Can we please keep it simple, as I propose? Alternatively, what can you suggest to make it straightforward for the myriad editors we have working

Oh, and by the way, Hollth, choosing to censor as has happened in China and elsewhere is a reaction. Boscaswell talk 16:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the SDZ announced that the whole set of documents will not be made public, is still correct to say "The Panama Papers are a leaked set of 11.5 million confidential documents"?. Being made available only to some people presenting themselves as "investigative journalists", are they really "leaked". And what is the number of publicly available documents currently?80.72.94.103 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone figure out what the hell is wrong with this talk page?

And fix it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nm, it was an unclosed ref tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek maybe you could do the community the favor to delete this section.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean this section, or the one below that was causing problems? If it's this section, who cares? If it's the one below, I fixed the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The new map

The new version of the map makes no sense whatsoever. I understand what the creatot tried to do (ie, EU by implication), but only because I read the information about it here For the readers seeing a legend that says "European Union", which refers to a handful of countries is at best confusing. Also, there is no explanation as to why some countries that earlier were in red are now in blue. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Also, the map has now been reverted and there is no blue. So why is the EU still in the key? Should it be removed?  Seagull123  Φ  18:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Seagull123: Well spotted. I have removed it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: That's great, Thank you!  Seagull123  Φ  21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

blockquotes in the background section

That first blockquote, from Jeffrey Robinson, is most definitely WP:UNDUE and gives the article a POV tone. That second blockquote is a bit better but not by much. The sentences beginning with "There is a video on youtube..." (really?) are not every encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox improvement

I copied the original infobox template from the Pentagon Papers and thought that if it's good for that article that has been around way longer it should do here too. Obviously one person here disagrees. So does anyone know of appropriate template?

The closest I came was Category:Events infobox templates or perhaps Template:Infobox event. But big leaks seems to have been so rare in the past that no one has bothered to make one specifically for leaks. Soap55z (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
Panama Papers Countries with public officials implicated in the leak Description Release of 11.5 million documents (2.6 TB) Date of documents 1970s–2016 Period of release 2015 – 2016 Key publishers Süddeutsche Zeitung Subject Tax evasion Went public April 3, 2016 16:51 UTC

@Soap55z, the article does not need an infobox, nevertheless a non-standard infobox with parameters invented on the spot. Everything that the infobox needs to communicate can be said in the lede, as is standard for our articles. Per BRD, please form consensus on the talk page before re-adding this new content unilaterally. czar 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we both posted at the same time. Pentagon Papers doesn't have an infobox. Not every article needs an infobox. czar 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What makes your judgement the better one? One of the things that hit when reading the article was the lack of a date, scope and what it is about. And no one needs Wikipedia either. It's all about at what level of comfort one wants. (btw, seems it was "United States diplomatic cables leak" that was the source) Soap55z (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the type of information we cover in the initial (lede) paragraph. Infoboxes should not include stuff that isn't already cited in the article. Feel free to work the details you thought were important into the introduction. czar 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think information such as what it's about, when it happened, and what it affects should be in the first two sentences. One shall not have to read large chunks of text to get an idea if it was worthwhile to read about at all. Have a look at the article on the Brussels incident. A lot of the information is mentioned both in the infobox, article header and in a specific section. Soap55z (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I think the purpose of an infobox shouldn't necessarily be to provide new information but to condense and organize material that's already present in the article in a way that's more visually convenient and easier to absorb. It should serve as a summary at the intro, and then an interested reader can go on into the article for more in-depth details. --Aa2432a (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is not helpful in this article. Better to remove and present the information in the lead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

i think we need an infobox, i suggest event; see Flint water crisis; Watergate scandal. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would prefer an infobox. I'd be more happy with the above one than the crisis one suggested by DuckDuckStop because that feels a little bit wp:crystal ball Hollth (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I had made Template: Panama Papers yesterday only to have it taken down at some point last night. I had directly modeled it after the one over at Watergate scandal. If both Watergate, another case involving leaks of insider information, has an infobox, I think Panama Papers deserves its own. It helps with a brief visual summary of the situation/those involved, and adds a lot more substance to the beginning of the article than just having a generic map with a caption like we currently do. --Aa2432a (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, isn't it? I think it was Czar that took it down and I fully support that. The infobox is ghastly and does less to help the reader than reading the lead. That's because you're cherry-picking certain information which you think will fit into an infobox and this is not the most important information to present right at the top of the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox support

So far, it seems more folks support the infobox than do not.

• For - @Aa2432a, Duckduckstop, Soap55z, and Hollth:
• Against - @Czar and MSGJ:

Might I suggest that it be added as a small feature with its development steered by consensus? Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

But a poll isn't consensus. We've already established that all of the information that would be in the infobox is already in the lede. (And noted the precedent of other leak articles.) For there to be consensus on needing an infobox, we'd need to have some agreement on what it's supposed to include. czar 02:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Czar, Aa2432a, Duckduckstop, Soap55z, Hollth, and MSGJ: I never called it a poll and only put it there to summarize who had chimed in. Also, your main rationale that the info is replicated in the article is somewhat illogical as the guidelines for infoboxes necessitates that the info is already in the article. So to argue that an infobox is not desirable because it is replicative isn't compelling. It is supposed to digest and summarize info. See Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_contain.3F where it says, "Already cited elsewhere in the article." The contents of the proposed infoboxes are not just what's in the lede. They go beyond that. One has to recognize the value of having the most important facts digested and excerpted in an easy-to-read format. If this page doesn't serve this function, then Google Knowledge Graph on a search engine results page will, at which point one can argue that we are falling behind on our editorial duty. See this addressed in a previous Signpost article on infoboxes from the original infobox debates. I'm not a fan of Angela Merkel-style megaboxes, but erring too far on the other side can be even worse. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, but I said it repeats what's in the lede, which is to say that the information has already been summarized. Yes, the lede and infobox info should be cited in the article's prose. "more folks support the infobox than do not" is the poll. Pretty clear where you stand on this. I'm personally not concerned about Google Knowledge Graph. As far as I can tell, Google does not show infoboxes for either the Pentagon Papers either. Maybe we can add Google's name to the poll too. czar 01:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

semi-protected page: The bank "Nordea" new update!

Could someone with edit privilege insert this into the section "Panama Papers#Nordea" ? Being reported to the Committee on the Constitution, big loans to offshore companies, breaking sanctions and connections with dictators ought to have sufficient importance.

Nordea of Luxembourg requested almost 400 holding companies in tax havens for their customers between 2004-2014. This conduct of Nordea coincided in time with the time period that Mats Odell served as Minister for Financial Markets 2006-2010 and Maud Olofsson served as Minister for Enterprise and Energy 2006-2011. At the time 2000-2011 the Swedish government owned no less than a 18.1 percent stake of the bank. On the basis of this a member of the Swedish Riksdag has filed a complaint to the Committee on the Constitution as of 6 April 2016.

Nordea has stated they have quit doing any business setup using offshore companies to avoid tax since 2009. Now in April 6 2016 they have been found to lend out 366 million US dollars to finance the building of a luxury shopping mall "Metropolis" in Moscow and that this business still went on in 2015. The owner to these offshore companies is a business man with close connections to the dictator of Kazakhstan. And despite the international economic sanctions on Russia that has been in place since 2014. Also Maud Olofsson still hasn't sorted out the Nuon scandal from 2009 where an estimated 4.6 billion US dollars in tax funds were lost and is wanted in the Committee on the Constitution for that reason too, which she has refused.

Sq8q (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ahhh that explains a bit actually. I wondered why Sweden was so upset when the company was based in Luxembourg, I agree that it's probably notable but I have a serious need for a break. If nobody does it while I am gone I will see what I can make of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

German speakers?

Are any German speakers here? There are some good German press articles that we should try to use (I linked a few above) so language help would be appreciated. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ja.

• Panama Papers – nicht Jahrhundertscoop, sondern Jahrhundertflop → translated → money quote: "... no court in the world will accept as evidence. As long as the data from the Panama Papers won't end up with national and international criminal investigators, the "scoop" will have no practical consequences. In the end, it looks as if the involved media companies used their data treasure trove only to increase their ratings and print runs. Some crucial questions remain unanswered: Why is there no notable US American citizen among the "accused"? Why did Süddeutsche Zeitung and The Guardian use the publication in a shady manner for running propaganda against Vladimir Putin? Why are the raw data not being published? Every whisteblower can only be advised to strictly avoid the investigative consortia of the media companies involved in the ICIJ. With the Offshore Leaks, the Luxemburg Leaks and the Swiss Leaks, ICIJ & Company did not exactly do a great job. The "villains" got away. If you really want to make an impact, publish your documents with Wikileaks. Only then, a transparent and democratic analysis of the documents will be possible."

• Was steckt hinter den "Panama Papers"? Das neue Steuerparadies USA → money quote: "Und noch ein Staat ist inzwischen hinzugekommen: Nevada. Hier hat die Schweizer Rothschild Bank 2013 in Reno eine Filiale eröffnet, die sich um die Vermögen ultrareicher Familien aus aller Welt kümmert und sich die weltweit wohl einmaligen Vorschriften für Geschäftsfirmen zunutze macht: Keine Stammkapitalpflicht, keine Buchführungs- und Bilanzierungspflicht, keine Aufbewahrungspflicht für Belege und Nachweise zur Mittelverwendung und - bei entsprechender anwaltlicher Beratung - keine Betriebsprüfungen. Die USA haben es also nicht nur geschafft, den Rest der Welt zu zwingen, ihnen bei der Jagd auf eigene Steuersünder zu helfen, sondern den übrigen Staaten der Welt auch noch deren Steuersünder abspenstig gemacht und so für den Zustrom riesiger Summen ins eigene Land gesorgt. Damit haben sie zwei Fliegen mit einer Klappe geschlagen: Sie haben die Konkurrenz empfindlich geschwächt und dazu beigetragen, dass der Zustrom von Milliarden von Dollar ins eigene Land die eigene Zahlungsbilanz aufbessert und den kränkelnden Dollar - zumindest vorübergehend - stützt."

• OECD-Abkommen versus Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) - Die USA profitieren von den ungleichen Rechten und Pflichten zum Datenaustausch. Die USA haben die Macht, diese Regeln anderen Ländern zu diktieren, weil ihre Währung für die Weltfinanzmärkte so wichtig ist. Die USA macht als einziges großes Industrieland beim OECD-Abkommen nicht mit. Die Folge, große Verschiebung von Geldern in Richtung der USA - zuerst aus der Schweiz und nun auch aus Panama!

• Live cold war blog on CIA (ähm, sorry) "Radio Free Europe" http://www.rferl.org/contentlive/panama-papers-live-blog/27659612.html

• Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota oder Wyoming... here we come! --79.223.6.56 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

random NPOV template that appeared

what is the part you feel is not neutral?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek believed the article was not neutral due to the mentions of George Soros and his company in the section on Russia. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

well, you've been working on that part, you understand what he is talking about? He also mentioned the US section, which he is kinda right about. I just don't like guessing what the issue is. Lemme see if he answered my quesiton Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It was due to the original reference being synthesis and undue. However, with the WP:RS references (given above) which corroborate the given references, as well as the Fortune and CNBC references, I don't think this tag should stay. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No, there's still POV problems here. First, the Russia section opens up with a conspiracy theory from RT, a non-reliable source and presents it as fact. That needs to be removed. Second, there's still too much junk about this being a conspiracy by Soros in that section. To be clear, I'm not objecting to inclusion of material about how Kremlin feels this is an "attack on Putin" or motivated by "Putinophobia". That's fine. What I am objecting to is using Wikipedia to give credence to wacky conspiracy theories (and no, the fact that cnn mentions in passing that Soros has donated some money to the journalist organization is not sufficient). Remember that Soros is also covered by WP:BLP. Third, there is the removal of referenced text from SD, the paper that broke this story, by Tobby72, for no reason except WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

So yes, until these problems are fixed, POV tag is justified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: too right. I am so glad that you are working on this article. I spent a lot of time on it in on days two and three, but after that it just went stupid, when those who believe that Putin walks on water really started to get in on the act. And in case anyone should immediately jump to the conclusion that I have a POV on this and start pointing the finger, well, yes, I do think that Putin is a dictator (who doesn't?) and a liar. It's not exactly unusual to hold that view. I also think that most politicians are liars, it goes with the territory. I also think that although RT might well come up with some interesting alternative views, it's Putin's mouthpiece when he wants it to be. Control of mass media is one of the pillars of power for all dictators and a lot of Russian journos have had untimely car accidents or met early deaths in other ways. That is beyond dispute. Boscaswell talk 14:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I left RT in when I did a partial copy edit on that section because it was conveying a government position. But I don't have strong feelings on the subject Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Panama Papers available to public?

Where I can download leaked papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.68.99 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not available to the public. This way, journalists can pick and choose whose names get dragged thru the mud. XavierItzm (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In total, Guardian has released, 2 #PanamaPapers documents. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 0 documents. --79.223.6.56 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There are quite a number of documents published by ICIJ. Here, for example. (Wikileaks is not a reliable source!) Davidships (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Mossack Fonseca papers

Should be the title:
since when Wiki has started nominating nations/countries
about 60 mins ago even BBC changed
and, if there would be instances no. 5, no 8, etc.
about 1 yr ago the similar incident occurred in connection with UK and SWI banks
in short: imho no country, nation, state should be tagged, by Wi—Pietadè (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Pietade: WP:COMMONNAME says that "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". I can't find the BBC using Mossack Fonseca papers, they're still using Panama Papers as I far as I can see, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35934836. Also, a google search for Mossack Fonseca papers reveals news articles that talk about the Panama Papers. So I don't think the title should be changed.  Seagull123  Φ  21:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you see, this was only the last yr UK royal "things" were mingling with Swiss banks; and, if there would be editions like Panama ed.4, ed.5, etc. My point is, that, e.g, today we don't call, deleted deliberately. I am sincerely against wiki, via our fingers, to give Google search motor the 1st option to harm one single country.—Pietadè (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition: The thing (BBC) is currently broadcasting in the corner of m'room; and I can ensure you, they are doing their usual job (my experience in covering things, delivered by BBC, tells me that in say 60 mins they can change the entire content of an article, and not the URI)—Pietadè (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional answer, from the person looking at the BBC eating power in the corner of my corner, I strongly oppose Wikipedia choosing blind run in the back of of World media (what costs more, U-bomb, or lying via media, wiki)
as for the BBC, using the instruments I was born with, ears, it was kind of unusual to listen from them the title I proposed earlier. Repeating myself once more: if the title stays, there should be, e.g., Sw prs...–Pietadè (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pietade: I'm watching BBC news now, and they've been calling it the Panama Papers, and I still can't find any sources that call it the Mossack Fonseca papers - please find sources to show that the name Mossack Fonseca papers is the "most commonly used" name, per WP:COMMONNAME. If you want to request a move, I'd also suggest that you request a move on the requested move page at WP:RM/CM.  Seagull123  Φ  10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I heard this tonight, though the use was kind of not firm; besides, Google's algorithms are out of our reach.—Pietadè (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Call for full release

Panama Papers: WikiLeaks' Kristinn Hrafnsson calls for data leak to be released in full

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/panama-papers/panama-papers-wikileaks-kristinn-hrafnsson-calls-for-data-leak-to-be-released-in-full-34601909.html

1. PanamaPapers: If you censor more than 99% of the documents you are engaged 1% journalism by definition.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717753348447973376

Thanks; I've added a section on WikiLeaks' response with that included – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 11:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

if you make a major leak and don't make the leak to Wikileaks, then you are bound to upset Wikileaks. Boscaswell talk 18:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

David Cameron

I feel that given the media coverage in the UK regarding David Cameron and the consequences that this leak has had on him, there should be some more coverage on him now. Would it be better in a new article or contained within this article? I feel this article may be getting long enough as it is! Calvin (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, I've just read the test in the United Kingdom section. Would it be better to have a "fallout" section detailing the fallout in each respective country, such as Iceland, etc? Calvin (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The information on David Cameron can go in... the article on David Cameron. News sources frequently pad out stories with information that is not useful in an encyclopedia. One should really scrutinise whether it is WP:NOTNEWS. Jolly Ω Janner 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Panama

Can someone please do something about the Panama section which is not only repetitive but incomprehensible in places (too much Google-translate, perhaps?). I am afraid that my Spanish is not up to attempting this. Davidships (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)