Talk:Paradise Papers

Relevancy of the Queen of the UK having accounts in places she is the ruler of

Why is it relevant to this page that the Queen of the UK has accounts or investments in Bermuda and the Caymen Islands when she is the Monarch of those two territories? It would be like saying in the article that the President of Saint Kitts has investments located in Saint Kitts or that the Governor of Idaho has investments in Idaho potato farms, its entirely irrelevant and non-NPOV insinuating foul play.XavierGreen (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Queen being in there is borderline significant. We can probably mention it but not in lede and no image. Volunteer Marek  05:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I *strongly* disagree. She is Queen of England, not Bermuda, and her relationship with Bermuda through the Commonwealth is strictly a pro forma nod to history. Given the vastness of her inherited wealth, many British citizens may feel it is unseemly to be evading taxes and pursuing wealth growth in other countries, and I am adamantly opposed to editors treating favored public figures more gently than others who have done much the same things. Elinruby (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: both Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are British Overseas Territories and thus come under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The Queen is as much the Queen of these two place as she is of England, Scotland and Wales. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally agree and think the images and focus on individuals right now is a mess and could be better organized. The pictures seem to give UNDUE weight to this. While important, I think it could be toned down due to sensitivity regarding WP:BLP. Shaded0 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP is a major concern in an article such as this and we had big arguments about it on Panama Papers. I personally think it's irrelevant whether the Queen in name is sovereign of Bermuda. She has no power over its tax laws. In theory she could veto something but in practice this is never done. I think oh-no-not-the-queen is a bit of someone's idealism. It is either true or it is not and wikipedia is better served by including her side of the story, ie she paid her taxes. That said, if anyone wants to take out the bit about the governance of Bermuda, including my amendment, I think the article would be better for it. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the story received widespread coverage in UK news, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Queen should apologise if any investments were made to avoid tax...

— Paradise Papers: Queen should apologise, suggests Corbyn, BBC News.

— Paradise Papers: Queen faces backlash after news Duchy of Lancaster invests millions offshore, The Independent.

— Labour demands inquiry into Paradise Papers tax avoidance, Daily Mail. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

the story received widespread coverage in UK news... but not only: it also received widespread coverage in the other side of the sea:

—Révélations sur les placements secrets de la reine d’Angleterre aux îles Caïmans Le Monde «Ces révélations sur les avoirs d’Elisabeth II, l’une des femmes les plus riches du monde, ne vont pas manquer de relancer au Royaume-Uni le débat sur son patrimoine, d’autant que ces montages n’apparaissent pas dans les déclarations annuelles de la Couronne.»

— "Paradise Papers" : les mis en cause, dont la reine d'Angleterre, rejettent toute irrégularité l'indépendant Le secrétaire américain au Commerce, les services de la reine d'Angleterre ou encore des ministres brésiliens et russes ont mis en avant la légalité de leurs investissements face aux révélations des "Paradise Papers" sur des pratiques d'optimisation fiscale à l'échelle mondiale.

—Paradise Papers : la reine d'Angleterre aussi ! France Inter Les Paradise Papers révèlent que (...)

—In Luxembourg also: La reine cache de l'argent aux îles CaïmansL'essentiel

—Royaume-Uni : les Paradise papers éclaboussent la reine France TV Info

—Ca se passe en Europe : l'argent de la Reine d'Angleterre investi dans des fonds offshoreLes échos

But I wonder if it has to be or not to be relevant to this page as I assume that each subject/EU-cityzen of the Queen of the UK might also have accounts or investments in Bermuda and the Caymen Islands when they are the subject/EU-cityzen of the Monarch of those two territories, rather than to pay taxes to England, a territory subject to the EU law.

Additional, as those texts say sometime La reine & sometimes la reine d'Angleterre I was wondering if there is an official title. It looks like governmental sites prefer to say la Reine Elizabeth or la Reine [1] [2] [3] [4]

Argentina listed, but Brazil is shown on the map

Hi everybdody. I don't know how to edit a map, but the map is showing Brazil. I believe this may be a mistake, as the article doesn't mention Brazil, but Argentina, and Argentina is not colored. Fabianokm (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fabianokm: See here as there is a list of people named in the Paradise Papers. As of 6 November, there are two Brazilian cabinet ministers named in the Paradise Papers. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jay Coop: Thanks. Fabianokm (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

removed text

Rex Tillerson: "(he ran the Yemen division of ExxonMobil, which had ties to the Bermuda-based offshore firm)". He was CEO of the entire company. This statement may be true for some portion of his career, perhaps, possibly for the time when he held the company. but it doesn't match what I am looking at and it's uncited. I have no objection to it returning to article if someone thinks we need it, but please cite it, and please not in a parenthesis like this, which is very bad for readability. Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External link: Republic?

I get it that it's a pressure website/org focusing on UK's monarchy, but what are the significance and direct relevance of it to this particular topic? Didn't seem to be mentioned at all in the article. --fireattack (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What about Santos exactly?

Why is Santos mentioned as one of the main figures mentioned in the Papers, and yet there is zero information about him in the article? Is he mentioned or not?? -CesarFelipe (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)