Talk:VAT-free imports from the Channel Islands

message: I have taken out irrelevant information (i.e. import duties into Jersey - this should be dealt with in a different article as this article is about VAT free imports from the Channel Islands  [Exports] not imports into The Channel Islands)  and I have put in current verifiable and relevant information. If any justification or evidence is required please advise and I will supply it. Bigbrothersback (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding the bit about the GST low value relief back in, because without an explanation that the trade is exempt from both VAT and GST it's a bit difficult for the uninitiated to get a grip on how the thing works. The article might be better (and NPOV) titled something like "Sales tax-free trade between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands" because Jersey traders certainly make parallel complaints about the way UK exporters can benefit from the GST relief to compete against Jersey companies (internet orders on books are an interesting, because books are an example of goods that are taxed in Jersey, but zero-rated in the UK). But for the pertinence of the article, the GST relief is an important angle. Man vyi (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARTICLE FULLY UPDATED AUG 2010  

message: Justifications for page move and copyedit:
#Title POV and inaccurate - loophole implies an unnecessary value judgment, and if there is a loophole, it is a loophole in UK VAT legislation and not a CI loophole at all.
#Article biased by seeming to assume that the UK VAT situation was "normal" and the CI situation an "exception".
#Article appeared to imply that UK company complaints were justified
Hopefully the rewrite presents a more balanced view. Man vyi 16:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV (NOW RESOLVED)

message: I just removed all of the companies.  The thing that drew my attention was the lead phrase, which talked about how this was an incomplete list of companies "profiting" from the VAT exemption.  But we can't add those companies without reliable sources connecting them to the VAT-free issue.  To just say "Country X does business in the Channel Islands" automatically means that they are "profiting" from the exemption is a violation of WP:SYNTH.  Only those companies which have been discussed in reliable sources belong here.  Furthermore, I don't even think there should be a list, anyway--lists like this invite spamming, as was the case with a number of the stores on the list.  If any companies have been mentioned in reliable sources, include that info in prose in the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of list of companies(Now Resolved - referenced in body of text where appropriate 

message: I was reading through the Controversy section, and noticed some very clear WP:OR--specifically, WP:SYNTH.  As far as I can tell, the Halifax judgment is not related to the Channel Islands.  If it is, someone please point me to sources with more information on the case, and I'll gladly add them and revise my edits.  But if I am correct, and the Halifax case is separate, then it is very much original research to draw the conclusion that the Halifax case necessarily applies to what is happening in the Channel Islands.  It may be true, but it's Original Research until a reliable source asserts that it is applicable.  I almost stripped out the Halifax judgment in general, because just putting it into this article could be described as synthesis, but I realized that we could keep it, by using it as the base definition of VAT abuse, and then later showing that others have asserted that what is happening with the CI companies is VAT abuse.  
Second, you'll see that I added a lot of "citation needed" tags.  Most of this section is uncited.  I don't know who added it originally, and where he/she got the info from, but this section desperately needs sources.  If sources can't be found in short order (maybe a week or so), I'm going to remove the information, because we must verify all information in our articles with reliable sources.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Halifax is an important judgment concerning the application of VAT rules to a case where arrangements have been put in place to "abuse" those rules. I have some expertise in this area, and the suggestion that Halifax has application to LVCR strikes me as quite wrong. Indeed it is such an odd point to make that I doubt one would find any reliable sources commenting either way on the question. Should be deleted as original research. I agree that the other (considerable) uncited material should be deleted. LeContexte (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Controversy Section 

message: I was trying to make it so that we don't have a separate notes and references section, but I realized that to do that we have to pick only one way of doing it--either inline citations or List-defined references.  For those unfamiliar with the two methods, the first puts the citation details in the body of the text, as with the items currently listed in "Notes".  LDR only leaves  in the text, and puts the references (links, info) in the reference list itself.  There are pros and cons to each, but WP:CITE does say that we need to be consistent.  If we can't agree, we have to use the inline citations, as that is how the article originally started. Based on some arguments on other pages (see Talk:Halle Berry, if you're interested), I've recently become convinced that LDR will make editing easier, overall, but others disagree.  Is there a consensus here to do it one way or the other? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Style 

message: I've finally come to take another look, and am making some more changes to this section.  
The second paragraph was completely removed.  The two sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. The "Direct Consult" is a private firm, and you were using it to source a definition. Further, the claim that the term "fulfillment" is used different from the usual way is pure original research.  The second source (which I relocated to the other place it is used) is a report to Parliament, but it is entirely the opinion of the Scrutiny Panel.  At best, it qualifies only as a primary source, and as such we can only site it as providing its own opinion (we cannot site it as fact). I think that's how it's used later on, but I haven't looked at that section in too much detail. 
The third paragraph was cut in half. The claim that the reason the VAT business from the bailiwicks is more valuable than that from Hong Kong has to do with shipping time certainly seems reasonable, but is still pure original research.  There are potentially many other reasons why people choose the bailiwicks, and so, without a reliable source indicating that is the reason they are chosen, the information must be removed.  The last part about the 3/4 loss is a duplicate of the information earlier in the paragraph, so no need for it to be there twice.
I pulled the whole 4th paragraph. Nothing that it stated was in the citation given.  That citation never mentions LVCR.  All that article talks about is job losses due to increased competition in the fulfillment industry. It doesn't say anything about other post business coming in specifically to take advantage of VAT, etc. So not only was the citation misused, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this article.  Or, rather, the connection is tenuous, and requires a lot of inference (i.e. original research) to make the connection.  
I'll stay with just this section for today, so that there's time to comment. But if the rest of the article uses sources and makes claims like those being made here, I expect to continue to be removing significant chunks from the rest.   You (Bigbrothersback) said above that this article contains "a huge amount of research."  I'm beginning to believe that by this you mean what we call original research, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia.  The only thing we may do is say what other, reliable, independent sources have said on the subject.  In the case of opinions or speculations, we must be clear that they are opinions, attribute them, and not state them as facts.  Furthermore, we should generally rely mostly on secondary sources, not primary documents.  This is not to say that the research you  did is bad or incorrect, only that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research.  After waiting a bit and/or hearing feedback, I'll move on to the next section.  06:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Changes to "Channel Islands" section 

message: I'm back with more time for the hard editing work needing to be done on this article.
Changes made:
*Changing title to simply "LVCR".  The prepayment part doesn't seem to play any role in the rest of the article, and the section title was unecessarily long and complicated. 
*Removed info about other taxes (irrelevant to this article).
*Made end of 1st paragraph neutral (we should not specifically call out that its the maximum amount, and that's clear from the numbers anyway).  Also shouldn't unduly emphasize that this is optional (it's still there, just not mentioned more than once.
*Removed description of goods (CDs, etc.) that meet this: that's OR, and pushing POV.  Any item under the maximum qualifies.  Later, in the controversy part, we'll of course clarify the goods that are currently causing the most concern.
*Temporarily removed the following: 
::"HMV cited in their 2006 Year End report that relocating to Guernsey was to take advantage of VAT-free mail order as a key method of improving competitiveness HMV 2006 Report 
::The pricing advantage afforded by LVCR for companies based in the Islands selling into EU countries means that the Channel Islands-based retailer can undercut competing retailers based in the EU and this advantage is acknowledged by an OXERA report commissioned by the States of Jersey in 2005 as well as the 1997 VAT Assurance Review of The Channel Islands commissioned by the UK Government.Jersey Economic Affairs Scruitiny Panel - Impact of The Fulfilment Industry On the Local Economy"
I'm not planning on taking this out permanently, but think this should probably be moved to another section.  But only maybe...see, ideally, we want to get rid of the separate "controversy" section.  In general, such sections are considered to be poor, POV style writing.  We ideally want to present all of the facts neutrally, without labelling them as such.  Now, if reliable sources have used that word, we can ourselves also use it, but I'll look into that that. In any event, this part doesn't belong here, as it doesn't fit with the rest of this section.
*Converted some of the statements about where the info came from into references.  It's fine that they're not available online, but we should still treat them as references to support the info.  I assume good faith that you (Bigbrotherisback) have read the documents and accurately represented what they say.
*Simplified the final paragraph--we don't need to list all of the details.  We certainly cannot state "they don't offer an alternative explanation," as that's POV pushing OR. One possibility is that paragraph will be moved; I can imagine an organization that is "historical": First it lists where and why LVCR was allowed originally, second it discusses where it moved to (the CD/DVD markets), and third we discuss the responses to that shift (and the undercutting problems).
*Removed "The operation of Tax Relief as applied to goods entering Jersey from the UK" section, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the VAT issue at all.
I'll wait a few days for feedback/adjustments, then proceed onward. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh...my computer restarted for updates and I hadn't saved the changes...well, luckily I explained them here so I'll go do them again now. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: If you have more sources, feel free to post them here on the talk page and we discuss about how to integrate them.  I mean, you can add them directly, but be careful, as a lot of what you added before was problematic and not matching to several different policies, so it may help to get some advice here first.  Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax Relief on Imports Section 

message: I pulled out a lot of information from that section. Some of it was irrelevant (the stuff about region free DVDs), and a little bit was redundant (one paragraph was exactly duplicated), but the main problem was lack of sources, original research, and lack of neutrality.  We may never draw our own conclusions about numerical data (literally, the only conclusions we can draw are things like A is bigger than B, and only if that fact is patently obvious).  We cannot present the controversy in Wikipedia's voice--that is, we cannot say explicitly that "The use of LVCR is controversial because it may be abusive."  All we can say is "These people have claimed that it was abusive (ref)."  
I think the edit summaries I left explain each of the removals or changes; let me know if it wasn't clear why I removed something.   
The section still needs to be improved, because it's a bit unstructured.  My guess is that by reorganizing the info (maybe even subsections) we could make it easier to understand.  But at least now the section isn't in violation (or, is at least in less violation) of our fundamental policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I removed a chunk from the Guernsey section.  This:
:The legality (within EU law) and the effectiveness of these voluntary and unenforceable arrangements remains to be seen. It would be hard to argue that they will have any effect on the level of abuse of LVCR particularly since it is accepted that virtually all UK CD and DVD mail order is based offshore already (therefore limiting it is a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted) and the code does not deal with other growth areas of LVCR abuse such as the computer memory card industry. 
is pure OR, speculative about the future, and not neutral.
This:
:Critics have described the code as misleadingCode of Conduct and pointed out the complete lack of transparency particularly with regards to the voluntary 'capping'.
is not stated in the article--in fact the article's point is that the arrangements are not misleading--this is a misrepresentation of the source. 
This:
:Companies that have moved to Guernsey have experienced rapid growth, as demonstrated by the highly successful transfer of HMV's online operation from the UK to Guernsey in 2005, and the continued success of TheHutgroup.com who also run sites in Guernsey for Tesco, Asda, Dixons, Argos and others.
is unsourced, and borderline OR (in assuming that the move to Guernsey is the cause for the success, even assuming such success exists).
I took out other unsourced claims from other sections, too.  I suppose I should continue combing through the whole article...I will if I get the inclination.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure not to site the actual EU gov't docs; as a general rule, those count as WP:PRIMARY sources, and shouldn't usually be used for anything but the simplest of facts. Rather, we need secondary sources (news reports, academic analysis, etc.). If you're thinking of adding primary sources, I recommend posting it here first, so that we can be sure that they meet the limited exceptions allowed for primaries.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More removals 

message: While there are a couple of notes that this is no longer the case (one in the intro, one in the government response section). The bulk of the article is written as if VAT free imports of low value goods from the channel islands to the UK are the current situation. Someone needs to go through and fix this. 
Also does anyone know the situation with imports from the channel islands to the rest of the EU? are they still covered? 94.6.24.111 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to be more specific about any errors, or edit the article yourself. --Danrok (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense fixing needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on VAT-free imports from the Channel Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090529104412/http://www.lastshopstanding.co.uk:80/index.html?_ret_=return to http://www.lastshopstanding.co.uk/index.html?_ret_=return
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101107180652/http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-04155.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-04155.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723180536/http://www.gov.gg/ccm/commerce-and-employment/press-releases/2007/review-of-the-bulk-mail-export-of-dvds-and-cds-under-the-lvcr-arrangements.en;jsessionid=9EC63A7AB233E7EF060DDA74F0164A3A to http://www.gov.gg/ccm/commerce-and-employment/press-releases/2007/review-of-the-bulk-mail-export-of-dvds-and-cds-under-the-lvcr-arrangements.en;jsessionid=9EC63A7AB233E7EF060DDA74F0164A3A
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 18:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment