Talk:Panama Papers/Archive 4

WikiLeaks
Regarding to this edit. Since the publishers of The Guardian, Investor's Business Daily and The Moscow Times think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't per WP:RS, WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this should not be included in Wikileaks section. This reference actually criticizes Wikilieaks rather than USA or whatever. While legitimate, such criticism belongs to other pages. This reference (and another one) actually tell that Putin dismissed allegations. But that was already said elsewhere on the page. Overall, the Wikileaks section is about criticizing journalists for not making whole archive publicly available. This is different subject.My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, text you included tells that US Investor's Business Daily, pointed out that the main bankroller of the ICIJ, which organized the international publication of the leak, is American hedge fund billionaire George Soros. Here is the source. No, this not according to "Investor's Business Daily", but according to Putin who was quoted by Investor's Business Daily. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not even that. AFAIK Putin did not name Soros explicitly. Various pro-Kremlin conspiracy sites did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You should remove the specific text that you intend to remove, not just do a wholesale reverts — diff, diff. See Help:Reverting. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's not the place for wacky conspiracy theories, and BLP applies to Soros too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the denials from Putin and the official Kremlin view is already mention several times. No reason to have it in a dozen times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Double standards are alive and well ...
 * Voluteer Marek once wrote: "On Wikipedia we use secondary sources. We most certainly don't conduct our own original research and evaluate the dubiousness of primary sources."
 * Voluteer Marek also wrote: "whether it was a hoax or not (and that is discussed in text), it was still a notable event. Restore sourced text.". -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

'This is going to make Russian policy towards the U.S. even more antagonistic.'"
 * Tobby72 is right IMHO. Balance is required. Also wholesale reverts are NOT ON Saint Aviator  lets talk 23:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the allegation should be presented, but not as fact (And, BTW, it's not just Russia claiming Soros' link, as mentioned many times before). Also, regarding the statistics produced by RT, they are an analysis of UK news coverage and should be included; if the figures are disputed, then that should also be added, of course. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tobby72 has consensus Saint Aviator  lets talk 23:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh stop it. False claims of "consensus" constitute attempts at WP:GAME and are actually a way to disrupt consensus. Start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's impossible to achieve "consensus" to misrepresent a source. So stop trying to do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 to 2 Saint Aviator  lets talk 01:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:CONSENSUS means. It's WP:NOTAVOTE. In particular, you can't get "consensus" (sic) to misrepresent what a source says. (That's sort of common sense so there's no policy or guideline or essay on it, since nobody who writes those things figured that some editors would have gall enough to try and pull something like that off).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Same thing goes for trying to sneak in non-reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And wtf is "Investor's Business Daily"? It's not a reliable source. It's a website set up to promote one guy's ... "investment advice". It's the equivalent of a late night infomercial. Please don't insult other Wikipedia editors' intelligence by even bringing this here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 to 3 is a factor that should stop reverts. Plus ' Contributors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others'. Do not swear VM. Saint Aviator  lets talk 01:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what "2 to 3 is a factor" means. Bottom line is that you can't misrepresent sources, violate BLP, or include non-reliable sources, regardless of how many accounts show up and want to do it. Global consensus as represented by WP:RS and WP:BLP overrides "2 to 3 factor", whatever that means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait for more comment VM, its good policy  <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 01:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, in the meantime, stop trying to cram this junk into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Volunteer Marek. Stop playing the game to further an agenda. All the article requires is simply something along the lines of "Putin refutes the allegations that he is involved. We don't need to hear each and every speech he has made on the subject. Calvin (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding these edits:
 * RT's statistics on news analysis should be included as they are relevant to Western vs. Eastern media perceptions on the issue and have not been disputed as of yet, despite a relatively high amount of attention towards RT's coverage in the media. Allegations of "official organs of the US" and Putin adopting a more aggressive stance towards the US are pretty bold allegations and need to be mentioned (along with Soros, as those are the allegations Putin is referring to; please could you be more specific in where you feel this violates WP:BLP?), especially since Putin is qualifying it by mentioning WikiLeaks' coverage. And the opposition politician definitely needs to be mentioned. Regarding all this, I think the impact on Putin's popularity should be mentioned for balance, as the impact on Cameron's popularity is mentioned in the UK section. Either they both go, or they both stay.
 * I am fully aware of polling not being a substitute for discussion, but we have to actually have proper discussion on the talk page. BTW, I am fully aware that there are pro-Putin partisan interests pushing their point of view on the page and engaging in tendentious editing; I just want to create a more balanced article. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RT TV is not a reliable source except for most basic facts (they could've just made that shit up). We can't include it.
 * Investors Whatever Magazine is not a reliable source. It's a website to promote one guy's "investment strategy". We can't include it.
 * As pointed out above we don't need to include every speech that Putin has made on this subject. It's UNDUE and it becomes a clear case of POV. There's already enough stuff on this.
 * I have no idea what this nonsense about "Kremlin attacking CIA due to Soros' involvement" even is. We're not including this crap.
 * The BBC story has a couple of vignettes and is a human interest story about some ice cream vendor and a mathematician the reporter met in a park. And that's putting aside that in an authoritarian country people are not going to go around telling foreign reporters what they really think. This cannot be used to support the text that is being inserted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I find it very odd that if these figures were so wildly inaccurate, as you claim, that no organisation appears to be refuting them. But I take your point.
 * And please, I've mentioned this before: the allegations were also discussed by Fortune and CNBC, not just RT and IBD. Please stop making it seem like these are the only two sources that mention the allegation, otherwise this discussion will just become strawman argument after strawman argument.
 * "I have no idea what this nonsense about "Kremlin attacking CIA due to Soros' involvement" even is." Perhaps if you'd read the source (CNBC, so I don't see how you can see it as unreliable): "Russia, in particular, could respond aggressively, Bremmer added. Given that the ICIJ was partially funded by billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundation, the Kremlin may seek to punish the U.S., Soros and the CIA, he noted.
 * Ian Bremmer (the man quoted) is a notable US political scientist and foreign affairs columnist. Surely, his opinion is relevant in this article? I personally would say that Putin's speech should be added to qualify this assertion, but Bremner's claims should be made plain and clear.
 * "in an authoritarian country people are not going to go around telling foreign reporters what they really think" I'm sorry, but as much as I am inclined to agree that Russia is becoming increasingly authoritarian, that is original research. It's also worth nothing that the BBC is widely regarded as an impartial source. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No organization (reliable source) is repeating them, which is the key.
 * I read the cnbc source. It's a brief quote from Bremmer. And it seems cherry picked. For example, why not use this quote "Bremmer believes the $2 billion linked to people close to President Putin was just "a tiny fraction of what the Kremlin has actually been laundering.""? At any rate, Putin stuff is like 1% of that article. The text would also need to be phrased in a more encyclopedic tone, for example not "will attack CIA". But this does seem like putting in this whole Soros-conspiracy theory in through the back door. And that's a clear WP:BLP violation. If you can somehow word it without mentioning Soros, it might be acceptable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree completely on including that quote; I didn't include that quote was because it wasn't related to the quote by Putin which preceded it (i.e. for readability reasons, that quote should probably be included in the previous paragraph). But if the allegations surrounding Soros' organisation been picked up and analysed by reputable sources, which they have, this should also be included in the article IMO. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 20:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as Soros goes, there really isn't much of anything in reliable sources. There are a few brief mentions of the fact that he's donated money to the journalist organizations (he's a rich guy, he donates money to all kinds of places). I'm just not seeing the coverage in RS sufficient to include this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my addition of contested material, this is straight from The Guardian and The Moscow Times.

The Guardian – "“#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and [George] Soros,” WikiLeaks tweeted. Putin said: “WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs of the US are behind this.” The “customers” who ordered the Panama Papers’ leak were clear, he said. ". -

The Moscow Times – "The attack on Putin was “produced by [the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project] OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by [the U.S. Agency for International Development] USAID & Soros,” the WikiLeaks tweet said. USAID was expelled from Russia in 2012 following Russia's crackdown on NGOs that receive foreign funding. Last year Russia branded the Open Society Foundation and the Open Society Institute's Assistance Foundation, both financed by Soros, as “undesirable organizations.” ". -. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no reason to use Wikipedia to "retweet" everything that Wikileaks (itself not a reliable source) says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We report what reliable sources say (for example, The Guardian). -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the text from the Russia section. as it is offensive as it stands: "According to the WikiLeaks, Panama Papers leak was produced by OCCRP, which is funded by George Soros and U.S. Government Agency for International Development. " Just no. Wikileaks is no more reliable when they are quoted by someone else. This is an example of why they are not considered a reliable source: no fact-checking. They have at least one fact wrong: the OCCRP are one organization that participated. ONE. of over 100. Wikileak's opinion is just maaaaybe of passing interest, but then should go with the other quotes about what it all means in the Leak section. Beyond that the allegation does not address why Soros would attack Putin or generate a whole lot of legal paperwork in Panama.
 * While we are at it, the video transcript this section quote does not contain the quotes ascribed to it, and you can't just say according to such and such a newspaper so and so said such and such -- you are supposed to provide a link to an article where so and so is quoted as saying such and such. I have not really tried to fix this as Putin, as a party to these charges, is entitled to address them I guess even if what he says is improbable and unlikely to be true, but we need some kind of sourcing to demonstrate that he did indeed say these ridiculous things. Otherwise I could just claim that according to some newspaper, the moon is blue, see? Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Malta
The recent post needs some work, for anyone who has the time. The refs. to it, this one for example, relate Panama Papers offshore company allegations about two ministers, not just the one named in the text that's there right now. "...the people expect answers on why Labour Party Deputy leader Mizzi and Mr Schembri, who the PN said were the PM’s right-hand and left-hand men, had opened up companies in Panama." it says. Boscaswell  talk  11:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added Schembri, but noticed that the reference for this pre-dates the PP and therefore this seems to be another case where there were already allegations of corruption and the PP brought out more evidence. But ya, there seems to be quite a bit more here than the text in the article reflects. Someone has added quite a few references so there is material there for anyone who has time to add to the section. Elinruby (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

McClatchy DC: Clinton’s rich friends

 * Inside Panama Papers: Multiple Clinton connections: Gabrielle Fialkoff, mining magnate Frank Giustra, Marc Rich, Chagoury Group, Chinese billionaire Ng Lap Seng, Sergei Kurzin ---84.170.88.66 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * indeed, and the article currently spends a lot of time on why there are no Americans. Needs help. Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/panama-papers-dieclintons-und-die-briefkaesten-1.2953564 - Die Clintons haben ein Problem mit Briefkastenfirmen --79.223.4.250 (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Africa
Elinruby (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * https://panamapapers.investigativecenters.org
 * http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/PublicationFiles/iff_main_report_26feb_en.pdf

Neutral POV
Applying the Neutral POV template. There are a couple of statements that appear to present argument as fact, such as "parking funds in real estate being the cause of skyrocketing house prices" Mjdoyle86 (talk)


 * should probably be "a" cause; thought I fixed that. Otherwise it's simple supply and demand and well documented, yanno..?.what section where you looking at? This arises in London,Miami and Manhattan as well as a more general section early on. I can check to make sure the RS are reflected in each of those places. There *is* lots and lots of RS for that statement... Maybe not till tomorrow though; been doing this a while and need sleep. What else? Elinruby (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; if that statement is the reason for the POV tag being here, then I think it should be removed as that is clearly documented by reliable sources. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 20:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * that maybe so,, but must you write in tabloidese? Wikipedia is better than that, surely.  Boscaswell   talk  21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you referring to? – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 21:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)m
 * "parking funds in real estate being the cause of skyrocketing house prices" is junk wording, my friend.
 * "...while Troup was its senior taxman" is another. The word "taxman" usually refers to an oppo in the tax authorities.  We're trying to produce a quality product here, aren't we?   Boscaswell   talk  08:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the first sentence about "parking funds" and so I don't think it's particularly fair to blame me for that, and the term "taxman" is that used in the source. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 09:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote the parking funds thing; if you dislike the wording and think you can improve it please do. My point is that the money is going into assets and is thus out of circulation, shrug. It seems to be a short way of conveying that, but as you saw below, I am already asking for help, so.... Elinruby (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)g
 * I think we should always strive to use words with their proper meaning. Many publications, although some may deem them to be a reliable source, use cheap terminology.  We are aiming to produce a quality reference product here, after all.  My apologies for thinking that y had written the "parking funds" line, Zumo.   - I'm on an iPad right now so can't refer back to the article easily, but "parking funds in real estate being the cause of skyrocketing house prices", unless it is a quote, could very easily be construed as SYNTH.  I don't doubt the truth of what yout are trying to say, but.  All the best.   Boscaswell   talk  08:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that a synthesis has been done, but what I am saying is that it was done by reliable sources, including at least the Miami Herald and the New York Times. My problem is that both these publications only allow 10 page views a month; though I suppose I could lash out the 99 cents they are asking for. In the meantime, since it seems to be the general statement in the early section that people are objecting to, I suppose I could add the references from the USA section as well as some from the UK I have not used because I did not see a direct link to the PP. Elinruby (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, as for wording, shrug, I copy-edit everyone else -- if you can improve my writing without changing its meaning I am all for it Elinruby (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the "parking funds in real estate being the cause of skyrocketing house prices" is something that has been argued in those publications with reference to the Panama Papers, then it could go in. But if it's just something that has been argued without ref. to the PP, then it can't be added in, no matter how much you'd like to, as it's ruled out by SYNTH.  All the best!   Boscaswell   talk  10:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't the first two sources in the "United Kingdom" section cover this? The Guardian reference links this explicitly to MF and the PP. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 11:05, 23 April 2016 (UT
 * They do, but apparently people aren't getting there. The article is pretty long/disorganized is one thing, and not everyone is focussed on the UK for another, I think. I built this out a bit with other references and imho if anything the statement is over-cited now. On the other hand, now that section needs a rewrite...Elinruby (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Also quite a bit here
Putin's rich friends : http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56fec05fa1bb8d3c3495adf8/

Lithuania: https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/5115-lithuanian-investigators-confirm-putin-friend-s-money-flows

Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear person who decided to sort by continent
That might not be a bad idea, but I can't figure out where you have put India, which I was working on.... Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have thought Asia, but it seems not? Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, it's there now and I got my text in from the edit conflict, giving some of the named people their say. Just kinda disconcerting. Elinruby (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PS is the Middle east usually considered part of Asia? Not arguing, just wondering where the lines are around Azerbaijan and such Elinruby (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know they are considered in Asia. Hollth (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, it's a decent solution to the length of that section, even though it will result in some strangenesses like Qatar=Asia and Iran=Asia even though they are only a few miles apart. I don't have a better idea in any case and the improved navigation is worth looking up what side of the Urals some of the countries are on, I guess.Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Russia: what's the objection to mentioning sanctions for invading the Ukraine?
seems notable to me, especially if we are saying that MF was wrong to do business with other entities under international sanctions. Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * hearing none that anyone wants to speak openly, I will be editing the material back in after I address other suspicious deletions in the US section. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

DISCUSS CHANGES: drive-by wholesale deletion smells of PR sanitization
Hi there, I am reverting the huge deletions under Hillary Clinton as the material is massively referenced and Clinton herself made the Panama Papers a campaign issue issue by making lengthy holier-than-thou anti-corruption campaign statements and saying she would make sure that these things -- which she demonstrably has done and is still doing -- would never happen again. I am aware of the BLP issues -- see where I mention them repeatedly above? -- thus the amount of detail. And the lengthy, otherwise boring quotes of her speech and the NGO person saying she did nothing wrong.

With a single exception, each and every one of the statements in that section had a minimum of two references. Given the political nature of the material the editor should have had the respect to move the material here for discussion as I has done above with other people's (in contrast unsourced and apparently inaccurate) contentions above. I believe the statement that is only referenced by the Clinton Cash book is validated by the pattern of behavior, but would actually be OK with that one rather awkward quote going away.

NB: my edits to this section have consisted of fact-checking material plagiarized from reliable secondary sources and pasted into the article by someone else. The facts do in fact check out in almost every detail except as noted above. Yes, that did make the section longer. I invite the editors who WP:DONTLIKE it to address specific factual points, and remind them that the page is under administrative sanctions, see above.

You can't quote a columnist saying one politician is wrong and at the same time remove all evidence that he is not. I agree that the article is long and needs to be broken off in several places into separate articles; I asked for help with this days ago. I also agree that this may be a good place to do that, or maybe I am suggesting it, as it does not seem to have occurred to the passing deletionist as an option. We should probably have "Panama Papers and the 2016 US election" or something.

I will escalate any further cherry-picking.

I grant you that at least one of my working section titles as I rewrote the material for originality was humorous and that's not a good tone for WP; "The accessorized administrator" is probably too original a section heading ;) I was tired and rather appalled -- I actually like Clinton but even if I didn't she's a surrogate in many ways for Aemrican professional women in general like it or not. It is also however WP:UNDUE to choose the most categorical and vituperative of the assessments of Sanders' position. I don't have time to completely flesh out the spin-off article now, but I want to get to the reverts before too many other people's edits get swept up in this dispute. I'll try to get the material off into a separate space and rate address specific concerns as I go, and will, yes, be addressing the focus issue within this article. However, given BLP, it seems important to say *somewhere* that not only that Rich (to address one edit summary) could have been sentenced to 325 years but also that there was another side to his story and Bill Clinton may have had good reason for his actions.

Detail also seems necessary to document that there is, yes, more than a passing relationship with these individuals, And sure, the detail can or needs to be spun off and linked. I have not done this before -- as noted above -- and will need to look up some synatax. I welcome all helpful comments and edits. Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sections you have added are largely well referenced, but the issue is whether or not they are relevant to the discussion of the Panama Papers. Your sections seem to follow the formula of "X was mentioned in the Panama Papers. In the 1990s X had extensive dealings with the Clintons etc..." This appears as a clear example of WP:COATRACK. If you read the sections on other countries and personalities within this article you will see that the documents detailing the relationships of the BLPs to the Panama Papers are contemporaneous, relevant to the papers themselves and the subjects are the main focus of the references provided, such as "X was mentioned in the Panama Papers. X responded etc", and not repetitious rehashing of dated corruption scandals and tangential professional links. Despite apologising for the tabloidesque and teasing section headers within the article, you have also headed this section "...drive-by wholesale deletion smells of PR sanitization", repeating exactly the same reckless behaviour. If either of the Clintons or their family members were mentioned directly in any of MF's documents, this would be a different matter entirely...but they aren't. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Fascinating that the spinoff article was just nominated for deletion on exactly this rationale. Do you two know one another? If I were more paranoid I would smell paid editing. As for the article, hmm, have you read it? Contemporaneous means a period of 40 years, which covers the history you WP:DONTLIKE. Many of the country sections involve associates and family. I suggest you examine Russia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and France for a start.


 * Why is it somehow not ok for Hillary Clinton's ties to receive the same scrutiny?


 * As for the tabloidesque language, I have acknowledged that journalese creeps into my writing and invited other editors to edit instances they dislike; of course you and anyone else working on this is welcome to do the same. By the way, I stand by the header for this section however; that is *exactly* what it smells like. But my mind is current open on the subject of whether this is the case. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan section
I did a partial copy edit here for idiom and format, but was afraid to touch the second paragraph because I don't understand it. Also, I'd feel better if someone looked at my edit to ensure it represents the sources, which are all in Chinese. I don't suppose we have any chinese speakers who can help out?

Otherwise, the addition is welcome, as Taiwan certainly had not been on *my* radar. Elinruby (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

portugese interlanguage link in Trinidad and Tobago section
Don't know if anyone knows the answer to this but: the source mentions Construtora OAS SA (OAS) out of Brazil. This is somewhat important as the citizen being discussed has links to a bribery scandal there. Some background, which some of you may know and others not. It is considered best practice to wikilink potentially unfamiliar names and when they appear in a foreign-language wikipedia to use an interlanguage link, which appears as a missing page, which it is in english, followed by the country code of the wikipedia where there is in fact a page. The effect of this is to let anyone who is really interest know that there is a page in the foreign language, but this syntax also automatically converts from the red link for the english to blue when a page is created. Cuts down on maintenance for us translator folk (which is where I usually hang out on wikipedia).

So there is no wikipage anywhere for Construtora OAS, but there is a page in Portugese for Grupo OAS, which "Ela é formada pela Construtora OAS, que opera na construção civil e pesado" but doesn't have a section for it, so I try to pipe it the Grupo page to OAS in english, but that's a disambiguation page and all of its options are completely irrelevant. Therefore I just went with Grupo OAS as the proposed English page since en.wikipedia doesn't seem to mind foreign words in its article titles. The Portugese wikipedia says construtora is "Uma construtora é um tipo de empresa que se dedica à construção civil" so it seems to be a business type.... anyway, recording my doubts on this bit of translation here. I don't claim expertise in Portugese except to the extent it's a Romance language. Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

second spinoff: US as a tax haven
This is another chunk of concerns which ARE related to the Panama papers in that the RS are being created in response to the question of why there are so few Americans. And yet the statement, while important, takes many paragraphs to explain and many more to validate, since the original editor (correctly in my view) seems to have anticipated that this assessment may be contentious. It's certainly contrary to conventional wisdom in the US, but does seem to have evidence Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the content that was under "Regulatory Environment," very contentious, indeed. I removed the info in this section related to America as a tax haven.  The editor(s) that included this information referenced non-RS sources. The entire section was rife with WP:NOR violations. There are Journalists that have commented on as much since the release of the Panama Papers and would work much better here.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish you would dicuss things! What did you remove and why please? I should not have to fish through the logs to find out.Elinruby (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * there isn't much more to discuss. You moved the content to the new page almost a day before I deleted it from the Panama Papers article—note timestamp here and deleted content/timestamp here. I made some revisions to the content before deciding it was better suited to the recently discussed WP:SPINOFF. I have not made changes to that content, but stand by my original edits.
 * Also, I have been pretty consistent about providing links where needed. Not to be a jerk, but I have had to do my fair share of "fishing" around for answers to some of your, rather vague, contextually referenced edits/discussion as well (c.f., first post under current section). The information given in my first response (e.g. "Regulatory Environment," comments on why content was removed, incl. timestamp, etc.) provides more than enough detail to quickly locate my |user contributions in question.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * oh you deleted the material I moved from this article? In that case that would have been a constructive edit and thank you; I still would have appreciated a note here. If you feel my comments on the talk page lack detail, well, perhaps. Most have been met with apathy and were noted because I thought they should be. My focus has been on trying to get the breadth of the leak into the article, which still fails to cover entire countries -- Portugal, Botswana and Guinea come to mind. If you are going to edit the article also, I will try to do better, then, though I am not sure I understand the problem you had with the first paragraph here. Elinruby (talk)


 * Correct. I have read through most of your comments, but have not attempted to actively discuss because your posts can be overwhelming at times. I'd like to help more, but without clarity, the task becomes much more time consuming (as you mention in your paragraph below). I also agree with the rest of your response and appreciate the time and effort you have put into making good contributions. To clarify on the issue with the first paragarph; citing the exact section or contributor would eliminate the ambiguity of interpreting content description. Even if you don't include a permalink, signing your post gives a ref. time that allows a window to view the page in the state you described. Making things clear and concise for all editors is a two-way street.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * alright. Ya, just don't like to see good-faith work deleted, mine or anyone else's, unless it truly can't be fixed; I realize this is a philosophical debate within WP, but that is where I am on that. We are all volunteers and should respect the effort people make to contribute, especially in situations like here where we could use a few more contributions. As for my talk posts -- I'll try to strike a balance. I feel like I am talking to myself most of the time, lol Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, on thinking it over, it sounds to me like you think I don't want my deathless prose to be edited. On the contrary, please do improve it if you can. What upsets me is when I spend 18 hours or so verifying someone else's work, and that effort and the effort someone put into creating it in the first place, get flushed down the toilet by someone who hasn't taken the trouble to read the talk page or the references, ie the Clinton material. Much of the article very much has room for improvement, or could move elsewhere. I am perhaps a touch paranoid given the unhelpful substantive changes we've seen, let's say. If you think a sentence sounds like a tabloid, by all means reword it. If you want to delete something please say so and say why, is my point, k? I may well agree, actually. I amm currently tied up with the hijinks in Africa, and the Caribbean is as yet untouched. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't read into it that much. I have reviewed many of your edits and they all seem fair. I understand where you're coming from wrt the Clinton material—I wasn't sure what to do with the info and provided contributions to the talk page instead. With my deletion, it was a no-brainer, the material was included word-for-word in the forked content, met deletion criteria and was mentioned on the talk page.  I've just been getting into Africa. I have a few good leads, will contribute more as I can. The Caribbean association seems to be primarily through the British Virgin Islands.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

no comment responses
While looking for something else the other night I noticed an edit summary that said something along the lines of no comment responses being non-events. I think I disagree, While the the litany of "denies wrongdoing" and "in accordance with the law" impairs the readability of the page and "no comment" even more so, I think that it is important for BLP reasons to present whatever the people have to say about their name appearing in this context.

For instance in India -- picked simply because I was working on it and there seem to be stiff laws about sending money out of the country -- one movie star stands to lose a contract, the share price of two companies has taken a dive, and there seems to be at least one businessman named by mistake. My point is that someone who has said no comment has had a chance to present additional information, and knowing that gives a little more weight to the allegation.

Any thoughts? Looking for consensus either way, or suggestions perhaps on how to make these disclaimers more interesting. Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe consider placing a WP:ALSO sub with an internal link to a "Controversial (Developing/etc....)Topics" stub where that information can be managed without affecting the main article–at least until major evidence with WP:RS has been cited; upon review that information could migrate to the main article depending on magnitude of claims/major palyers. This might be a good segue for the inclusion of the impending data release by the ICIJ in "early May". Additionally, it might be worth including other controversial leaks (e.g. Swiss Leaks, Lux Leaks, Offshore Leaks, etc.) in the "See Also" sub.


 * I noticed someone tried to stick a large list of MF affiliates (no substantiated evidence) to the main article the other day...as with ICIJ's "Offshore Leaks Database," such content would likely require a similar banner disclaimer and reminder of WP:BLP policies. --T.FurgusonII (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Reactions to the Panama Papers needs updating to reflect edits in the main article, corral that page, remove redundancy and reorganize.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Somebody else started that and they aren't talking over here. But I just did a major reorganization of the intro and the US so it's so it's not that surprising. This one is getting close to good, but we are still missing whole countries and significant events... may take a look the next time the wiki urge takes me, tho, ya, the page is going to need some other spinofff soon also. Thank you for your thoughts Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be me. They are non-events almost by definition as it's about what did not happen. Other than that, 'no-comment' adds no new, encyclopaedic information. "I think that it is important for BLP reasons to present whatever the people have to say about their name appearing in this context." No comment means they say nothing, i.e., nothing to present. "My point is that someone who has said no comment has had a chance to present additional information, and knowing that gives a little more weight to the allegation." Another reason it should not be included: It's a round about way of casting guilt, very similar to wp:alleged it is a subtle form of POV, but POV nevertheless. We can't imply guilt for NPOV and BLP reasons. Hollth (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's still somewhat different than simply not replying, don't you think? And ok, I see your point kinda -- don't think I agree with it, but maybe I see it. But let's say fine, we remove all "no comments". When I wear other hats I am Ms Readability and with that hat on I might applaud doing so, but think of this. An allegation, quite serious in some cases depending on the country and the circumstances, is made. A journalist is ethically bound to seek out what the subject of the allegation has to say, and ok, we are not journalists, but the reason for including the no comment is to show that someone *did try* to verify the facts. If you just have the allegation, in Wikipedia's voice, what does *that* do to BLP? I don't know the answer to this either. If you can come up with a good solution I would welcome it. Elinruby (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not having no comment is less deleterious to the the persons reputation than including it, so not in violation of BLP. Hollth (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You really think so? It's what they chose to say after all. Anyone else want to express an opinion on this? Elinruby (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You've said so yourself that you believe no comment adds weight to the allegations. i.e. it attributes guilt to the party. As it is neither allegation, evidence, nor consequence, yet adds credence to being in the wrong, yes it is in clear contravention of BLP. This attribution of guilt has nothing to do with if they are or are not guilty. For instance, one could be innocent and say 'no comment' in order to not fuel to the media fire - They'd still appear more guilty by you're own admission. The statement is in no way, shape or form evidence and only adds guilt due to tricks of the mind. Hollth (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * meh. The guy who said 'I am a hard worker and I don't have to talk to you' could be just as innocent but if I understand your policy we are going to put that in. Personally, I think some BLP people will come in here screaming about this, but I am getting bored of typing those words and think it's probably also boring to read them. It also doesn't make sense for me to be bored typing it if you are going to delete it anyway. So let's try it this way. How do YOU think we should handle people's responses to press inquiries? Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to peoples responses being put in, I'm opposed to including lack of responses (X could not be contacted to comment) or responses that are 'no comment' or something that is more or less equivalent. So that example I would not include either because it also reads as being equivalent no comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

UK section -- thanks to whoever did the spinoff
It's been needing it for a while but I haven't done more there than copy-edit some early versions of the text so I did not want to do it myself. Also, I have my hands full elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the Blairmore Holdings article, it was me who did that, and you're very welcome. Thank you for the edits which you've made to the article and the United States as a tax haven and Clinton spinoffs. You've really put in a lot off effort to this article, so I can see why your hands would be pretty full at the moment! – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

bulleted list in UK section references
it's currently reference #224, but that will change as text is added. The references that seem to be un-numbered are Could someone that has been working there recently see what's up with that? Elinruby (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Eleftheriou-Smith, Loulla-Mae (April 5, 2016). "Jeremy Corbyn calls for investigation into David Cameron's family over Panama papers link". The Independent. Retrieved April 5, 2016.
 * "Panama Papers: Corbyn urges action on tax avoidance". BBC News. April 5, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2016.
 * "Panama Papers: Jeremy Corbyn calls for investigation into David Cameron's family tax affairs as Tory ex-Attorney General tells PM to come clean". The Daily Telegraph. April 5, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2016.
 * Simons, Ned (April 5, 2016). "Panama Papers Revelations Mean David Cameron Must Stop 'Pussyfooting' Around on Tax Dodging, Says Jeremy Corbyn". The Huffington Post UK. Retrieved April 5, 2016.
 * Ah yes: I think I grouped them together a while ago as there was some issues with not being enough references for a statement or whatever, but it began to look like overkill so I did a bit of citation bundling. If you think they should be separated and/or deleted, then I wouldn't oppose. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 00:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the format and just thought it was a mistake. If that's the way it's supposed to be, fine: I still have my hands full with Africa. At some point I may copy-edit over there but for now or say something about references, but for now I am just happy someone else is working on it. Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently we need to do Hillary Clinton some more #2
@VolunteerMarek deleted paragraph #2: Here I agree with you more since someone who does not understand reliable sources and (assuming good faith) was trying to help has added in a bunch of non-RS sources, indeed. However the fact that an bad source says something does not make it wrong, it just means that the source is not sufficient for inclusion of the material. I've spent enough time on that noticeboard to know that. So let me suggest that maybe here is what you should have done. Again, if I am wrong, please instruct me as you may know more about BLP than me.

"However, McClatchy Newspapers, International Business Times, The Observer and some other newspapers report that the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates have close ties to several individuals who have used Mossack Fonseca for offshore corporations, as well as donors to the political campaigns of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Is Salon not a reliable source? Is the "however" argumentative? Otherwise this is simple fact. Someone pasted the text in this section into the article from one of the Panama Papers articles by McClatchy Newpapers (one of the partners in the investigation). McClatchy is a reliable source but I rewrote and fact-checked the material. Salon is also a reliable source, perhaps a little editorial but sound in its facts. I do not see a BLP vio here; please help me. Again, WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The donations are public record. Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody's denying what these sources say, but PUBLICFIGURE does not say it's okay to make attack pages based on loose connections such as these. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "loose connections"? Her campaign manager! This is not an "attack page": it covers significant disclosures about many important events. Have you even *looked* at this article? Bah. Elinruby (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." see diff, diff


 * A similar issue was discussed here: Talk:Vladimir Putin_WP:BLP and Talk:Vladimir Putin_Panama papers. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a "loose connection" because there's no direct connection from Podesta's lobbying client to Hillary. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Salon is not a reliable source for this. Tobby72, please stop it with the false analogies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a false analogy, that's a word-for-word quote from wikipedia policy. Let's stay focused here. So... you are saying that this is a BLP violation because a paid political staff writer at Salon ---who's written for some of the more prestigious news outlets in the US, btw -- is not a reliable source? For matters of public record? Do I have that straight, that's your final answer?. Dude. Elinruby (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently we need to do Hillary Clinton some more #3
@VolunteerMarek Meanwhile third deleted paragraph -- I would also like the BLP violation here explained to me:

"John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and Bill Clinton's chief of staff when he was president, also has at least one client through his lobbying firm that is mentioned in the Panama Papers. Sberbank is seeking to have the US Treasury lift sanctions that were imposed on it after the invasion of the Ukraine."
 * is John Podesta not the chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign?
 * was he not Bill Clinton's chief of staff?
 * (and incidentally this makes it likely that he would be as important or more in any Clinton presidency, so this is notable, no?)


 * is it untrue that he is a lobbyist for Sberbank?
 * are they not under sanction by the US Treasury?
 * did Russia not invade the Ukraine?
 * the sources -- Salon, Forbes -- did they become non-RS while I wasn't looking? Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we know that Podesta knew that he had a client involved with Mossack Fonseca? Did Clinton know that Podesta had a client involved with Mossack Fonseca? We're not playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the Clinton response, and a lot of people who aren't familiar with these arrangements buy into it. Read the material then come comment. Go talk to the prime minister of Pakistan. It's a sad day when people wikilawyer to suppress information. Elinruby (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly I don't have the Prime Minister of Pakistan on speed dial, and even if I did, what he told me would be WP:OR. We have these policies for a reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

'''Another dude. Look, you can't bro me, people.'''
 * You're just driving home my point -- you haven't looked at the article, at all, have you.
 * All you had to do was read the article section labeled with his name, helpfully filed under "Pakistan"
 * but no....
 * look, we're working here. If you aren't going to edit constructively, fine - I can't make you.
 * but I am asking you, for the second time now, very nicely this time, to stop cluttering up a post that is trying to ask a serious question and maybe get an answer from someone who actually *does* know what they are talking about.

THANKS so much.... Elinruby (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently we need to do Hillary Clinton some more #1
@VolunteerMarek ;) my favorite deletionist. Given my respect for you and our prior cordial relations I actually went and re-read the BLP policy. Nowhere in it do I find anything that precludes quoting Hillary Clinton, or that she and she alone gets to have associates who are in the Panama Papers but out of some sort of ... I don't know what to call it ...it's a policy violation to NOT* include her. Honestly, seriously, if I am missing something here, please instruct me.


 * starred text erroneously omitted in first version

WP:PUBLICFIGURE, dude. For example: "Former Secretary of State and Democratic Presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton condemned "outrageous tax havens and loopholes...in Panama and elsewhere". at a Pennsylvania AFL–CIO event. Clinton added that "some of this behavior is clearly against the law, and everyone who violates the law anywhere should be held accountable", but it was "scandalous how much is actually legal". Clinton promised that "We are going after all these scams and make sure everyone pays their fair share here in America."


 * what's wrong with that? She's a presidential candidate making a campaign speech at a public event. CBS News, is that not a reliable source? International Business Times, that one I am less sure whether there has been a ruling ever, but it correlates exactly with CBS News. Why did you delete this?


 * actually scratch IBT -- this thing has apparently been messed with so much the references are scrambled. That ref belongs elsewhere if we use it at all. But does it not stand with the CBS reference? The standard is one statement one reference, no? That speech is not at all controversial I suppose others can be found, since two is not enough apparently, because Hillary :) 00:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Articles for deletion/Clinton donors in the Panama Papers tells you all you need to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * not really...there's a lot of handwaving and clearly "like, no reliable sources" going on there, lol, by a bunch of people who haven't read the article and don't know enough about an RS to recognize one when it bites them. I need someone to explain to me why I can say that someone is looting an African treasury, but it's not ok to say that Hillary Clinton made a speech. For realz.Elinruby (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing all of the comments about WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, and WP:POVFORK then. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's try to focus on the topic -- the paragraph. If you want to talk about the AfD start your own section. But a)it's not synth since I didn't synth it b)if it's coatrack so is the entire PP article and c) if you had troubled to read the comments above you'd know the major factor for the article was the length of the section here and furthermore d) the article was still in progress, and was carefully sourced. But whatever, keep telling yourself that stuff ;)


 * At the moment I just want to know if we are allowed to sully the name of Hillary Clinton my mentioning it, here, in any way.Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this again, it's more of an issue of DUE WEIGHT. How much space do we want to devote to it and is it really relevant? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How can it be undue weight when the article was *about* who in the Panama Papers is associated with Hillary Clinton? It was spun off because it was longer than the other sections, ok that was undue weight until they caught up, maybe, so the solution to undue can't be undue. It was longer than the other sections not because I lurk on Wikipedia trying to make Hillary look bad, geez, but because we had to address the plagiarized material, and I was ALL set to delete it, inclusionist as I am, except it turned out to be true, give or take a couple of things apparently lost in trnslation, which i did delete, So rewrote it after I verified it.


 * We've since spun off another article on David Cameron's shell campany, and we'll have more soon on, huh, Russia can Azerbaijan probably, maybe China or conflict minerals or the data mining and project aspects of this, which are also groundbreaking and don't fit the current format...they're needed, anyway.


 * OF COURSE IT MATTERS. You're joking, right? Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there doesn't appear to be anything tying Hillary to these shell companies, and there's nothing illegal or unethical about receiving campaign donations from people who do have them, I don't see any point in including it except for the specific outcome of slinging mud at Hillary and seeing if any of it sticks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You're embarrassing yourself. You really need to either read the material so you can comment intelligently, or go away. Third request. Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So now you're refactoring other peoples talk page comments? Bad form, just like your POV pushing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

dear person who keeps putting "also known as" various other names in the lede
the reason I have been removing it is
 * a) where is it known as this? Cause I find it surprising and I have done a LOT of research on this topic. I am not saying to footnote it though, because my MAIN objective to cluttering up the first sentence in the article with that discussion is
 * b) readability. I do realize that Panamanians and perhaps other groups very much dislike the name and THAT would be good for a sentence or two, maybe even its own little section, and there, yes, we's need some sources for this.

But please. That's not the most important thing going on in this article, come on now :) I am gonna take it out of the first sentence again, but please do explain this to me, Is this happening in some other language and that's why I don't see it? Elinruby (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking -- is your concern that someone will type in one of the other names and not find it? If so maybe a redirect? Elinruby (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mossack Fonseca Papers already redirects to this article, so I don't think that should be too much of an issue. But there should definitely be a (very) brief mention of the Panamanian response to the name "Panama Papers". – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * sorry, got sidetracked into trying to write about Azerbaijan: (the dictators's daughter: a gold digger for the ages!) without being sarcastic.


 * The alternate name is going in, at least in *my* proposed rewrite. Someone else may have something to say. I may not finish my lede rewrite right now as I am getting tired and typo-ish. So -- planning to leave the lede someplace stable and presentable. I have your clause and references copied off into a document.-- ok, apparently some people do call it that, maybe out of sympathy for the Panamanians?


 * In any event I should probably try to seek consensus about a lede change, even if the rest of you are usually pretty taciturn :)

After that what's there now, in negotiable order. I dunno if you saw that I left a lengthy comment when I moved the big third paragraoh lower? It was talking about the hack so I put that moved text into the leak section. The part about wanting to make these crimes public show go in the lede. The sections around here all could use work, mumble, but it occurs to me that the important thing about some of these clients is that so many of them were both billionaire and on some sanctions list and should have been flagged as a politically exposed person. There's quotes out th ntout what a bad idea this was. Law professors I think; It's would be important that sources be reliable.

then there are important points that make this important from a journalism history point of view:biggest team, biggest data dump, the graphic designer had interesting things to say about the website. It's the first remote collaboration in journalism, well at least of this size anyway. Its also the first leak where none of people went to jail afaik, all the way to the pentagon papers. That's pretty notable and maybe shou;d be its own page really and unless somone else around here is inspired to make a start ==in which case hurrah and it's also the first use of datamining tools on a project this big afaik == meanwhile, Iwe do need a narrative of how they got tha work done All the stuff about Solr and Blacklight to the software article. Meanwhike I keep thinko glossary would be nice for terms like AML and FATCA, possibly with the clients section since when you look at it we have two categories there, clients who were politically exposed or under sanction, and then the backdating and I'll pretend to be you service -- that woman is not at all notable except in that she is in the documents discussing this.


 * By the way that Reaction in Panama article is a little betterbut still needs lots of help if anyone is feeling brave. For instance, towards the end there is a man who want us to know that he is Panamanian and his company is not a holding company. Great but who is he? I don't know, wikipedia doesn't know and google doesn't know either as far as I can tell. Is he like, a random man in the street machine-translated out of one on the articles or something.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, is anyone wants to discuss them or do some of them ot whatever. Peace out, eyes crossing Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)