Talk:Panama Papers/Archive 5

Todo: Request for help/What needs to be done
The article is getting unwieldy, which is probably inevitable given that there are 100 different publications, many that I know to be considered RS, who are following breaking news on the subject. I have just spent several days on this, and need to do other things now, though I may be able to come back in briefly here and there.But here are several areas where the article is clearly inadequate in my view; feel free to add your own if you like. I'll try to add in some sources too -- please do the same if you add an issue.


 * several instances where corruption was an established fact and the Panama Papers reveal that matters are in fact worse than that, but Wikipedia does not seem to have addressed at all in the past, perhaps because they seem remote or are unknown to English speakers. For example there is no article for Albania's something something of Compulsory Enforcement, yet it's apparently a really big deal that this man is involved, and he has resigned, citing a war with Azerbaijan that may or may not be related to the PP.


 * Some sections should be split off imho into a main article and a summary here. Iceland and United Kingdom may be long enough for this, not sure. This is a wikitask I have not done before.
 * somebody split an article off from the UK; Iceland still a candidate imho. Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone mentioned above, many donors to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. If we are going to include the $2 billion that went from Russian national banks to friends of Vladimir Putin (and I think we should) then this should be included as the scale may actually be larger.
 * Somebody has pasted in big chunks of the McClatchy article. No. Even if it's RS and attributed, the writing has to be original or in quotes, and we now have a loooooong Clinton section hanging on one really good source and a few others, vs a shorter Russia article with sources from here to kingdom come. Since there are also some cut and paste errors, notably missing verbs, I'll start there and see if I can move this in the right direction.Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a rewrite, removed some potentially libelous statement I could not verify, and added references. See lengthy section of notes below. Section was spun off into its own article because of length, then instantly AfDed as a BLP, quite wrongly in my opinion. Clinton is the epitome of a public figure and the all statements were backed by RS. Possibly lack of context played a part; it was clear that many of the delete votes hadn't looked at the main article and were not familiar with standard money-laundering investigations. (This is not criticism; neither was I before I took a deep dive into this article.) Anyway, shocking as it may be to the US, Clinton is not the big news here and the fact that this material is missing is not its biggest problem, although it *is* a problem that should eventually be addressed.Elinruby (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am deferring wikilitigation on the topic for now. What time I have is better spent elsewhere. However I should note that the article is now pretty incoherent on the subject of the US response, and the moves have meant that the attention given the proposed legislation is probably undue. A lot of legislation is proposed. Did it ever make it out of committee?Elinruby (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * in Brazil ongoing investigations into corruption have received new evidence through the PP. The impeachment of the President is complicated by mentions of the politicians who would succeed her in the PP.
 * I have put a little work in here, but the material is confusing with many previous scandals being reinvestigated. This may account for someone's possibly-BLP deletion of exculpatory material. The president is accused of corruption and the accusations have fueled impeachment proceedings even though she is not involved. Seems important, yanno, impeachment, not involved? In defense of the deleter (don't remember who it was, but it was someone who edits here in good faith) Wikipedia sucks as a place to work on draft material and this was probably very poorly explained.Elinruby (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Article mentions one Brazilian politician who has bought luxury real estate, which is probably unfairly singling him out given that just one article in the Miami Herald's series on real estate being used for money laundering mentions six or seven, and quite a few more are mentioned in a January 2016 New York Times series; is the difference that he is mentioned in PP? Are these other people in previous reporting? I have burned through my ten articles for the month on both publications.
 * Issues of weight and BLP remain, since only one of many participants is mentioned. We really need a Portugese speaker. The money-laundering aspect became its own article, which has passed review and needs improvement. Various mentions of this issue remain scattered through the main article and now seem out of context. Possibly should be moved there, if not re-written as summary. Elinruby (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The use of real state for money laundering has triggered regulatory changes. I have previously seen many articles about this in the San Francisco area, though I have not mentioned these here as I do not know of them through the PP. There is also the previous coverage. Are the changes due to PP? Dunno. Certainly notable if so.
 * This is certainly related to money-laundering based on my reading since. I have found it very difficult to edit on this topic because a lot the pre-PP coverage of the issue is behind a paywall, in particular the lengthy special sections in the New York Times and Miami Herald. Quite likely there is a tie to the PP -- if it's so prevalent would MF clients not be included? However, most of the Miami investors seem to have come from South America, and there is a language issue there...There were many ICIJ partners in South and Central America and my Spanish is not up to attempting translation, especially on such technical and explosive material.Elinruby (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the daughters of the president of Azerbaijan were known to hold mining interests through overseas companies, but PP demonstrate (I think, lots of material I did not finish looking at) that as opposed to 10% of one of the four companies, it's actually a controlling interest.
 * I did some work here, which is still incomplete and probably difficult to follow. This should be its own article and is one of several sections that would really really really benefit from an organizational chart to illustrate the use of subsidiaries.Elinruby (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * lack of due diligence on the part of MF with respect to screening clients; they say this extends to the referring banks and may be right. I have barely started with this in the Investigations section.


 * Article does not have a Syria section but the cousin of al-Assad, said to control 60% of the economy and under US sanctions, was a PP client.
 * Someone has done some work here -- thank you whoever you are -- and the section exists now and seems to hit the high points, at least as far as I know them. Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Article does not address the revelations in Uganda.
 * I did this and am reasonably happy with the section as a summary although it could probably use an illustration and/or re-write for clarity.Elinruby (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone added a picture of a man from Senegal, which presumably they thought was part of this, but article does not mention how
 * this is done.Elinruby (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Many mentions of business people in India in PP, article does not list them all or report the responses of those it does.
 * I got the responses in so this is taken care unless we are missing someone important. But these are the people Indian media seem to be highlighting Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Much the same is true of Pakistan


 * The OECD, the G20 and the European Union are making regulatory changes due to PP, which is clearly important -- I somewhat covered this but this needs to be fleshed out and updated.


 * King of Morocco clearly notable but only mentioned in passing


 * UAE ditto

That's enough to be going on with, no? Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that main article on FIFA makes no mention of any of the bribery scandals and seems to stop in 2011 Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)g


 * I agree, generally-speaking, . I don't have the time, either, sadly.  I've already pointed out at least two other things why need attending to, higher up on this Talk page, and they're still outstanding.  In the week after the news broke, I spent hour after hour on this article, to the detriment of the rest of my life. ;-)
 * While the Clinton donors point is a good one, beware of SYNTH. I think also that others you have raised may fall foul of that.  The FIFA stuff?  When does something related become something that should be in this article?
 * There is truly a vast amount to do here, the subject is massive and growing daily. It is important, but if you look at the viewing stats, they're not as high as you might imagine. What to do, what to do...  I don't know the answer.   Boscaswell   talk  08:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * shrug, I will keep chipping at it I guess, but any help with the above would be appreciated. The FIFA stuff that is in the article (under FIFA) right now is background to this and should be moved to the FIFA page I think -- as far as PP is concerned the point is that some of the people involved used MF to pay the bribes. I was trying to establish background/understand the thing myself but there is so much and the article is so bloated....as for Clinton, the danger I see is that the usual suspects (Daily Caller etc) are all over this and most US media are either afraid of helping Trump get elected or just not able to do the sort of research required to verify this stuff. As for SYNTH, well, perhaps and I'll try to address it if you get specific, but I have invested the big chunk of time that I had and now will have to work in a more scattershot fashion. Elinruby (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

 * I removed the statement that Goldman Sachs paid Clinton $675,000 after she became Secretary of State. The google-translated SZ article does seem to say this, but I am pretty sure this happened after she *left* office, which is contentious enough. This must be a bad translation. If it is indeed correct, I'll find a better source while I am fact-checking the rest of this -- it was a really big deal in the news at the time. If nothing else, I am pretty sure there is an English version of this article. Oh and it was $675,000 for three speeches, not one, amended sentence to show that. Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * removed text:'After two meetings with Jean-Raymond Boulle, Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, signed legislation allowing his company to engage in exploratory mining in the state. Later, Boulle and his wife attended Clinton's first inauguration. Boulle is the founder of Diamond Fields Resources, which was purchased by Inco for $4.3 billion, Diamond Fields International, Ltd., America Mineral Fields, Inc., and Titanium Resources Group, Ltd. Boulle was listed as a director of Auk Ltd., a British Virgin Islands offshore company, and Gridco Ltd., a Bahamas offshore company. '
 * cited reference gives this as an example of an appropriate relationship. There may be, based on a quick google, a tie to conflict diamonds in Sierre Leone, but as of now there is no there there and this should at a minimum not be the first example of ties to the PP. Elinruby (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Found a good place for this, moving it back -- it's still a link to PP Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Author of Clinton Cash works for Breitbart, which raises a RS question in my mind. However Bloomberg uses the words "fact-based" and the Clinton Foundation did admit it made some mistakes in its disclosures subsequent to publication, so I have not reached an opinion. See hereElinruby (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * the 'war on women' book is also a bit dubious; one author is chair of a county Republican party and the other worked for the Donald Trump campaign; both have reputations for bizarre antics. I am not saying that everything in it them a lie but both these books are not objective academic histories and should be used only as someone's version and carefully examined for slant. In particular, I am unable to find a different source for the statement that Renaissance Capital has ties to the Russian government, and I looked pretty hard. Best I found was government official attending workshops there; but usually when we say this we mean something more like Putin controls the the thing. Deleting THAT bit for now, unless I come across documentation for it. Elinruby (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * came across this while doing something else -- seems to indicate the statement is wrong: http://www.dw.com/en/rubles-will-roll-kremlin-goes-after-business-assets/a-19208047 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)


 * removed text: "has given to Bill and Hillary Clinton's campaigns previously" from the part about Chagoury in Hillary Clinton. This would be illegal since he is not a US person. Presumably he donated to a PAC or through a relative, or made it legal in some way, but article did not say that and the reference source has the same problem. BLP, need lots'o'citations to say that, assuming it's even correct Elinruby (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton section is a joke. Even if all of it is 100% accurate, right now is impossible to understand what is relevant. All the section names are highly unencyclopedic too. I strongly suggest to copy the current text into the subarticle (maybe even create a separate article on US-only reactions) and greatly shorten that subsection to <1/2 of the current size. That way someone actually curious about the subject can get an idea of what is happening. Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This section is largely tangential, passing Panama mentions are being used as a hook to detail Clinton's various professional relationships. Either put the text back into the subjects articles or create a separate article. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. I mentioned something similar ("no comment responses section" of this talk page) in response to .  I think this option is definitely worth considering and acting on before traffic picks up with the next major release.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad this was removed. It was coatracking at best... I'm not Hildawg fan, but it seemed like a thinly veiled attempt to cast a negative light on her by making some major stretches.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree, since the material.... eh. I don't have time for this. You are of course entitled to form an opinion based on whatever you like, including nothing whatsoever, not even the rest of *this* page. Keep telling yourself that. Elinruby (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

images --pls check for copyright
I seem to have seen some of these elsewhere Elinruby (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * the volcano pic is credited to wikimedia, that one should be ok Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wade pic also has a Wikimedia page Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SAE picture is from Wikimedia. Possibly the familiarity is just that news outlets are using Wikimedia pictures. Should still all be verified just so we can say we have done it. Elinruby (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

$150 billion missing from Nigerian Treasury 20 billion from the petroleum ministry etc
A lot of the arrests and scandals from 2015 and earlier are being moved into non-PP pages, nobody get excited. I was going to spin off a History of Nigerian Corruption, but the page already exists, ha. Doing this now; thought I would mention this in case someone is worried about BLP around here :P Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * everything currently in the Nigeria section has a tie to PP afaik. Earlier scandals moved to biography pages, some of which I also edited for idiom and peacock. Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

that banner about Vladimir Putin
we use that when we translate from other wikipedias, as the rules about attribution and such vary quite a bit. I am not sure is properly applied here. Can someone tell me why it is there and what part of the section it is referring to? I need a break from Africa and was thinking of doing a Putin spinoff. The text that is there, assuming it is still substantially what I wrote, really compresses some explanations about why people are attributing ownership to Putin, but I wrote it back when we were still envisioning this article as a sort of annotated list. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

changes in India section
Unable to determine in time available whether these changes are vandalism or a genuine update based on new information. This is the first section in the India section. One reason for the suspicion is that despite a number of changes, the references are the same. I tried to reverted the change and wad noting it here for someone to verify. However WP told me there were too many intermediate pages and this would have to be corrected manually. I can't right now.

was:


 * Also listed are real estate developer and DLF CEO Kushal Pal Singh, Sameer Gehlaut of the Indiabulls group, and Gautam Adani's elder brother Vinod Adani.

became:


 * Also listed are real estate developer and DLF CEO Harmeet Singh Walia, Mohammad Rafay of the Indiabulls group, and Prianka Chandra's elder sister Poloumi Roy.

Was thinking I should address this but someone has done it. Thanks whoever you are. Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

public service announcement: what is an HTML comment
For those who may need to know this, if you put after it, it will not appear in the article. This is good for talking to other people working on the thing, and I have done this in a couple of places where something needs to be checked or rewritten or whatever....yes it makes it hard to read the code. I initially was indenting but somebody kept undoing it for some reason so I stopped. Anyway, I am trying to get some organization into the material and I will deal with these as I come to the sections they are in. Right now I am way up top. If you want to delete these, I understand but please first do whatever checking or editing is indicated at the beginning of the comment. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh/Pakistan
°Someone deleted some text a while back from the Bangladesh section saying that the names that were there were from a previous leak, wissleaks or something. For all I know he/she was right; all I can find is statements that the government is investigating some names (so apparently there are some?). So, concern 1) BLP, absolutely if those people have already gone through a round of publicity and aren't involved, they should not be in the article, and that's probably the most important consideration. However, we also are naming people who are merely being investigated at this point all over the rest of the map, so.... I am back as I still can't sleep but I am not up for this; I think I will head in West Africa where French will do some good and there have been a torrent of MF shell companies associated with bribes and mining concerns and other fun stuff.But if anyone feels like researching something, there's one think that needs to be figured out.

Meanwhile, I saw a change go by a couple of days ago that inserted a reference into Pakistan to the effect that the Prime Minister's name had been removed from the Panama Papers. I couldn't find it when I went looking for it so maybe one of you already got it, and if so hurray. But just in case anyone needs to know this, quite a few RS-sounding media in Pakistan are carrying stories to this effect (Radio Pakistan is one I think) but it ain't so. I actually went and looked today. Of course, he was only ever mentioned as a relative of his children, who are notable because of him, not as someone personally mentioned, but there you go.Elinruby (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I deleted the info from the Bangladesh section. The names that were there were from a previous leak.  I searched through many Bangladesh news articles trying to trace the source of the original report.  Essentially what I found was that one parrot-article said 32 people and 2 companies (something like that) were involved.  Following the leads, I never found anything in any of the articles that suggested such a thing.  The particular source in question cited the 2013 Offshore Leaks database posted on ICIJ's webpage before PP was even released.  I cross-ref'd the names included in the source with the ICIJ db confirming they were implicated in earlier years and not PP as describe prior to my edit. Bangladesh officials said they would launch an investigation but never mentioned anything about anyone in particular–this is more of a comment suggesting they are beginning the discovery phase of legal procedures and not suggesting that they know anything in particular (see current links attributed to that section for evidence). The ICIJ recently (26 April 2016) announced they would release info (9 May 2016 @ 2 pm DBT, (1800 UTC)) on the 200,000+ companies from PP along with 100,000+ companies from the Offshore Leaks, so there might be relevance, though I think information about those 32 people would be better suited in a Bangladesh section on the offshore leaks.  That is, the ICIJ will be adding the 200,000+ names from PP to the current Offshore leaks database, best to separate the events now. The Offshore Leaks article needs some serious work by the way, I just don't have the time right now. Starting to think PP needs a WikiProject soon.--T.FurgusonII (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought I saw a more South-Asian sounding name, didn't think it was one of the people talking here. But, ok, if you say so. Sounds like you tried even harder than I did -- and I did make a pretty good effort here and there over the last few days -- and that is also what I found, nada. I guess it's possible. I was just looking at an RS-looking article about how nobody from Tanzania has been mentioned yet. As for another article -- definitely busy trying to deal with this one, and its attendant changes. And I agree we need help. A Chinese and a Spanish speaker would be awesome about now for a start. Not to mention bodies. But before we put this topic to bed, what do you make of the one reference in the Bangladesh section? It's in a South Asian language -- I am too ignorant to guess which. Accept as RS for the moment?Elinruby (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I found that other name. He was the one who put in the bit about Sharif's name being removed, but that's already gone now so it's moot. Re-pinging you because this is resolved except for the one question about the reference. Should we assume its RS? I am assuming that you are not the one who put it there? Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So sorry it has taken me a while to respond. I had something typed up, but received an error that delayed the post. Anyway, here is the response from the other day that did not get posted.


 * Yeah, checked again just to make sure ICIJ hadn't migrated PP information early to the Offshore Leaks (OL) database. Following the Link again, the disclaimer pop-up reads;


 * The statement that follows:


 * After accepting terms and conditions, a new header appears above the search bar;


 * Because "The database contains ownership information about companies created in 10 offshore jurisdictions including the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands and Singapore. It covers nearly 30 years until 2010." And given the span of the PP leaks (1970's to 2015), I take the series of messages to mean that there is no information included on the PP within the OL db until March 9.


 * The second reference at the end of the Bangladesh page, is in Bangali. I accidentally cited the Bengali page through an omission of the 'en.' prefix. The English version appears to be the first report on the server, assuming English and Bengali corresp. are working on the same clock.  The English version (www.en..... prefix) has more information, but the names listed are the same. Might want to review the links if you have time however.  In the meantime, I will fix the broken link.  The English version appears to be posted first; unless the site is operating on servers with two different clock settings (Eng. v Beng) than the second, I would link the corrected Bengali mirror for clarification with those who actually speak the language. Though, both are technically incorrect and not RS worthy. Limited on time at the moment. If this is about the BDObserver link, I would consider that RS as they cite they Bangladesh National News group (can't remember actual name atm), though from what I remember, no outstanding claims were made. Any further questions, feel free to ping me. --T.FurgusonII (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * no worries about time to answer, I myself am just coming back in after spending some time dealing with keeping RL more or less functioning and doing something about my sleep deficit. I did not quite follow everything you said above but I anticipate that your answer may be of interest to anyone who wants to work on the section after the new disclosures come out. It sounds like you said that there is an English version of the story (which is wrong on the names, in both languages? but it's still there as a reference for the quote for the government? Is that what you said?) Anyway, English is better so thank you. There is no actual problem with a foreign-language source (I am linking to plenty of French-language references in Africa that don't seem to have an English version) and the WP policy, which I learned through lo these many keystrokes on the noticeboard, is that the source must be verifiable, but is not required to be easily verifiable if the fact is really that obscure. I just questioned this one because of some recent dubious edits in the India section. I realize these are different countries ;) but there is a lot of history and strong feeling in both that I don't know about. Thank you for your work on this. Elinruby (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you on the sleep debt. Correct on the English version. The linked sites are not sensitive to anything except the unique numerical identifier at the end of the URL. The prefix preceding the 'www.' (as with wikik) contributors to publications in alternate languages. What I was getting at is that both JagonNews24 articles (regardless of posted languages) site people assoc. with the Offshore Leaks of 2013. This is 'not' the same as the Panama Papers leak. While the persons/affiliates of the Offshore Leaks likely have connections to the Panama Papers leaks–as seen with some of the low-profile incarcerated tax-evading Americans, I think that this info rightfully belongs in the OL article. Reading court docket entries in the US, proceeds are defined as they occur, under a particular case, they might be filed under separate judicial hearings dependent on the allegations, but, for example, theft of a car in 2014 is not theft of a car in 2015 and so two separate entries are defined. Unless circumstantial evidence arises that links the two crimes, they are still considered separate entities. In fact, to my [limited knowledge of the law—do correct me if I'm wrong], separation of crimes is allowed in order for one to clear ones name, then regardless of admission of guilt, community service, jail time, etc. crimes committed in the past do not contribute to the sentencing of a newer crime unless of the same class and equal weight and even then, time served, community service only serves as a guideline for future distribution of punishment when evaluating ones character.  A bit off topic, but I hope that helps paint a better picture of the point I am trying to get across.  For the sake of the combined databases, I'm guessing the Offshore leaks serves as an allegory to repeat offenders, and thus illustrate the major flaws in the system and a means to aid in the resolution of the problem.
 * I typically write my journal articles in ACS (American Chemical Society) science-citation format that includes many foreign references, esp. 18th to 19th c. German texts like 'Handbuch der anorganischen Chemie,' 'Angewandte Chemie,' or the French, 'Traité élémentaire de chimie.' The main convention is to cite the journal/article/whatever in it's original text, then include a subsequent translated version. ACS style, pp. 299. It appears APA follows similar form. I was also always taught to include a reference to the source of translation for any discrepancies between translation "machines" as well. Comes in handy so that one's automatic translation isn't ruled as the ultimate authority and gives native speakers the chance to translate more appropriately. What is verifiable about the cited Bangladesh article, might be reduced to my commentary, given the examples above and that these names are not sourced from the Panama Papers. Indeed, they were sourced, but by a reliable source? I think not.  Might be worth leaving until May 9. Time will tell. Only opted to leave, because, as you mention, I don't know the full story nor the dynamics of those involved, thus better left to the people of Bangladesh to decide.  Curious to get back into other sections over the next week or so. --T.FurgusonII (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, lots to do, your help welcome. So lets see. I agree with your primary point, that offshore leaks is not panama papers and we should only mention names that are in the papers (and I have BLP doubts about some of those). It does also seem to me that if a newspaper makes a mistake like that it is probably not a reliable source, yeah. Good point. Wikipedia frowns on google translate -- I have seen many articles in the translation cleanup section that would have been far easier to translate than to fix after a machine translation. If you need any other convincing, someone google-translated a German article that was part of PP and it said that Hillary Clinton had gotten paid for speeches while secretary of state, which I am pretty sure she did not and is potentially libelous. I am pretty sure that was a translation error -- any journalist would have checked that. However we need something -- there's a whole something in Romania I can't figure out for example. Incidentally I posted on the Spanish-language and Portugese-language Panama Papers talk pages asking for help. Crickets so far -- they are probably struggling just as hard as we are to keep up. Maybe  someone could check for English versions at some point. I need to revise mine because i did not initially know that I was supposed to put in language=French. But I really wanna deal with Putin and conflict diamonds first. And ya, Bangladesh is probably going to be for May 9 by default, though I may look for a reference for the quote that didn't make that mistake... low priority though imho Elinruby (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

John Doe's Manifesto (Or: Apparently we need to do Hillary Clinton some more #4)
"And while it’s one thing to extol the virtues of government transparency at summits and in sound bites, it’s quite another to actually implement it. It is an open secret that in the United States, elected representatives spend the majority of their time fundraising. Tax evasion cannot possibly be fixed while elected officials are pleading for money from the very elites who have the strongest incentives to avoid taxes relative to any other segment of the population. These unsavoury political practices have come full circle and they are irreconcilable. Reform of America’s broken campaign finance system cannot wait."
 * http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/572c897a5632a39742ed34ef/ --79.223.29.95 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am adding a link to the full text on the ICIJ site. I haven't read it yet but it's clearly material. I might be down to quote from it at greater length, but that gets us into the length of the lede again. Let me know. We could give him his own section but we don't know anything about him and you KNOW someone say it's POV pushing, lol. For now the link at least. Elinruby (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Censorship concerns
Elinruby, I am very confused about this comment that you made in the edit history: "ce to avoid repeating illegal and to make WP legal team happier about this article. Also clarified Koidu". If you could provide a link for your fellow editors that states that Wikipedia's legal team is concerned about this article that would be great. If Wikipedia's legal team is concerned about this article that is of great concern to your fellow editors, but perhaps you were only joking. Guest2625 (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I was referring to in a shorthand (and kinda joking, yes) manner to the BLP violation concerns everyone who has contributed here has expressed. Many of the people mentioned in the article have made statements to they effect that they have done nothing wrong and their business dealings are entirely legal. Some of them are correct most likely -- the Canadians who used holding companies to buy real estate in Central America come to mind -- although it depends of course on one's definition of "wrong" and on which set of laws are being considered. My intention in that edit is to get the point across very early on in the article that not everyone mentioned further on has done something criminal or even unusual. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * oh wait if Koidu is in the same edit it's in Sierra Leone. I'll look in a moment but in that case, see above, but it's not early in the article. However, the Sierra Leone section deals with a litigious billionaire diamond merchant who doesn't pay his taxes, see concerns above. Lo these many articles have been written in the past month saying that tax avoidance is legal; however this man seems to take things to a new level. I'll go look at the actual edit to be sure, but YEAH I am pretty sure the WP legal team would appreciate care in such matters. No, they have not been in touch.Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * oh yeah I used him up top as an example of possibly legal but ethically questionable behavior. However the sentence introducing him had several occurrences different forms of "illegal" so I changed "show illegality" to "show anything but prudent financial management," that's all. The man has done pretty similar things all over Africa and I don't understand why he's not in jail, but this is an opinion, we don't have the rest of the shenanigans written up anywhere, and when telling the story as Wikipedia we are required to be neutral and fact-based, even to the level of word choice. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

database goes live at 2pm east coast time. (9am Greenwich I think?)
Anything we really need to work on before then? Elinruby (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede re-write semi-done, please look/comment
It's mostly negotiable, but isn't it cleaner and easier to read? The next section could be fleshed out a bit with some of that x heads of state, y cousins of heads of state, z prime ministers stuff if y'all want, but I'd rather take that further down the page: a) its hard to read and b)we're almost certain to get some of the numbers wrong plus c)they will require constant updating -- do you think they are important enough to sign up for that?

Anyway, asking for input; please share your thoughts Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed my mind about putting some numbers in here but I had to stop before I got to the section where they are now. Still plan to do this unless someone objects. Peace out, need a break, back later today sometime. Elinruby (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a comment about this? I do think it's notable that dozens of politicians are involved; just trying to work out how to convey the scale without inserting a list. I was thinking of making this the last paragraph under disclosures.Elinruby (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw your change and think your sentence does a good job of the getting rid of the list feel, a lot of it anyway. But between that and the new John Doe stuff the lede is too long again and it seems to me we have to have John Doe in the lede. Look who considers this story important: Journalism. And no leaker, no journalism, so he's really important (and doesn't have anyplace else to go. Anyway, I am going to leave it alone for a while; take a look and see what you think. what's there is my current best attempt.Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! And personally, the lead looks great to me right now; you've done a great job in editing this article  – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 12:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Zumoarirodoka thanks for joining the discussion about the lead. The lead will obviously be made better if more of us participate in editing it. And Elinruby I also think you have done a great job editing the article; however, I do not completely agree on the content of the lead. Above I'll work with you and the other editors to make a great article. And of course a wikipedia article cannot be balanced if only one editor writes it. This by its very nature will lead to a biased article. Guest2625 ([[User


 * ok, great. You are now in the discussion thread about the lede. Please use your words to tell me what you think should change. Zumoarirodoka usually here at least once a day. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

MF cease and desist order
I just found this May 5th news item buried in a bunch of client statistics in the MF section. I believe that since it's an update, it should be higher, but I don't know where to put it. Ignoring for now as I am still working on another section Elinruby (talk)

On closer inspection I discovered that this is not news; the article was dated April 5th not May 5th. I put the paragraph next to where ICIJ was saying they were going to release the database, which is what MF was protesting, that announcement. But this is done. Elinruby (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

maybe i am overthinking this
but isn't anything in the client files attorney-client information by definition? Not really more precise. As for severity, note that one category of documents being withheld is identity...just saying. It's a minor point, but I think you're kinda wrong, sir ;)... Not gonna worry about it right now though....Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Elinruby, I'm confused as to whom you are talking to when you state above that "It's a minor point, but I think you're kinda wrong, sir ;)" Sorry if I'm rude, but your conversing style on the talk page is very hard to follow. Guest2625 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't remember that user's username and I meant to paste in a ping. It's a quibble over someone else's minor change to the lead. I'll get back to him on that. I don't have much of an issue either way. I have a bigger one with your HUUUUGE change. a) yes, my lede does address why the story is important from several aspects. b) the last time I went and got an administrator to revert you you were told to discuss on the talk page -- this means you allow time for people to respond.


 * I've been in and out of this page all night and just saw this comment. I think you are a little unclear on "discuss". What about people who are asleep? At work? I allowed three days before making a change and YOU sir were still telling me I had to discuss! I am reverting you again and will go get another administrator if need be. Meanwhile look at the bottom of the page. This is a JOURNALISM story and you just took all the journalism out of the lead... this isn't pride of authorship talking ;) I actually wrote most of the other one as well. That said, I see you have made a few smaller changes else where, which I applaud in concept; I haven't looked at them yet.Elinruby (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do get an administrator over to this article. Any objective editor can see that your editing style is problematic. Looking at the edit history it is clear that you have decided to own this article for yourself. You have in fact stated above as I mentioned before that "the current article is overwhelmingly my work". Obviously a request for outside comments from non-involved editors will be necessary if you keep editing in your bullying fashion. Guest2625 (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Believe me, that's not a situation I am happy with, but a simple fact at the moment. All other currently participating editors say they lack time. Which is why I would welcome your participation, if it was constructive. You are undoing changes that have been discussed. Hard as the talk page may be to read, I suggest you start there.
 * The matter of London real estate has been discussed. The link to money-laundering is not evident at first glance but it is there. That text should move if anything, not be randomly deleted by someone who is operating from nothing but his opinions.
 * The name of the papers still is an open discussion item.
 * I have asked the other editors for comment on my edit to the lede -- the reaction so far is positive.
 * It is all, as I said above, extremely negotiable, but that means more that I don't like Elinruby, she is pushy so I will revert her.
 * a) I am just not that pushy. I have made a lot of changes the last few days, yes, and the overwhelming majority are undisputed. The one that was reverted earlier I left reverted, though I grumbled about it here. This is all in your head, dude.
 * b) WP:DONTLIKEIT is not considered a reason
 * c)"Discuss on talk page" means YOU WAIT MORE THAN 23 MINUTES BEFORE ACTING
 * Meanwhile, I regret that I had to do a manual revert, which also wiped out the three small constructive changes I thanked you for. I remember the image parameters, but where was that date? Cause those were good changes; Id like to put them back. Elinruby (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback on my edits. It appears that you were unhappy about some deletions I made concerning the naming of the Panama Papers. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the London real estate material. If you could show me an edit difference that would be great, so that me and the other editors can have an idea about what you are talking. Guest2625 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I just commented above on the "also known as" material Please don't make me type it out a third time :) I am open to suggestions as to where that should go, but I think it should be *somewhere*. Other pages with an issue of multiple names have dealt with this in the lede, see Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo. But the treatment on those two pages is horrible from a readability point of view, which is why I am suggesting we move it down to the *end* of the lede, as it's still not the usual name. I see your point with commonname, ok, but these is an article covered in BLP issues and the entire financial services industry of Panama is feeling maligned, the National Association of Lawyers wants to do something and people are talking about the need for a crusade to protect the good name of Panama. For real, go read that section. Personally, I think they kind of have a point. Elinruby (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The London real estate material -- I thought you deleted the first paragraph of the United Kingdom section. Deals with purchases by foreign investors. Was I wrong? Elinruby (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually a request for comment is not a bad idea
It would get some eyes in here anyway. But what question should we ask?Elinruby (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

US section
the reference for the proposed law in New York is about something else -- the prosecutor opening an investigation. While I am in there looking at that, do we really want to blockquote? It's one out of fifty states *proposing* a law. Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * answering myself: First of all, it *is* the US House. something I was reading earlier had that wrong. So we're ok there, well, I still think it would be too long a blockquote. However according to the sponsor's press release it was introduced in response to the Global Witness investigation, not the Panama Papers, which it predates. And the LoC sites and thomas.gov are making me think it's been introduced in prior Congress sessions, 2013-2014 anyway, so is it really shiny enough for multiple paragraphs? It's also still in committee. Gonna give this a short wait for answers, since it's kinda factually wrong -- I am pretty sure Volunteer Marek would delete it. Meanwhile the reference about the investigation is... meh. Never heard of it but it looks credible enough for a matter of public record I've seen a gajillion times. I'll move it down with the appropriate statement. Actually, I'll probably move the text here pending comment. I think it might not be bad to say something about how some elements of the government are trying to do something about this, have been and are still. The Warren/King statement I found a reference for and it's fine now, leaving it there.Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Questioned text from US section for rework/discussion:
 * and members of the House of Representatives for the state of New York (Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney – a high-ranking member of the House Banking Committee – and Republican representative Peter T. King) have introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, a proposed bill which would: "...ensure that persons who form corporations or limited liability companies in the United States disclose the beneficial owners of those corporations or limited liability companies, in order to prevent wrongdoers from exploiting United States corporations and limited liability companies for criminal gain, to assist law enforcement in detecting, preventing, and punishing terrorism, money laundering, and other misconduct involving United States corporations and limited liability companies, and for other purposes."
 * According to the Fair Observer: "The law contains many reasonable exemptions, including public corporations (who already have registers of beneficial owners); churches and other non-profits; and owners of businesses with more than 20 employees, $5 million in annual revenues and a physical presence such as an office." However, the bill has faced resistance from the National Association of Secretaries of State, who are concerned about loss of tax revenue and the burden of regulation. NASS has also called for "existing solutions" being used to combat the issue, saying that "federal legislation won't work".

this should be included
https://boingboing.net/2016/05/09/panama-papers-king-of-saudi-a.html


 * (answering myself) - well, assuming we can verify the allegation, that is. The person who is quoted as having made it denies doing so. Elinruby (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead needs leak date
Why does the article not include the date of the leak in the lead? It would help the reader asses relevance. 207.164.214.14 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * because we dont really have it except that it was roughly a year before April 3 2016. But the documents cover 40 years. If that's not clear perhaps we need to fix that. Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

new zealand
I am moving this text here for discussion/rework because a) link between foreign aid and ability to change tax law is not immediately apparent and b)the reference cited is a primary source.

"Mr Key's remarks ignore the fact that the Cook Islands  receives considerable foreign aid from New Zealand. "

The comment is relevant in that  John Key's comments are a rebuttal to John Does's comments. However New Zealand does have strong ties and considerable influence in the Cook Islands, an influence that My Key seems to want to minimise in his public statements adding to the sense that John Doe might be right. Foreign aid does matter in foreign relations. Someone from outside the region may not be able to join the dots without some hints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony.wallace.nz (talk • contribs) 09:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

However I think you are right in removing it for now. If my memory serves correctly NZ was instumental in setting up the  Cook Islands  tax structures, so if I look I should be able to find suitable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony.wallace.nz (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Here it is : http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8515361/Money-trail-leads-home-to-New-Zealand Can I put in something like: In distancing New Zealand from the  Cook Islands Mr Key ignores the close ties between the two countries and the crucial role New Zealand had in setting up the Cook Island taxation system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony.wallace.nz (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * that's an improvement from the point of view of explaining it. As far as I am concerned that would be fine as long as you have a secondary source for it. This doesn't guarantee someone else won't quarrel with it mind you :)

Elinruby (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I just realized you did give a source here. It looks like it supports your statement, yes; go for it. Elinruby (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Cook Islands is self-governing (in fact acts as if it is independent, running its own foreign policy despite NZ supposedly being responsible for that). It was entirely responsible for setting up its own tax system. They may have used NZ advisers (I doubt there were any experienced tax accountants and lawyers in the Islands). But that does not make NZ responsible.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The word used in his source is lobbyists. Feel free to edit the text there if you think it needs it; just remember to cite a source.Elinruby (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article needs a rewrite
Right now there is just too much stuff for any newcomer to get anything out of it. I suggest rearrange sections 1-9 and maybe create only about 5 sections of them. For section 10, there should be a limit on how much stuff is allowed for a single country. I suggest backing up all the current details in the subarticle and start trimming heavily the stuff in there. Nergaal (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree it should spin off some articles. Azerbaijan, Russia, Congo, Nigeria are candidates. Maybe Costa Rica. Brazil, if anyone can make sense of what's going on there. I am against just cutting though; the sections that are long describe complicated situations. and risk becoming inaccurate if cut too much. One thing is though that spinoffs are getting AfDed once they are out of the context of the main article so the spinoffs have to hit the main article space pretty fully formed. I'm taking a sanity break tonight but I feel I understand the Congo & Azerbaijan sections pretty well and could attempt to spinoff/summarize those tomorrow maybe. For Russia, there is the policy question of how much detail do we want to go into to explain why the ICIJ stands by its story in spite of Russian denials. Senegal mostly concerns the trial of one individual and those details could be moved to his page, and that section changed to simply say that ANCIR says they have demonstrated that payments occurred, with a see also. Those details need to be somewhere though as this is a very significant story if you are senegalese. Oh and Guinea might spin off, need to look at that again. But yeah, spinoffs were my plan, until they started getting deleted. Thoughts welcome. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I meant move to Reactions to the Panama Papers. Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that would just move the problem over there. There is as you say too much stuff to have one single page on reactions all around the world, imho. Besides, is anyone maintaining that page? More importantly we'd be splitting the material so that an accusation is on one page and the response to it is on another...no?Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)