Talk:LuxLeaks

Luxembourg C‑class Low‑importance

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance 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]

We should not be naming any entities or persons against whom no governmental actions have been taken. Mention of Amazon in the text is okay, since there's an actual investigation. But shaming bureaucrats and listing companies not under investigation violates BLP and amounts to defamation. The bare facts are, the website has made a splash, and 2 of the 340 companies whose documents it has leaked are under investigation. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the bare facts, compared with current topics such as Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 or Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and many others this could be a non-event, or a minor branch of other topics of major political and public concern. But as it happens it gives publicity to the services lawfully rendered by the firm of accountants involved (not now named in the article)[1] and to ICIJ. The article's earliest versions cheerfully announced that its name was "of a financial scandal that unmasked details of secret tax agreements". Qexigator (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting opinion - given the fact that it's on the news globally and having a huge impact on the political arena at least in Europe. Have you googled the event recently? -- NewJohn (talk) 22:45, 15 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?[2] -- Qexigator (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Purporting"? Why dont you just take a look at the actual documents? [3] -- 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. -- Neudabei (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not presume disquiet on my part or that I have not inspected the material, and please simply remember the circumspection owed by editors to readers, other editors and Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply a list of companies whose tax forms have been leaked. Being in that list is not an accusation of tax fraud - it is simply a factual statement. On the other hand, I find it very informative to know whose tax forms are actually available. I see its inclusion as entirely uncontroversial. Thue (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet good enough

This is a badly presented article. To say the least, its informative content is marred by much of the text reading like a press handout by and for the participating journalists and media organizations extolling the virtue of their own work and POV, the sort of thing which Wikipedia usually deprecates. It is unbalanced in that it fails to give adequate space to the published response of PWC, and it suffers from sly innuendo. The selection of company names is arbitrary as well as unnecessary, when the main public concern will be with the possible abuse of political power by governing and legislative bodies and persons. It has been noted elsewhere that it relies on a source which itself may be open to question about tax avoidance.[4] Guardian Media Group, publisher of the Guardian and its sister the Observer, has been accused of running a tax avoidance scheme... [5] If there is some bluffing or distracting going on, there is no reason to let Wikipedia be implicated. Qexigator (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions: The conclusion you reach is thus the following: The journalistic institutions involved (CNBC, CBC, Irish Times, Le Monde, Tagesanzeiger, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Asahi Shimbun, and so forth) have published "press handouts" not journalistic articles? The journalists involved are merely interested in "the virtue of their own work and POV"? The articles by the Guardian on tax avoidance are a bluff aiming at disguising the fact that the Guardian also was involved?

Then if I'm not mistaken: You deleted a list of the companies involved from the article - just to point now to the fact that a selction is incomplete? I think the reader wants to know which companies are involved.

Finally, it is up to you to include the perspective of PwC in the article. I could find the press release by PwC online - but including this directly might be original research...

-- Neudabei (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are not mine, which so far have not been answered. In my view, the information is badly presented: its informative content is marred by much of the text reading like a press handout; it fails to give adequate space to PWC's published response; it suffers from sly innuendo; company names are unnecessary (selected or not), which any reader can find by link; it is no more difficult to find the PWC response than the Guardian article. That I have already made several revisions to improve the article does not oblige me to continue, but I have drawn attention to the room for further revision to make this a better article. Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]