User talk:WhinyTheYounger/Archives/2022/January

January 2022
Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Gilead Sciences has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Take a dose of neutral editing; read and apply WP:NPOV. Zefr (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To avoid an edit war, I'll refrain from reverting your revert for now, but I would very much appreciate an explanation. As you can well imagine, I have plenty of opinions on how Gilead conducts itself; that being said, I am familiar with policy and am confident my edits are not in violation. Specifically re: tax avoidance, in addition to the two RS's cited in the sentence I added, there are several others that specifically discuss the $10 billion number as well, including Bloomberg, The Chicago Tribune, The Journal] (Ireland), and industry outlets like Pharmacy Times. The Motley Fool evidently considered the controversy notable enough to publish a short article for investors concerned if Gilead would face an IRS investigation/have to pay back-taxes, interestingly. Some other thoughts:
 * First, the claim, despite being covered in multiple reliable sources, came from an ideologically biased research report — for that reason, I made sure to specify the source and its political bias, and use "argued" rather than "demonstrated" "proved" etc. This is in keeping with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
 * There is no WP:UNDUE issue because there are no reliable sources that defend Gilead's actions or, to my knowledge, challenge the assumptions of the AfTF report. It is well established that the tax structure described therein is indeed widely used in tax avoidance.
 * The section name change to "tax avoidance" was accurate, more so than "tax structures", because the corporation's tax structures are not the subject of any notable coverage, at least to the degree to which its tax avoidance is. There is no reason to maintain the original title absent sources that analyze Gilead's tax structures per se.
 * Thanks in advance for your response. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  00:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support removal of the tax structure section, as this is projection and interpretation not founded in any government or corporate source regarding Gilead. I made my comments on the talk page. An article is made better by editors collaborating and even disagreeing on content and sources, then finding the best solution. Your edits today impressed as having a negative undertone in a way similar to the cat disease discussion, i.e., non-neutral and based only on news or opinions not supported by government, scientific or corporate sources. Zefr (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Li Jiaqi (beauty influencer)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)