Talk:Panama Papers

Edit of 27th May

Is it OK to redo some of the apparent readability improvements which were previously made to the article and undone in significant numbers by a particular edit of 27th May or do we need to reach consensus on them all?

For instance I previously changed "a shell company registered to Beny Steinmetz, Octea, owes more than $700,000 US ..." to "a shell company registered to billionaire Israeli businessman Beny Steinmetz, Octea, owes more than US$700,000 ..." But this has now been reverted amongst many others.Mattojgb (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what's up with that particular edit or why it was changed but speaking for myself here, please do make any improvemnts that seem good to you, particularly for readability. I do agree that the second version is better. I could use help with some of the research too if you are up for it. Nobody's been talking here much but there are several people who keep checking the article -- but if they don't like a change you make they can change it back or you guys can discuss or whatever. I'd like to hear ahead of time about big deletions though -- the article needs to slim down but most of what it is saying is important imho, so I want to move it to related pages. But in many cases the papers re-opened some previous scandal but the previous scandal isn't documented, soand I've been working on those connections the last few days. Elinruby (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So... I got curious enough to go look at May 27 and I don't see any thing particularly strange -- but it sounds like you may be saying that I undid some of your work. If so I do apologize. Since I don't remember such a thing and didn't post here, I can only think it must have been an accident somehow. Elinruby (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

dear person who keeps adding Donald Trump to the list of Americans

@Volunteer Marek: please read @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: please read @Nomoskedasticity: please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Addictinginfo_as_source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Elinruby (talk • contribs)

That's fine, I've removed it, we can stick to secondary sources. At this point you're at the limit of WP:3RR, by the way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

but fortunately you guys are legion, must be nice. Elinruby (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby, I *did* add another source - this one - though I can see how in all the mark up you might have missed that. So yeah we can remove the huff po and the addinctingwhatever but we still got mcclatchydc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

the problem is that it doesn't support adding him Elinruby (talk)

We say Trump's name was mentioned thousands of time, right below several others that are not directly involved but mentioned. What's the difference here?--TMCk (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

MY issue is that the statement is potentially libellous AND apparently untrue. But yes, it's true that other people who are not directly involved are mentioned but a) "mentioned" in this article means on the client list. Not addictinginfo. Not as someone that a dude with an offshore company is buying a condo from, and I don't think you even have that. But ok, perhaps I read too fast. Let's put it this way. It is difficult to explain these transactions because they are complex. OK. Go read the bit about Karim Wade in Senegal. See, he is not mentioned but there is a legal proceeding that found that his friend was holding the money for him. (nominee). In the case of Icelandic prime minister there is a presumption that his wife's money benefits them as a couple. There are some other people who merely bought property (that doctor in Sault Ste Marie for example) that I am thinking of paring off simply because BLP and people complain the article is long. The Sharif family in Pakistan is probably also working as a unit... and some of those children might be notable even without their father's title. I don't like Trump but why give him reason to complain and/or sue? If you want to summarize the McClatchy article be my guest. It's a reliable source but it also doesn't say that Donald Trump was a Mossack Fonseca client. At least I didn't get that from it. If you can find some major long-term partner that was, you might have something, possibly. Does that help? @TracyMcClark:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

How about you add some clarification? What I get from a quick glimse is that business partners he sold his name for use are involved (similar connection as others included). And could you sign your posts, please?--TMCk (talk)

Yeah, I missed a signature on the inline comments, sorry about that. And no, its not really similar. In many of the cases where people are in the article even though their own name is not in the documents, there is either a strong direct link with someone who is -- Nawaz Sharif for example, whose kids are involved, or in other cases aides, or former longtime colleagues or friends as with Karim Wade in Senegal -- or else there is a presumption that the named person is what is called a nominee, not really the owner of the money, also the case for Karim Wade, or the concert violinist who suddenly had accounts with billions in them, which totally had nothing to do with Vladimir Putin, even though they grew up together as children. Now if you find something like that for Trump then have at it. But you won't, I am pretty sure. Both he and the Clintons operate their shell companies in Delaware, at least based on this evidence. I'm not saying he is a saint. Just that as far as I can tell he isn't in this particular scandal. The only "clarification" I would be able to make would be to say that some editors are operating off a quick glimpse rather than actually reading. If you actually read the article you'll find there might be one possible guy that he sued ten years ago. Nobody has connected any dots, possibly because there is nothing there. You guys are really fighting hard for this BLP violation. Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

alright I amplified the article by explaining the contexts in which Donald Trump's name is mentioned, ie a mass of bankruptcies by people who bought condos in a Panamanian resort. I should probably add that each of those x sales paid him a small royalty. Thing is, now we have a whole lot of yeah Trump is in there except he isn't really and it seems to me there are some DUE now; I mean we just established that customers of customers is enough for a mention in this article. Hillary Clinton needs weight. (later) we were skipping about five grand juries and/or congressional investigations because BLP so we do have a mismatch there. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I found some things in an Associated Press article, so I have to walk back my dismissiveness a bit. Apparently Trump had some control in the management team, and had employees there to make sure the project lived up to the brand. Some of the tenants say that (or maybe strongly imply) that the hotel did not do we well as expected, so Trump managers were spreading costs specific to the hotel -- bellboy salaries for example -- to the parent organization, and the condo owners and casino said their costs were too high as a result. It turns out that Trump's third son was there also, not the project manager, but still present on the site. I don't think anyone on the Trump team covered themselves in glory, but ok, a bunch of people who bought real estate with Trump's name on it lost money and some of them probably sued him if they blamed him for the bankruptcy. Also the licensing fees were more than I was imagining; I personally would not have described 30 some million as "small". It is still however true that much worse isn't covered in the article yet so why don't y'all edit this new stuff in? And you realize that if we set the threshold that low the article will either need endless updates or else, alternative, can just be truly arbitrary about whose finances and policies it questions. I mean... argh. I am going to go try to make sense out of Glencore. All of the four or five of you should be the ones putting this in there. Elinruby (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Graphic added to top of article recently

File:Panama Papers illustration.jpg

The graphic which was added by Vexels GroovyGraphics on 27 June 2016

On 27 June, Vexels GroovyGraphics added the image, File:Panama Papers illustration.jpg to the top of the article. This is not an official graphic/illustration. The same user has added similar-ish graphics to other articles, see their contributions. Most of these have since been reverted. But I just wondered what the policy/guideline was on including these sorts of pictures and whether this one should remain on the page. It's not that I have anything against the user/their contributions - personally, I think these graphics look good. Thank you.  Seagull123  Φ  18:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not paid attention to this article in several months so I am not sure which image you are talking about, and none of the images in the article currently appear for me. But this might be a Firefox setting I accidentally triggered. Let's try this. If the image you are talking about is above the map, I don't think I have seen it, and don't know the answer to your question. It does not have to be an "official" graphic. If there were such a thing it would come from the ICIJ and related websites, OCCRP and one in South Africa whose name escapes me. There are some incubators. As far as I know those newspapers retain the copyright to their work. At one point I looked at image copyright to the extent of making sure the images were on Wikimedia Commons. I did not investigate further; I know a little about copyright but not how to determine whether something is usable on wikipedia. I do understand the issue though. The map was a user's own creation, and so, I believe, was the one further down with a woman's face in it. If any of the images have been removed for copyright problems from Commons then they should be redlinked over here, no? Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC) @Seagull123: sorry I just saw this question. Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

FAR EAST TRADING COMPANY

George Mikhael Gorbichev was the owner of the Far East Trading Company which is the shipping company that moves most of the supplies through the Panama Canal. Which would run weapons to communist sympathizers in Central and South America. President of Russia Vladmier Putin has taken over the company.Christopher Alan Levingston 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)