Talk:Panama Papers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

America + Israel

Interesting, no American or Israeli „customers“ on the list? And loads of US-prop in the media? Smells like US-propaganda-war. But good to have a list of those news-channels who participate, they sure are part of the US-prop. Also the day later.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.98.124 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Or they use another firm? in other word a different sphere of relationships. Soap55z (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Was just about to reply: About 600 Israeli companies and ~850 Israeli shareholders (unsure if some are part of those 600) are on the list, according to Haaretz, one of the participating media outlets. (Link is in Hebrew) They're mostly unknown, but some bigger names appear on there, along with a few deeper links to companies linked to government contracts. ~Smiley 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Found an English version of the article: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.712497 ~Smiley 22:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Is it the kind of 100% "shareholders" of post box or list of who owns shares in public companies? Soap55z (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Another observation is that the areas of really high industrial GDP/capita are white on the map of affected countries. Soap55z (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea about Israel, but the absence of US stuff has been remarked on. Some people attribute it to FATCA but that is just since 2008, and the stuff in these documents goes back to the 1970s. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
So-called International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is based in Washington, D.C. - Daniel (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of SPVs are used for transparent and what most people view as legitimate purposes. The directors (but not shareholders) of such companies are often fund managers (or lawyers at fund management companies). US companies and funds tend to use the SPVs domiciled in the Cayman Islands. Mossack Fonseca doesn't appear to operate there. This would seem a reasonable explanation why their database is light on US names. Bongomatic 04:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not light on US names, there are no such names in the list at all. - Daniel (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • We might reasonably infer that Mossack Fonseca made an early strategic decision not to sign up any US clients, to reduce the risk of antagonising the local superpower. Edwardx (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
According to data from ICIJ Mossack Fonseca had 617 intermediaries in US (intermediaries, according to ICIJ, are "banks, law firms, company incorporators and other middlemen to set up companies, foundations and trusts for customers"). - Daniel (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Canada is also "too hot" then? Iran, Mongolia, Japan, S.Korea etc also stick out. Soap55z (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning somewhere why this is so light on US names. I'm sure Wall Street has more tax avoidance than anywhere else in the world. Have you read all the articles about US companies not paying any taxes, or very little taxes? I'm sure they do the same things as everyone else mentioned in the Panama Papers. A lot of the critical comments on social media are accusing the ICIJ of ignoring the US and focusing on countries that aren't in alignment with US foreign policies. Read the comments on the ICIJ video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6XnH_OnpO0 and the comments on Russia Today's response to it.

Not agree. Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, UAE, Qatar and UK are on the list. Not Iran for example.

List of individual v paragraph of prose

The voluminous amount of implicated individuals makes me feel that a list would be more appropriate, and we could briefly describe list subsections in the prose. The BBC refers to "72 heads of state", such a section would be vast in prose form. Fusion has published deep lists of sports figures etc. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - that seems to be the best approach. Edwardx (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No one has suggested that any list should contain every name. Could we avoid straw man arguments please? Edwardx (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
"Fusion has published deep lists of sports figures etc." would imply listing every name that has a Wikipedia article—otherwise what is your inclusion criteria? That's why this section would be out of scope. czar 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not applicable here, as this is a list of public figures with Wikipedia articles or people closely connected to them. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies. You can't just add a big list of names of people and say "well, they were "implicated" or "allegations were made against" or similar. I've taken out a list of names sourced to just a general article (which also listed their names). One other ref is timing out, probably because of popularity. At the very, very, least, only add names when there have been specific, credible allegations made about people by reliable sources, with a cite to the specific allegation next to each name. I suspect BLP requries even more than that, but I'll leave that for other people and a longer discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  • These aren't allegations. They are details of interactions with Mossack Fonseca supported by documents. You've proposed an unreasonably strict interpretation of our BLP guidelines. The ICIJ profiles are so detailed that to include them the page would become unworkable, we can of course include the ICIJ profile information on individual articles and biographies. All of the individuals mentioned are public figures or connected to public figures with articles on Wikipedia, so to mention them in a list in the context of this article is certainly justifiable. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
You believe it is unworkable to link specific people to specific allegations of wrongdoing by reliable sources before naming and shaming them? I don't see how we can justify that. As far as I understand, being in this data dump, being a client of this firm, is not illegal. Lots of people in the future may be found out to have done something illegal, but we shouldn't cover individual names until that happens. We can afford to go slower than the tabloids. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: According to WP:BLP only those contentious material about living persons that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed. Here it is sourced by 376 journalists from the leading media outlets of 76 countries. What else do you want??? Bring the names back immediately. - Daniel (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I want reliable sources to say they've actually done something specifically wrong, not that their names showed up in a data dump of clients. It isn't too much to ask that each name be sourced to a specific allegation by a reliable source. Is it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This was actually present in the original edits but was watered down with the flood. The Fusion and Guardian sources name specific allegations. Do you want the news outlet's name attached to the claims? I don't think it's necessary if the outlet isn't the sole claimant but yeah czar 22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
On that basis, we might as well delete the entire article as all of the RS we have cited have stressed within their own articles that tax avoidance isn't illegal. This article is brilliantly sourced and contains no accusations, it just links individuals with the Mossack Fonseca data. Any further outrage or opinion is in they eye of the beholder. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
we have about three paragraphs in the Background section carefully spelling out there is frequently no law being broken, but shell companies are sometimes used for murky deads, like the guy who was selling Bashar Al-Assad the aviation fuel he was using to bomb his opponents to dust. Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gareth E. Kegg, there is no consensus to add a list of names. Please remove your new addition. Feel free to draft it on this talk page or in a private sandbox if you want, but not in the article until there is agreement. czar 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I've asked for more eyes at WP:ANI and WP:BLP/N. I won't unilaterally remove names sourced to specific pages, but I strongly believe they aren't appropriate. Previous versions of this page used the terms "implicated", and "allegations were also made against". It's clear what is going on here. This list is being used to imply wrongdoing, without the hassle of actually having to demonstrate wrongdoing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The terms "allegations" and "wrongdoing" should never have been used in this article, as tax avoidance is entirely legal, and these names are excellently sourced. This has been stressed by every participating media outlet I have read on this case. I used the term 'implicated' as the heads of state have been implicated in the leaks themselves, not in any suggestions of illegality. A consensus has developed on the article now. Wikipedia couldn't look more irrelevant if we did not cover a story of this magnitude in adequate depth. Providing incredible detail without bias represents the very best of our efforts on breaking news stories, and is what the world has come to expect of us. Thank you for all your efforts so far :) Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Amen. Care is required, because everyone involved is protesting their innocence, but how could we *not* write an article?Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus means that editors agree on a talk page, not that editors have given up on reverting each other. How about this for a solution: I've moved the section to List of people named in the Panama Papers as the list has already grown to be undue weight in this article. If editors object, we can merge it back as the tumor it already is. If not, you're free to continue the inevitable BLP discussions there. czar 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment combining prose and lists is never going to end well. As this is such a huge news story, I imagine that there will be plenty on information on the papers themselves to write lots of prose. At the same time, the huge amount of people implicated means there will be a huge list. It seems rather obvious that from a manual of style point of view, the list of people should be split off as a separate article. As for whether the list of people is suitable for Wikipedia, I am unsure as of yet. Perhaps a deletion review of the list could be appropriate if we still have doubts in seven days time? Either way, I strongly suggest that such a list goes into more detail than just being named in the list. Jolly Ω Janner 23:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Corporate service provider

Mossack Fonseca is surely a law firm, but as shown on its web page and as adverted to in other source material, it is also a corporate service provider. In the current context, its work as a corporate service provider is relevant. The disclosures made so far regard corporate administration, not legal advice, contracts, etc. Hence my view is that the epithet generally (not exclusively) used should be "corporate services provider".

Any competing views? Bongomatic 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say that in the article but don't overweight it. Go mostly by the reporting. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

AP/NYT

This is a useful summary.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/04/03/world/europe/ap-panama-papers.html

173.228.123.194 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Scope / Nature of disclosures

What is the scope of people named? I added a descriptor of "shareholders and directors" based on observation, but are there other roles held by people (who are neither shareholders nor directors) in the database? Didn't see any overall narrative about what the content is on the website. Have the people named have had any roles other than shareholder and director with respect to the offshore companies (e.g., lender, borrower, secretary, lienee, lienor, etc.). My question is not about who should be included in any lists due to role—just what roles are in the database (both in its entirety and the information released so far). I have not pored through it in detail, but to date have not seen any roles mentioned other than shareholder and director. Are any other roles included in the database? Bongomatic 04:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't know. Only 149 documents have been released, out of 11 million in the collection. What the document says about someone (shareholder, director, etc.) isn't something we can use directly anyway, since it's a primary source; we should go by descriptions that appear in reporting. A lot more stuff will come in the next few weeks, according to the highly reliable (cough) internet. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Original documents

Some original documents from Panama Papers have been uploaded on DocumentCloud. - Daniel (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Apart from those crumbs, does anyone have information about the original documents? Who has access to them? Is there, or will there ever be, a way for ordinary people to search through the data to see which local mafiosos/casino licensees are on the list, or even to see the relevant documents or extracted text? Wnt (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Like the Snowden dump most of it will be kept private. Wikileaks trolled polled its readership on Twitter yesterday to ask if they should release it all, but they aren't likely to actually have it. reddit.com/r/panamapapers has more discussions and I spent a while reading it last night. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No official investigations yet?

The likes of FBI have made no arrests yet or at least open investigations? Nergaal (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's likely too early for that. They would have to start their own investigation, which takes time. Plus as far as I know, no one on the list is under the FBI's jurisdiction.  DiscantX 05:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Australia announced one.[1] Probably more are coming. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
German tax authorities got similar material (but less of it, and they paid their informant) some time ago and have been doing raids: [2] 173.228.123.194 (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Sweden[3] 173.228.123.194 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

As noted on the firm's talk, in light of the fiasco which is only bound to get worse, perhaps it'd be best to beat the trolls to the punch and semi-protect?

Also, what's up with ClueBot and the PanamaPapers account going to war with each other? Axslayer33 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed its history and strongly support semi-protection. It is a magnet for trolls, although it is very useful, alongside the separate one, with these persons' list. Zezen (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't pre-emptively semi-protect and as of this morning I didn't see any serious trolling on the article. Don't know about now since I haven't looked. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I checked, there was some edit warring from a new account that was trying to blank the article and got blocked. Nothing else really significant. Oppose semi-protection unless actual problems needing it arise. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Iceland

22000 people protested outside the Icelandic parliament to sack the Prime Minister--that's around 6% of Iceland's total population and 10% of its voters, supposedly its biggest demonstration ever. Iceland parliament session ended today without a vote of no confidence that some people expected, and if I understand it, tomorrow's session is suspended. This is from twitter.com/rvkgrapevine (Icelandic newspaper twitter) but we should add something about it to the article with better sourcing. I think some of it is in print by now. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Article explaining PM situation better:[4] 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hello, take a look at the history and see the edit war, almost, between me and another person. I woudl like opinions on what went down and whether it was appropriate. Winterysteppe (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Winterysteppe have reverted my edits several times, either without any explanations (1, 2) or accusing me in "Nationalist POV" (3) or "Nationalist soapboxin" (4, 5). I kept pointing out to him in the explanations of my edits, that this article is about Panama Papers, and Putin's name was not even mentioned in the Panama Papers. I never removed all the information about Putin from this article, but my point is: one sentence about Putin in this article is enough, there is no need to dump this article with all the smear ungrounded accusations which was thrown on him, despite his name not even been mentioned anywhere in the Panama Papers. - Daniel (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Potorochin, im leaving the conversation and the article. Im not gonna bother with this article anymore. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


  • I did think that Daniel was trying to de-emphasize the stuff about Putin a little too much. Although Putin wasn't mentioned directly in the Mossfon documents, the press reporting went to great lengths to document his (indirect) connection with shell companies run by people in his circle. I'd say he got more coverage than anyone else, maybe because of the large amount of funds involved ($2B), maybe because of his global prominence, or whatever. Our article should reflect that proportionately large coverage. The PM of Iceland also got a lot of coverage since (although the amount of money in his case was much smaller) his government might actually fall because of the leak, so our article should discuss that too. As more reporting comes out, some other leaders may also get in trouble, but we'll write that up when we see it.

    Daniel and Winterysteppe, to the extent there's disagreement about how to write that part of the article, at this point it's better to discuss proposals here on the talk page, rather than semi-edit-warring in the article. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Yesterday user Pancho507 made four major additions to the article: 1, 2, 3 and 4. All four are direct translations (word-by-word) to English of copy-and-paste from the Spanish sources he provided at end of each addition (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4). This makes it copyright violations. The latter two edits (3 & 4) have been completely changed by later editors (no copyvio remains), but the first two (1 & 2) still remain almost entirely unchanged (c. 80% of Accused clients section, starting at "The Messi family announced..."). How to deal with this? I presume the correct would be to simply blank it, but I'm leaving the question here for others with more knowledge of wiki policy. Notice also that this editor has made earlier large additions to the article (as well as numerous other articles), but I have not checked to see if the same problems exists there. 62.107.210.77 (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Hollth (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm having some difficulty understanding their translation, so I ended up deleting most of it. I hope I didn't change the meaning? Hollth (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's worth copying the direct translation copyvio here for reference? Esowteric+Talk 11:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

History?

Is there any more info on the history? As our article mentions, it appears the Kremnlin was aware that there was something out there at least last week when they issued a denial. In [5], I noticed that the wife of Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson (Iceland's PM) had revealed the existance of the offshore company of contention in the middle of last month. This was well before the infamous interview, but it seems unlikely it was a coincidence. I guess as stories were written up, people began to ask questions, so it does seen there was signs that this was coming at least a few weeks before the release even if they weren't all obvious at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Kirchner

Why are the Kirchners even mentioned in this article if they are not personally envolved in this scandal? It's only one of their former assistant that is suspected of being involved. Let's not fall for the tricks laid by local media wars in different countries, not to give Wikipedia readers misleading information. Eduarodi (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The current version [6] is problematic since it simple mentions a denial with no explaination. However I can't say that the info has no merit. If reliable secondary sources have mentioned the connection then there may be merit to mention it in our article the same as for Putin etc. (Reliable secondary sources making the connection isn't surprising, even for ones who don't really give a damn about what's going on in Argentina for the simple reason that eyebrows are always going to be raised when personal assistants are involved in such with obvious questions about where the money came from and what they were doing.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
That's precisely the point. The denial, without an indication that there isn't anything to deny, makes them look guilty. You know, I've only now read the article that is used to suppport the Kirchners' denial. It doesn't say at all what the line on the Wikipedia article claims it says. There's nothing about the story being "fabricated". On the contrary, the Kirchner do give credibility to the story, while highlighting that they have nothing to do with it themselves.
I am Argentinian myself, and I know that, like I said, there is a media war here between those defending the former Kirchner government and the ones standing for the current Macri administration. And because Macri does appear on the list, his advocates tried to smear the Kirchner by the far-fetched connection with their secretary. Again, I don't think Wikipedia should buy that. Eduarodi (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the reference. Neither Cristina Fernández nor Néstor Kirchner have been directly involved in any of the Panama Papers leaks so it is incorrect to include them in the "Accused clients" section. As Eduarodi mentioned, the reference doesn't say that they are involved nor that CFK is saying that it was fabricated. It seems it was just a rumour from an Argentine newspaper that have been discredited afterwards. --B1mbo (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, B1mbo. Eduarodi (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The map and secondary sources (follows on from "Putin", above)

In terms of primary/ secondary sources etc., where does that leave us in terms of the map? As far as I can see, it was created by the ICIJ, based on analysis of the documents. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the map, actually it conversely highlights the countries which are spared from the leak and I sincerely question myself the reason behind this. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Now the map is gone....... Soap55z (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of paid editing on this article

FYI: https://www.reddit.com/r/PanamaPapers/comments/4dchdz/someone_calling_themselves_anonpanam_on_irc/ Ujjwiki (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That screen shot appears to be over a year old. But, it seems odd that they would supposedly offer someone $1000 to make a few edits to a page when they could just do it themselves. Danrok (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It could be true, it could be false. But until there's proof. Perhaps it's better to let it stay on this talk page? Soap55z (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
That gave me a good chuckle. Doesn't really matter any more, since the articles are now highly visible. Jolly Ω Janner 20:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Putin

For someone who was not even cited in the papers, he is certainly the most mentioned name in the article. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to follow the secondary sources; use of primary sources here is not the direct we want to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that per WP:SECONDARY it doesn't matter much if the papers themselves don't mention Putin -- what matters is that a wide range of secondary sources do mention him in connection with the papers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. So if at an event, some or other celebrity slips and falls and exposes herself in the process, we — following secondary sources — will — like any gossip media — dedicate a lenghty section to the fall and blindly follow WP:SECONDARY, while other principles such as WP:DUE are ignored. The articles dedicates 17 lines to Putin and mentions his name 8 times; 7 lines on Gunnlaugsson and mentions his name 4 times, 7 lines on Poroshenko. So Putin — who is not even cited in the Panama Papers — gets twice more space than those clearly fingered. Are you telling me that there is nothing in WP:SECONDARY about the King of Saudi Arabia? Nothing about Cameron? The British media are full of information on Cameron, yet he is mentioned en passant. The king of Spain is not mentioned. So I guess, what we are saying is that Putin's associates are more important than Cameron's and the king of Spain's. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Playing reductio ad absurdum with me? All I said was it doesn't matter that Putin isn't mentioned in the papers themselves. I implied nothing about how much coverage should be given to other public figures. The point from WP:SECONDARY is quite basic; I doubt you'll get far in trying to change it. FWIW, I'd support further coverage re Cameron. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
My main concern here is that the Putin-laundering-route story is overly dependent on the conclusion from the so-called secondary sources, namely the Guardian and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (Center for Public Integrity, whose political neutrality is questionable and arguably pro-US Democratic Party). They report the Panama Paper, which makes them secondary, but their conclusions belong to primary source. Quoting Roldugin's claim of "I don’t have millions" from a 2014 report in the article also constitutes WP:SYNTH because this information is not present in the recent journals (within week). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, Nomoskedasticity, and point taken. But you can't get away from the fact that Putin is the most mentioned name in the article, whereas there is certainly no shortage of good proper relaible WP:SECONDARY sources on Cameron. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, Sameboat. It has become a "let's find everything related to Putin" exercise. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
From what I read, Putïn is not involved directly at least by the paper trail. So any implication is just by association and no papers to back it up. So perhaps write along what the paper trail states. Friends of him is implicated, nothing else. And let the reader drew their own conclusions. Write what the papers state, nothing less, nothing more. Soap55z (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Soap55z: I see, so you only want Wikipedia editors to analyse the leaked documents themselves, all 2Tb of them? And then post to the article as a result of that? Well guess what, the ICIJ and tens of other journalistic organisations have done an enormous amount of work already, for a year or so, and saved us the bother. Which is handy, as otherwise those who use offshore companies and etc etc etc could just carry on without anyone noticing, as they have been for a good few decades. I guess you are in favour of there being freedom of information? @Rui Gabriel Correia: there is a lot of stuff about David Cameron in the article. @Nomoskedasticity: you have my full support. Boscaswell talk 21:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The material isn't accessible directly, so that's a straw man. I rather think the use on Wikipedia of the published excerpts in the media should be backed by the actually published articles rather than speculation based on it. One might infer he's involved and write that. But saying he is, that's another level. Soap55z (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The space given over to the allegations etc relating to the Icelandic PM is more or less the same as that given over to the allegations etc relating to the Russian President. Can this discussion be put to bed now, please? Boscaswell talk 21:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Source tip

I think Godwin's law just arrived..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-03/mossack-fonseca-nazi-cia-and-nevada-connections-and-why-its-now-rothschilds-turn

https://interactive.fusion.net/dirty-little-secrets/index.html

Incredible. Soap55z (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Panamagate redirection

Wikipedia already have another 2016 event called "Panamagate", it's listed here:

So I made a request when Panamagate redirection didn't yet exist to redirect it to the above page here:

Since we have 2 events that could be referred by Panamagate name I think article should have distinguish template, and it worth for consideration the redirection of the Panamagate to the page which describe earlier event. 37.229.198.55 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I have just declined the the redirect request linked above (at WP:AFC/R) primarily on the basis that a redirect at the title already exists. The earlier version of the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Politics article cited this source and this source, neither of which refer to the controversy as "Panamagate". Also, the entire mention of Panamagate, even for this controversy, has been removed as unsourced, which makes me uncertain whether we should continue to have Panamagate as a redirect. A quick Google search shows some results, but I'm not sure if it is referring to the Panama Papers controversy or another controversy entirely. Mz7 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Gigantic lead or preamble!

The lead is now at 221 words and there is no infobox in sight nor that nice map. Could someone chop it down to something short like four sentences that will answer with speed, ie few words with lots of content:

  • What is this about? (new airplane at mach 20, photo of mayors ass, neutron star orbiting the moon)
  • Why should I care? (the desserts will go green, tax will be gone)
  • When did it happen? (yesterday or 3000 years ago? or the 60s?, before or after the election of ¤#"!)

A suggestion:

"The Panama Papers[1] are a leaked set of 11.5 million confidential documents (2.6 TB) that provide detailed information on more than 214,000 offshore companies from 1970s to 2016 causing a worldwide scandal. The leak went public on 3 April 2016.[2]"

The rest can be moved into some sub heading for people that really want to know the details. Soap55z (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see you want the pendulum to be swung from what you believe to be way over one side to (with just three lines) way over the other? *grin*
Intro's or lead's should always give the reader some understanding, albeit a basic one, of the content. A summary if you like of what it's all about. The subject in this case is massive, is vast in its implications, and is already legendary in its complexities. Three lines goes nowhere near that and your suggestion is horrifyingly banal, I have to say. All the best. Boscaswell talk 20:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The size of the lead looks fine to me. Hollth (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wording of coverage of Mosscak response to Miami Herald

The company, and its employees, are innocent of wrongdoing until found otherwise. Hence, when the company issues a 2900-word statement, we should report on it, and not simply report the summary of The Miami Herald, and that newspaper's conclusion regarding it. In doing so, we are taking a side in the adversarial relationship between an investigative journalism team and their subject. We are to be encyclopedic, and not take a side. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The summary is currently lifted directly from the website, which is plagiarism. It should be paraphrased if it's even necessary to include. czar 00:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I had previously provided a summary of the substantive content of the Mossack response. It was removed and replaced with the current content which is, in my view, entirely unenlightening. I will reinstate my original summary of the substantive content of the Mosscak response, but welcome people's views on what should be included here. Bongomatic 02:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Note I left in the Editor's comment that the response didn't address the specifics of any of the claimed due diligence failures. Bongomatic 03:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I came to the talk page to see if there was a rationale given for why the Mosscak response section violated WP:NPOV (to justify the placement of the section tag), but as I don't see one, I'll remove the tag for now as I don't see anything obviously slanted. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That is incorrect. We use the wp:secondary source that has reported on it, not the primary. Hollth (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Images of Salman of Saudi Arabia and of Jacob Zuma

King Salman is barely mentioned. Not one paragraph details his involvement with the Panama Papers. I tried removing it, but someone else keeps adding it. Also, I don't know why an image of the South African PM, Jacob Zuma, is necessary. I want to replace these images with an image of Vladimir Putin, but I think I must discuss the images first. --George Ho (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I already removed those images. George Ho (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Photos

I suggest that photos not be included. They in no way illustrate any facts of the article and seem unnecessarily inflammatory. Views? Bongomatic 07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

At the moment at least, I don't see a problem with them. The heads of government involved are by and large the most noteworthy, so they are pertinent to the content in some way. Hollth (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hollth: Can you explain the pertinence? The photos have no relation to the article topic — the individuals depcited are not reacting to the disclosure papers, or acting as directors, or holding shares. I just don't see how the visual appearance of individuals references in the article (no matter how noteworthy they are) is relevant to the content of this article. Since the photos are by and large available where they are relevant, there seems no reason to put them here, where they are not. On the other hand (other than with respect to compliance with WP:MUG, a screenshot from the interview with the Icelandic PM would seem pertinent. Bongomatic 15:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree to a certain extent. The core of the event is rather documents like those at documentcloud.org, like this example. What is unclear is if a license that is compatible with wikimedia can be had for a few specimens. Any input on this? Soap55z (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it necessary for the photos to be of the reaction, although where possible it would be favourable. I see them as relevant because they have been named in secondary sources, even if they have not been directly linked themselves. I'm not quite following you with the documents bit. Are you suggesting a photograph of the documents themselves? I wouldn't oppose it, but I too would be wary of the licence. Hollth (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Article contradicts map image

"Although initially noted that there were no people from the United States in the Panama papers,[25] this is incorrect." If this is true, then the map needs to either reflect this fact or be removed. As it stands many people reading this article may erroneously believe there were no US officials named, then jump to conclusions. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The map and source are discussing people in a position of power i.e. politicians. It never claimed that there was no one from the US involved. That's what happens when you use tabloid trash as reliable sources. Jolly Ω Janner 03:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Putin imbalance

For more on the Putin imbalance, please here. It would appear that quite a few people are not happy at the one-sided empahsis. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Putin discussion is waaaaay too long. Should be trimmed down to less than half. 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree plus some is unrefed SaintAviator lets talk 06:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Putin was not in people named, so he was in the wrong category. Moved to Russia. SaintAviator lets talk 08:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary sourcing

Can we please use a different source other than International Consortium of Investigative Journalists? We don't even know what level of scrutiny was applied to "out" these people and it's most like a violation of WP:BLP to publish this information. Perhaps some other sources which go into the details of the people listed and their involvement can be used? Jolly Ω Janner 23:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is evident from their past investigations that they apply very high standards of scrutiny in their work. The ICIJ has been the organisation sharing the information with all other reliable sources, so they have to be the ones we rely on. If you feel it's a violation of BLP, then you might as well exclude every name from the article, a ridiculous notion at this stage. News organisations and the ICIJ aren't primary sources with stories like this. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
There is some description of the vetting in the falter.at interview linked below. They had their own doubts, and did lots of cross-checks etc. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Likely you have to wait until the various participating newspapers in their respective countries gets to share the source documents to get a second source. The question then is to what to do with the single source published information in the meantime. Another question is then who has access to the source data? Soap55z (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Only the involved media organizations have the raw data (that's the primary source) and it's under security and lots of it will be kept private. But I'd say ICIJ and the newspapers are secondary sources that we can use. Plöchinger's twitter feed (twitter.com/ploechinger) has some more info about the data dump. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the high standards and reputation of the ICIJ, I'd go as far as saying that it is a better secondary source than most of those which get used here regularly. Boscaswell talk 18:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I am also of the opinion that ICIJ is a very reliable source, fwiw Elinruby (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Tax evasion?

This is a very new article, but nothing in the article so far actually documents or even mentions an allegation of "tax evasion." The article contains verbiage such as "The leak exposed assets of political figures and other prominent officials...." That's not tax evasion. Indeed, it's not even illegal for "political figures and other prominent officials" to have "assets" -- even "offshore" assets -- whether "exposed" or "unexposed."

Hopefully, some substance will be added to the article soon. So far, the article seems to be mainly about a "leak" of a large amount of data and the work that is going into analyzing that data. That is not much of a story yet. Famspear (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: Under U.S. law, certain persons are required to disclose the existence of certain foreign assets they own, if the value of the assets exceeds a certain amount. However, merely owning those assets or having those assets be located in an "offshore tax haven" is not necessarily against the law. Famspear (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Simply telling that all of them are involved in tax evasion (which previous version of the infobox implied) is wrong. Only a few of them have been accused in press and other sources of tax evasion which does not prove they are guilty, but should be included (if reliably sourced in multiple secondary RS) as claims on other pages per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Tax evasion may be a misstatement of what this is about. And US law is almost irrelevant since there are (so far) no US people named. But it looks like plenty of assets are being concealed, including some belonging to places like North Korea. The "how to hide a billion dollars" video currently on theguardian.com suggests that the shell companies can also be used for secretly transferring assets, not just parking them. The involved newspapers are not tabloids (i.e. they're RS for documenting the relevance of stuff they write about), and they're so far stating premises while being cagey about reaching conclusions that are hard to nail down. I think we should report stuff the same way they do. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Which brings us to another point: "Concealing" assets in and of itself is neither morally wrong nor a crime. Further, secretly transferring assets, in and of itself, is neither morally wrong nor a crime. "Hiding" a billion dollars, in and of itself, is neither morally wrong nor a crime. The editor at IP 173.228.194 is correct: the journalists are being "cagey" about stating any conclusions about all this data.
My guess is that some evidence of specific illegal conduct by specific people may eventually be identified. It takes time to go through all the data.
At this point, however, members of the news media (of which I am a former member) need to be careful about what they say and write, and not "get ahead of the story." Famspear (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, BLP rules prevent use from drawing conclusions at this early story. These government officials may have financial disclosure rules as part of their position but that is an internal matter best left to that countries' ethics board. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Famspear: "Which brings us to another point: "Concealing" assets in and of itself is neither morally wrong..." ...in your opinion. I am not saying one thing or another. Concealing *financial* assets - why is it done? We are not moral arbiters, but this being Wikipedia, we are compiling an encyclopedia and including within it factual information that is noteworthy. Boscaswell talk 15:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
For example, the current Prime Minister of Iceland is on that list. Some years ago after several Icelandic banks collapsed in the 2008 financial crisis, and if I understand it right, the current PM put through a resolution that gave domestic (Icelandic) creditors a better deal than foreign ones, which I guess was a contentious matter. Now it turns out that he was secretly one of those domestic creditors (by some millions of US$) which means he got personal undisclosed benefit from that resolution. It looks like he's about to be sacked through a no-confidence vote as a result.

There's a video on the Guardian where he's ambushed by a Swedish reporter who surprises him with a question about his shell company and he freaks out rather badly on camera. Since the Pirate Party (Iceland) are currently the most popular political party there, we might even see former Wikileaks spokesperson Birgitta Jónsdóttir as the new PM. That will be ... interesting.

If you look at some other cases, there are people and countries who have apparently used these shell companies to get around sanctions or hide criminal proceeds. The SMH article about the .AU tax investigation has examples. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Lo and behold, PBS stole my idea about the ethics board.[1] Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Boscaswell: Let me clarify something: The fact that concealing assets in and of itself is neither morally nor legally wrong is not merely "my opinion."

There is simply no rule of morality that requires that each of us "not conceal" our assets from one another, in the ordinary denotative sense of "conceal": "to keep from another's knowledge...." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 293, World Publishing Co., Inc. (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978).

And, at least under American law, a given instance of conduct is not illegal unless there is actually a law in place making that conduct illegal. Period.

Example: I have a certain checking account at a certain bank. I am undoubtedly concealing that fact in the ordinary sense that I don't go around voluntarily telling people that I have that account at that bank. There is no "rule" of "morality" that requires that I volunteer that kind of information to other people, and normally there is no reason for me to volunteer that information. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that nobody really cares whether I have a checking account at a particular bank.

That's what I mean by the statement that concealing assets in and of itself is neither morally wrong nor illegal. Some other component needs to be added before I am somehow morally -- or legally -- guilty of something.

Concealing the existence of an offshore bank account, in the absence of a law prohibiting someone from concealing that account under given set of facts or circumstances, is not illegal (circular reasoning, but axiomatic). This is not merely a matter of "my opinion."

And concealing an offshore bank account is immoral only if the individual is breaking some moral duty not to conceal the account (again, circular reasoning -- but still axiomatic).

Duties, whether legal or moral, do not arise "magically" from nowhere. The fact that certain people -- including leaders of countries -- have foreign bank accounts, the existence of which they have concealed from the public (in the sense in which I am using the term) is not in and of itself particularly noteworthy in the absence of some sort of claim that the conduct is either illegal or immoral.

Having said that, I'm somewhat confident that in all the data that was leaked, some journalist somewhere will eventually find some conduct by someone that is alleged to be illegal or immoral. What I am saying is that as Wikipedia editors, we need to keep our heads straight on this stuff. Famspear (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

For example, North Korea using one of those companies to sell arms and expand its nuke program sounds questionable.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.194 (talk • contribs)
Beyond tax evasion and tax avoidance, some of the accounts sound like national treasuries being looted, for example Putin's violinist buddy with two billion and multiple officials of the Chinese Communist Party (which is censoring this story from the Chinese internet, btw. I do agree with the general point that some of this may be legal and possibly even innocuous.I sort of doubt it, but that's not RS. If we get quotes from economists or international finance experts that may be another story Elinruby (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

References in this section

References

  1. ^ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-leaked-panama-papers/

Please avoid overgeneralizations

This remark:

The firm works with the world’s biggest financial institutions, such as Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Société Générale, Credit Suisse, UBS and Commerzbank, helping their clients to conceal their fortunes from tax collectors and investigators.

is not supported by this statement:

in some cases to help the banks’ clients set up complex structures that make it hard for tax collectors and investigators to track the flow of money from one place to another.

Likewise, this remark:

To conceal the assets of its clients, Mossack Fonseca has registered more than 300,000 so called "shell companies"

is not supported by

It has acted for more than 300,000 companies.

Specifically, there is no suggestion that that number of companies is for the stated purpose. Let's be careful out there! Bongomatic 02:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I will avoid generalizations, and will use accuarate citations instead. - Daniel (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
another related point is that shell company is a perfectly standard terms and does not need to be prefaced by "so-called" or enclosed in quotes. Elinruby (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Transactions section

I am unable to understand this section and don't want to go read the article. Can someone more familiar with this please improve the summary. Also, surely there are more transactions than this -- are we going to list them all? Elinruby (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Heads of state"

The article consistently refers to "heads of state" but the PM of Iceland is not Iceland's head of state. The Guardian uses "national leader"[8] which seems to be the least awkward replacement. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

He is head of government. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
He may be the head of Government, but they are not the same thing. Take the UK for example. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth and David Cameron is the Prime Minister. Using "Head of State" to cover people who are in control of Governments is misleading and incorrect. "National Leader" or "Polital Leader" would be much more appropriate. Calvin (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

SZ reporters interviewed about receiving leak (german)

Maybe some of this is useful for the article:

https://cms.falter.at/falter/2016/04/03/wir-sind-doch-nicht-der-verlaengerte-arm-der-staatsanwaltschaft/

173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There is also a "making of" video on facebook that I haven't looked at.[9] And the reporters have written a book already, linked from interview above and supposedly to be available in a few days. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about getting this translated. Calvin (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Videos

A few public-domain VOA videos here that could be forked:

Victor Grigas (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Are state outlets reliable? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
VOA is generally considered reliable as far as I am aware. Biased perhaps, but reliable nonetheless. Hollth (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

America

"Western bias"? Nonsense. American bias. I don't know where that comes from, but many notable news outlets (even Obama) have commented how, surprisingly, there are almost no Americans on the list. This article does not. They also note how odd this is, as certainly Americans are not incapable of doing this. This article does not. America is not the only "Western" country, and that term is inaccurate here. See: New Yorker, Independent, NBC News, Pravda. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

More mentions: Globalresearch.ca (reliable though? I don't know..), RT ("eastern" point of view), Daily Caller (official Russian and Chinese points of view).
Note that I'm not saying this should be written as if it's fact. It does, however, need to be mentioned as having been noted by many as interesting. Otherwise the article fails to give due weight. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Daily Caller is very very not RS Elinruby (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ref in lede

I thought the refs in the lede are generally avoided et we have "Panama Papers[2]". Also, the name of the article should be factual enough to not need a ref. 203.118.164.184 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the name "Panama Papers" does not need a ref in the lead, and I also removed the ref for the countries (and map of the countries) implicated as they're clearly referenced in the main text of the article. However, I kept the references about Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson not officially resigning in the lead as there are conflicting news reports on this and I feel that this may be contentious enough to warrant a ref. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 14:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Typo (copy/paste error?)

McClinancial misdeedatchy Newspapers should be McClatchy Newspapers. Seems something got in the middle there.

tell me where this is and I will fix it. Elinruby (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
End of section 3.3 Companies
done Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

alleged whitewash attempt

Per Reddit[10] someone claims to have been offered $1000 by Mossack Fonseca to get certain info out of this article (or maybe it's the Mossack Fonseca article). Seems dubious either way. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it were real they'd be doing a terrible job. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that in the primary Mossack Fonseca article there is a person with a declared conflict, they're represented by a PR firm that has taken the PR ethics pledge, and at least in the past they've posted in their own article's talk page to attempt to get things changed. Obviously under situation of crisis things may be different, but it seems likely they've got bigger fish to fry this week than paying people $1K to do something that will almost certainly be immediately reverted. —Luis (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

rewritten Background section

Thank you whoever did that, as it's quite a bit better, though it still needs some help. I deleted this text "allowing journalists and others to understand the relationships between Mossack Fonseca's clients." because that is not what the journalists are trying to do. The clients may or may not have a relationship to one another. It needs to say "allowing journalists to track dark money and the way it is used," or something of the kind. Elinruby (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

please stop putting publication names in quotes

It makes my teeth hurt and it's definitely wrong. Italics is what you want Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panama_Papers/Archive_1&oldid=1089600797"