Talk:Panama Papers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Participating media outlets

The section 'Participating media outlets' can be used to insert the links to the news site, next to each publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Dalmy (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Extended content

==Participating media outlets== The research into the Panama Papers and the preparation for publication involved 376 journalists from 76 countries, including: Argentina: La Nación, Canal 13 Austria: Falter, Österreichischer Rundfunk Belgium: Le Soir Brazil: O Estado de S. Paulo, Universo Online, RedeTV! Canada: CBC Radio One, Toronto Star Denmark: Politiken France: Le Monde, Premières_Lignes Finland: Yle Germany: Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, NDR India: The Indian Express Ireland: The Irish Times Israel: Haaretz Italy: L’Espresso Japan: Asahi Shimbun Netherlands: Trouw, Het Financieele Dagblad Norway: Aftenposten Poland: Gazeta Wyborcza Russia: Novaya Gazeta Senegal: Ouestaf News South Korea: Newstapa Spain: El Confidencial, LaSexta Switzerland: SonntagsZeitung Ukraine: Hromadske.TV (via Slidstvo.info) United Kingdom: The Guardian, the BBC (via Panorama)

@Igor Dalmy, I moved this section from the article per BRD. My edit summary was "out of scope—convert to prose, if necessary; ostensibly the media outlet only matters when we're using their report unless a secondary source makes a point of mentioning this specific subset from the rest." When an edit is disputed, it goes up for discussion on the talk page. We should have consensus here before it is added back. czar 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Czar surely you are joking. This project is extremely notable for

• a) as a proof of concept showing the potential of data science,which some people had been claiming was just a buzzword.
• b) for the surprisingly large number of journalists who are still in business and willing to risk their necks to document this sort of corruption. Some of them probably risked their lives; you realize that, right?
• c) for the sheer scale of the project and number of journalists collaborating in the cloud. This has never been done before on this scale, and it's probably going to be seen as a historic effort once the dust settles ::* e) the scale of the political fallout that is likely and has already begun

Finally, the law firm seems to be implying that there may be state actors, and that's a novel enough twist on the surveillance story to be notable in and of itself, though I don't think we should make too much of it unless the are further disclosures to support it. Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Czar reasoned that the Panama Papers should not italicized because it is "not a creative work," but neither are the Pentagon Papers. JC · Talk · Contributions 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We follow the convention of the reliable, secondary sources. Is The Guardian and the BBC italicizing it? Ostensibly the Pentagon Papers is italicized because it's the title of a report that was prepared as a creative work, though I don't have a horse in that race. More similar to the Panama Papers are the Palestine Papers and Luxembourg Leaks, which are not italicized. But again, we go with what the major sources do. czar 21:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I hear you. JC · Talk · Contributions 21:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I am unclear on whether there is consensus about format. My own thought is that the Pentagon Papers were published as a gook, whereas at the moment this leak is an assortment of documents. Therefore I am inclined to say Panama papers, but if a style guide wonk speaks up and tells me otherwise, I am not too invested in this. For now I am going to leave "Panama Papers" alone as there are all sorts of other fish to fry in this article. Elinruby (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Data processing

The section on data processing in case it gets lost.. Soap55z (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

The leaked document size dwarfs Wikileaks Cablegate (1.7 GB), Offshore Leaks (260 GB), Lux Leaks (4 GB), and Swiss Leaks (3.3 GB). The data primarily comprises e-mails, pdf files, photos, and excerpts of an internal Mossack Fonseca database. It covers a period spanning from the 1970s to the spring of 2016. The Panama Papers leak provide data on some 214,000 companies. There's a folder for each shell firm that contains e-mails, contracts, transcripts, and scanned documents. The leak comprises of 4,804,618 emails, 3,047,306 database format files, 2,154,264 PDFs, 1,117,026 images, 320,166 text files, and 2,242 in other file formats. The data had to be systematically indexed. This was done with a proprietary software called Nuix, which is also used by international investigators. The documents were fed to high-performance computers for optical character recognition processing, making the data machine-readable and searchable. Compiled lists of important persons were then cross matched against the processed documents. The next step in the analysis is to connect persons, roles, flow of money and legality of structures.

this is relevant information to IT people. It was too high in the article before, but I am against deleting it. The french wikipedia has a section on this, btw Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation progress

Extended content

ISO 639-1 Language Milllion speakers Word count per 2016-04-04 13:00 Starting time UTC UTC diff en English 380 (2006) 4233 2016-04-03 17:59 0 ar Arabic 290 (2010) 1510 2016-04-03 22:12 0 bg Bulgarian 9 (2005-2012) 0 2016-04-04 14:50 0 bs Bosnian 3 (2008) 0 2016-04-04 15:01 +2 ca Catalan 4.1 (2012) 1192 2016-04-03 20:57 +2 de German 90 (2010) 1661 2016-04-03 20:09 +2 et Estonian 1.1 (2012) 493 2016-04-03 21:37 +3 es Spanish 470 (2015) 3518 2016-04-03 19:42 0 fa Persian 45 (2007) 528 2016-04-04 07:10 0 fr French 80 (2015) 2428 2016-04-03 18:22 +2 ko Korean 80 (2008-2012) 483 2016-04-04 05:18 +9 id Indonesian 43 (2010) 1827 2016-04-04 01:05 0 is Icelandic 0.3 (2013) 524 2016-04-03 20:18 0 he Hebrew 4.4 (2012) 639 2016-04-04 11:12 +3 nl Dutch 22 (2012) 1235 2016-04-03 22:50 +2 ja Japanese 125 (2010) 1820 2016-04-04 07:32 0 no Norwegian 5 (2014) 1900 2016-04-03 20:11 +2 pl Polish 40 (2007) 517 2016-04-03 23:21 +2 pt Portuguese 215 (2010) 3000 2016-04-03 21:14 0 ro Romanian 24 (2004-2012) 1266 2016-04-04 10:46 +3 ru Russian 150 (2010) 2161 2016-04-03 19:24 0 fi Finnish 5.4 (2009-2012) 673 2016-04-03 18:53 +3 sv Swedish 9.2 (2012) 603 2016-04-03 22:39 +2 th Thai 20 (2000) 437 2016-04-04 09:58 +7 tr Turkish 75 (2007) 841 2016-04-04 07:40 0 uk Ukrainian 30 (2007) 1724 2016-04-03 23:56 0 ur Urdu 65 (2007) 0 2016-04-04 14:05 0 vi Vietnamese 75 (2007) 3372 2016-04-04 08:43 0 zh Chinese 1200 (1984-2001) 808 2016-04-03 22:46 0 I don't understand the purpose of this section. Why do we need it? 173.228.123.194 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC) I don't either, and I do wikipedia translations.Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Icelandic naming conventions?

Is there something I am not understanding about the name of Iceland's prime minister? I ask because I have made a change there several times and someone keeps changing it back. So... the name is Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson. My understanding of correct style is that the first time it appears it is spelled out completely and is wikilinked. Subsequent mentions use the last name only. So...I changed "Sigmundur Davíð" to "Gunnlaugsson".Someone seems to feel that this should be "Sigmundur Davíð," though. FWIW Gunnlaugsson's personal page does the same thing, but this could be the work of the same editor. Elinruby (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the other editor is correct; we have a whole article on this. However, many prominent English sources (I checked Guardian, BBC, NY Times) treat the Icelandic final name as a family name so I suppose we should too. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Aha. TIL. I started to wonder after the third time; the first two I just assumed that I had meant to make the change but failed to hit save or something. I am ok with doing it either way as long as we do it that way everywhere. And since this is the English Wikipedia, maybe we need a parenthesis somewhere about this, because I probably won't be the last to think it's a mistake. It's a small point but some people are really bothered by discrepancies. Elinruby (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson's personal page has a hatnote on regarding the customs; I can't really think of a way to include mention of the Icelandic naming customs on this page without it being WP:UNDUE. I don't mind this changing (as per WP:COMMONNAME, even if it's not technically correct), but for consistency's sake (as Sigmundur Davíð's article uses "Sigmundur Davíð" not "Gunnlaugsson"), I've changed it back. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that most allegations concerning Putin have disappeared...

...could we have one of those pictures of him bare-chested, having just shot a bear or of him catching the biggest fish ever landed, or of him winning yet another Olympic gold medal or something (though without the assistance of meldonium, of course). Not just the face pic, handsome though his face is. For balance, you understand. Boscaswell talk 14:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the one with him and the dolphins.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the info about him is actually included right now, but there are definitely some POV problems. For example, the Clients section lists a few presumably most notable clients. Who are they? A sportswomen Navka and a musician Roldugin. Navka is not notable in this regard at all, and the Roldugin's account is only notable because he allegedly kept these money for Putin. This info about Navka and Roldugin should appear only in section about Russia and in appropriate context. I would also listed Poroshenko only in Ukraine section, rather than as a notable client because none of his three accounts allegedly exceeded $3,000 [1]. This is nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: yes, it's better now. I reinstated some allegations re. Roldugin. I agree with what you're saying, broadly, but. I've said the whole article needs to be reorganized (see earlier in this Talk page), but got nowhere, and before it is, to put heaps of allegations into the country sections which are subsections of reactions still wouldn't be quite right. But then, actually, heaps of accusation *are* going into the country sections, so they are going in under Reactions. Best perhaps to change the section heading Reactions to something more all-encompassing, otherwise as it is, we're just asking for trouble, as anyone who wants to remove an allegation can come along and do so saying "it wasn't a reaction!" @Volunteer Marek: what do you reckon? Please, no need to ask what I think, please just do it if you agree. I've spent a good four hours this afternoon tidying up the mess that was the UK section and others and am signing off til tomorrow. Boscaswell talk 18:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Given no significant objections here, I moved Navka and Roldugin to Russia section. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd just put Putin in the clients section.If we have the first line as the 'his name hasn't been mention, but he has been implicated by blah blah blah' it should be fine. Hollth (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I would be ok with Putin in the notable clients section. I agree that we need/needed a better header outline but we did not get a consensus on whether or not to sort on country or something else,last I heard. I did a copy-edit for some of the not-quite-English and grouped similar topics -- for example, the stories about Ian Cameron and the prime minister of Iceland were each in there about three different times in different places and with different detail. I'll look over the talk page and take a look at the article before I move or add anything, but I have updates to add if nobody as done them yet, and it would be nice to get that clarified. I suggested before that we organize by country just because I am pretty sure that some of these scandals like Cameron and the prime minister of Iceland are going to wind up having their own separate pages. And btw I agree that Navka and Roldugin, also Poroshenko going into Ukraine, although the numbers you mention don't gibe with the estimated tax avoided that is in there somewhere Elinruby (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If we put Putin in the clients section then it will be edit war time. "Putin wasn't a client, so I'm deleting..." I wouldn't, but there are many who will. And let's face it, he wasn't a client, some need to change the way the article is organised. Right now, the article has inappropriately chosen section headings, which invite those kind of things. The only way to get past this is to chose good subject headings and reorganise the article accordingly. Or alternatively, just ditch the "clients" section and merge it into the country listings section. Which should be under a new section heading, say "Allegations and reactions." Easy as, right? We already have a lot of allegations in the section, so tbh I feel like going ahead and doing it right now........... How say you? Boscaswell talk 11:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we definitely should not Put putin in the "list of clients". But we also should remove Poroshenko from the "list of clients" who received a significantly smaller press coverage than Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh, you are probably right, although there are reliable sources that say right out that the musician who isn't sure what he knows about that two billions dollars is almost certainly holding it for him, but ok, ok, BLP, and I was here when that one guy was going on and on about how Putin's name was not on any of the papers. But in that case, what should we do with his two friends, whom we agreed above are not in themselves notable except as members of Putin's circles? Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about Poroshenko. Discussed in the appropriate section of this Talk page. Boscaswell talk 08:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: @Elinruby: @Volunteer Marek: @Hollth: About Putin, I suggest leaving all the stuff about him where it is, but. Right now there is no mention, even with only one sentence, of Putin or Roldugin in the Clients section. Well Putin wasn't a client by name, so that's justifiable, Roldugin was of course. But Russia, although it is the country of *many* Putin associates clients, only appears in the sentence which lists countries with close friends etc of leaders in that Clients section. Therefore, I think a short summary re. the disclosures wrt. Roldugin/Putin friends and associates in the Clients section is definitely justified. That way, all can be satisfied, I believe. Boscaswell talk 08:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Argentina, China, Panama, Russia, United Kingdom: summarising

These countries, with a few others, currently have the longer subsections in the "Reactions" section. It is pretty clear that WP:SUMMARY will be necessary for this article, and these subsections are among the candidates for free-standing articles.

For example, "Reactions to the Panama Papers in X". I don't insist on the title. Titles should be constructed systematically, though. Global overage is going to be required in this article, but only a few sentences, really, should be given to each separate country.

See WP:SYNC for some of the major guideline points on how to use summary style. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Juergen Mossack resigns but is not a member.

How can Juergen Mossack resign from CONAREX on april 7th when he was not a member? Official Juergen was a member only until 2014 http://www.mire.gob.pa/noticias/2010/12/21/vicepresidente-y-canciller-varela-se-reune-con-el-consejo-nacional-de-relaciones. James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

REORGANISED!

Enough pussyfooting around! I've suggested reorganisations before, but got nowhere, and it was still an awful mess. So what I've done is to remove the section heading Transactions (which only had in it stuff re. Brinks-Mat anyway) and stick that at the end of the section which had been called Clients but is now Clients of Mossack Fonseca. The stuff in the clients section about banks HSBC and Nordea is now appended to the Mossack Fonseca companies section, in which there was already a lot of discussion about banks. So all in all, it now looks heaps better, because there is at long last some logic to it. I'm really glad I did it during a not so busy time for other editors on this article! :-) No edit conflicts while I merrily moved and merged! Yay! Boscaswell talk 12:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks for doing that, sounds great Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm really pleased with the results. It' not perfect, but it's much better than it was. Boscaswell talk

• I have also removed out the European Union grouping of countries reactions. It seemed bizarre and just by looking at the contents alone might make one think these are EU officials from the respective countries. Jolly Ω Janner 05:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. Not. Perhaps. Mate, grouping countries by regions would be an excellent way of making it more accessible. Maybe not EU members, perhaps, but by continent would be excellent, don't you reckon? Listing by country name, it's just a list. Boscaswell talk 07:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (I actually put that grouping it to Europe might be a good idea in my edit summary). Also grouping the Middle East may be wise too. I also only really see this as a temporary solution. Inevitably, I hope the investigations can be trimmed and organised by type rather than by country. Up to 40 listings on a contents page is not nice. Jolly Ω Janner 08:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Up to 40 listings on a contents page is extremely unusual, yes. But how many stories/articles/scandals can you name which affect individual countries individually in this kind of way? I'd say none. We have to take account of what kind of story it is and the magnitude of it, not just try to shove not a quart, but a gallon into a pint pot. Or 10 litres into a 1 litre bottle, if you'd prefer. Boscaswell talk 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thailand

"400 Thais among 780 individuals who used Thailand as a residence and 50 companies were named on the lists" [2] 46.15.246.48 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Initially, we found 16 Thais were involved, not 21 as reported earlier," Pol Col Seehanat said. 178.232.16.68 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2016

Anonymity and an understanding that [there] THEY would never meet face-to-face were only his conditions for providing the documents. He said his life was in danger but declined [renumeration] REMUNERATION. Propanscience (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Actually, the request was clear. There were two errors in the section: one being the wrong word being used (that is, 'there' instead of 'they'); the other being a misspelling ('renumeration' instead of 'remuneration'). Thank you for picking up on this, Propanscience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016

More coverage should be added for Malaysia.

The earliest response recorded online was by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah on how it is okay to keep money offshore, although he did reiterate that the government should investigate the issue. 14.192.210.44 (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources of information for the article. I've deprecated the edit request template, because it is used for specific edits to be made (i.e. something I can copy and paste to the article on your behalf). Maybe someone else will write about Malaysia or you could explicitly word what needs to be written. Jolly Ω Janner 05:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

List of countries in one paragraph

Must we name all countries? What about reducing to just several or ten? I'm thinking about removing countries that barely have significance to the topic. However, I can't tell which one. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You may think they are insignificant, but to the people in those countries, they are. The fact that there are allegations concerning and reactions from so many different countries is a product of the significance of the leak. Please leave as is. Thanks. Boscaswell talk 18:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you both. But @George Ho: The first thing everyone I know asked when they heard about this story was whether politican so-and-so from my friends' country is in the leaked papers.The information could very important to the citizens of those countries so we really can't measure notability by dollar amount. Heads may well roll over relatively small sums if other aspects of their actions/thefts/corruption are particular egregious.

But the information also won't do them any good if they can't find it though, @Boscaswell: and the article will get big fast if people start getting indicted,deposed or whatever. And, say I as I put my Ms Readability hat back on, reading a comma-separated list that like that paragraph is like trying to plow through wet concrete. So I suggest that in this main article we just say that there are fifty or whatever countries and link the summary to a formatted list in another. I'll even volunteer to set it up if you want. I spent some quiet time with that syntax earlier today (for something else), so I have the code handy. I do however think that we should keep the subsections here that have the firm's clients from each country, though some of those, like the UK, will probably eventually become a summsry and a link to another article. I'll give you some time to see this before in case you want to object. I am doing different stuff right now anyway. But that's what I am thinking. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the long term, mere investigations are better off in the individual country's article such as Australian Taxation Office. Anything notable which comes as a result of the investigations (arrests, fines, resignation etc.) could be contained here and then eventually reorganised by type: politics, businesses, individuals/sportspeople. For right now, this is just a dumping ground of material related to the Panama Papers without actually helping a reader to understand it. It's best that any such large edits are done in over a month or few when the article has quietened down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly Janner (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 April 2016‎

I assume you are referring to the lead. I was looking at that yesterday. I think a wp:footnote would be the most apt solution. It allows all the countries to be listed and for the lead to be readable too. Hollth (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Hollth. I was referring to the one at the "Clients of Mossack Fonseca" section, which is tagged as "undue" in inline format. George Ho (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the lead has been altered to not include that. The clients section still has it, regardless, I think a footnote is a good workaround. Hollth (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is in mentioning all the countries. This is a massive story. Are you trying to lessen its importance, to make out that it doesn't affect so many countries, George Ho? Surely not. Please would you explain precisely why you have a problem with all countries with leaders or associates of being listed. Thanks. I don't have a problem at all with a list of countries in a sentence like it is. I can almost instantly see whether whichever I want to check is there is there, I can see from it's length that it is huge. All fine. Boscaswell talk 11:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Massive story indeed, but it's still very recent. Also, briefly mentioning all countries without explaining involvement of those countries makes their involvement itself trivial at best. Also, the cited source seems to be a primary source (or retelling of a primary source). George Ho (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should keep sections for individual countries for now. In the future, some of them can be transformed to separate pages because the subjects are rather complicated. I noticed that Panams section is terrible. It is unreadable. It should be shortened and rewritten. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize, My very best wishes, that this thread is very confusing to everybody. How do I address the issue with just one paragraph? I don't mind sections of countries. I was discussing the paragraph that lists multiple countries in one of the sections with the image of the UAE king. George Ho (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

George Ho in regards to that paragraph that lists every country with a politician involved, I think it should be removed and just replaced with "40 countries". 40 countries is a rather large chunk of the world and as we are already starting to see, we appear to now be bending the line on what one considers a relative of a politician (Canada for example). The simplest thing is to just rely on the map and not list them. List the countries with heads of states and/or head of office works well since there's only a few. I'm sure that if worked hard enough, you could fine a link to a politician from every country in the world. Jolly Ω Janner 05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

German movie

There's a German movie[3] Die Geschichte der "PanamaPapers" Eine Quelle - 400 Journalisten (The history of the Panama papers, one source, 400 journalists) about the reporting. I can't understand much of it but it looks interesting, with lots of behind-the-scenes video at ICIJ and various media outlets. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Encrypted what?

Was that "we will only chat over encrypted [lines]", as in the article text, or "we will only chat over encrypted [files]", as in the adjacent image? I think the article should be consistent on this, even if the word was actually missing in the original and has been added for better comprehension. Please fix either the text or the image, depending on what was in the original or what you prefer to have there added. --Blahma (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The German version[4] just says they'd use encrypted communications, so I'd go with that. I remember one of the reporters said or implied that he'd had voice conversations with the leaker, which wouldn't have just been files. But a more paranoid approach to security would have avoided voice chats. There is a book about the leak out now (ISBN 9783462050028, available from the publisher or on amazon.de) and it would be great if someone who reads German could get it. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh, the book got a lousy review saying most of its content is lawyer-parsed and obsolete before publication.[5] Link is courtesy of someone on the de.wp talk page for the German version of this article. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Panamagate

Panamagate does not belong in the lead and should not be bolded as a common name. It is a rather obscure term used to describe a political scandal in Malta in March. It has very loose connections to the Panama Papers leak of April. I removed it, but was reverted. Hoping to gain approval from other editors. Additionally, Russian and Ukrainian language sources being used to declare a common name on English Wikipedia? What? Jolly Ω Janner 04:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you did not run google search lately. And I provided references, too, didn't I? And it is bolded because it is a redirect target for a term which does not have its own article yet. I am pretty much sure, as events evolve, it will be a very "common name": Panamagate (Malta), Panamagate (Russia), Panamagate (Germany), Panamagate (India), to name just a few cropped up already. And they will be separate subjects, while Panama Papers article will be about ...er... Panama Papers. While massive scandals in separate countries will soon become very big articles by themselves. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I ran Google searches and all I came up with was Maltese sources from a scandal in March. It's referred to as Panama Papers in Malta (Times of Malta) and India (NDTV). Not sure why the translation of Panama Papers is relevant in non-English languages (Russian, German etc.). Maybe we should wait until it becomes a common name before doing this, as you so speculate? Maybe you can start those redlinks and put them in the see also section where they belong and not in the lead. Jolly Ω Janner 05:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Run again. You are probably using 'google-lite' or something. How come I found thousands of other hits? panamagate -malta: 19,000 hits. And I did provide my references, mind you. And why you say it is "translation of "Panama Papers"? I clearly said it is not. It is an English word, just like "Panama" and "Papers". - üser:Altenmann >t 06:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And it does belong to the lede because it is direct consequence of Panama Papers leak, with the exception of Malta. But even Malta case of the same offshore origin. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Heck, there is even #panamagate hashtag on Twitter. And I can assure you nobody cares about Malta on Twitter. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello! Thank you for requesting a third opinion. While I agree that mentioning Panamagate in the introduction of the article would be a good addition, I do not consider it necessary to fill it with so many sources. Perhaps just a brief mention of it, e.g. "The ensuing political scandal caused by the leak has been referred to as Panamagate.[citation]" Any further information on the "Panamagate" name could be applied in the body of the document, but even then it seems a little beside the point to engage in a discussion on the name "Panamagate" (that sort of discussion would best appear in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix). Thanks again for the request; have a great day! MarshalN20 Talk 06:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"The ensuing political scandal caused by the leak has been referred to as Panamagate.[citation]" would be incorrect, as Panamagate is used in Malta for a political scandal that predates this. Surely people on the English Wikipedia are looking for the English term of the Panama Papers? The only current usage of Panama Gate is by foreign language sources. It's akin to having an article on bread and then saying that it is also known as pain in France. Jolly Ω Janner 08:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jolly Janner on this. The overwhelming majority of English sources use 'Panama Papers'. Not a single one in the ref list uses "Panamagate'. Regardless of whether it is a pre-existing scandal it is clearly obscure enough to not warrant mention. Just because there are references that exist that call it Panamagate doesn't mean we should have it, one can cherry-pick sources for almost anything. It's completely wp:undue. Your assertion that it will become a common name is wp:crystal and clearly jumping the gun. Wait until it is a common name. Hollth (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. The rush to apply the affix '-gate' to any notable scandal is, of course, reflected in many reliable sources in the first few weeks. That doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the lede paragraph of an encyclopedia article. The vast majority of sources refer to it as Panama Papers. Any Google Search data should be incorporated after the effects of this leak have born further fruit. Please remember that WP is not a newspaper. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

two videos about the Panama papers

I am a Wikipedian in Residence for TED, so I can't link to this video except on Wikidata, but I am dumping it here. It is a roundup by Robert Palmer of Global Witness on the current exposé pieces that are ongoing. http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_palmer_the_panama_papers_exposed_a_huge_global_problem_what_s_next The other link is trending on Facebook and it was uploaded to YouTube by the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign (This is Bernie's way of saying "I told you so"). It is a clip of his objections in 2011 to the Panama-US trade agreement because there would have been no other reason to do it other than enable even more people to stash holdings offshore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0mAwRAFC2U Best, Jane (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add the former to the External links section, please use {{TED talk}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No to the Bernie Sanders thing. Wikipedia is not a platform for candidates' campaigns.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK thx because I was wondering about that. Jane (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't link directly to anyone's campaign video but I think this issue has gotten some secondary press coverage, that could merit a mention in the reaction section. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And it is not about the campaign of a candidate in 2016. It is about the United States—Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) entered into force on October 31, 2012, that increasingly allowed wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. --91.10.44.225 (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian President

. Boscaswell I think this should be put back under Clients of Mossack Fonseca. There was no discussion for this removal. He is one of the high end clients. Also this important quote was removed, now restored as per BRD

Tymofiy Mylovanov, the president of the Kyiv School of Economics, stated “Trust has been lost, and it has been replaced by suspicion,”

SaintAviator lets talk 00:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

References

I've just realised, SaintAviator, that you put my name at the top of this section. Although I did some reorganisation of the article, and that reorg. still stands, more or less, I didn't move the Ukrainian President stuff out of the Clients section. And, as you have already read below, think it would be better if it were back there. Boscaswell talk 19:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this article is so large that we have to give up on using quotations from individuals about other individuals at this point. Add it to wikiquote:Panama Papers instead or perhaps find space for it on our articles on Poroshenko or Tymofiy Mylovanov. Jolly Ω Janner 00:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree and your reverting breaks BRD. The next step should have been RFC SaintAviator lets talk 01:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you agree that the article is too large and/or is on target to get too large within the next seven days? We have plenty of involved users to discuss on the talk page. Jolly Ω Janner 01:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly please self revert SaintAviator lets talk 02:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I suggested this in in a section above, long time ago. No one, including you objected. Please stop edit warring [6] during standing WP:3RR about you. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Thats about Putin. Im not in that discussion. Please be civil. A complaint does not stop Good Faith editing SaintAviator lets talk 03:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• JJ it may yet get too big, Yes SaintAviator lets talk 03:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I am only telling that your statement above ("There was no discussion for this removal") was incorrect. First of all, that was not removal, but movement of of text. Second, there was suggestion to move, it was standing on the talk page for a long while, and no one including you objected. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• • • Like I said, it was in a Putin thread, not in this thread. SaintAviator lets talk 03:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Firstly please self revert" I can see that I'm wasting my time here if you refuse to even discuss the content. Enjoy your inevitable block. Jolly Ω Janner 04:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I think there is more than mere merit in moving the Ukrainian President text to the client's section. We have the Icelandic PM there, and he was forced out for what is arguably much less. We have a close friend of the Mexican President there, but the President himself wasn't a client. But Poroshenko was a client, he said he would do something, something pretty major to do with his business, and the leaks make it clear that he did something different, something offshore. He still has the business, yes?, and it's been a couple of years now, so all in all, definitely should ben one of the examples that's elevated to the clients section. @My very best wishes: I'm not a supporter of reverters, and I agree with you regarding the Putin-friends material, but in this case, it wasn't discussed in a relevant section of this vast Talk page, and if I remember rightly, it wasn't up for more than 10 or 12 hours or so before you changed it. That's not a long time, my friend. Boscaswell talk 08:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to disagree here. First of all, this leads to duplication of material in already large article. Second, who should be included in the list of clients (there are too many of them) depends on coverage in RS and highly subjective. I think it would be reasonable to remove all "client" subsections and only keep brief description of the clients in one subsection and keep subsections for countries. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Boscaswell as well. While he hasn't done much, it's his position that makes this prominent enough for me. Hollth (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You're very kind, Hollth. Oh, you mean the Ukrainian President! Boscaswell talk 11:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK someone can put it back now SaintAviator lets talk 00:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, please do not put it back per my comment above. This is content fork of List of people named in the Panama Papers and a duplicate of other content on this page. To the contrary, moving all clients to their countries would be a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Its good to see you involved in discussing a thread I started MVBWs. I cant see whats wrong with a mention up there, non repititious of course, NPOV and the like. He is a very high profile client. MVBWs also dont be hasty and remove those other names. DIscuss. SaintAviator lets talk 02:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You did not provide any arguments why he should be put back in the list of clients. All you tell is "BRD", "there was no discussion" (which is not exactly true), "trust has been lost" and other irrelevant comments. That's disruptive. One of other participants at least argued that he should be put back because a couple of other presidents were included. I do not think that was a valid argument, but at least it was an argument. My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors have other lives to live too, we do this part time. Discussion can take days. The others guys covered the reasons as well. Read from top, esp Boscaswell SaintAviator lets talk 06:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Russia

Hi too much reverting lets discuss re BRD SaintAviator lets talk 05:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The balance is not right yet SaintAviator lets talk 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose to change and why? My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That you discuss edits like this. You are not abiding by BRD [7] SaintAviator lets talk 23:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No reply yet so let me explain. I made "Russia" then some people started boldly deleting stuff. I reverted. Then during this process a complaint is lodged. No warning. Clearly editors need to talk. Here. SaintAviator lets talk 03:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again, what exactly do you propose to change and why? My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

SaintAviator Take the initiative yourself first, before you accuse people of not adhering to BRD. It's hypocritical otherwise. So far, you have not made an ernest attempt to discuss either and are equally guilty. So as My Very Best Wishes has asked, what specifically do you propose and why (i.e. you must make a case). Hollth (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Im doing this as a hobby like most Im guessing, the weekends a busy time for me. When we slow down things a bit, theres less drama, like editors mass reverting like MVBWs did to a whole section. Its a work in progress, be patient people. Let other people add stuff. Now the latest additions by Zumoarirodoka are ideal for balance SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Text ending with footnote 24 is incorrect about number of public figures linked to 214,000 accounts

The text states: "documents about[23] 214,488 offshore entities with ties to public officials." The ICIJ linked site states "the law firm’s leaked internal files contain information on 214,488 offshore entities connected to people in more than 200 countries and territories." Not all of the offshore entities are linked to public figures, as implied in the current Wikipedia text. ---- Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbennett71 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I flat out removed the phrase 'links to public officials' as it's already covered numerous times. Hollth (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

split out country section

{{split section|Panama Papers by country}} 203.118.164.184 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edit requests are for "change X to Y" type requests. It's unnecessary to use this template to prompt a discussion on splitting the page. clpo13_(talk) 20:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well i cannot start the discussion because I cannot put the template in the article. 203.118.164.184 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've placed the template. clpo13_(talk) 23:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You should put it in the section that needs splitting. 203.118.164.184 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Boldly split to Reactions to the Panama Papers per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Let the cleanup begin. czar 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree, split SaintAviator lets talk 02:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would be opposed to such split right now. This is not anything similar to Paris attacks, and not a typical "International reactions" section (as for example here). These sections are mostly about accusations and investigations in various countries, not "international reactions". If anyone wants to split this content, that should be done by creating a separate page for each country, but we are not there yet. In any event, given that another page is currently about only "international reactions", not investigations, only content about international reactions can be moved to another page. The materials currently copy-pasted to another page are mostly not about international reactions to Panama papers. One should decide another (proper) title for the page to split and start an RfC about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed This is a big story. Let the article be big. Sorry, I'll start again. This is a *massive* story. Let the article be long. As it is now, readers can read all the more general information (if they want to) before they get to the pieces about each individual country and then read anything related to their own country or whichever very easily right now. I expect that the reactions sections will be split out, individually, in time. When this happens, there should be a substantial summary remaining in this article. So I agree 100% with My very best wishes on this. We're not there yet. Boscaswell talk 10:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn. I agree with both My Very Best Wishes and the OP. I do think a catch all investigations and reactions does make senses, but a copy paste of from this article to the new article would be a mistake. Half the 'reactions and investigations' section is really 'reports affiliated with country x'. I also think a separate page for some countries (not every country) could make sense given the amount of info we have on e.g., the UK. Hollth (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed for the time being, but will probably support in the future when allegations and content surrounding various countries/individuals are settled on the talk page, as the article will become unreadable otherwise. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 17:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Norway

Eva Joly said that DNB should be investigated by police.[8]. 46.212.142.116 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This link [9] tells about a reaction, a call "to strengthen Økokrim". 46.212.224.200 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles

• These are the three questions Rune Bjerke must answer. It names three leaders that "worked closely with DNB Luxembourg".
• DNB Luxembourg doubled the profit in two years. 178.232.252.87 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Where did 8.5 million of Yaras's unacceptable payments, end up? 178.232.252.87 (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Abid Raja asks the board to consider if DNB-Bjerke must step down. 46.212.13.223 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Panama - reorganisation

With thanks to pancho507! With the new para. which Pancho added, with the news of the Govt raid on MF offices in Panama by a newly-formed Govt dept/agency that for all I know was set up as part of the Govt response, it was obvious that the Panamanian responses to the leaks warranted more than just a country listing. All (I believe) of the other country subsections detail allegations of offshore company set-ups, reactions and investigation. So as there were none of those in the old Panama country section, it being about what was being said in Panama about the whole affair, I moved the whole thing to a new section, titled (eventually!) Responses in Panama. This section needs a lot more work to bring it up to standard, but the basis and the refs are most likely there. The quote in the final para (from the press release) was arrived at by putting text from the referenced article into google translate. If this is not preferred procedure, then I'm sorry, but I don't know what is and time is pressing for me. Boscaswell talk 10:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it, Boscaswell, also, i don't have time to translate it myself, only to make minor corrections. And there's a ton more to come, since i'm not done but i can't do it now because i don't have time. Pancho507 (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Spain

This article needs a section for Spain. Several Spanish personalities from politics, business and showbiz have appeared in the Papers (see the Spanish Wikipedia version of this article). The resignation of current Industry, Energy & Tourism Minister, José Manuel Soria, appointed as administrator of an offshore company in the Bahamas in the 90s and then of another offshore company in Jersey until 2002, is imminent. Spanish press is reporting than Soria could resign tomorrow, Friday. --Zarateman (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't dispute what you're saying, Zarateman. It does need to be included. Are you able to have a go at it yourself? Boscaswell talk 19:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

CIA involvement

Bradley Birkenfeld believes CIA is involved in this, and is one of the reasons Americans aren't named. Sources are reliable and notable Gazeta Wyborcza [10], Fortune[11],CNBC [12] and others. Should be mentioned. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A neutral POV would have to also mention that others have dismissed the reasoning behind this. For instance Ramón Fonseca has said "as a policy we prefer not to have American clients." [13] And US citizens can use Delaware corporations. [14]. William Avery (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So let us present both points of view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Right now, all there is, is one dude saying "it may be CIA plot" and then a couple - a couple - sources saying "there's this dude who says it may be a CIA plot". That's it. It would violate WP:UNDUE to include this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And he doesn't even say that "he knows" or that "he has evidence" or anything like that, just that "he has a feeling" about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

there is an enormous amount of material that is verified and published as fact in acceptable secondary sources that investigated it themselves and which is absolutely not covered in the current article. Look at Brazil, for example, or Azerbaijan, or United States material I am trying to get in right now because everyone keeps saying there are no Americans involved. Why would you insert poorly sourced speculation in the circumstances? Just saying. If you want to help go to the material they have published so far and dig in. This is an article about leaked documents and we don't begin to describe what hsa been written about the leaked documents. Don't you think we should do that before me start inserting random opining about conspiracies? Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)