Talk:Panama Papers/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Lead revisions

From a leaked internal memorandum

Ninety-five per cent of our work coincidentally consists in selling vehicles to avoid taxes.

Mossack Fonseca

I have partially reverted the bold edit that one editor made to the lead. There were numerous editors that developed the lead, and the change made by a lone editor fails to properly summarize the article. The editor states "- this material is duplicated many times and is excessive detail for lede". That the material duplicates the material in the article is to be expected, since the lead is meant to summarize the article. I do not object to making the material more concise where there is too much detail. Drastic changes to the lead should be done here on the talk page. I look forward to creating a better lead here on the talk page. Guest2625 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guest2625: who has never used his talk page, has gibberish on his user page, I apologize for saying you have not contributed to the article. I see you did add a quote box, which, by the way, does not "summarize the article" although it is possibly useful. Oh and you added a line of white space. Wow. I suggest you review the rest of the talk page -- where are you in all that discussion? -- as well as the edit statistics. The current article is overwhelmingly my work and I think I can summarize it ;) There is broad consensus that these sections of the article are disorganized and I announced an intention to rewrite them days ago.

Now, if you want to help, I welcome that, but let's not edit war over the lede as I am working on it. The article has changed a great deal and there is broad consensus that it needs help and nobody has time. Pick any one of the multiple problems listed above. If there is outrage over my changes when I am done there will be time enough to put the flawed text you keep trying to reinsert. To name just one problem, someone has scrambled the references and, for example, the one named nuix is going to go to a webpage about data mining software. To name another the PP do more than illustrate need financial management tips.Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you we should not edit war over the lead that is why I have suggested making edits to the lead on the talk page. I have no objection to the other edits you have been making to the different country relevant material. I am also interested in hearing what other editors think of the lead and gaining consensus on those changes. So if you have suggestions for changes to the lead please place them below. Thank you and I look forward to working with you. Guest2625 (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ai Ai Ai. Please see extensive description above, dated three days ago, of exactly the changes you just reverted. Also, that David Cameron link needs to find its real home, which is not there -- it has no relationship to the text that precedes it. Ditto the other reference in the text you are trying to reinsert.Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore most of the people in that list already have their own sections, and yes, a list of a gazillion people is excessive for the lede. Why are you acting like you own the article? You've barely touched it. Do you have any constructive suggestions? Seems to me you just want to prevent work on the article. Elinruby (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you being ironic with your statement of me owning the article, when you just stated above that "the current article is overwhelmingly my work". And yes, I certainly have constructive suggestions, and I'm sure other editors will also have constructive suggestions. Guest2625 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(later) ok, look, I've had a chance to semi-finish the lede, which now has (always would have had) this text: "The journalists on the investigative team found business transactions by many important figures in world politics, sports and art. Some transactions are quite legal. Since the data is incomplete, questions remain in many other cases; still others seem to clearly indicate ethical if not legal impropriety." See? Summary. I promise you that each and every one of those name will have its mention, and likely its own section as well. But not in the lede. See if that addresses your concern. I am going to work further down the page now pending comment on the lede Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby can your fellow editors assume good faith in your editing when you state about the lead "ok, look, I've had a chance to semi-finish the lede, which now has (always would have had) this text: 'The journalists on the investigative team found business transactions by many important figures in world politics, sports and art. Some transactions are quite legal. Since the data is incomplete, questions remain in many other cases; still others seem to clearly indicate ethical if not legal impropriety.'" Yet then I look at the lead and do not see that sentence anywhere in it. Oh also, I'm curious as to what happened to the quote box which I have placed above that was just "disappeared" in the following change [1] with the statement "better section title, see also". Guest2625 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this. Probably someone deleted that sentence. Happens a lot around here. As for your quote box, no clue. I did see you restoring it and said meh. Personally I don't think it adds much, but it's not hurting any thing and I have actually seen the quote; it was about Costa Rica. But yeah, you might want to check before you accuse people of nefarious doings, especially in light of your own numerous inaccuracies.Elinruby (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: Thank you for joining the discussion on the lead via the edit history. Before you start a reverting conflict, please note the version of the lead that I had on the article was the original one, before a lone editor made a bold edit, which is great, but did not gain consensus on the talk page. Also Pokefan95 its great to see you make your first edit on this article. I look forward to working with you to make a great article. Guest2625 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Original lead

the Panama Papers are a set of 11.5 million leaked documents that detail financial and attorney–client information for more than 214,000 offshore companies associated with the Panamanian law firm and corporate service provider, Mossack Fonseca.

The leaked documents contain the identities of the companies' shareholders and directors, as well as some financial transactions. Among other things, they illustrate how wealthy individuals, including public officials, can keep personal financial information private. At the time of publication, the papers identified five then-heads of state or government leaders from Argentina, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates as well as government officials, close relatives, and close associates of various heads of government of more than forty other countries. The British Virgin Islands was home to half of the companies listed and Hong Kong contained the most affiliated banks, law firms, and middlemen.

While the use of offshore business entities is not illegal in the jurisdictions in which they are registered, and often not illegal at all, reporters found that some of the shell corporations seem to have been used for illegal purposes, including fraud, kleptocracy, tax evasion and evading international sanctions.

"John Doe", who leaked the documents to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, remains anonymous. He said he "wanted to make these crimes public." Because of the quantity of information, Süddeutsche Zeitung asked the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) for help. About 400 journalists from 107 media organizations in 80 countries at some point received and analyzed leak documents detailing the operations of the law firm and its clients' shell companies. After more than a year of analysis, the first news stories based on the documents were published on April 3, 2016, along with 149 of the documents themselves. The project represents an important use of data journalism tools and remote collaboration.

The documents were quickly dubbed the Panama Papers. The Panamanian government strongly objects to the name; so do other entities in Panama and elsewhere. Some media outlets covering the story have used the name "Mossack Fonseca papers."

Suggested changes

If there are any suggested changes to the lead please place here:

Below are suggested changes by Elinruby. Guest2625 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby's version

The Panama Papers are 11.5 million leaked documents that detail financial and identity information for more than 214,488 offshore entities. The leaked documents were created by Panamanian law firm and corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca; some dated back to the 1970s.

"John Doe", who leaked the documents to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), remains anonymous, even to journalists on the investigation. "My life is in danger," he told them. In a May 6 statement, John Doe cited income inequality, and said he leaked the documents "simply because I understood enough about their contents to realise the scale of the injustices they described." He added that he has never worked for any government or intelligence agency and expressed willingness to help prosecutors. After SZ verified that it was from the Panama Papers source, ICIJ posted the full written statement on its website.

Because of the number of documents, SZ asked the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) for help. Journalists from 107 media organizations in 80 countries analyzed documents detailing the operations of the law firm. After more than a year of analysis, the first news stories were published on April 3, 2016, along with 149 of the documents themselves. The project represents an important use of data journalism software tools and mobile collaboration.

The documents were quickly dubbed the Panama Papers. The Panamanian government strongly objects to the name; so do other entities in Panama and elsewhere. Some media outlets covering the story have used the name "Mossack Fonseca papers."

Problem with this version

The problem with the suggested lead is that it does not address why are the Panama Papers important. When writing this article we should think about the standard questions: when, where, why, what, who and how. The second and third paragraph of the original lead addressed the question of why the media is interested in the Panama Papers. The key sentences from the two paragraphs are:

"Among other things, they illustrate how wealthy individuals, including public officials, can keep personal financial information private."

and

"[R]eporters found that some of the shell corporations seem to have been used for illegal purposes, including fraud, kleptocracy, tax evasion and evading international sanctions."

The two paragraphs are of course wordy and could be written in a better fashion. Guest2625 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

mmmm maybe we're making progress here after all. I agree that those are really the most important points. It's the wordiness I am trying to fix, see? (And by the way, it's who, what, when, where, and WHY not how. How usually takes a bunch of paragraphs.) But ok:

1. who=John Doe
2. what=leak
3. when=last year
4. where=SD, ICIJ et al
5. why=see his statement

How is all the stuff that is making the news.

I think you are seeing this as:

who=SZ, ICIJ

what=publish

where=(internet? see... it gets incoherent)

when=April

why=because it's newsworthy

But that makes all the stuff about kleptocracy a footnote, and I don't think it should be, do you? Elinruby (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

then of course there is the fact that this is a high-importance Journalism article, so it should have some journalism in the lede, but let's work on the above first Elinruby (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead meant as summary

The lead is meant to summarize the article. Unfortunately, the version proposed by Elinruby pares down the original lead that was collaboratively created by multiple editors by too much. The version of the lead that I've proposed keeps the main contents of the original lead that was changed by a sole editor who did not gain consensus on the talk page. Note that the second paragraph that I formed from the second and third paragraphs of the original lead addresses a number of the sections of the article that Elinruby's lead does not address.

The second paragraph specifically addresses the sections

1. Disclosures

2. Tax havens

10. Allegations, reactions, and investigations

I also note that nearly half of the article is section ten – "Allegations, reactions, and investigations". Elinruby's proposed lead fails to summarize these three large sections of the article, which make up more than half of the article. Guest2625 (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Guest2625's version

The Panama Papers are a set of 11.5 million leaked documents that detail financial and attorney–client information for more than 214,000 offshore companies associated with the Panamanian law firm and corporate service provider, Mossack Fonseca.

The leaked documents illustrate how wealthy individuals, including public officials, are able to keep personal financial information private. While the use of offshore business entities is not illegal in the jurisdictions in which they are registered, and often not illegal at all, reporters found that some of the shell corporations were used for illegal purposes, including fraud, kleptocracy, tax evasion and evading international sanctions.

"John Doe", who leaked the documents to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, remains anonymous. He said he "wanted to make these crimes public." Because of the quantity of information, Süddeutsche Zeitung asked the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) for help. About 400 journalists from 107 media organizations in 80 countries at some point received and analyzed leak documents detailing the operations of the law firm and its clients' shell companies. After more than a year of analysis, the first news stories based on the documents were published on April 3, 2016, along with 149 of the documents themselves. The project represents an important use of data journalism tools and remote collaboration.

The documents were quickly dubbed the Panama Papers. The Panamanian government strongly objects to the name; so do other entities in Panama and elsewhere. Some media outlets covering the story have used the name "Mossack Fonseca papers."

I propose the above version of the lead that includes components of the second and third paragraphs of the original lead. Guest2625 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph of original lead

I agree with Elinruby that this paragraph about the naming of the Panama Papers does not belong in the lead. The lead is for a summary of the article as a whole and not a place for minutiae about how Panama objects to this name. The leaked documents are obviously named the Panama Papers because the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists who analysed the documents and wrote the various articles on the topic around the world called the documents as such -- see for example https://panamapapers.icij.org/. Guest2625 (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've actually been on both sides of that one. It needs to be somewhere, imho. Where it was before was as a note to the first sentence though and I objected to that on the basis of weight and readability. I was thinking of making a little message but WP does not seem to have one that applies and a definition box seemed like too much emphasis on a fairly tangential fact. I have already typed all this out once, you know ;) I really wish you would read past discussions, that one was only a few days ago and can't be that far back.Elinruby (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't know where you want this

Elinruby, Guest2625 I'm writing here, because you two seem to have a few related threads in difference places and honestly, I can't follow where your discussion is at right now. Feel free to move this in a more appropriate place if you feel the need (or general readability changes to this-I know it's against the rules and whatnot, but wp:IAR ). Now, you two seem to be half-edit warring over the lead so I'm going to drop in my 2 cents. There seems to be objections on paragraphs 2 (the leaked documents show..) and 5 (The documents were dubbed..) As a side note, there are a few minor things in 3 (John Doe...) that I dislike. I think I also saw Elinruby concerned bout the size of the lead? For an article of this length its well within the given guidelines, so I wouldn't be too concerned with that.

Para 5: We should merge with the starting paragraph if it is to stay. As it is about the name, this would follow convention. I'm on the fence with this one. Panama Papers is clearly the common name, but I can see why it should be included that Panama objects to the name. As a compromise I propose instead we add something along the lines of

(also known as Mossack Fonseca papers)

Or is this what you objected to on readability and weight grounds Elinruby? Obviously, I feel like it's a compromise in the right direction for the time being.

Para 2: We definitely need something along these lines and while its not required, it is pretty normal (if not strictly necessary) for a lead to cover why it is important / why it meets WP:GNG. The main problem with what we currently to me is the logic. I do not believe it's clear why we suddenly talk about offshore companies, and then shell corporations to somebody not already familiar with subject. I suggest something along the lines of

The documents show how individuals keep financial information private. The privacy is afforded primary via offshore shell companies, the majority of which were registered in British Overseas Territories or other tax havens. Investigators found that some business transactions of these offshore companies were used for illegal purposes, including fraud, tax evasion, kleptocracy and avoiding international sanctions.

Para 3: I'm sure there is a guideline I read somewhere that said quotes in the lead should be avoided. I would prefer if the quotes were converted to prose, but again, this is a minor issue. Hollth (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

He *is* edit-warring :) I have been quiet for a bit because he just did three reverts and I am not going to follow him there. Besides, I am hoping for more editors here, and I don't want to scare anybody off. But um. If you're sure about the lede length being ok, I care a lot less about all that then. However, let's see, paragraph #3, it could become a paraphrase I guess -- I usually put in a quote when I feel it summarizes a situation well, but I suppose I can see why that would be a guideline for the lede. If we could be sure they aren't going to delete the John Doe page we could move the quote there, make a shorter summary here maybe? Paragraph 5, as I said somewhere else, I am open to suggestions. I think that information should be somewhere. I objected to the footnote on readability grounds, yes. As for the parentheses, sigh, i suppose we could do that, since my own examples, Republic of Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo, seem to indicate that this is what we should do. I still hate it on grounds of readability, but at least it would be be a standardized in a format people are used to. I'd still really like it if someone had a better idea, though, and an argument in favor of not doing it that way is that it's really not that many instances, though there is the position of Panama also. The second paragraph -- I am not sure I understand your comment. It might be me, I have to leave just now. I will come back and re-read shortly, but hopefully my reactions on paragraph moves this forward a bit.Also, do we really know most were britsh overseas territories? Seems like Samoa and New Zealand may give them a run for their money. Elinruby (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hollth: I agree with your changes for paragraphs two and three. Your revision for paragraph two is in fact very good. It fixes problems in the previous version, such as double negatives, and introduces the topic of offshore companies smoothly. I agree that paragraph three would sound more professional if there were no quotes and it was written in prose. As far as paragraph five, I think it should be removed. Currently, it is clearly a dangling thought at the end of the lead, and it reads to me like a public relations statement from the country of Panama. If you do a Google News search of "Mossack Fonseca papers" you get 806 results [2], while if you do a search of "Panama papers" you get 3,060,000 results [3]. I clearly think that it is highly inappropriate that in the lead of the article we are placing a name for the papers that has only .03% of the hit rate of the clear common name for the papers. By placing "Mossack Fonesca papers" in the lead it is as if Wikipedia is trying to promote a name which no one is familiar with. Also, paragraph five suffers from "recentism". If we think of reading this article in one year, does anyone really think that the reader is going to care that Panama objected to the papers having the country's name in it. Does anyone really care nowadays that the US Military objects to the Pentagon Papers having Pentagon in them. Guest2625 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hollth: one thought for paragraph five might be to move it to the Reactions in Panama section, though we might want to see what @Zumoarirodoka: thinks of that, since he wanted it in the first sentence and agreed to it being in the lede, just further down. As for paragraph 2, I like the last sentence, but this is largely repeated in the following section, with references. Might not matter since there they are framed as examples. It seems to me like sentence 1 and 2 dumb it down a little *too* much but yes, it is probably good to work a definition in if we must have that paragraph there. My objection has primarily been based on the repetition -- all of that is in the Disclosures section -- but yes we could use a definition, and it might be good if we can rewrite sentence 1/2 into a better summary. I dislike sentence one, which makes it sound like the article is about tax tips, although I recognize a lot of our sources have used pretty much that wording. No reason why we have to ourselves though. PS I dislike this section title since it misrepresents the the prior discussions, but that is another matter. Elinruby (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

References

grammar in lede: date/dated

Somebody keeps changing "some date back to the 1970s" to "some dated back to the 1970s" -- "date back" is a verb here meaning "were created as early as". If you really want to used "dated" as an adjective, meaning "have a date on them that is as early as the 1970s" then put a period before the reference instead of the semi-colon that is there and use a verb. A sentence needs a verb. "Some are dated as far back as the 1970s" for example would be just fine. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Elinruby (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom: Conservative Party campaign donor

I just stumbled over an article pointing out that Tony Buckingham donated £100,000 to the Tories. He came to my attention as the founder of a company that went to huge lengths to stiff the government of Uganda of $404 million. It seems he was also a principal in Executive Outcomes, which accepted diamond mines in payment for clearing out rebel fighters in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, many sources available... I have written this up from the African point of view and am trying to build up the some of the associated pages so we can move part of this to Sierra Leone or Congo pages. This is one of those cases where certain stories just didn't make certain wikipedia pages.

Anyway, my question is this... do you want a reference to this in the Great Britain section since he is British? And his companies are British, well, overseas territory most of them, but you see my point. I haven't touched Britain recently since other people have been working on it. I will go with whatever you guys think. The story is under Uganda and to a lesser extent DR Congo at the moment, with pretty good references.Elinruby (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The present reference is sufficent. Please don't use NPOV terms such as "stiff". The only thing preventing stories from 'making certain Wikipedia pages' is the inactivity of editors! Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

snort, I am hardly inactive, and ya, I'm working on it. But that Ugandan story for example -- spent a lot of time tonight establishing that Heritage Oil and Gas is indeed a subsidiary of Heritage Oil. And hey there, lighten up ;) this is the talk page. I spelled out all the gory details of the redomiciling and its reasons without once using the word in the article. The mansplaining gets a bit old. Maybe I should change my name to Fred ;) Elinruby (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Leak?

Is leaked the right word? These records were stolen by someone outside the firm.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

true. What would you suggest? Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe leak is the correct word to use. It is the most common word used by the media for what happened with the documents. Also, if you look up leaked using define in google you get the following definition [4]:

2. (of secret information) become known.

"the news leaked out"

intentionally disclose (secret information).

"who had a motive to leak the story?"

synonyms:

disclose, divulge, reveal, make public, tell, impart, pass on, relate, communicate,expose, broadcast, publish, release, let slip, bring into the open; Guest2625 (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No,@Royalcourtier: is correct in saying that the word usually implies an internal source. I don't have a better idea however and it is widely used in the media, admittedly incorrectly. I am against "stolen", which one editor tried to introduce, and "hacked" is also usually pejorative. And we don't *really* know that it's correct. John Doe could well have been an IT contractor with legitimate access. MF denies this, but they deny a lot of things. Anyway, I have used "leaked" myself when writing primarily to avoid repeating "Panama Papers" and "the documents". If someone wants to change "leaked documents" to "documents" that would be fine with me, at least. Elinruby (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If any of you have looked into how the information was actually obtained, it was definitely a "leak" by definition. The data was leaked by definition, in what is described to be two different instances (leak through MF domain vulnerability) and then leak by (in fact see all definitions. In what context does leak imply an internal source? All definitions indicate that a leak can come either internally or externally. @Royalcourtier:, where is the (legal) evidence that suggests the information was "stolen" and that no one inside the firm had anything to do with it? For the sake of the matter, this is an an article related to information provided by journalists, as such, I would say they are the ones to dictate the term that is used. If you have issues with the use of the word then you'd need ICIJ to publish something that explains as much.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of the term "leak" is that an inside person must be involved, either an employee or contractor. To pass confidential information onto a third party would be a leak - and certainly illegal as well. For information to be taken by an outsider using an MF domain vulnerability or some other method is simply theft, not a leak, and also illegal. Let me use two examples. First, an employee at a doctors surgery has access to patient files. He or she removes a file - shall we say it is Donald Trumps medical record. S/he passes it on to a news media outlet - probably in exchange for money. That is a leak, a theft of confidential information, and illegal. Second example, a Chinese spy, based in Beijing, uses advanced software to hack into the Pentagon computers, and downloads data on troop movements. That is also the illegal use of confidential information. But it is theft, not a leak. In the absence of any information to the contrary, I suggest that we should consider the Panama Papers to have been stolen, not leaked.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you about the connotations of "leak"; that is what it conveys to me. Usually when you say an organization has a leak, someone in the organization is responsible (broadly speaking, to include contractors, etc). However I am very much against using "stolen" as it is a normative wording and highly pejorative; it also implies that the taker is motivated by personal greed, which does not seem to be the case here. The same is true of "hacked". Nor do I feel strongly enough about this to go hunt down the hundreds of instances that probably exist in this article, which has bigger issues. If somebody else wants to change "leaked" to removed or "disclosed" or the like, I have no objection, on the other hand. But *I* ain't doing it. Elinruby (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

please don't paste in plagiarized text...

You are not doing the article any favors, whoever you are. Use your own words, If you are not a native english speaker or have difficulty writing, that's ok. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to edit for slightly strange syntax than to try to rework a copyright violation. Seriously though, I am not asking this just for me; wikipedia is based in the US where they have zero sense of humor about these things.Elinruby (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

dear person who keeps adding Donald Trump to the list of Americans

Addictinginfo has been known to be extremely wrong. As they seem to be in this case. The database is online at icij.com. Go look yourself if you must. If Addicting Info got thousands of hits it's because they just typed donald trump into the search box without paying attention to the results themselves. What that gets you is if you do that is every instance of Donald plus every instance of Trump. If you seach for the string "Donald Trump" by putting quotes around it like I just did there, you get zero hits. I can't rule out the possibility that he is out there somewhere as Donnie Boy or something, but he is definitely not there as Donald Trump. I am annoyed that I actually had to go check this again :) Let's put it this way, the statement seems unlikely, the reference is beyond sketchy and you can look for yourself snd see that the statement is wrong. please find at least three good sources for this, and no, addicting info does not count Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there

Addinctinginfo still isn't a source. It never will be a source for anything seriousd. Huffington Post is marginal. I'd have to check out their editorial policy. It's just not enough, even if you want this to be true. Look, even supposing somehow you are right, and there is a listing for Trump Plaza or something, you need a real certainty before adding him into this article. And why, do you think, if it were true that he is a customer, would the the hundred-some newspapers who participated in the investigation would not have written it up? I mean I mean I mean... maybe just maybe they HuffPo and addicting.info are secondary sources, but they are nowhere near reliable, and saying his records are in the leak when they are not might conceivably be libelous. Much easier all around if you use a good source to begin with not a gee-whiz outrage-of-the-day website. If you aren't sure what I am talking about please click here: WP:RS, You can also if you like ask questions here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Things to do if someone has time

Please feel free to append to the list or to insert comments if you disagree.

• The Panama section is still pretty impenetrable. I have discovered that La Prensa has an english version, btw, if that helps with this.
• They seem to have stolen billions in Angola but you really need a chart to follow the article. Once rewritten for clarity a lot of the text can find a home on the main Angola page (there has been a lot of historical corruption also)
• I would love to see an organizational chart and timeline for Guistra, Steinmetz and Gertler
• Brazil needs to be updated and split
• there is no article for Corruption in Sierra Leone but there should be, please leave redlink there as a prod. Also profit shifting, which seems to be the buzzword of the day.
• Also the Kimberly Process
• various interlanguage links in text where the is no english page but one exists in another language if anyone feels like translating.
• it would be nice if someone figured out if the Cook Islands do or do not have jurisdiction over taxez on the island. John Keys said they do, he doesn't and a lot of people have contradicted that. Possibly party politics?
• I don't suppose anyone would like to deal with Malta?

I have been adding infoboxes to the articles for the participating newspapers. Some of them I had never heard of to my loss; they appear to be doing kick-ass work. In particular, if there are any spanish speakers out there, OjoPúblico seems to have made a number of interesting discoveries and they have a beautiful website. Also DatabaseAR. I also did a copyedit on a lot of the country and politician articles from the Congo, Senegal, Nigeria and so on, no heavy re-writes, just non-english work order and the like for the most part

I dislike the way the newspaper are in the nav bar helter-skelter -- does anyone think it would be good to sort them by language or perhaps country? also, you do you keep the bar from insisting on expanding? appreciate any feedbackElinruby (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Malta - Mizzi question/reality check

The Konrad Mizzi article says "He was the only incumbent EU Minister named in the leaks." and yes the reference does say that. However that reference is dated 4/4/2016. Haven't we had at least a Spanish minister] since then, who resigned because he was named? I am removing the sentence because I believe it is no longer true. Please let me know if I am mistaken about this. Elinruby (talk)

Actually I think I will add "initially" then mention the Spanish minister.Elinruby (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

this is doneElinruby (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Should there be mention of panama papers in biography pages of clients?

There are several heads of state and heads of government mentioned in the papers. Some, such as Iceland's exPrime Minister clearly need mention of their panama paper links in their biography page. The others seem to have an inconsistent approach, with some having the panama papers mentioned on their biography page, and some having it not mentioned. It has been suggested on Malecolm Turnbull's talk page that WP:BLP and WP:OTHER apply and that none of these people should have their biography page mention the panama papers at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.246.185 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that suggestion. Why would it not be notable? I have heard the BLP argument here as well, but here's the thing -- it *IS* already in the news, in many cases the ellegations are notable and serious, and these are public figures. BLP may possibly apply to the dentist in Canada and the architect in Senegal, but even there I would say that the scale of the coverage makes BLP moot as long as the entry makes clear that this relies on a leak and has not been adjudicated. But I can assure you that the only reason Malcolm Turnbull doesn't have an entry from me on his page is that I haven't been there yet, as I am tied up trying to take care of all the well-documented corruption that's been going on in the Congo and Guinea and so forth. But yes, clearly a head of state is a public figure and the exception applies. If a statement is documented by reliable sources and notable then it should be in wikipedia; check the policy yourself if you don't believe me. Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. There is currently mention of Panama Papers on the bio pages of all current heads of state and heads of government - except for Malcolm Turnbull where the links get promptly removed and discussions are along the lines of "...especially during an election campaign" and "If you put in a mention here, I will remove it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.78.225 (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, you're trying to add it. I haven't really looked at that story yet, just noticed in when I was trying to figure out whether the Cook Islands are or are not responsible for their tax lawa. What do we know about Turnbull's sitatuation? Just that he did have a company? Or are there more details than that? Either way, he's a public figure, no question, and here is Wikipedia's BLP poicy for public figures: Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. I am assuming that your material is demonstrably true and well-sourced -- if you aren't sure about reliable sources there is a notice board where you can ask questions and they *will* insist that you write up the statement you are trying to cite and what if anything the person's objection was. Elections are immaterial, the truth is true even in election season, difficult as that may be t actually believe this year.

We had something of the kind here with Hillary Clinton, and some people started screaming that it wasn't fair to include her campaign managers and donors. Why would it not? We have a couple of paragraphs about Tory donors in the UK, and the article is chock-full of politicians' aide and family friends holding their money for them. Anyway, nobody was even trying to make sense there, it ws a bird, it was a BLP, well then it was a COATRACK etc.I let that one go because life is short and what I really want to know is why some of the mining companies in Africa and South Africa are allowed to still be in business. It really depends on how important yu think the allegations are.If the editor is not even trying to discuss this you can try writing it up at WP:NPOV or even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring: that first one is other users and the quality of the advice you get depends on who else is around. If both of you are persistent and clever these things can drag on. I spent something like three months on SOPA dealing with people who seemed too smart to be that stupid, if you understand what I mean. But of course we must assume good faith ... bla. My impression of the process for problem editors is that it needs a lot of help but sometimes does get to the right place. But it doesn't seem that way when you're out there in the wilderness saying no, really, it really will break the internet, that's not an opinion, and that reference you don't like is an explanation of why that is true by a guy who wrote the protocol that will break so why is he not an acknowledged expert pray tell? It does document the issues thoough and if done often enougb might do something. I'll try to take a look, need to work on the Cook Islands shortly. I don't suppose you have a source for who has responsibility for their tax law? Right now people are quoting people with strong self-interest. Elinruby (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the map correct?

Perhaps Australia should be red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.247.70 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

no it is not correct. In fairness the caption does say april 15th status. You can update it if you want, tho Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Cook Islands section

I removed the following text:

" A review of the over 200,000 "entities" from the Panama Papers indicates that none of the Panama Papers' entities were registered in the Cook Islands and that the "500" entities is old data from an older data theft and leak in 2013 of over 100,000 entities called the "Offshore Leaks".

In 2009 the Cook Islands had received a positive evaluation by the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering, the largest financial action task force-style regional body in the world. The evaluation had put the Cook Islands in the top 20 per cent of the 165 nations assessed for implementing international regulatory standards.

This may be true, but requires a reference actually saying this. The reference given is behind a paywall, ok in some cases, but not imho for somewhat surprising statements like this. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to hit save when I was here before. Someone tried again on the cook islands and someone else told him this was not the place and deleted him. I actually *don't think it shoud go into this article, since I am currently working to move some of the text elsewhere, but it's not bad writing and it's gettting closer to our standards. I suggest, IF we can verify it, that we summarize this very concisely here and take the bulk of this to the Cook Islands article, which currently is a bit bare. First this needs references tho. One of the ones it does have is paywalled. The others are John Key saying he is not responsibe for cook island taxes. Many people disagree. Then the tax guy on the islanda wants us to know he is at work. Great to know but none of this convinces me that the media are wrong when they report otherwise. It *is* possible I suppose but this should be checked before anyone makes decision based on this. For instance the OP says the Winebox inquiry did not result in charges against anyone. I have read that too but the writer of that piece used it as an example of corruption and incompetence. I have no idea who is correct. Posted here in case someone feels helpful; I wont be able to get to this until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest.Here's the text:

Media initially reported that the Panama Papers lists 500 entities created under the jurisdiction of the Cook Islands, population 10,000, almost as many as Singapore, whose population is 5.7 million. However, a review of the more then 200,000 entities in the Panama Papers indicates that none of those entities were registered in the Cook Islands. The data from the Panama Papers data breach was combined with data from the old 2013 "Offshore Leaks" data leak into one database by the ICIJ. A search of the ICIJ database will find that the 500 "entities" listed were from the old data leak and not the Panama Papers.

this cites the same paywalled source as ref1. The third sentence is true but seems to imply a causation that is not demonstrated. The fourth sentence is unreferenced and unsupported and would be a primary source anyway Elinruby (talk)

Other misconceptions of the Cook Islands have also found its way into the media because of the Panama Papers. The Winebox Inquiry of the early 1990s involving New Zealand banks resulted in a finding by a New Zealand Commission of no fraud or incompetence. Some media state that New Zealand has jurisdiction over Cook Islands tax matters, which is factually not true.

the first sentence of this paragraph is editorial and unsupported. I am not convinced the second sentence actually summarizes its reference, though I will check again. The third sentence is true I believe, but its reference is talking about John Key saying this, and he is not the media.Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The developments in the Cook Islands financial services industry puts the Panama Papers in context. The Cook Islands financial services industry was subject to minimal regulation at its inception but passed a suite of regulations in the early 2000s and implemented international regulatory standards. In 2009 the Cook Islands had received a positive evaluation by the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering, the largest financial action task force-style regional body in the world. The evaluation had put the Cook Islands in the top 20 per cent of the 165 nations assessed for implementing international regulatory standards. The Cook Islands has also committed in 2015 to the Automatic Exchange of Information and is implementing the Common Reporting Standard to have full effect by 2018. The Cook Islands tax authority has indicated that they will be investigating any Cook Islands taxpayers who appear in the Panama Papers to ensure taxation laws have been complied with.

References

Malcolm Turnbull section in Australia

The Moscow Times reference initially set red flags for me, but they say they are independent and they are notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Based on that, they appear to have a good reputation....be nice to get another source for that, not that it's supporting anything derogatory about Turnbull. Possibly someone in Russian politics. The financial transactions similarly rely on Australian Financial Review, but this seems to be something on the order of the Wall Street Journal and since they were a Panama Papers publication they do have access that explains why nobody else seems to have the story. That paywall tho...But again, the story does boil down to nothing particularly derogatory as far as I can tell. Turnbull lost money on a gold mine lease in Siberia. Worth spelling the details out just to demonstrate that there really is no bombshell revelation there. The business may possibly have done some shady things. but those that are suggested happened either before or after his association with it, as far as I can tell.Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you kindly

There are 200+ independent countries and even if only half of them are covered by the papers, it is still completely overwhelming having 100+ sections. I suggest some kind of serious reorganization or the article will be nothing else than a data dump. Nergaal (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

dude, you come by every so often to complain about this....I am sorry you find the article hard to read. I am working on that but I am, please remember, an unpaid volunteer who has alread put a ridiculous amount of time into this. Most of this material is pretty technical once you get past the gee whiz heads of state part of the story, especially since the BLP concerns mandate being very careful about details. Almost nobody is working on the article right now, unless you want to count the other guy who came by to complain that I am working on the article too much. So.

• My* idea is that the various country sections will get blended into some section of the country wiki page eventually, always assuming nobody starts screaming like they did the last time I cut some text. But understand that the countries where most of the corruption is happening also do not have well-maintained wiki articles. For example, the Papers re-opened about three scandals in Nigeria and it took me several days to even add the scandals to the Nigeria article and the articles for some (not even all) of the principals because to the extent it was mentioned it was as maybe 2 mysterious paragraphs full of unintroduced last names or acronyms. Right now I am trying to get the material under Malta to the pages for Schembri and Mizzi where it really should have been all along, since it mainly predates 4/4/2016. There is some sort of Malta PP story, which I think but am not yet sure boils down to documents being published confirming speculations in the local press. Maybe I will get that done before I fall asleep. Meanwhile we've had people in here wanting to know why we aren't covering their local story -- most editors only edit their own country, I have noticed, except for the copy editors. I don't know what to tell you. You posted this right below a list of problems that need work. We have contradictory information about the Cook Islands for another exampleand one guy who keeps posting what may be quite a true update, except for the sources are kinda C- and it contradicts most of the rest of what is written on subject. How about figuring that one out, or I dunno suggesting a source for some organization charts, or making a timeline or something? Just saying. Pick a problem, any problem, or a country, any country. Iceland is can probably move to the country page, for one thing, but this will also mean figuring out whether or not the prime minister is actually out of office. Or you could take a weed whacker to the Reactions in Panama Section, which desperately needs it, if that sounds like more fun. Or take some time and post on some project pages that we need editors in here, I dunno, but don't just complain.

By the way, I actually disagree that the article is overly long, given it's trying to cover 40 years and a hundred countries and almost as many newspapers and the story has ramifications in law, politics, journalism, banking and a gazillion political biographies all which will be contested when we move text there -- see discussion above on Malcom Turnbull. The article for the Guardian is actually longer, if you go look at it. But I agree this article is kind of a hodge-podge and the way that makes sense to me to fix that is to reduce the number of moving parts and reduce the choppy list-of feel, as in x is mentioned, y is also mentioned and it was revealed that z had a company too. There will be a transitional stage as the article gets smaller where it will have almost as many short sections -- I am thinking most of the sections with a person's name will probably move to their page -- but once Europe, say, is a manageable size, we can probably combine sections and have one Europe section vs. 15 country sections. Anyway, those are my thoughts/plans, please feel free to offer another (which does not involve trying to rehabilitate the abandoned poorly conceived list, because in my opinion that would be a) harder and b) make both articles harder to read).Elinruby (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit of 27th May

Is it OK to redo some of the apparent readability improvements which were previously made to the article and undone in significant numbers by a particular edit of 27th May or do we need to reach consensus on them all?

For instance I previously changed "a shell company registered to Beny Steinmetz, Octea, owes more than $700,000 US ..." to "a shell company registered to billionaire Israeli businessman Beny Steinmetz, Octea, owes more than US$700,000 ..." But this has now been reverted amongst many others.Mattojgb (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what's up with that particular edit or why it was changed but speaking for myself here, please do make any improvemnts that seem good to you, particularly for readability. I do agree that the second version is better. I could use help with some of the research too if you are up for it. Nobody's been talking here much but there are several people who keep checking the article -- but if they don't like a change you make they can change it back or you guys can discuss or whatever. I'd like to hear ahead of time about big deletions though -- the article needs to slim down but most of what it is saying is important imho, so I want to move it to related pages. But in many cases the papers re-opened some previous scandal but the previous scandal isn't documented, soand I've been working on those connections the last few days. Elinruby (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So... I got curious enough to go look at May 27 and I don't see any thing particularly strange -- but it sounds like you may be saying that I undid some of your work. If so I do apologize. Since I don't remember such a thing and didn't post here, I can only think it must have been an accident somehow. Elinruby (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

dear person who keeps adding Donald Trump to the list of Americans

@Volunteer Marek: please read @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: please read @Nomoskedasticity: please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Addictinginfo_as_source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Elinruby (talk • contribs)

That's fine, I've removed it, we can stick to secondary sources. At this point you're at the limit of WP:3RR, by the way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

but fortunately you guys are legion, must be nice. Elinruby (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby, I *did* add another source - this one - though I can see how in all the mark up you might have missed that. So yeah we can remove the huff po and the addinctingwhatever but we still got mcclatchydc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

the problem is that it doesn't support adding him Elinruby (talk)

We say Trump's name was mentioned thousands of time, right below several others that are not directly involved but mentioned. What's the difference here?--TMCk (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

MY issue is that the statement is potentially libellous AND apparently untrue. But yes, it's true that other people who are not directly involved are mentioned but a) "mentioned" in this article means on the client list. Not addictinginfo. Not as someone that a dude with an offshore company is buying a condo from, and I don't think you even have that. But ok, perhaps I read too fast. Let's put it this way. It is difficult to explain these transactions because they are complex. OK. Go read the bit about Karim Wade in Senegal. See, he is not mentioned but there is a legal proceeding that found that his friend was holding the money for him. (nominee). In the case of Icelandic prime minister there is a presumption that his wife's money benefits them as a couple. There are some other people who merely bought property (that doctor in Sault Ste Marie for example) that I am thinking of paring off simply because BLP and people complain the article is long. The Sharif family in Pakistan is probably also working as a unit... and some of those children might be notable even without their father's title. I don't like Trump but why give him reason to complain and/or sue? If you want to summarize the McClatchy article be my guest. It's a reliable source but it also doesn't say that Donald Trump was a Mossack Fonseca client. At least I didn't get that from it. If you can find some major long-term partner that was, you might have something, possibly. Does that help? @TracyMcClark:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

How about you add some clarification? What I get from a quick glimse is that business partners he sold his name for use are involved (similar connection as others included). And could you sign your posts, please?--TMCk (talk)

Yeah, I missed a signature on the inline comments, sorry about that. And no, its not really similar. In many of the cases where people are in the article even though their own name is not in the documents, there is either a strong direct link with someone who is -- Nawaz Sharif for example, whose kids are involved, or in other cases aides, or former longtime colleagues or friends as with Karim Wade in Senegal -- or else there is a presumption that the named person is what is called a nominee, not really the owner of the money, also the case for Karim Wade, or the concert violinist who suddenly had accounts with billions in them, which totally had nothing to do with Vladimir Putin, even though they grew up together as children. Now if you find something like that for Trump then have at it. But you won't, I am pretty sure. Both he and the Clintons operate their shell companies in Delaware, at least based on this evidence. I'm not saying he is a saint. Just that as far as I can tell he isn't in this particular scandal. The only "clarification" I would be able to make would be to say that some editors are operating off a quick glimpse rather than actually reading. If you actually read the article you'll find there might be one possible guy that he sued ten years ago. Nobody has connected any dots, possibly because there is nothing there. You guys are really fighting hard for this BLP violation. Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

alright I amplified the article by explaining the contexts in which Donald Trump's name is mentioned, ie a mass of bankruptcies by people who bought condos in a Panamanian resort. I should probably add that each of those x sales paid him a small royalty. Thing is, now we have a whole lot of yeah Trump is in there except he isn't really and it seems to me there are some DUE now; I mean we just established that customers of customers is enough for a mention in this article. Hillary Clinton needs weight. (later) we were skipping about five grand juries and/or congressional investigations because BLP so we do have a mismatch there. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I found some things in an Associated Press article, so I have to walk back my dismissiveness a bit. Apparently Trump had some control in the management team, and had employees there to make sure the project lived up to the brand. Some of the tenants say that (or maybe strongly imply) that the hotel did not do we well as expected, so Trump managers were spreading costs specific to the hotel -- bellboy salaries for example -- to the parent organization, and the condo owners and casino said their costs were too high as a result. It turns out that Trump's third son was there also, not the project manager, but still present on the site. I don't think anyone on the Trump team covered themselves in glory, but ok, a bunch of people who bought real estate with Trump's name on it lost money and some of them probably sued him if they blamed him for the bankruptcy. Also the licensing fees were more than I was imagining; I personally would not have described 30 some million as "small". It is still however true that much worse isn't covered in the article yet so why don't y'all edit this new stuff in? And you realize that if we set the threshold that low the article will either need endless updates or else, alternative, can just be truly arbitrary about whose finances and policies it questions. I mean... argh. I am going to go try to make sense out of Glencore. All of the four or five of you should be the ones putting this in there. Elinruby (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Graphic added to top of article recently

File:Panama Papers illustration.jpg

The graphic which was added by Vexels GroovyGraphics on 27 June 2016

On 27 June, Vexels GroovyGraphics added the image, File:Panama Papers illustration.jpg to the top of the article. This is not an official graphic/illustration. The same user has added similar-ish graphics to other articles, see their contributions. Most of these have since been reverted. But I just wondered what the policy/guideline was on including these sorts of pictures and whether this one should remain on the page. It's not that I have anything against the user/their contributions - personally, I think these graphics look good. Thank you.  Seagull123  Φ  18:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not paid attention to this article in several months so I am not sure which image you are talking about, and none of the images in the article currently appear for me. But this might be a Firefox setting I accidentally triggered. Let's try this. If the image you are talking about is above the map, I don't think I have seen it, and don't know the answer to your question. It does not have to be an "official" graphic. If there were such a thing it would come from the ICIJ and related websites, OCCRP and one in South Africa whose name escapes me. There are some incubators. As far as I know those newspapers retain the copyright to their work. At one point I looked at image copyright to the extent of making sure the images were on Wikimedia Commons. I did not investigate further; I know a little about copyright but not how to determine whether something is usable on wikipedia. I do understand the issue though. The map was a user's own creation, and so, I believe, was the one further down with a woman's face in it. If any of the images have been removed for copyright problems from Commons then they should be redlinked over here, no? Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC) @Seagull123: sorry I just saw this question. Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

country segments

.. are a clusterfuck. Iceland's is written in an unencyclopedic manner and should be cut far shorter - my proposal would be to only briefly mention everyone who was not in the government or did not resign, and either simply chop the rest or put it in an article specifically about Iceland. most of Russia's segment could be moved to Corruption in Russia or even a separate article; the same goes for Spain. Ukraine's segment contains a random external link and doesn't clarify that Yatsenyuk did in fact resign after the papers. Azerbaijan's is poorly put together, again unencyclopedic and provides too much or poorly integrated prior context. Pakistan's segment contains enough content for a full separate article in my opinion. Gabon's is, yet again, completely unencyclopedic and starts like a news article. a number of others would benefit from tweaks (the ones that caught my eye are Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe - the person the segment is about is not even mentioned by name, Uganda - name of company changes in the middle of article, Nigeria - simple grammar errors, Peru). alternatively, this entire heading and all of its information could be merged into Reactions to the Panama Papers. Ashela (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Chronology

The timeline is this article is vague. The author should consider adding more dates that connect directly to events. בנימין 20:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benro~enwiki (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panama Papers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160407224017/http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/FSI2012_BanksBig4.pdf to http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/FSI2012_BanksBig4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417060158/http://qz.com/653937/africa-loses-more-money-to-illicit-financial-flows-than-it-receives-in-foreign-aid/ to http://qz.com/653937/africa-loses-more-money-to-illicit-financial-flows-than-it-receives-in-foreign-aid/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maltese Murder

An urgent update is needed following the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a Maltese investigating journalist murdered by a bomb in her car. As guidance to the Editor, Malta is functionally an oligarchy where particular families hold most of the power. In this case, "Caruana" is one of the noble families: you will also find the Chief Magistrate is from the local equivalent to Royalty, the Scicluna family, and one or two other names come up frequently. This attack strongly suggests a split in the families which may result in more serious and long-standing political damage yet: effectively it suggests the seat of power has succumed to external criminal influence, which historically has come from Sicily, however in this case could have a provenance in a Superpower aware of Malta's pivotal geographic position. That is why the FBI have the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.52.64 (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, I was looking at her biography the other day. Is the account in that article essentially correct? I added a couple of corroborating references as I recall, and it looks accurate to me, but I know very little about Malta and that little was learned trying to explain the stuff about Mizzi. But based on that, yes, her death is notable for purposes of the Malta section of the article and maybe the lede. I don't know of any other assassinated journalists -- I mean, a car bomb is definitely an assassination. But any othetd should definitely be mentioned. ICIJ has done a one-year follow up I haven't been able to get to but I believe it's mostly the persons named not the journalists. This article should follow up on this esp in Latin America, Azerbaijan, Russia etc...Senegal, Morocco... Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Problems with article

Two big problems I see with this article.

1) There is a ~5 paragraph section on the details of tax havens which should instead comprise links to articles on this topic. This is quite a discursive section for an already lengthy article.

2) The article is far too long. It could easily be 4-5 different articles.

A lot of the information is good, but the entry itself is quite awkward to read through as currently organized!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahjeremy (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw I agree. The problem has been precisely the scale of the leak to begin with, but there are chunks that should be their own article. My example is the section on newsroom logistics and/or the one on the technical details of the security breach. The section on tax shelters is intended to explain why the leak is important, but could likely be distilled further, and speaking for myself I'd be happy to discuss something else as long as information is not deleted but details are moved and summarized and linked to here. The indignation in Panama probably does not need to be so extensively quoted now that Mossack and Fonseca are detained for trial, for another thing Elinruby (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Related news notable in this context

The papers demonstrated the extent that real estate in certain cities is used to launder and park assets. See this article about London. There is extensive coverage about the same trend in San Francisco, Vancouver, New York, Toronto, Miami, Paris and Nice, just off the top of my head Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Panama Papers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How to override the overall TOC depth limit on the page?

{{Template:Horizontal TOC|nonum=yes}}

The horizontal TOC only shows up in the preview when I try to insert it into the Asia section of the Panama Papers.

Nothing shows up after publishing it: See diff.

Is there a way to override the overall TOC depth limit on the page?: {{TOC limit|3}}

So that individual sections can override it? --Timeshifter (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft UK financial services bill

Should probably be mentioned: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/jersey-guernsey-isle-of-man-share-ownership-uk-security Zazpot (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Page size

This article was 465,198 bytes long; that's far too big.

To start reducing the page size, I've split off Panama Papers: South America allegations, reactions, and investigations as a separate article.

Please check it; especially the lede and categories. Once people are happy with it, I'll split off other sections, similarly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've checked it and I'm happy with it, except for the title. I encourage further splitting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've now split out Africa, Asia and North America. Someone more familiar than the topic than I could usefully check each sub-article's external links and categories, and perhaps write a short summary for the main article. This main article is now a still huge, but more manageable 142,900 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal Pronouns for 'John Doe'

Could I suggest "they" / "their" be used instead of "he or she"? There are one or two "he"s as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence18uk (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I came on here to suggest just the opposite. The pseudonym "John Doe" is male. I stumbled over the plural pronoun "they" where it is used twice to refer to a single individual male. Obviously the real identity of "John Doe" could be a man, woman or transsexual, that is understood by anyone of average intelligence, but "John" does not call for a plural pronoun. Go back to the singular pronoun when referring to a single individual whose sex is obvious. Otherwise we have political correctness gone a step too far and it is needlessly confusing. ChicagoLarry (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Panama papers sz chat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh not in the map?

Bangladeshi companies are in the papers though [5] Greatder (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Panama papers sz chat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sandy dasillva.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)