Talk:LuxLeaks

	Luxembourg portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Luxembourg, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LuxembourgWikipedia:WikiProject LuxembourgTemplate:WikiProject LuxembourgLuxembourg
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2014. The result of the discussion was Snow keep.

POV & AfD

This page seems to be designed to promote a single website based on shaming businesses for normal business practices where no civil or criminal conduct is indictaed. Defamatory implications were made by providing a list of companies and the name of a non-notable private individual against whom no charges have been leveled. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a long list, mostly with red links of companies implied to have commited criminal acts with no individual documentation given. I have removed the name of a private, non-notable person. The remainder seems to consist of synthesis meant to shame the former prime minister of Luxembourg for having been in office during a certain time period. I have nominated the article for deletion on these bases. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The public notability is concerned with government and political responsibility for tax law and administration. Given that there is no report of criminal or other unlawful tax evasion on the part of the listed companies, as distinct from lawful tax avoidance, listing them is undue and POV-ish and should be removed. Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

See the ANI regarding defamation and copyright violation by adding a cut-and-paste list implying "shady" business dealings by the source. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name and attribution

The information is one thing, but I see no source for the article's opener Luxembourg Leaks (sometimes shortened to Lux Leaks or LuxLeaks) is the name of a collaborative journalistic investigation...: is the name of the article to be attributed to International Consortium of Investigative Journalists? Is it a proprietary name? There are and have been other sources: who or which is entitled to claim (principal) authorship or control and responsibility, and is there any precedent for naming an article in this way? Qexigator (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--> Offshore leaks -- Neudabei (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could a sceptic, looking for RS and asking such questions as: Is ICIJ an activist group pushing POV in the name of objective reporting? Or a sockpuppet group paid for by lobbyists? Or a front for owners of media interests practising tax avoidance directly or indirectly? be sufficiently answered by reference to Center for Public Integrity and Offshore leaks ? --Qexigator (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--> Conspiracy theory? -- Neudabei (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL That comment seems to show its maker may (unwittingly) be employing defensive tactics when properly challenged about checking sources in the manner of good reporting practise. Was the Gunpowder Plot a conspiracy or only a theory? And then there is COI. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--> Theory of relativity Theories are not necessarly wrong. Everything should be challenged in every direction. -- Neudabei (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article spoilt by list

The article has not been improved by redumping the list of names of corporations in it, which makes it look like a campaigning flyer, lacking NPOV. An external link would suffice. Qexigator (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict might be solved by relocating the list to a wikipedia-list. Whether this new list complies with wikipedia rules and standards might be discussed then separately. -- Neudabei (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Medeis or Thue would?[1] -- Qexigator (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Purporting"? Why dont you just take a look at the actual documents? [2] -- Neudabei (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the function of editors here to be investigative reporters, even any editor who is one of those or another kind of professional source and fact-checker such as an historian or police detective or prosecuting attorney. Note that the "purported" list itself is careful to use "allegedly". There may be mistakes or other faults on the part of authors or intermediaries, for which this article should not be taking responsibility. November is a good month to remember what freedom of the press and publishing are about. Qexigator (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just found --> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Defamation_per_se_at_Luxembourg_Leaks -- Neudabei (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, given the loss of innocence represented by fictional works like House of Cards and its USA version, maybe it would not be too difficult to construct a malicious or sincerely zealous smear campaign about organisations such as Investigative News Network which enjoy IRS non-profit status under the laws of the US Congress. Maybe noone would do that, but it could happen which is reason enough for care to be taken by guardians of Wikipedia integrity. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Qexigator (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple way to deal with your disquiet: Take some time and read some in-depth case studies that are available. Then take a look into some of the leaked files. And then eventually you can derive a conclusion from the things you will have learned. -- 13:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)