Talk:Panama Papers

List of individual v paragraph of prose

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

Agreed - that seems to be the best approach. Edwardx (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• What is the precedent for making lists of every name invoked in a leak? Because if this is the world's biggest leak (or possibly it), that's a lot of names, and outside our scope: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. czar 21:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• No one has suggested that any list should contain every name. Could we avoid straw man arguments please? Edwardx (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Fusion has published deep lists of sports figures etc." would imply listing every name that has a Wikipedia article—otherwise what is your inclusion criteria? That's why this section would be out of scope. czar 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not applicable here, as this is a list of public figures with Wikipedia articles or people closely connected to them. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• These aren't allegations. They are details of interactions with Mossack Fonseca supported by documents. You've proposed an unreasonably strict interpretation of our BLP guidelines. The ICIJ profiles are so detailed that to include them the page would become unworkable, we can of course include the ICIJ profile information on individual articles and biographies. All of the individuals mentioned are public figures or connected to public figures with articles on Wikipedia, so to mention them in a list in the context of this article is certainly justifiable. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You believe it is unworkable to link specific people to specific allegations of wrongdoing by reliable sources before naming and shaming them? I don't see how we can justify that. As far as I understand, being in this data dump, being a client of this firm, is not illegal. Lots of people in the future may be found out to have done something illegal, but we shouldn't cover individual names until that happens. We can afford to go slower than the tabloids. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: According to WP:BLP only those contentious material about living persons that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed. Here it is sourced by 376 journalists from the leading media outlets of 76 countries. What else do you want??? Bring the names back immediately. - Daniel (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I want reliable sources to say they've actually done something specifically wrong, not that their names showed up in a data dump of clients. It isn't too much to ask that each name be sourced to a specific allegation by a reliable source. Is it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This was actually present in the original edits but was watered down with the flood. The Fusion and Guardian sources name specific allegations. Do you want the news outlet's name attached to the claims? I don't think it's necessary if the outlet isn't the sole claimant but yeah czar 22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

On that basis, we might as well delete the entire article as all of the RS we have cited have stressed within their own articles that tax avoidance isn't illegal. This article is brilliantly sourced and contains no accusations, it just links individuals with the Mossack Fonseca data. Any further outrage or opinion is in they eye of the beholder. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• I've asked for more eyes at WP:ANI and WP:BLP/N. I won't unilaterally remove names sourced to specific pages, but I strongly believe they aren't appropriate. Previous versions of this page used the terms "implicated", and "allegations were also made against". It's clear what is going on here. This list is being used to imply wrongdoing, without the hassle of actually having to demonstrate wrongdoing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The terms "allegations" and "wrongdoing" should never have been used in this article, as tax avoidance is entirely legal, and these names are excellently sourced. This has been stressed by every participating media outlet I have read on this case. I used the term 'implicated' as the heads of state have been implicated in the leaks themselves, not in any suggestions of illegality. A consensus has developed on the article now. Wikipedia couldn't look more irrelevant if we did not cover a story of this magnitude in adequate depth. Providing incredible detail without bias represents the very best of our efforts on breaking news stories, and is what the world has come to expect of us. Thank you for all your efforts so far :) Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus means that editors agree on a talk page, not that editors have given up on reverting each other. How about this for a solution: I've moved the section to List of people named in the Panama Papers as the list has already grown to be undue weight in this article. If editors object, we can merge it back as the tumor it already is. If not, you're free to continue the inevitable BLP discussions there. czar 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment combining prose and lists is never going to end well. As this is such a huge news story, I imagine that there will be plenty on information on the papers themselves to write lots of prose. At the same time, the huge amount of people implicated means there will be a huge list. It seems rather obvious that from a manual of style point of view, the list of people should be split off as a separate article. As for whether the list of people is suitable for Wikipedia, I am unsure as of yet. Perhaps a deletion review of the list could be appropriate if we still have doubts in seven days time? Either way, I strongly suggest that such a list goes into more detail than just being named in the list. Jolly Ω Janner 23:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Participating media outlets

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

Extended content
==Participating media outlets== The research into the Panama Papers and the preparation for publication involved 376 journalists from 76 countries, including: 2

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

Italicization of the title

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

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

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

Strange smell

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

Or they use another firm? in other word a different sphere of relationships. Soap55z (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Was just about to reply: About 600 Israeli companies and ~850 Israeli shareholders (unsure if some are part of those 600) are on the list, according to Haaretz, one of the participating media outlets. (Link is in Hebrew) They're mostly unknown, but some bigger names appear on there, along with a few deeper links to companies linked to government contracts. ~Smiley 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Found an English version of the article: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.712497 ~Smiley 22:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it the kind of 100% "shareholders" of post box or list of who owns shares in public companies? Soap55z (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Infobox improvement

I copied the original infobox template from the Pentagon Papers and thought that if it's good for that article that has been around way longer it should do here too. Obviously one person here disagrees. So does anyone know of appropriate template?

The closest I came was Category:Events infobox templates or perhaps Template:Infobox event. But big leaks seems to have been so rare in the past that no one has bothered to make one specifically for leaks. Soap55z (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
Panama Papers Countries with public officials implicated in the leak Description Release of 11.5 million documents (2.6 TB) Date of documents 1970s–2016 Period of release 2015 – 2016 Key publishers Süddeutsche Zeitung Subject Tax evasion Went public April 3, 2016 16:51 UTC

@Soap55z, the article does not need an infobox, nevertheless a non-standard infobox with parameters invented on the spot. Everything that the infobox needs to communicate can be said in the lede, as is standard for our articles. Per BRD, please form consensus on the talk page before re-adding this new content unilaterally. czar 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we both posted at the same time. Pentagon Papers doesn't have an infobox. Not every article needs an infobox. czar 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What makes your judgement the better one? One of the things that hit when reading the article was the lack of a date, scope and what it is about. And no one needs Wikipedia either. It's all about at what level of comfort one wants. (btw, seems it was "United States diplomatic cables leak" that was the source) Soap55z (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the type of information we cover in the initial (lede) paragraph. Infoboxes should not include stuff that isn't already cited in the article. Feel free to work the details you thought were important into the introduction. czar 22:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think information such as what it's about, when it happened, and what it affects should be in the first two sentences. One shall not have to read large chunks of text to get an idea if it was worthwhile to read about at all. Have a look at the article on the Brussels incident. A lot of the information is mentioned both in the infobox, article header and in a specific section. Soap55z (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Data processing

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

Extended content

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

Primary sourcing

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

It is evident from their past investigations that they apply very high standards of scrutiny in their work. The ICIJ has been the organisation sharing the information with all other reliable sources, so they have to be the ones we rely on. If you feel it's a violation of BLP, then you might as well exclude every name from the article, a ridiculous notion at this stage. News organisations and the ICIJ aren't primary sources with stories like this. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There is some description of the vetting in the falter.at interview linked below. They had their own doubts, and did lots of cross-checks etc. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely you have to wait until the various participating newspapers in their respective countries gets to share the source documents to get a second source. The question then is to what to do with the single source published information in the meantime. Another question is then who has access to the source data? Soap55z (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

SZ reporters interviewed about receiving leak (german)

Maybe some of this is useful for the article:

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

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

There is also a "making of" video on facebook that I haven't looked at.[1] And the reporters have written a book already, linked from interview above and supposedly to be available in a few days. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)