Talk:Cardano (blockchain platform)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Puffery issue

To resolve the puffery in this article are you (David) referring to this section:

"Cardano is developed and designed from a scientific philosophy by a team of leading academics and engineers.[13][14]"

Although this is a direct quote from the European parliament, would rephrasing it as follows be more appropriate?

"Cardano is developed and designed using a scientific philosophy by academics and engineers." This is accurate, factual and does not include the embellishment of those working on the project. Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard:, I assume that the accepted article text was sufficient and that puffery came after that. Can you be specific here on what you find Puffery? Best regards, --FlippyFlink (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

FlippyFlink, I think the accepted article probably had some puffery in it too, I accepted it because it was notable and the puffery issues were not deletion worthy. Right now I think the Technology section is pretty puffed up, a case of "saying a lot but saying nothing". Its mostly un-understandable or relevant jargon that is being used to make it look more important than it is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Although I concur that it may need improvement it is already significantly simplified in layman terms (not sure what FlippyFlink thinks of this?). Particularly with these new technologies there is sometimes no other way to describe them, it is a new industry with new technology, algorithms, terms etc. We can't un-invent terms used to describe technical features - I have no doubt it will be expanded upon over the coming months as this really is not even the tip of the iceberg with regards to technical aspects. Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Referring you to Flippy's question above ^ so we can get this resolved & fix specific wording of sentences.Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the current version and could not find puffery or exagerated clams. Puffery banner removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Please remove the warning label on th etop of the page. This is ridiculous. 85.244.226.219 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging David Gerard, who would be well placed to decide if the puffery maintenance tag should be removed as he was the one to place it. Volteer1 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Still looks warranted to me, and on this very talk page we still have IOHK-affiliated editors trying to put promotional material and wording into the article. Anyone not promoting Cardano here disagree? - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard people attempting to add promotional material calls for protection and/or an editnotice, not for a cleanup tag. Tbh, the article doesn't look too bad - some stuff like "Cardano is developed and designed by a team of academics and engineers" could stand to be removed. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard Who are all these ‘IOHK-affiliated editors’ working on this page? I have not made an edit to a single page to do with blockchain since I set up this account more than two years ago to investigate anti-Cardano bias on (English) Wikipedia. You claim to be a journalist: please identify these editors rather than spreading rumour and promoting your anti-blockchain views and books. IOHKwriter (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1 Elliot321 "Cardano is developed and designed by a team of academics and engineers" is a statement in an EU report. Why do you say it is puffery? It is an expert report written for the EU and reflects the fact that there are more than 27 people with Google Scholar entries working on Cardano. Having so many peer-reviewed, published papers is unique in the blockchain industry, hence the EU summary. There is a controversial history to this Cardano page; it was deleted as not being notable in a questionable vote. And the pages of related people have been subject to extreme editing – to the extent that the entry for Philip Wadler, a world-leading computer scientist, was blocked from even saying he was working on Cardano; the justification being it was ‘spam’. Since the Cardano page was reinstated last year, its viewing figures have shown the error of that deletion vote. IOHKwriter (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look overly puffy to me. That said, I don't care enough to remove the tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks even less puffy now that I removed some stuff that was basically just to make the company/currency/blockchain look good. I removed the tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This was reverted and the puffery label is back on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This was reverted and the puffery label is removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs) 14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging David Gerard who placed the tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If David Gerard would like to restore the tag he should explain why, citing specific examples of puffery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I thought all of what I removed was puffery and you removed that and the tag without trying to overturn the established consensus, so I feel it could go back to the status quo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur that removing the puffery is the best move - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Change current version to Cardano Node 1.25.1 released on Jan 28 2021 https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node/releases/ 156.57.112.231 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Update new balance partnership to reflect that the service was a trial for Limited release Omni ones and will be considered again in the future

https://support.newbalance.com/s/article/What-Is-NB-Realchain BobcatBumps (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NightWolf¹²²³ 22:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of Cardano for authentication and traceability

Suggested edits related to the use of Cardano for product authentication and traceability:

- "to track the authenticity" in the sentence with New Balance is unclear (even though it is use in the reference article). It would be better to say: "verify the authenticity".

- Add: "As of 2021, the University of Wyoming is currently researching an anti-counterfeiting solution, which would use a cryptographic chip that is inserted in items to be protected and would store a Cardano token. The same year, Cardano announced the release of a supply chain traceability and anti-counterfeit application using QR Codes in partnership with Scantrust, after testing a proof-of-concept solution with a Georgian winemaker. "

References:

https://cryptoslate.com/how-cardano-will-be-used-to-fight-counterfeiting/

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/crypto-smackdown-is-helping-cardano-investors-2021-05-20

https://thecurrencyanalytics.com/altcoins/cardano-ada-with-proprietary-patented-process-of-scantrust-enables-traceability-and-anti-counterfeiting-on-supply-chain-25359.php

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.225.170 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Primary

I'm removing primary sources tag, coz the article has lots of secondary sources now and 2 primary sources are about the launch date and nothing big. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Another ref suggestion from a paid editor

IOHKwriter (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please delete the controversies section

It is based on unreliable sources, U.Today and Fossbytes.

"Cardano's (ADA) Charles Hoskinson Receives Threats from Indian YouTube Users, Here's Why". U.Today. 2021-07-26. Retrieved 2021-07-27.

"Watch Out! Someone Wants To Spread Vaccine Disinformation Via YouTube". Fossbytes. 2021-07-26. Retrieved 2021-07-28.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHKwriter (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

Cardano is NOT the largest Proof Of Stake blockchain platform. It is the second largest, behind Solana. Craigconville (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Veritree Cardano - Samsung project

Would it be possible to add a sentence on the recent news coming from Samsung to plant millions of trees using Veritree (built on/using Cardano)? Samsung will use Cardano's blockchain to register/ plant millions of trees to help fight climate change. Quite a large and significant event imo.

Sources:

https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-veritree-plant-millions-trees-fight-climate-change/ https://www.veritree.com/

Content could read:

In 2022 Samsung announced a partnership with Veritree, a project built using the Cardano blockchain infrastructure, to plant millions of trees. Samsung started the initiative to help fight climate change.

Bob (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Short📝description

Given that short descriptions should be CONCISE, the “blockchain platform” part from our needn't be mentioned in it since that already appears in the article title. It could be replaced with “cryptography” or similar. ToniTurunen (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

* On second thoughts my prior comment is not entirely accurate. Cardano (blockchain platform), separate from the ADA cryptocurrency token, is more explicit. Replacing it with cryptography or something similar would not make much sense as ... quite difficult to find other words other than those that describe exactly what it actually is. The title includes the phrase as disambiguation that separates it from other Cardano wiki pages. Not including it would make it more difficult to find the relevant page in the wiki. I also realize the first sentence is repetition of the title but the description also needs to be made explicit. I don't see too much harm in keeping it the way it is. * On a side-note isn't 6 words "concise" enough in the first sentence? xD You seem awfully aggravated by so few words judging by the all caps. Bob (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, case in point: if you or someone else can eventually coin a new good description that doesn't repeat the title, that'd be impressively ideal. Cardano≠ADA, true. ToniTurunen (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Grayfell -- Deletion of material + CNET source of Samsung partnership...

@Grayfell: I recently saw you deleted some material relating to Singularity net. Although disappointed of course the sourcing is important. For reference others: @GreyStar456:@Heroeswithmetaphors:@Tgeller:@Electricmaster:@Spada2:

However I was surprised you also decided to delete the partnership with Samsung... was this accurate? This seems unnecessary as there was also a CNET source, which is reliable? It is a very popular technology website used by millions. Simply delete the source rather than the content as the sources were duplicate for the same information. Simply omitting the fx source is enough instead of cutting important information / events. Seems a bit heavy handed imo. A bit odd to delete such a massive notable piece of information. Perhaps a small mistake?

Other sources include the main samsung website project website but I doubt these are adequate... even though it is samsung main website... https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-veritree-plant-millions-trees-fight-climate-change/ https://www.veritree.com/

Section below -->

The US arm of Samsung Electronics announced it would plant two million trees in Madagascar in early 2022 with Veritree, which uses the Cardano blockchain to verify that the reforestation has actually taken place.

Thanks! Bob (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not up to individual editors to decide that an event is encyclopedically important. The way to show its importance to this topic is with a reliable independent source that connects it to this topic. The CNET source did not mention Cardano or IOHK or anything similar, so its not appropriate to cite it, by itself, in this article. This would be WP:SYNTH at best and misrepresenting the source for promotion at worst.

The Samsung press release doesn't mention Cardano either. The Veritree website links to a page about the "Cardano ITO" but that says nothing at all about tracking reforestation itself. It appears to be a way to sell NFTs of individual trees as a fundraising scheme. This is not obviously a replacement for auditing, which is Samsung's claim according to the CNET article. Since the lone reliable source says nothing about Cardano, and the primary sources conflict with the reliable independent sources, there's nothing here worth adding.

More broadly, companies announce these kinds of things all the time, but they are rarely significant without context. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not, and sometimes they fail to get off the ground and just waste money. If we just mention this without any context at all, we're misleading readers into thinking it's more encyclopedically significant than even the meager sources support.

So it's not enough to include this only because it's an example of the blockchain being used in the wild. We need a reason, per sources, this is encyclopedically significant. Even if a reliable source did mention it, which I haven't seen yet, we still need to actually explain it.

To put it more simply, cite a reliable independent source which explains why this is encyclopedically significant to the Cardano blockchain, by name. Then we can talk about how to summarize that source, assuming it's even due weight. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I do find it strange though that even using Samsung's official statement/main page using Veritree (cardano based) is not enough to list the event. I understand the need for credible sources but sometimes this wiki sourcing is absurd - Fox news > main samsung page...I get the policy on perennial sources but still. And on relevancy: I thought planting 20 million trees tracked using blockchain was significant, apologies for thinking it was relevant when it is most definitely tied to a major event for this page. Simply because it happens to be "positive" doesn't mean it is promotion as you suggest. It happened. It's an event. Who knows - at a later stage it could turn out to be a massive failure? Bob (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

CNet says they "promise" to plant 2 million tree, not 20 million trees. If reliable sources discuss a hypothetical larger number, let's evaluate that in context. The significance of any event is evaluated by reliable sources, not individual editor's assumptions. For example, is this promise to eventually plant trees more significant that Samsung's spilling of acidic waste in Austin this weekend? Judging by reliable sources, the answer is no. It doesn't matter how significant it appears to you, what matters is how significant it appears to reliable sources. I do have to wonder, though, if Samsung will end up paying more money for planting trees than it does to cleanup the acid waste spilled into a waterway. Answers on a postcard, please.

But this isn't the Samsung talk page, it's the Cardano talk page. Neither CNet nor Samsung's press release mentioned Cardano even once. Again: this article is about Cardano, so you need a source which actually mentions Cardano. Even then, it's not enough for something to be verifiable, we need reliable sources to explain why it is encyclopedic. I still haven't seen a reliable source, primary or otherwise, which explains what Cardano is supposed to do here. Samsung is taking credit for a future promise to fund planting trees, but Veritree's website seem to be implying that the funding will come from individuals who buy 'tree tokens' through Cardano. Veritree's website, likewise, doesn't appear to mention Samsung once. Samsung is merely saying that some unnamed blockchain will be used to audit planting, but Veritree's website is extremely vague on how this would work. As every cryptocurrency enthusiast should know by now, an immutable ledger is not a replacement for an audit. Another source I found merely says almost in passing that this will simplify ownership of carbon offsets. None of the source I have seen seem to think that Cardano is a significant part of this company's attempt at public relations. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Excellent Kraken Source

Kraken is one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges around. It is registered with the FCA / MSB - is the first to receive a state banking license. https://tearsheet.co/blockchain-crypto/kraken-is-first-cryptocurrency-exchange-to-receive-state-bank-license/

It was started over a decade ago now (2011) and has been reliable ever since, never having issues / being hacked. It even has its own wiki: Kraken (company)

Considering this, would it be possible to use the following source? It is excellently written and is coming from a very reliable source, probably took several weeks to write / edit/publish.

Kraken report: https://kraken.docsend.com/view/mi9zz8t55jzjgzy7 Bob (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Having a Wikipedia article doesn't make a source reliable. The quality of writing and amount of time taken to write a source are not, by themselves, factors in a source's reliability either. What indicates reliability is a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. As the page-zero disclosure makes plain, this report would also have to be treated as a biased source, since it essentially says the report is for "informational purposes" while also refusing to disclose any specific conflict of interest. That's especially odd here, because the source itself is anonymous. The report gives no indication at all who actually wrote it. The list of footnotes is also pretty bad, since it's mostly just youtube vids and press releases. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And "mainstream" media uses better sources? Half of it is garbage gossip sourced by word of mouth / images / social media, yet that qualifies for wiki because of its name. Yes in todays world a lot of information is spread through social media / youtube etc. that is just the reality of the modern world. Kraken has waited more than 5+ years before publishing a report such as this - it is not a spontaneous article based on opinions but backed up with sources that they probably checked and verified. The wiki article about the company was to show that it is a notable source, it is not a single individual writing an opinion piece but a company with ~1000 employees. A company such as this with over 6 million users cannot afford to put out a poorly researched document without reputational damage... When is news not for informational purposes? xD BBC doesn't include sources or the editor half the time so your point is a little lost on what you mean. Or should we disqualify BBC? Or is BBC only included because it's been around for longer? On the whole the publication is on balance a NPOV - it objectively covers different elements of the protocol in a factual manner. Editors such as this often don't want a name associated with them due to fear of being hacked - it's the same reason names aren't published with controversial BBC articles as they would also become targets of abuse. Bob (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Do others have thoughts on this? For reference others: @GreyStar456:@Heroeswithmetaphors:@Tgeller:@Electricmaster:@Spada2:@FlippyFlink: Bob (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is a mainstream tertiary source, so in practice we mainly summarize mainstream secondary sources. Mainstream or not, this doesn't really address the the issue I tried to explain. This outlet lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That phrase is from Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For several reasons, I don't think the source is reliable for any likely usage in this article.

The source lacks consensus for inclusion because it's not clearly reliable. I am blocking consensus based on what is, obviously, my opinion on the source. In this particular case, I think that my opinion reflects the mainstream Wikipedia position. If you want an additional opinion on the sources, first figure out what specific content the source would support. Then post a comment about it at WP:RSN.

As for the pings, you should review WP:CANVASS very carefully. Those you notified should also read WP:CANVASS very carefully. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies - I simply pinged those I saw were interested in the page / editing Cardano. A bit difficult to reach consensus when there is one individual giving feedback. I also would agree after feedback it is not up to wiki standards. Cheers for the input! Bob (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

cardano current version is no longer 1.33.0 but 1.34.1 . Here link to the github repository https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-node 217.75.223.17 (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Solano is no longer the biggest PoS currency - ethereum is no longer proof of work

source gray glacier update 2601:603:1200:2340:F778:FF7B:9827:675F (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC) The article says "It is the largest cryptocurrency to use a proof-of-stake blockchain," which is no longer true.

Etherium is now Proof-of-Stake, needs a pretty substantial update to the article

Etherium went Proof-of-Stake earlier this month. Lots of this article is out of date because of that change. Zenten (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

The article states that Ethereum is based on proof-of-work. This is no longer the case after the merge. Andrea.barbon (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Grayfell: are you stalking me?

Hello @Grayfell, Every time I do an edit to do with Edinburgh Uni, you seem to pop up soon after to challenge it. In the latest example, within hours you change 'set out' and describe it as 'Mild PR-speak'. It's getting a bit creepy. Please stop following me! GreyStar456 (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not following you, and by several hours, you mean two days. My intention is to clean up this and other related article, as I do with many cryptocurrency-related articles.

Some of the content you have added to this article is promotional, but Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy and promotion. To that end, articles should also use a formal WP:TONE, which discourages informal business cliches like 'set out'. Further saying that IOHK helped the University of Edinburgh... is not appropriate, since it is implying to readers that the University was planning on doing this anyway and IOHK merely chipped in, but this isn't what sources say and it's not how these kinds of things really work, is it?

If you think my behavior is personally inappropriate, please be more specific, or take it to a noticeboard such as WP:ANI.

Incidentally, if you are associated with Cardano or with the University of Edinburgh, please carefully review WP:COI. Please especially note that per Wikipedia's TOS you must disclose any editing for which you are compensated. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly following my editing. This began in January this year when several edits I made were changed by you within hours. You then went back on edits on other pages I had made months before. I do not agree that any of my additions are promotional. And now you have started inventing accusations.

The Cambridge dictionary definition of ‘set out’ is: ‘to give the details of something or to explain it, especially in writing, in a clear, organized way’. It is not an 'informal business cliche'. That is just your opinion. You are interpreting this phrase in an inappropriate, overly-negative way.

The phrase ‘IOHK helped the University of Edinburgh launch the Blockchain Technology Laboratory’ has nothing to do with me. It has been on the page for several years. So much for your 'cleaning up' excuse. You can see this in the history.

You clearly have an agenda that is leading you to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about me.

Please stop following my work. GreyStar456 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not personal, and I have no interest in stalking you. I will continue to watch articles related to cryptocurrency and edit them as appropriate. I have been editing this article since 2020, (which is before your first edit). Your recent edits to this page were a cause for concern. Due to that, I looked at your contributions and noticed your most recent other edits were to Ouroboros (protocol). That is an article that is very closely related to this one. That article is also on my watchlist, and has been for several years. Per Wikipedia, I had not seen those edits yet, so I checked them. In my opinion, you added inappropriate sources to that article, so I removed them. Again, for clarity, this article and that article are closely related, and both are on my watchlist. I do not remember the specifics of January, but it appears you added inappropriately promotional sources at that time.

I'm sincerely not trying to cause any distress or to invade your privacy. Your edits on Wikipedia are public, and likewise, you are responsible for those edits. My intention is not to hamper or interfere with your editing, it is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of cryptocurrency. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You may not think it is personal, but it looks that way to me. You Ouroboros deletions demonstrate that. The only concern about my recent edits is yours, that they do not match your view of the world. The more I look into your work on my edits, the more worrying I find this. You are not neutral – your ‘set out’ and ‘IOHK helped' attacks on my motivations are paranoid inventions. You are artificially trying to attach a PR label to me when it is simply that you do not like people editing your pet pages.

I have looked at your recent contributions. You have made more than 100 edits in the past few days (someone must be paying you for that amount of work) and you obviously regard yourself as some kind of self-appointed Wiki police. But what are the rules you work to? You cite Wiki rules but don’t follow them. I see you were involved recently in deleting a fair bit of solid work I did improving the ‘Environmental impact of bitcoin’ page in April (it was broadening out into a general criticism of crypto with the intro: ‘Cryptocurrencies in general, and most notably Bitcoin’). The reason given was that someone ‘couldn’t find a reliable source saying that Bitcoin could move off proof of work’. That is clumsy work based on a biased logic. Ethereum moved of proof of work, why couldn’t bitcoin? You looked at that page the day before and 3 days after that edit, but did nothing about it. You appear to have been working in concert with that editor; you made 14 edits and they did 27 of the past 50.

As to your Ouroboros deletions of references I added (always deleting, never adding), why?

- GitHub has been cited tens of thousands of time on Wikipedia. It is used by most crypto pages I see, including Ethereum (a page you patrol). Why do you not regard it as a valid source for Ouroboros?

- essentialcardano.io is generally clear and understandable. The Ethereum page has many references to primary blogs – even one called blog.ethereum.org – as well as its own Github. The Bitcoin page is stuffed with references to primary sources. Again, a page you patrol. GreyStar456 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not paid to edit, nor do I have any conflict of interest for this or any other cryptocurrency.

I have tried to be sympathetic to your concerns, but accusing me paid editing and of paranoid inventions has verged into personal attacks. If you cannot assume good faith, we will have to take this to WP:ANI.

As I already explained, your promotional behavior here prompted me to look closer at Ouroboros. I removed sources that were not helpful in context. At that article you added more primary sources to a sentence which was already tagged with template:primary source inline. This was not helpful, and no, I do not accept that essentialcardano.io meets WP:RS guidelines for most contexts.

As for Environmental impact of bitcoin, having just checked that page's history, your last edit to that page was in April, and my first edit was in October. Looking at it now, it appears that you once again added vaguely promotional language regarding Cardano to that article. My involvement in that page came from a discussion on Talk:Bitcoin. I was not paying attention to who-wrote-what when I made those changes, and I doubt I noticed them at the time, or I would've removed the content you added which appeared to be promoting Cardano.

The blog you mention at the Ethereum article appears to meet WP:SELFSOURCE as a WP:PRIMARY source for a significant routine detail. The github page is for the whitepaper itself, and is supplemented by a secondary source from a seemingly reputable publishing house.

But of course there are a lot of bad sources across all of Wikipedia. For better or worse, Wikipedia doesn't operate on precedent. If you want advice on any specific source, see WP:RSN.

Here's a different perspective: this shows the differences both of us have made to the article since Nov. 5. I think the article is improved. That's the important part. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Brand intimacy survey

The MBLM survey has been run for a decade and has been reported and its staff quoted regularly in the mainstream business media, such as the FT, Fortune (every year since 2017), the Motley Fool, Forbes and Fast Company; in marketing trade titles, such as Ad Age, Ad Week and The Drum; and by other magazines such as Variety. The founding of the company was covered by the New York Times under the headline “Accounts and People of Note in the Ad Industry”. Ad Age led its coverage this year with the crypto angle; it noted that “Crypto ranked eighth out of 19 industries”; that “Cardano won out among crypto brands at number 26, between Ford and Nestlé”; and that Bitcoin came in at 30. GreyStar456 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Brand relationship#Brand intimacy makes this term appear to be niche marketing jargon of unclear encyclopedic significance. Further, it over-cites Mario Natarelli, suggesting that this concept is primarily his invention. I just trimmed some of the marketing filler from that section, but it is still very long on filler and buzzwords, and still completely lacking even the whisper of hard data.

If this listing is independently significant, feel free to WP:WTAF.

So who or what is MBLM? It appears to be a marketing company which uses this angle to push their products, which Ad Age indicates. Ad Age also mention Mario Natarelli as a partner of MBLM, which suggests this is a walled garden.

I have rephrased the section to more closely summarize what the cited source had to say about Cardano specifically. As with everything else here, our goal is to explain why these facts are significant to this topic. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

While cleaning up Brand relationship, I noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand intimacy from 2019 which shows that I am not the first person on Wikipedia to notice MBLM and Mario Natarelli's aggressive push to normalize "brand intimacy" as a marketing gimmick. It appears WTAF was already tried, and failed, for being too promotional. The entire premise of using "artificial intelligence" to track "archetypes" based on social media raises a lot of WP:FRINGE alarms, as well. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Conditions to remove EP status

Good afternoon / evening / morning @User:EdJohnston,

I was wondering as to what conditions were necessary to de-escalate one level from EP to semi-protected. On the "WP:PP" page I saw I should first contact the administrator who originally applied the protection. I am writing as the protection level has been in place for quite some time and is rather restrictive for many users wanting to update the page, myself selfishly included in this group. I see many similar pages on lower status levels. I am asking as the page has been under EP for 2+ years now. Would it be possible to reconsider the protection level for this page? Perhaps provide a "trial" period of several months? I am unsure as to how the de-escalation usually works.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards, A wiki user. Bob (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

At present I am unwilling to lift the extended confirmed protection that was placed on the article in 2020. Cryptocurrency is a topic area that is subject to constant promotional editing. The page is covered by sanctions under WP:GS/CRYPTO and also has a WP:1RR restriction. If you want to get consensus for a change, like the one you proposed above, consider making a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptocurrency. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @EdJohnston for your consideration and quick reply, it is certainly a contentious topic. I am actually in agreement with the WP:1RR as it provides some stability, as long as individuals are willing to talk about the reasoning behind edits. I only wondered about the status recently as the vast majority of other cryptocurrency pages now seem to have semi-protected status. I will consider your suggestion and perhaps give it a couple months to see what the edit activity is like. Thanks again and have a good day / evening. Bob (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of 'set out'

The phrase ‘set out’ is used on the front page of yesterday’s London Evening Standard in an article about immigration quotas. It is regularly used in The Times, most recently in articles about Rishi Sunak, JK Rowling, Scottish politics, Keir Starmer, the National Trust, Xi Jinping, and gay footballers. The phrase is used 63,842 times on Wikipedia. Looking at the first 20 examples, 7 are in the sense used here, suggesting 20,000+ similar uses of the phrase. So it is a widely used term and not a ‘business cliché’ or ‘PR-speak’. GreyStar456 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I seem to have struck a nerve. As I said, everything should be evaluated in context. The phrase, in that context, is less precise and more conversational. "began planning" conveys exactly the same information. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@GreyStar456 @Grayfell - Just my thoughts: I have to admit it does seem that this particular page receives a significant amount of scrutiny when compared to many other cryptocurrency pages. And I can imagine that deleting an entire section because of small semantic differences based on one's own personal language preferences for phrasing can appear obstructive and incite frustration especially when you suggest ulterior motives. Instead of deleting an edit purely due to phrasing, perhaps alter the language? A page like Dogecoin for instance, a meme coin about a dog, seems to have more freedom. So it is frustrating when a "serious" cryptocurrency with close to 200 scientific papers (as per their library: https://iohk.io/en/research/library/) is treated with more censorship than many other cryptocurrency wiki pages, from my observations. And of course these are just my opinions, I thank you for your help in cleaning things up - I just feel some of these deletions take things too far sometimes. Many sources are clearly valid and it is a sad state that we have to rely on "FoxNews, CNN" et al. to write about a highly specific topic in a dumbed down way about scientific subject material before being able to write about it in wiki. By design, that makes it almost impossible to write anything about the technical aspects as GreyStar was alluding to above I believe. aka: frustration - anyway just my two cents. Bob (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Coming back months later to falsely imply that I deleted content "purely due to phrasing" is either failing to assume good faith, or is not paying close enough attention to what that content actually says and why it would be a problem.

But a much broader and more important issue is that the entire goal of Wikipedia is to "dumb down" complicated topics. We are attempting to explain this so that a general audience can understand it without any unreasonable prior assumptions. This is especially important for cryptocurrency articles, for several reasons.

For one, as any remotely serious analysis of the topic area shows, cryptocurrency has a significant and indisputable history of obscurantist jargon and uncritically hype disguised as legitimate finance or science. (FTX is just one recent high-profile example, and yes, that comparison may seem unfair, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make). The correct way to differentiate this project from things like FTX or any of the countless rugpulls, is not with PR-minded word choices or with editor-curated obscure primary sources. Instead, it should be done via reliable, independent, secondary sources.

It's not a disservice to Cardano to hold this article to a high standard. Oh, and I am not consciously holding it to a higher standard than any other cryptocurrency-related article. If the Dogecoin article is a train-wreck (which is likely), talk:Dogecoin is the place to discuss that.

To expand on the goal Wikipedia a bit, we have to provide impartial context to a broad range of readers. For a lot of reasons, we use independent sources for that context. Note that I didn't say "neutral sources", but this approach does generally exclude involved sources, such as iohk.io. So if you know of a secondary or tertiary source which helps provide missing context, let's see it. News outlets are perfectly acceptable for this kind of thing.

Since it appears you have returned months later to edit this specific topic again, I would also remind you of WP:COI, specifically WP:DISCLOSE. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

My response was based on the above discussion between yourself & GreyStar where there seems to be a disagreement about the phrase "set out", that is all. Coming back to something months later is slightly irrelevant with wiki where changes can be discussed at any time. I do assume good faith but using the argument of "I made an edit that somebody doesn't like so it must be bad faith" is a bit escalatory, particularly when it comes to small semantic preferences. Jargon changes, language changes and evolves... it always does. New ideas, methods, techniques, projects will always have new terms and phrases, that doesn't mean that simply because they are "new" they shouldn't be used, that's what language is for. To paint all Cryptocurrencies in the same brush as the worst of projects seems a bit unfair.

As I stated above, I sincerely thank you for your help - it is definitely important to have experienced wiki users such as yourself keeping things in check. I do like your edits and you keep things very proper with high standards, it is appreciated. haha Drawing a parallel with FTX is definitely unfair though! It is not a cryptocurrency but an exchange, it was obscure and survived by hiding information and shell companies and was controlled by a centralized group of individuals playing with dark pools of money from customers. Cardano has everything on Git for anybody to see, is not controlled by anyone and is decentralized... it is open source, quite the opposite. https://cardanoupdates.com/

The point I made above about sourcing in such topics means that it is incredibly difficult, nigh impossible, to include relevant information about topics that are novel. Take a quick look through the IOHK library link I posted - I don't think CNN will be writing about this anytime soon (secondary or tertiary sources). It was purely an observation commentary that wiki guidelines make it very difficult and prohibitive to include relevant information in these instances, particularly when it comes to niche topics such as this.

On your COI reminder - I will state this: I have nothing to do with Cardano, I am simply an enthusiast of the technology and have followed this project for some time, hence my interest in this page. This is a talk page, meant for discussion. Bob (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Technical aspects addition: potential source + text for editor with EP status.

In 2023 it was announced by Charles Hoskinson that the "Voltaire upgrade", known as CIP (Cardano improvement proposal) 1694, will see "Millions of people working together for growth and utility" using the MBO (members based organization).

Yahoo!News article: https://news.yahoo.com/bitcoin-ethereum-cardano-rise-crypto-rally-continues-121209442.html

• Reasoning: As someone who follows cryptocurrencies this is quite a large upgrade for the protocol and should be included as a technical aspect. Most definitely notable as it allows users of Cardano a democratic on chain vote of system design / future research and improvements. Essentially handing control to those using the protocol. Hopefully future articles will allow this aspect to be fleshed out a little more than these bare bones.

Bob (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional sentence + source for technical details:

• Most recently Hoskinson has stated the "Voltaire upgrade" will allow millions to collaborate on the smart contract platform. Q, ai (January 21, 2023). "Why is crypto up? Which Coins are soaring, Which are dying and what does it mean for investors?". Forbes. Archived from the original on January 18, 2023. Retrieved January 18, 2023. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; January 20, 2023 suggested (help)

Additional source for Plutus & Marlow inclusion in technical details:

• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cardano-founder-charles-hoskinson-explains-222142978.html
• A huge missing component is the inclusion of these technical details that have been out for years now.

More information on Edinburgh Lab in The Times paper:

• Cardano coverage in Nikkei Asia - paper with several million user base, reputable Japanese news source. Covers quite a lot of useful information for this Cardano page that is missing.

• https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cryptocurrencies/Startups-push-blockchain-beyond-cryptocurrency

Additional source from the official Ministry of Innovation and Technology, Ethiopia.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20181208200838/http://www.most.gov.et/training
• Covers the Ethiopia training of developers in Africa + the reasons for doing so.

Bob (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

→ Perhaps some of this material is useful? GreyStar456 Bob (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORBESCON. Note also that Yahoo!News mostly (but not exclusively) republishes content from other outlets, many of which are unreliable. The first Yahoo!News source appears to be original reporting, and is nominally reliable, but it's mainly about the recent rally within the 2021–2023 crash. Per that source, But the early year rally has been overshadowed by signs of ill-health in the burgeoning industry.[1] If this source was cited, it would have to include the much more sober context of the source as a whole. It would not be appropriate to cite it entirely for a vague and promotional tweet from Hoskinson without any other context. The age of all of these sources should also be considered and provided as context if used (such as with "in 2018, ..."). Grayfell (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell for highlighting, I have tweaked the sentence:

In 2023 it was announced by Charles Hoskinson that the "Voltaire upgrade", known as CIP (Cardano improvement proposal) 1694, will potentially increase scalability and utility using the MBO (members based organization).

As per the discussion above with GreyStar about sourcing - are we damned if we do and damned if we don't? This is as per Wiki guidlines. I don't particularly feel like referencing a poor quality Yahoo article talking about price but would rather use the original paper to discuss the Voltaire. Yet if this is the only way in which such information can be included then what choice do we as editors have? Voltaire is a significant technical upgrade for the network and should at least be mentioned.

Indeed in agreement with the referencing of time, that is most definitely important here with these sources. Bob (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As always, significance should be decided by sources, not editors. It looks like you've decided that this information is important based on WP:OR and are now looking for sources that will allow you to add this info. That's not best practice, for several reasons, and it doesn't help readers understand this topic. Saying this "will potentially increase scalability and utility using the MBO (members based organization)." Is far, far too vague. It uses jargon which might sound vaguely impressive to some, but that's about all. That's why this seems like an attempt to promote Cardano. Software is updated and improved all the time, and we would need a reliable, independent source to explain why this particular event is significant. This isn't a platform for press releases or other forms of PR, so we need to contextualize why this matters. If reliable sources do not provide that context, then it doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What "jargon" are you talking about - it is all part of the English language (the sections you quoted in your statement above)? Are you honestly suggesting people don't understand the word "scalability" or "utility"? And a "members based organisation" speaks for itself - the term is self explanatory for goodness sake. WP:OR - it is a genuine source as per wiki guidelines, as stated before there are sources that explain this in exquisite detail yet sadly, again, this is the level we are forced to work at as editors. No CNN/ FOX/ Forbes article is going to go wild about an update such as this or provide the necessary details. So even when I find a source as per wiki standards it is not enough? Again damned if you do damned if you don't this feels like 1984 newspeak-esque revisionism. How are we supposed to include content on new topics with new language? Never allowed on wiki terms or your terms? The ETH and bitcoin pages are all FULL of new words and "jargon" - why don't you go ahead and delete half their pages or are there two standards here? I am genuinely trying to stick to the rules and your suggestions but you're making it quite impossible based on your own personal semantic preferences and perhaps even bias against cryptocurrency so it seems

Bob (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, jargon is often common words used in specific ways that are separate from their commonly understood meaning. Being regular English words doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Even if it's explained or supposedly self-explanatory, "member based organization" is jargon. Why add "member based", and why is this so important that it needs its own acronym? Is it to differentiate it from some other kind of organization? Why would those other types of organization be the default? These are rhetorical questions. The problem with this phrase is that these obvious questions lead readers to a set of assumptions that are not supported by the source itself.

Likewise, in this context "scalability" and "utility" are jargon and also kind of buzzwords. No, I don't think most general readers understand what either of those words means in this context. It sounds impressive, but if you tell readers that 'utility' is increasing, they will want to know what this token actually does more of than it did before. Similarly, "scalability" only works if readers already have a clear idea of what this does and why it would need to do more of it. The source doesn't explain that so we're back to implying something to readers without being able to directly tell them anything at all.

So again, we need sources to explain why this is important. Wikipedia isn't the place for breaking news. There are countless articles on niche topics of wildly varying quality, but the standard is the same.

As for other cryptos, I've tried to reduce the jargon problem on both Bitcoin and Ethereum-related articles, but it's an ongoing issue. It's not realistic to expect editors to give this article a free pass just because those articles also have similar problems. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Because an organization is usually based on a closed group or collective of individuals within a company where you have to be invited in. Members based implies that is possible to join said organization when joining / using the Cardano network. That seems self evident, not quite sure that required an explanation.

An acronym is required for exactly what I wrote above, it is necessary to provide the distinction. Or are we to generalize everything - language can be used precisely and descriptively as MBO does. And yes it is necessary because it is different from organizations that is the whole point. Instead of top down approach it is bottom up. The community builds the organization and has a say in this decentralized system.

What? How are "scalability + utility" buzzwords? These are incredibly common words used within cryptocurrency and speak for themselves. scalability - increase in scale. Utility = to provide use... How are we meant to refer to these actions then without using these words? Bob (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, those were rhetorical questions. Being self evident to you personally isn't sufficient. Answering rhetorical questions suggests that you don't understand what I'm saying at all, but I will add that by your own very loose definition, almost all organizations are still "member based" because that phrase says nothing at all about how membership is determined, nor does it say anything at all about "decentralization" (I recently mentioned why I think decentralization is a buzzword elsewhere on Wikipedia).

If this term was self-evident, which I do not accept, then it wouldn't need an acronym. In English, we do not reduce normal phrases to acronyms in general usage. They either are extremely common or they have some special meaning (or both). By introducing this term with an acronym we are telling readers it has some significance. In other words, we are hinting to readers that the term is jargon, which is a form of editorializing.

But since I don't accept that this is self evident, this is even worse. In that case it's using linguistic tricks to imply a level of importance which is not supported by the cited sources.

Regarding buzzwords, as I already explained, if you tell readers that 'utility' is increasing, those readers will want to know what this token did before and what new things it can do now. Being vague about this isn't appropriate for a whole mess of reasons. Without this context, this is a WP:PEACOCK term. Similarly, "scalability" only works if readers already have a clear idea of what this cryptocurrency does that it can now do more of. I'm all-too-aware that those buzzwords are incredibly common. That's why they are buzzwords. What makes this informative is context, which still has not been provided. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Grayfell

• In 2021 IOHK, sometimes referred to as 'Input Output Global' (IOG), created a "strategic collaboration" with Dish Network to investigate the use of distributed ledger technology. The collaboration aims to improve customer loyalty programs and simplify connecting businesses with consumers. Dish Network's Boost Mobile Vice President (EVP), Stephen Stokols, cites a loyalty point system and a secure digital identity for customers.

• As of 2022, Hoskinson cites over 900 decentralised applications, many of which are involved in "GovTech".

• Cardano's development company, IOHK, cites development in Africa with blockchain applications including: reducing corruption, provable identity/education certificates, micro-loans and land ownership documents.

Grayfell - the reason for including the additional references was so you could delete those you didn't agree with... You seem to have just not wanted to take the minute to check and deleted everything? The mobileworldlive reference most definitely seems decent - it is a tech website specifically for such news... And yes it is notable.... Is every application for Cardano's entire future history not allowed as it is considered "promotional"? Dish Network has several million customers... seems rather strange you persistently delete any accomplishments / applications. You also seem to have deleted two additional bullet points from the list with relevant sourcing as per wiki guidelines... This is getting ridiculous. I use wiki's own guidelines yet you persistently delete relevant information.

Bob (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that I'm giving this article special treatment. I'm not. These sources are poor for reasons I have already explained multiple times. We obviously do not agree on how Wikipedia's policies apply in this situation.

The last two bullet points are just vague promotional talking points from the company itself. The Yahoo News source is also pure garbage. It talks about "billions of Africans" as if they were interchangeable props to be exploited (there aren't "billions" of Africans). Since I would be ashamed to recommend anyone read that article, I would never cite it for any serious point on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Yahoo News source is garbage? I'm sorry but I am using wiki guidelines here. I equally think this is not the best source material for describing such events but this is what is allowed as per wiki standards. Wiki decided that this was a great way to source material so we are forced to use this instead to describe events. I agree the phrasing isn't up to standard but nonetheless that doesn't mean the content isn't any less relevant if you're focusing on semantics. Perhaps he was implying past / present / future Africans in his statement in terms of cumulative impact on "billions" of lives. This is indeed a liberal interpretation but does fit the context of the sentence considering there are 1.2 billion in Africa currently. Anyway yes you are correct there should have been one less s used in billions. Does that void the entire article? This is from a Financial Times Crypto and Digital Assets Summit - a reputable and notable event.

Interchangeable props to be exploited? That is your own spin. And yes in the not so distant past the entire world did exploit them... and even now they are exploited by Western and Chinese mega-corporations buying up land / resources + binding them with long term debt obligations.

Again I feel like I am put in a position to defend bad source material. This is per wiki standards, I didn't make the rules. I would much prefer to use sources such as this from IOHK themselves: https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2021/10/26/africa-is-where-the-tough-get-going/

Anyway...I won't revert but disagree with the deletion. It is one of the few cryptocurrencies trying to help the unbanked in Africa and working with their governments out of the thousands of cryptocurrencies but you have deleted all three references to Africa already from this article including the addis ababa course, the govtech initiatives and this section on blockchain applications. In my mind such initiatives deserve a mention rather than an entire page dedicated to CryptoKitties from ETH. Bob (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Definition of "Staking" as it applies to Cardano

Regarding this edit, where to start?

I guess an easy place to start is this: A three and a half star review is not an appropriate source for giving a glowing overview of all the benefits of using Cardano's wallet. As a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advertising IOHK's services. I keep saying that because it's still true.

Next: the SEC source is a legal complaint filed in court. It is a textbook WP:PRIMARY source. Any use of such a source should be contextualized by reliable WP:IS. That complaint barely mentions Cardano, and doesn't give it any special emphasis.

The content supported by the complaint also failed to summarize the source. The reason the SEC was taking action was due to securities law. There are a whole host of reasons why Wikipedia cannot nudge readers into thinking that the Cardano wallet is a way to bypass government regulation and "invest" in an unregistered security. There are so, so many problems with this.

So, using such a source to comment about how the SEC's complaint against Kraken was "highlighting the need for self-custody." is obvious and unacceptable editorializing. The Investopedia review (assuming it's even usable in the first place) doesn't mention Kraken at all, and the SEC sure as hell isn't telling retail investors to use "self custody"! So who is doing the "highlighting" in this case? Using Wikipedia to say this is completely unacceptable.

Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Does it matter what "review" they provide? The article outlines the technical function of the wallet. The rating is irrelevant and shows that it is an "honest" source. If this were a 5 star review praising the wallet you would have used the argument that this was promotional. Again. HOW IS THIS PROMOTIONAL. This is part of the critical functioning of the CARDANO protocol - and you DELETE it. Getting a bit frustrated here with your reasoning. You delete vast chunks of text based on "this is promotional". NO it is not. This is how it FUNCTIONS. You are saying the securities exchange commission isn't a reliable source now? Come on this is insane. The report SPECIFICALY mentions Cardano twice in the explanation regarding staking. That is perfectly reasonable to use in a wiki article to describe... STAKING. It isn't labeled as a security... this document specifically talks about Kraken exchange offering "yield services" by using other peoples money. That is the issue. The SEC has no issue with self custody, that is clear from this document. Deleted the mention of kraken.

Staking is also essential to at least explicitly describe here for Cardano. Is is the foundation of the ENTIRE security model of Cardano and how the blockchain functions. Omitting it is like ignoring the engine in the description of a car. Staking is also relevant to describe here as this is accurate as per Cardano staking model - there are numerous other types of staking models that differ including those that slash / burn tokens or have lockup periods etc. None of these apply and the SEC description is a fantastic description that is as accurate as it gets. Yes generally "court documents are not allowed" but give me a break this is the SEC - it is a large institution with the aim of regulating markets. You won't get a better source than this.

Staking is part of fundamental protocol design and was the first mentioned in the SEC description about staking, it is essential to enabling transactions /providing security for Cardano. --> Together with a "k" factor and pledge amount for stake pool operators staking ability is core to enabling Cardano's function. As such it most definitely seems relevant to include a very small section describing the basics of staking under the section for design... Found an article from IOHK describing their reasoning. https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2018/10/29/preventing-sybil-attacks/

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources it states. "court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name. " -> In no way is this pertinent here. The sections mentioning Cardano are clearly about.... Cardano. And again... This is coming for the Securities Exchange Commission of the US - won't get more objective or factual than that.

Bob (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are too promotional. I've explained this multiple times. If you don't understand why this is a problem, perhaps we need to go to a noticeboard to resolve this.

As I've already explained many, many times, how "essential" this is should be decided by reliable, independent sources.

As I explained, I do not accept that the SEC complaint is a "fantastic" source, but also, I don't accept that your summary of that source was neutral or accurate. Your use of that source omitted far too much context from that source, and that context is important -but yet again, that context should come from a reliable, independent source.

I never said the SEC source wasn't reliable, I said it was a primary source, which it is. This is exactly why primary sources are such a headache, because we still need reliable sources to interpret them for us. I don't think it should be used here at all, and past experience leads me to believe Wikipedia's other experienced editors will agree with me on this, but... We don't even seem to agree on what that source is saying about Cardano, do we? If we don't agree on what it's saying, we cannot agree on how to summarize it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Any analysis or interpretation of a legal document should come from a reliable independent source. You seem to be completely ignoring me every time I try to explain this.

IOHK's website is not independent, and not even reliable for anything beyond extremely routine details. Nothing about this is routine.

WP:USEPRIMARY is an explanatory essay for Wikipedia:No original research#Primary. Here are the relevant policies from that page:

1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[e]
2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

An SEC complaint requires interpretation and analysis. This is not a musicians discography, and this is not a passage from a novel to explain a plot point. That you felt the need to add editorializing such as the line about this ...highlighting the need for self-custody. shows that this does, in fact, require a large amount of analysis. That kind of editorializing is exactly what I mean when I say this is an inappropriate use of a primary source.

Again, as I've already said more times than I can count, it should be possible to cite reliable, independent sources to explain why "staking" or any other feature is essential. The SEC uses the term in quotes because it's jargon (I assume the term was taken from gambling). Using that source for such an absurdly flattering and misleading explanation of the concept is wildly inappropriate. The SEC lists several cryptos as examples, so using the source to emphasize this one crypto is WP:OR as is explained in the above policies.

Grayfell (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes you keep mentioning "this is promotional" that doesn't make you right though, it means you just like deleting code on that basis. That is your opinion - I have not reverted many chunks that you have deleted. But here I must draw a line - staking is a CORE, fundamental part of Cardano design. Deleting this is nonsensical, genuinely. How are we supposed describe core principles of the protocol if you "believe" them to be promotional. Sorry, this is simply the way it is, there are no other ways to describe staking. We are somehow supposed to describe core elements by skirting around actually describing how it functions? Also Cardano wasn't relevant? It was mentioned in point 2. at the very top of the SEC filing.

On the summary of that source - I didn't change the wording / phrasing of the SEC text - I kept these changes to a bare minimum. Anyone with no bias can see this section is purely descriptive. CTRL-F Cardano and look at the sections yourself. I have not changed the phrasing in any way. The "tone" is neutral what are you talking about honestly? The text on staking is purely descriptive in nature.

The IOHK website was used purely so you understand the importance and relevance... not as a source intended for use - purely for this talk page conversation.

WIKIs own page I linked above shows that these documents CAN be used but with consideration. I understand the reasoning most definitely for most court documents but the SEC surely is an exception to this, it is one of the biggest government agencies of the united states and you say this is not reliable? If this doesn't count as an exception to the rule what does? The document is incredibly well written and structured with definitions that are objective. The definitions included are just that... there is no interpretation and were nearly taken verbatim from the document with some slight cutting of superfluous information - I didn't add any of my own text here. From gambling? No... usually when describing definitions quotes are used. You assume it comes from gambling / is jargon is your negative spin. That is your interpretation that is really stretching it. If you look they even use quotes for "SEC" and “Commission”...

I deleted the section on "...highlighting the need for self-custody" - I agree with you here. Perhaps the phrasing here was poor on my part.

The SEC isn't a reliable independent source? You claiming FOX news is a better source that a united states government body??? Honestly this is madness.

Flattering and misleading? Again - WHAT? what are you talking about? This is purely descriptive of HOW IT WORKS. Added some additional sourcing that essentially say exactly the same. You are disagreeing with both the European Union Comission and SEC because you know better? And yes it is relevant to other cryptocurrencies but this is a CARDANO page.... Am I supposed to start listing all staking cryptocurrencies here? Additional sourcing has been added to the section on staking.

Bob (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

-------------

--> I have cut back on both the staking and daedalus section / removing superfluous info and potential "promotional" wording. Now as functionally descriptive / objective as it gets without not describing it at all... Also apologies in the edit text, I should have used Grayfell rather than Greyfell.Bob (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries about the name, everybody gets it wrong and I should just change it to something that's easier to spell.

So, there's a lot to unpack here. I'm trying to be succinct, honest.

Calling it "madness" tells me you don't get what I'm saying about the SEC source. This is important, and there is a reason I've been spending all this time focusing on this one point. If you don't understand what I'm saying, it's going to be hard to collaborate, isn't it? It is not inherently unreliable, but every source is judged in context. You want this source to be treated as "surely an exception" as you put it. I obviously don't agree.

The document mentions "Cardano" three times in a 25 page document. The first mention is in parenthesis along with other proof-of-stake cryptos. I dispute that this parenthetical mention is useful. The third is an (almost) alphabetical list of every token with a staking program Kraken offered to US residents, with dates and token names.

So that leaves the second paragraph. That paragraph says exactly one thing about Cardano specifically: Proof of stake, used by blockchains such as the Cardano (ADA), Ethereum (ETH), Polkadot (DOT), and Cosmos (ATOM) blockchains, involves the protocol selecting from crypto asset holders who have committed or “staked” a minimum number of tokens to validate transactions.p.8

The source doesn't say this is important to Cardano, nor does it seem particularly useful for deciding importance to Cardano or any other specific crypto. You say this is a "CORE, fundamental part of Cardano design", but the SEC source doesn't really say that, does it? It says that staking is a feature of proof-of-stake cryptos, of which Cardano is just one of several examples. The only reason Cardano is mentioned is because Kraken was providing a Cardano staking service to US customers.

To be clear, you obviously could not paraphrase the entire thing, nor would that have been appropriate. So naturally the content you added to explain "staking" did not mention anything about Kraken. That's another problem, though, because the SEC doc was a complaint against Kraken which only mentioned Cardano to explain a slightly complicated issue. All three mentions of Cardano were about proof-of-stake generically, not Cardano specifically. The SEC source was pretty clear on this.

This is why citing a primary source like this is a pain in the ass. The point of any Wikipedia article is to provide readers with context. Look at the context the source is providing, not just the parts that you personally think are "CORE". This is really difficult with a complex legal document. That's why being a primary source is a problem specifically.

You should also look at WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE as well. Summarizing sources properly is the beating heart of Wikipedia editing, and it's already difficult enough. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Since there has been no response, as a compromise, I have rewritten the section on staking to more closely match what sources actually say.

As a reminder, this article is under sanctions, and the burden is on you to gain consensus for this content. If you want to revert to the status quo by removing this content completely, that would be acceptable, but to restore the prior wording would be edit warring.

Grayfell (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

See WP:IPC. By convention, these sections are limited to independently notable topics which have some lasting importance to people's understanding of the topic. Obscure or passing mentions should not be included without solid sources explaining why it is important to the topic.

So, Kasotsuka Shojo is not independently notable, and the cited source doesn't indicate that this group meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. It is not clear from these sources why this matters to Cardano as popular culture. To put it another way, placing it in an IPC section implies this is important for a specific reason, but doesn't explain what that reason is.

All reliable coverage of this band I have found was from mid early January 2018, which suggests that it was a stunt that may not have had any lasting significance. When this was first added I looked into it a bit. It's one hell of a rabbit hole, but seems like typical Japanese idol industry weirdness. The Japanese band's name it is 仮想通貨少女, but the Japanese article, jp:仮想通貨少女 redirects to jp:星座百景グレート (Seiza Hyakku Great). The Kasotsuka Shojo YouTube channel is also now named Seiza Hyakku Great and at least some of the Kasotsuka Shojo videos were switched to unlisted or similar. If there are any sources explaining this I would be very interested in seeing them, but since the JPop idol scene is very crowded, competitive, and gimmicky, I don't assume that such sources would exist. This could be something or it could a publicity stunt which failed to pay off. (Different language Wikipedias have different standards for sources. The sources used at the Japanese Wikipedia are not necessarily usable for the English one. Japanese Wikipedia has )

Similarly, the advertising agency MBLM is not obviously notable, and it's also not popular culture. Per #Brand intimacy survey, this survey is only notable because Ad Age mentioned it, and the term "brand intimacy" appears to be manufactured by that agency for marketing purposes (specifically, MBLM touts the importance of a concept they themselves created).

Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I've restored the content into the history section. The advertising/branding/gambling information is not appropriately categorized as "popular culture".

As for the idol band, sources I found only mention Cardano in passing. As such, I would support removing the JPop paragraph completely. It appears to have been covered by sources due to its novelty, not do to its lasting importance. Grayfell (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner, was off for a couple days. hahah it does indeed seem to be a very strange rabbit hole - in agreement that the sources are dubious and the information doesn't have much relevancy + notability. I have removed the section relating to the band history. Thanks for the feedback! :) Bob (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Technical design addition

This Paragraph

"The cryptocurrency Ada (ADA) can be stored on Cardano's native digital wallet named "Daedalus". The wallet downloads a full copy of the entire Cardano blockchain transaction history. Users face the risk of losing access to funds if the wallet's seed phrase is lost or stolen. The review in Investopedia highlighted the wallet's security and noted the lack of: mobile support, support for other tokens, and "onramp" to purchase assets with money."

Seems to imply that cardano lacks these features, however it is only Daedalus that lacks these features, and they are available in other wallets. Roland 91 1 (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

City A.M. churnalism

I have removed this from the article:

• In 2023, SingularityNET implemented staking for its native token "AGIX" on Cardano's network. Its use will enable payment for Artificial intelligence services. SingularityNET's work is used in longevity research, music and the Sophia (robot) in part developed by Ben Goertzel.

References

This source includes this paragraph: SingularityNET is a pioneering AI organisation, led by renowned AI scientist Dr Ben Goertzel. Its work is used across a number of different industries and products, including longevity research, music and helping power Sophia the Robot’s ‘brain’. Its utility token, AGIX, is one of the longest standing AI cryptocurrencies in the blockchain industry.[2] There is no way on Earth this isn't churnalism. No reliable source would write this dreck, and there is no way WP:RSN would accept this source at all, much less for promotional trivia. If you insist on including this obviously promotional trivia, find a non-garbage source. By necessity, any reliable source would also explain why this is encyclopedically significant. In other words, just because this might be true doesn't mean anyone should care. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I could not see any consensus on CityAM source but is a large London newspaper with a range of topics that are quite broad. In the above bullet on SingularityNET I did not use any of the promotional phrasing, I stuck to the facts. As far as I can tell the above quote is also quite factual, yes I agree that there is perhaps some elaborate phrasing but this is a newspaper. Newspapers aren't writing wiki articles and are trying to engage readers. Even the BBC / guardian / FOX news use colorful language to embellish, that is the entire industry. Colorful language however does not mean it is any less factual, as long as this language is removed for the wiki article, which has been done. I am confused as to why you are so angry at its inclusion. It is an application by one of the AI greats who has made impressive contributions with his Robot and work in AI. I would not consider this trivia. If you do not mind I would like to include this section. However if you feel strongly about this I will not revert.

I have altered phrasing of the section about partner chains to omit IOG, to remove any promotional relevance. It is now as factual and objective as I think it can get without leaving out relevant information. This is quite a big change for Cardano and many in the community are not happy about it as it is splitting Cardano resources. Its exclusion would be unusual as it is a large event and we will likely see this section grow over the next year or two if the debate continues. Again I could have written much more here but have left it as "bare bones" as I could. Bob (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to clarify this deletion:

In 2023 an open source toolset for DApps was released using Marlowe where templates, a contract simulator, example applications and APIs are available.

Again this is as bare bones as I could possibly make this information. It is most definitely relevant as part of the technical aspects and the developer environment present on Cardano. Is there a way in which this can be rephrased to be included? City A.M. is a large reputable (and from what I can tell) factual source with about 2 million online readers (apparently). You may disagree with the language in parts but from what I can tell it is very detailed and informative, managing to relay quite detailed project information that must have taken some time to research. Bob (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And for this image, what is promotional about its nature? It is an image I created, non commercial, and it is of historical figures/portraits used in the naming nomenclature of Cardano. It lays tribute to these historical figures as core pillars of the protocol. I did my best to make it high quality / relevant to the technical description/ as compact as possible. Bob (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The City A.M. sources are nakedly promotional and badly written. Darren Parkin (apparently the only writer at CityAM who's into Cardano) adds nothing to these articles beyond what would be summarized in a press release. This is churnalism. As I said, I very strongly doubt WP:RSN would accept these sources for this kind of bland trivia. These trivial details are not important merely because you say they are important and have managed to find a garbage source. As always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and these sources are starting from a weak position.

The image collage is far, far too promotional and I have no patience for playing games about that. Using pictures of long-dead people to decorate an article about recent cryptocurrency is, frankly, tasteless. This article isn't about Byron, or Basho, or Voltaire, it is about one blockchain among many, and the physical appearance of these dead people is not relevant to this blockchain. But using classical paintings (or photos artificially made to look classical) to imply legitimacy is, very transparently, promotional. There is also a license issue, which I have raised on your talk page at Commons.

As for "Partner Chains", in addition to using unreliable sources which should not have been cited at all, the paragraph says nothing at all of substance about the Cardano blockchain. Partner chains are intended to perform off-chain computations while using the Cardano network. is vague and more confusing than it is informative. If they will "use the Cardano network" they will, by definition, not be "off-chain". This kind of sophistry is using crypto jargon to pad-out the article without providing any useful information. Without enough context to make sense, this is yet another factoid devoid of informational value which puffs up the article to make Cardano appear more significant than it actually is. By talking about something which "will be" it also violated WP:CRYSTAL. If this actually happens, and it actually matters, use more-reliable sources to explain why it matters. Yet another puff-piece from Darren Parkin about how Cardano "has announced that it is working" on something isn't sufficient.

As for the chart, the significance of these details, and this time-frame, should be provided by reliable, independent sources. The Independent source is from 2021, is specifically about the ATH, and that article's chart is too dated to be useful. Combining two sources to make this chart is WP:SYNTH, and further, charts from NASDAQ are already borderline, but they are also primary sources for this kind of routine data. The title of that chart is also misleading, since it's just a measure of price, but by calling it "volatility" you are editorializing to paint Cardano's decline in price from its ATH as a positive thing. Neither cited source mentions anything about volatility. If we're just using primary sources to paint arbitrary pictures, I could hypothetically use the NASDAQ charts to mention that in the past year, ADA has swung back-and-forth from a low around $0.24 to a high of around $0.45. By that measure, Cardano is highly volatile. So who gets to decide how this crypto is depicted? The neutrality of the article should be decided by reliable WP:IS, not by willingness to export a chart from a spreadsheet. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it matter "who's into" Cardano? I suspect that CityAM doesn't have thousands of people writing articles so naturally they have to specialize in certain topics of expertise meaning certain authors may occur more frequently. Regardless it is the publishing institution/company that matters most rather than the individual (at least what I would presume). CityAM has given certain writers the ability to publish under their name where their articles also go through a review process (I would expect).

On "garbage sources" - apologies for trying to adhere to wiki principles. It is most definitely not my first choice of source as I would rather refer directly to primary source material that could provide infinitely more detail and accuracy. However in order to cover such niche topics users have to use other less "popular" sources as this kind of news is naturally not going to be BBC front page news as suggested.

However such "trivia", although not important to you, is important and relevant to the many tens of thousands of people using the Cardano platform. For context it the first time since Cardano's inception that it is possible to use Cardano network infrastructure in combination with "off-chain" resources. Many are not happy about this change as it is thought to split the energy of SPOs (stake pool operators) and has been quite a big deal in the community over the last 2 months with a lot of debate.

This is untrue: If they will "use the Cardano network" they will, by definition, not be "off-chain"

-->

It is exactly as I stated "Partner chains are intended to perform off-chain computations while using the Cardano network". Off-chain computations (algorithms for smart contracts) can be made independently whilst using the security of the Cardano network for settlement. The problem I have is if I do go into detail it is "too much jargon" and if I simplify it is suddenly "too vague". I can't win here. :) I have tried my best to make this as compact as possible without using jargon. I have rephrased the sections slightly to add more context as perhaps you were correct in it being too abstract, I have also placed a "better sources" needed tag. I will have no complaint removing these sources as soon as a better one is found (very likely in the next year as Midnight has only just been announced over the last 1-2 months). The devnet is live since November 13. So not something that will be, but something that currently is.

I agree with the image collage - it was perhaps too much, and you are correct it is too promotional as you state. It was an attempt to make the page more engaging but I now realize this is also not appropriate for wiki. I am in agreement with your nomination for deletion, thank you for pointing this out so quickly. (it was my attempt to recreate the Cardano roadmap image that was even referenced by the SEC recently)

I will edit the chart to be more neutral in tone as this is also a good point. Volatility wasn't meant to imply anything good / bad as it is a descriptive term that (i thought) was quite apt to describe the wild prices swing and danger of investing in cryptocurrency due to significant loss of value. Bob (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If your goal is to promote Cardano, than no, you cannot win.

My parenthetical note about Darren Parkin seems to have struck a nerve, but look at it another way: City A.M. has a section for cryptocurrency. If this section's editor is so uninvolved that they're publishing dreck about SingularityNET being a "a pioneering AI organisation", than this section might as well be a Forbes blog for all the credibility it has.

As I've already explained, importance is decided by independent sources, not by editors with first-hand knowledge of "the community".

Even if a large subset of the thousands of Cardano users care about these "off-chain" computations, it is still not automatically important enough to mention with poor sources. We use reliable, independent sources to summarize what is important, and we do not bother to summarize what isn't important. It is not enough for this announced devnet to exist, we also have to use sources to indicate to disinterested readers why it should matter to them. We are not going to regurgitate churnalism and PR to indicate something is important for no reason, because that is promotional. Mentioning this without this context is indicating to readers that it matters, but not indicating why it matters. A 'better source' tag would only make sense if it was self-evident why this detail was encyclopedically significant, and if anyone else comes along as says it isn't obviously significant (like me) it's going to get deleted.

So from that, your summary of these plans for off-chain activity is so over-simplified that it is indistinguishable from WP:FRINGE computer pseudoscience. Your comment could be read as implying that Cardano's devs managed to completely solve the oracle problem for blockchains. This is an extraordinary claim. If that happens, I'm sure reliable sources will tell us about it and then we can add it to the article. If, on the other hand, this cryptocurrency's users reject this plan for whatever reason, we can only summarize that according to reliable sources. If you know the sources are bad, you shouldn't be adding this content at all.

Your assertion that this is important without such sources is WP:OR, and your comments about "the community" suggest (yet again) first hand knowledge and a conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You are stating I want to "promote Cardano". I have tried to add relevant information to this page pertaining to Cardano project that is all. As a programmer and tech enthusiast / blockchain in general it was hard to miss the "community" outrage as it has been plastered over several social media sites for weeks. It is perhaps a different information bubble I live in perhaps. I saw the Cardano wiki page was rather under-represented so wanted to help.

Again, there are many media outlets. Most of them do not write articles structured in a wikipedia format language. And again, most use language that might be considered "puffery, superfluous, unnecessary etc" (I would agree!)- that does not mean the entire content is irrelevant. To write off sources and mock the author due to language use is separate from the content presented. I have tried to be objective, cutting out biased language. As stated prior: To cover a niche topic such as this it is regrettable to have to use "lesser known" sources. But they are sources nonetheless to cover important milestones for this particular topic.

Cutting out the first use for a Cardano NFT is unfortunate. This, objectively, seems to be a very relevant and notable event.

On the over-simplified section: You asked me to add more context. I have done as such for as far as the sources would allow with language and wiki referencing for readability/to reduce "jargon". Insulting me with "Fringe computer pseudoscience" seems uncalled for. And in what aspect may I ask do you infer a solution to the Oracle problem from the text? Sidechains have existed for some time now so this is nothing new. And yes you will always have a "truth" problem when it comes to settlement however that is for developers and applications to resolve as they do on many blockchains such as Ethereum... Perhaps by using multiple sources of data before settlement for instance. But that is besides the point - I have only tried to concisely include information from the article.

And again: The price chart is just that. A price chart. Bitcoin has one, S&P500 amongst many other wiki pages. Cardano and ADA token has a value with a long historical price history. And yes it is entirely relevant to this article as it is tens of billions of dollars. Your insistence on deleting a pure objective chart data is odd. In what way is this "original research"? Further the inclusion of the word "volatility" is perfectly fine and was removed out of curtesy. It is in no way biased but descriptive and very often used in the financial world. Volatility describes both up/down trends and simply is descriptive of large fluctuations, which is apparent to anyone looking at the data/chart, it is self-evident. Bob (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

None of this is as obvious relevant as you claim it is. If a reliable source talk about the outrage on social media, summarize that source. If a reliable source talks about any particular set of animal JPGs as it relates to Cardano, summarize that source neutrally without editorializing and without breathless filler about the "unique nature" of these "collectibles". Without a reliable source, this is not objectively relevant or notable just because you have decided that it is. To be even more blunt, if you have "tried to be objective" you have failed in your goal. As I've already asked many, many times, stop using your own opinions to decide what belongs. Use reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

They are unique in the literal sense that they are unique, it is/was not meant to embellish. But I see how it can be misconstrued. I will attempt to be more neutral in tone if possible, and would not mind words be rephrased by any editor who opposes a particular word or structure. And yes they are collectibles, it is difficult to write about something without using the very word that is used to describe what it is! :P

These bits of information were from open-source / what was available on the subject, not opinion. As WP:RSP is limited in scope it is sometimes difficult to judge what qualifies. I understand and agree the sources aren't fantastic, I would most definitely prefer to reference better source material. Bob (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Do not cite bad sources at all. Cite better sources and summarize those sources neutrally.

Anything can be a 'collectable', because this is a value judgement. By presenting these database entries which represent bland paper-doll images of cartoon animal astronauts as 'collectables' you are editorializing to claim they are worth collecting. So, rhetorically, why not call them securities, instead?

As I said, you have chosen to summarize bad sources for promotional ends. Do not offer more vague suggestions that you will attempt to be more neutral in the future if possible. You might develop a better sense of what is and is not reliable if you started listening to what I am saying, or alternately, gained experience by editing any other topic. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

References