Talk:Pandora Papers

Name?

Why the alliterative name? Malick78 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It's an allusion to a piece of Greek mythology. 2001:7E8:C95F:6200:6D42:725A:63F2:3D0D (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably because the most famous of the previous leaks of the same type were the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the Panama Papers are mentioned often in the Washington Post article. The BBC reports 'The ICIJ believes the investigation is "opening a box on a lot of things" - hence the name Pandora Papers.' [1].

I have a special interest in billionaires and tax avoidance related to paid editing on Wikipedia. You may have seen some of my articles on this topic in The Signpost. e.g. How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia and A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia, I'd expect a lot of the billionaires mentioned here would make for an interesting investigation into paid editing. These articles do require quite a bit of extra care however. Please contact me at this email if you have any info on this topic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Is former president Donald Trump mentioned in any of the papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Give dates of sources!

A lot of references are being added without dates, although the sources are dated. This shouldn't happen. Paradoxically, access-dates are often stated in these cases - access-dates are not needed for sources that are not likely to change (both commonsense and guidelines say so). This might be because tools that generate references can't find the published date, but the access-date is always "today". Just edit the generated reference to replace the meaningless "access-date=" with "date=[date the article was published]". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with [[Pol098]], the dates should be included in the citation to support their relevance and creditability. While a citation may be relevant and timely at one point, an older citation becomes less relevant and timely the older it gets. Jurisdicta talk Jurisdicta (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for Logo and map

Can anyone upload the logo & map of Pandora papers from ICIJ website.

Here is the link: Logo [2] Map [3] Ytpks896 (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is likely the logo could be uploaded under a fair use claim, but the map is unlikely to qualify. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection?

The article in question is going to be constantly subject to media attention due to the severity of it and can be subject to vandalism due to that. I was wondering if this would warrant a protection on the article, since I am not an administrator? --Apollo468 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Is US$32 trillion credible?

The lede says Up to an estimated US$32 trillion...may be hidden from being taxed. This would be a sizeable fraction of the gross world product, so I'm inclined to be skeptical. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bri: (and others): yes - agree - nonetheless - seems WP:RS support the claim as follows: "Up to an estimated US$32 trillion (excluding non-monetary valuables such as real estate, art, and jewelry) may be hidden from being taxed, according to news reports." - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

Drbogdan (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

WSJ is paywalled but I accessed it through my regional library. It has no dollar figure bottom line estimates; the largest number in the article is $2 billion. The BBC article says that ICIJ estimates go up to $32T but is one second-hand, uncorroborated source enough for us to top-line an extremely dubious figure that is maybe half of the world GDP? My concern is a reader will think "seriously is Wikipedia telling people that bad people stole half the world...without being noticed?" It reminds me of a certain 100 billion dollar scam. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bri: (and others): seems yet another WP:RS has reported the $32 trillion estimate - Stay Safe and Healthy !!

Drbogdan (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Aha, I think I see the disconnect. According to the source you just added, the 32 trillion figure is not what's reported in the Pandora Papers, but what some entity estimated is assets held outside the country where the money has been made globally – in their opinion for tax evasion. The WP article Tax Justice Network – the folks who calculated this figure – calls it an "advocacy group" which further discounts what they say. This really shouldn't be in the lede of this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Can the US$32 trillion involved be broken down by country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion re the lede - perhaps - comments from other editors would help provide WP:CONSENSUS - for my part, I'm flexible with the issue, and would support whatever consensus finally determines - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Reaction Section

Currently, the reactions section is outlining government responses to the leaks (and/or the responses of the accused). In the U.S section, however, we state "Robert Silverman, senior advocacy manager of Oxfam America, remarked: "The Pandora Papers is a damning reminder that the United States has two separate tax systems — one for the uber-rich and well-connected, and one for everyone else'". While this is a sourced quote, it is unlike all of our other statements in the section (from a government or the accused) - in fact, the source isn't even from somebody in the country. I am thinking that this ought to be moved to another section or just removed if we can't find a proper section. Would love to hear peoples' ideas and/or rationale! Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

try check all data of bilioners list..) why he/she be bilioners — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radizero (talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that is not a response to my question, in fact that was completely incoherent, can you reiterate? Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a specifically government response and should be removed or moved. Eliegot (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

your turn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radizero (talk • contribs) 01:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Radizero Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Technology behind the Pandora Papers

I was just reading this excellent piece on Wired:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/pandora-papers-leak

It might interesting to include a section about all the technology enabling such investigation? WDTY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:84C:500:8EB2:9BAD:5133:F35D (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that could be very interesting Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: a section stating what (if any) the repercussions have been for those named in the Pandora Papers. If there have been none, that also merits a section stating that. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)