User talk:Tatewftrp

September 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears the offending sentence is where I added "Prudential Financial, Inc. has subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven.". I have added the source for the fact that Prudential has Cayman subs, the Exhibit 21 to the 10-K, as filed as per SEC regulations by Prudential Financial itself. This source is linked (although I am struggling to get the formatting correct). I have also linked to the Wikipedia article for "tax haven", which lists the Cayman Islands as an example of a tax haven.  Every international organization which has a list of tax havens includes the Cayman Islands (see, for example, the discussion in this peer reviewed paper with some 400 citations https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00346.x). There is no original research here. Note that I do not say that Prudential has a subsidiary in a tax haven, as one could say that no one source I linked says that.  Rather, I say they have a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands, and, separately, that the Cayman Islands is a tax haven, with sources for both statements. Respectfully, I feel I have followed the Wikipedia editing guidelines correctly. I would appreciate it if you would please revert your edit.Tatewftrp (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As I explained on your other talk page that would be WP:SYNTH. You would be using multiple sources to draw one conclusion not stated in any one source. Please stop making WP:POV edits. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not making one conclusion, and am not in violation of WP:SYNTH. These are certainly not WP:POV edits.  I am stating where a subsidiary is, and, separately, stating that that country is a tax haven.  I have not combined two things to make one. I have stated two facts, both with citations.Tatewftrp (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * When you take two different statements and merge them into one it is WP:SYNTH. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
 * Your edits are explicitly WP:POV because the point of them is to paint the companies in a bad light by calling them tax dodgers. If you can find a source which makes this claim that is one thing but you putting it there is SYNTH and OR. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have not painted the company in a bad light, or called them a tax dodger, or called them anything, for that matter. You are impugning my motives for making the edits with no basis whatsoever. Sincerely, my point is NOT to do what you suggest it is. I have made good faith edits of statements of fact, with no opinion or synthesis of mine whatsoever. Rather, I have made two statement of facts, both supported by citations.  I would ask you to please point out what statement I have made is not supported by a citation. If you cannot do so, please stop making the same baseless accusations, based on a misunderstanding both of my edits, the subject matter at hand, and the Wikipedia guidelines for editing.Tatewftrp (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please point to an instance in which I made a statement not supported by a reliable source? Unless you can do so, can you please stop reverting me edits?  Thank you.Tatewftrp (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Bank of America. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please indicate which of the two facts I have inserted is without a citation, or is my own personal research? Here are the examples of what creates a POV problems.  I am including the (lengthy) text:
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts.
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
 * Avoid stating facts as opinions.
 * Prefer nonjudgmental language.
 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
 * I have followed all of these guidelines. I have not included any "unpublished information" in my edit. I have come to Wikipedia to peacefully enhance the usefulness of pages about corporations, and would like to be free to do so.  Please stop reverting my edits, all of which follow Wikipedia policy.Tatewftrp (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion
Howdy hello! I saw that this dispute had been posted about on WP:3O. I have read this page, and gone through the edits in question, etc. These edits do not follow WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. While they may have subsidiaries in tax haven countries, that doesn't mean those subsidiaries are there to get around tax laws. The SEC source merely says where the subsidiaries are, and do not make any judgments on tax havens/tax avoidance. In order to include those claims, a stronger secondary source is needed. Furthermore, if tax havens were to be discussed, it would likely be in the body of an article, not the lead. My recommendation is that you do some more research, looking for quality secondary sources such as the New York Times that discuss said banks use of tax havens. Then you could be WP:BOLD and add a well sourced sentence into the body of an article. But be prepared for your edits to be reverted. If that happens, open a discussion on the article's talk page and discuss the questioned content. Do not try to re-add content once its been removed unless there is consensus to do so, as you will be banned for edit warring. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to look through this issue. My edits do not say that the subsidiaries are there to get around tax laws. My edits do not make any statements about tax avoidance by the firm. They do not make any judgement at all about tax avoidance. Finally, reporters at sources like the New York Times often assume tax planning merely by the existence of these subsidiaries, which is why, for example, some firms fail to disclose them in light of heavy media coverage (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3137138).
 * It might not also have been clear that the WIkipedia article on "tax haven" has a list of the countries considered tax havens, and that is the source for the claim about a given country being a haven. I could easily link to another source of a reputable body (the OECD, etc.) which has an official list of tax havens. Would that help? Tatewftrp (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because we don't outright say that an organization is using a country as a tax haven, if we say that it is a tax haven, we are implying that's why the bank is using that country. If we're not trying to imply that, then why mention that the country is a tax haven? Also, we cannot use Wikipedia as a source, as that is circular referencing. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a subsidiary in a tax haven is a phenomena of broad interest, without attributing any definitive motive to the subsidiary. For example, that is why media outlets like The Guardian has reported on exactly that--the subsidiary location of subs in tax havens, without attributing any specific motive (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/11/ftse100-subsidiaries-tax-data). Further, that is why academics, like this tenured Duke accounting professor, maintain datasets on the locations of subsidiaries in tax havens by U.S. multinationals (https://sites.google.com/site/scottdyreng/Home/data-and-code/EX21-Dataset). This particular dataset has been used in dozens of peer-reviewed academic journals (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&q=%22exhibit+21%22+%22scott+dyreng%22&btnG=).Tatewftrp (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems there are many good sources out there. If you would like to draft a well sourced sentence and post it here, you could then workshop it on a relevant talkpage, and gain WP:CONSENSUS for its inclusion. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124; My hunts ) 22:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)