Talk:List of people named in the Panama Papers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shouldn't the original article lead to this?

I think it should, so I'm going to make original link to this 76.218.105.99 (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It already does. Panama Papers#Contents has a hatnote. czar 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Scope

What is the scope of people named? I added a descriptor of shareholders and directors based on observation, but are there other roles held by people (who are neither shareholders nor directors) in the database? Didn't see any overall narrative about what the content is on the website. ^Bongo_matic 02:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This depends on notability. If someone was described in connection with the list in multiple secondary sources (for whatever reason), he/she should be included, with supporting references. If not, then probably no. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:, I think you're answering a different question. I'm asking whether the people mentioned have had any roles other than shareholder and director with respect to the offshore companies (e.g., lender, borrower, secretary, lienee, lienor, etc.). ^Bongo_matic 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Are they named in the papers (as a borrower or whoever)? If they are named and appears in RS as people named in the papers, they yes, they belong to this list. If they are described as people who are only related to the "papers", but not named, then one would have to create another page or rename this page as a "List of people related to Panama Papers". My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: My question has nothing to do with who should be included in this list. It is only about what roles are in the database (both in its entirety and the information released so far). I have not pored through it in detail, but to date have not seen any roles mentioned other than shareholder and director. Are any other roles included in the database? The purpose of this question is the description of the information in the breach (in this and the PP article), not the inclusion or non-inclusion of any names. ^Bongo_matic 04:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Include people that are only mentioned in the papers

Does it make sense to list all people that are mentioned in the papers?

I just looked up the source for Nico Roßberg as an example. It is an article by German news service Focus.

In the article it is stated: "Es gibt allerdings keine Hinweise, dass sich Rosberg mit dem Offshore-Firmengeflecht strafbar gemacht haben könnte."

"There is however no evidence that, Roßberg could have committed an offense with the Offshore-company-network."

So why is he mentioned? To shame him?! Apart from shaming people, I don't see a sense in listing all possible names without having any proof that the people have commited offenses. I don't see how this poses enough notability for an own article in WIkipedia. I thought Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news ticker. Ich901 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think BLP concerns suggest we should be wary of adding every single person, especially at this point. Over the next few weeks these documents will be analyzed and re-analyzed in their entirety, and we'll get a better idea of the veracity of accusations from a wider variety of sources. Even at that point, if there is a vast number of otherwise non-notable people that could be added to the list, we might want to have discretion moving forward to avoid having the reader be buried in a list of red links. It has been noted that WP is a generalist encyclopedia, and there are still other reasons why we might not want to include them all. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues

There is a thread in the main article that concerns the list of people named in the Panama Papers. See Talk:Panama Papers.

I personally think that this list, in any form, is outside our scope as a generalist encyclopedia. The most prominent cases will be mentioned in prose in the main article, and the further we get down the slippery slope of naming relations of relatives of public figures, the more unwieldy and unencyclopedic this list will become. That said, it's much easier to maintain when segregated on its own. czar 23:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of the leak is to highlight the lack of corruption in the USA; people may overlook the little map on the main article with the world painted red except for the USA and a few other countries. This list makes it more obvious, although it could be improved if USA was added to the reference list with an annotation between brackets (like "no people involved"). Also, it would be better if the USA was painted green in the main article map image, to set it apart from the other "white countries". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.129.23.122 (talk • contribs)

I'm not clear on why we have this list in Wikipedia. It seems to me that the only reason to list the names is to give an impression that the people on the list have done something "bad" or "illegal" or "notable". What exactly is the point? Famspear (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Without this list of names, there is no point in the main Panama Papers article. This leak is notable only because it invloves 12 country leaders, as well as their relatives/associates and other high-profile figures. - Daniel (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As the story develops, it now seems the main goal is not so much to spew propaganda about the USA's impeccable political elite as it is to throw mud at Putin. It should be time to mention him a bit more on the article, add some colorful adjectives to his mentions, and create backlinks from his wiki article to those of the people who actually appear on the Panama papers. Also color Russia in a darker tone of red (maybe purple? little hammer and sickle on the corner?) on the little map from the main article. It is still detrimental to this operation that the USA would be colored in the same tone as Antarctica on said map, even in light of the new objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.129.23.122 (talk • contribs)

I noticed that British Guardian, for example, did not publish any article about a father of a current British Prime Minister David Cameron, who is on the list, but publsihed a lenghthy article about Putin, despite Putin's name never mentioned in any of the Panama Papers. - Daniel (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that editor Daniel/Potorochin has made a good point. People hide assets -- and hide the transfer of assets -- all the time, and there is nothing illegal or immoral about that in and of itself. Eventually, the journalists involved may actual identify some specific illegal conduct by some specific individuals.

The important thing for members of the news media right now is to avoid "getting ahead of the story," or fabricating a "story". Spewing out tons of data that indicates that people (whether they are world leaders or not) use offshore tax havens to "hide" money -- without taking the "trouble" to identify some specific criminal conduct by a specific person -- is like spewing data that shows that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Famspear (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Add brief descriptions

I think that a brief description (1-3 sentences) needs to be added to each individual discussing the circumstances about their mention in the Panama Papers. As noted, there are legitimate, legal reasons why someone would set up an offshore account and I think the BLP section Presumption in favor of privacy addresses issues relevant to this list. Despite the disclaimer at the top of this list, most readers will have a presumption that the people mentioned were engaged in illicit activity and we should be careful to present this list from a neutral point of view. Another policy to consider is WP:LISTCRITERIA. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory. Simply listing notable people that were mentioned in the Panama Papers does not have intrinsic encyclopedic value, but adding a short description of the circumstances of their relation to the Panama Papers does have encyclopedic value and would be more neutral. AHeneen (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

David Cameron case

David Cameron is not in the list. His faster is.

We can't list all people that had benefits from Panama Papers, it's just impossible and will lead to an incredible number of names. This page is just listing who created offshores companies.

So, thank you to stop adding D.Cameron. We are not here to juge if its actions were moral or not, just the facts.

Any other point of view ? --HymerosH (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The British PM should indeed be included in the list as he now very publicly admitted being involved in his late father's offshore funds. --Bruzaholm (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If we’re only using ICIJ’s list then there are a whole lot of other people not named on their list that should be removed from this article, not only David Cameron. Why then all the focus on him? Why aren’t you removing tens of other entries?

I’m not attempting to judge anyone’s morality. I don’t even follow UK politics so I’ve got no dog in this fight, so to say.

I won’t re-add him for the time being because I don’t have the time or want to keep going back and forth on this, but I’ll re-add him later on unless the article name is changed or a new article is created that lists people implicated by the Panama Papers but not on ICIJ’s list. Or unless this article is cleaned up so that ALL of the names not specifically listed by ICIJ are removed in addition to David Cameron — we can’t just pick and choose who we include. Be consistent.

Tråkigt (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The ICIJ's list is the only source, even if all names are not, for now, in ICIJ website. All the information that you can find on newspapers comes from that unique and global source. ICIJ' list = Panama Papers.

Anyway, you're right on one thing. If you see names, on that page, not named clearly on Panama Papers, be free to comment it, source it, and I'm sure the community will delete the information (like Putin one time).

If you have another secret source... great, just contact ICIJ and bring that to them. (joking)

This page is about Panama Papers (ICIJ' list) only, not Swiss Leak, not Lux Leak, not Lava Jato scandal... Have a good day --HymerosH (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• If there are other people on this page who are not named in the Panama Papers, then they should be removed. I focused on David Cameron, because I'm most familiar with his story on the news. The article title defines the scope. Jolly Ω Janner 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Last info closing the case : by mid-may, all the names and records will be avaliable on ICIJ site (and LeMonde site for french names). At this time, we'll clear or complete definitivly this page (I hope). --HymerosH (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we make this semi-protected?

I'm brand new to editing, but I've already undone vandalism to this article by two IPs in the past 24 hours -- entries that were deleted in full by unregistered people. Now that British PM David Cameron has implicated himself there will surely be more vandalism and especially when other major political and business leaders become involved, as is inevitable with these leaks.

Would someone that knows more about this stuff please semi-protect this page so that unregistered people can't edit it?

Tråkigt (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Tråkigt

Answer to your concern is just in the message under

--HymerosH (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have edited out PM of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif's name twice from the list of Heads of State. It keeps popping up even though he has not been implicated directly. His sons and a daughter have been, and they already appear under the relevant list of Relatives and associates of government officials. - Uzidon92 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Should the list be made in alphabetical order? Lotje (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Names noticed in the new database

I was just looking over some of the names of Americans involved, and saw Thomas F. Gibson in the list (as Thomas Fenner Gibson III). https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12118481 He and his wife, Kimberly Timmons Gibson, both served in the Reagan White House. No press source has noticed or cared so far. Is there any way to incorporate data from the database without it being treated as intolerable OR? 173.228.54.5 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

only registered users

this page should be semi protected so that registered users can edit and this needs to be monitored for silly edits vandalism or spam --Owen1983 (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Bypassing the deficiencies of the "The Power Players" page when citing it as a reference

Currently https://panamapapers.icij.org/the_power_players/ is cited as reference for many entries. This is technically OK but a bit suboptimal, because the web designers of panamapapers.icij.org went a bit overboard on that page, first hiding the actual list behind a lengthy overlay animation, then requiring the reader to find and click the correct tab, and then omitting the names in favor of pictures and titles (e.g. "President of Argentina" but not "Mauricio Macri"), preventing the browser search function from working on that page and requiring the reader to hover their mouse over many entries to find the one that is relevant for the footnote in this article, by triggering the animation for each that reveals the name. (The site is beautiful to look at, but seems quite a usability trainwreck.)

But there is a hidden way to extract a link that directly points to the relevant entry:

• Once you have made it through the steps above and found the person in the overview, click on their picture to display the entry (still at the generic URL https://panamapapers.icij.org/the_power_players/ )
• Click the small "embed" link right of the text and left of the graph
• An overlay will slide in from the right, containing a "Copy/paste the code below ..." field
• Extract the link after src=" in that field, e.g. https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/?lang=en#27 . This can be used as a reference, leading the reader directly to the information cited without having to surpass all the barriers described above.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Guilt by association info in entries

There seems to be efforts by editors, Myheartsadancer most notably to me, to add extraneous info about relationships to list entries. This seems to be a particular problem for Phillipines-related entries. For example, in this edit negative but sourced information was added about Ferdinand Marcos in Irene Marcos' entry. In the same edit, the entry for "Maria Eva "Chingbee" Estrada Kalaw" is laden with various relationship and family info. This seems to be a bit of a trend and to me a violation of BLP. It seems to be an attempt to show guilt by association to individuals. At the very least, it's WP:COATRACKing info that does not belong. I understand that some contextual info is needed sometimes, but any details like those mentioned above can easily be left to the BLP articles themselves. IMHO, it has no place here. Do others agree/disagree? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed the following so far:

• From Benazir Bhutto, I removed "...along with Nawaz Sharif and his family including maryam Hassan Husain nawaz and wife kulsoom nawaz, elected as a prime minister thrice." ([1])
• From Maria Imelda "Imee" Marcos Manotoc, I removed "sister of Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., Senator, Philippine House of Representatives from Ilocos Norte, and Irene Marcos Araneta. According to The Guardian, the late Ferdinand Marcos had an accumulated stolen wealth of U.S. $10 Billion during his presidency from 1965 to 1986, while earning an annual salary equivalent to U.S. $13,500.00 " ([2])

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance. I've removed some of that before, and it seems to have been reintroduced. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Multiple Mentions

Some names are mentioned multiple times as they overlap in various roles (e.g., Donald Trump is both a businessperson and a politician). Do we want to keep these individuals listed in multiple locations, or only one mention per name? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A-Z sort

I spent a lot of time sorting the business and entertainment sections into alphabetical order, removing the duplicate entries. As I am unable to puzzle out who reverted and messed it up, I have had to restore the list to that last clean version. Big lists like this can only work with an A-Z sort. Edwardx (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not the best way. I spent a lot of time sorting this sections into countries order...it's better...I think. You can see how many spanish people or italian businessmen... User: Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2016

• Then you would have to have A-Z country sub-headings and the names A-Z within them, which you have not done. Our policy is clear on this. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Organization states, "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical..." Unless you are prepared to sort them properly as suggested, you will leave me with no choice but to revert again. Edwardx (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok I know, then it's a difficult job because there's a lot of people. If you want, I can do this job. But till 2th june I have a lot of exams and I can do it then. Can I do it later? I only want to make it easy and make people know where they are from. Thank you User: Alsoriano97 (talk) 0:29, 18 May 2016

• Thanks. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. I'm relaxed either way, but others may prefer it not broken down by country. Each approach has pros and cons. Just make sure it is A-Z by country (with sub-headings), then A-Z within each country. And good luck with the exams. Edwardx (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't care, so long as there's some order of some sort. The recent edits made no sense to me. Makes most sense to alphabetize both the section headers and the list entries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sandy Weill

An editor has reverted my removal of the inclusion of Sandy Weill on this list. [3] The fact is cited to the NY Times, but the source also makes clear that this is for the registration of a ship. Such offshore registrations are nearly universal for US ship owners, and Weill's spokesman points out this is not like the financial accounts attributed to others in the list. Per BLP this name should be removed. The fact that NY Times reported it -- along with the explanatory information, does not mean that it belongs in this list. If others disagree, please explain your reasons. Otherwise I ask the editor who reverted to self-undo. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• The list is about people named in the Panama paper, not about people using offshore registrations for financial reasons. Therefore, I think Sandy Weill belongs to this page. That said, you did raise a legitimate question: if we censor this list we are violating NPOV, and generally it's bad for Wikipedia to censor anything. If we simply put all available names on it we risk violating Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. It's hard to draw the line. But I'm personally inclined to the "no censorship" option. --Ahyangyi (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people named in the Panama Papers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416003143/https://www.rise.md/panamapapers-conexiunile-offshore-ale-fostului-premier-ion-sturza/ to https://www.rise.md/panamapapers-conexiunile-offshore-ale-fostului-premier-ion-sturza/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)