Talk:Charles Hoskinson

Note

- An article with a same name deleted in 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Hoskinson but it seems it was not about Charles Hoskinson co-founder of Ethereum. The Admin who deleted that page is not active anymore. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability

What notability guideline does Hoskinson pass? Most of his press attention is not about him as a person but about Cardano, which was deleted at AFD - this article shouldn't be a stealth recreation of that. It's not clear he's individually noteworthy for his work on Ethereum.

Is there press coverage sufficient to write a biography from, or is most of it press articles mentioning him because of a project already deleted for not passing notability guidelines?

WP:GNG would be very much a stretch for Hoskinson personally. Is there some more specific notability guideline Hoskinson clearly passes? Else the notability tag should be restored - David Gerard (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

-He is the co founder of Ethereum and a simple google search brings lots of hits, he is also still working on Ethereum classic and as you can see lots of reliable sources provided for a short article! Please do not remove the source as you did for bloomberg! Cardano was not written well with reliable sources it does not mean the subject is not notable that's why it turned to a draft. when an article is deleted once it can comeback. All the best Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

He's been referenced in The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Scotsman, is an advisor for the Lifeboat Foundation (I didn't add that source, but may in the future), so it's fair to say he is a notable figure with perhaps more media coverage than some people who already have their own Wikipedia pages. I have added some references and could add more, but I don't want to clutter the article too much. I will be adding solid references on occasion as I find them. These are easy to find and are all over the internet - it just takes some work to put them together. I also agree that, with this foundation in place, some openness to other sources is merited so long as the overall quality remains intact. Josemolero (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I've also just fished out coverage of Hoskinson in the international press in which he is given lengthy, detailed articles regarding his technological and financial vision. I will see how I can incorporate these into this article. These are non-crypto publications such as Nikkei interested in blockchain developments. Josemolero (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

He is a key figure in decentralized finance. And cofounder of two crypto currencies with an aggregate market cap of a quarter trillion USD. Deleting would be ludicrous. It's not even worth discussing any more. Kwinzman (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note the timestamps of comments you are responding to. Coming back almost exactly a year later to post opinions about a topic is not likely to be productive. If you want to discuss improving the article in a specific way, start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, let old discussions die a natural death. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. To be honest I am not enough of a regular contributor to know if old deletion discussions should be archived after a certain time, and if 9 months later is too late to reply. In any case I didn't see that the discussion was finally put to rest yet and I think by now we have enough evidence to summarize the question "does Hoskinson pass the notability guideline of Wikipedia" with: yes, there is strong evidence that he does. Kwinzman (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To simplify any future discussions: Wikipedia has many guidelines for notability. A couple of relevant pages explaining this can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (specifically WP:GNG). As explained there, evidence of notability is based on reliable sources which should almost always also be independent sources. Things like the market cap of cryptocurrencies do not automatically confer notability on someone who is associated with those cryptocurrencies. It is up to reliable, independent sources to make these connections, not individual editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments about the deletion threat hanging over this page have be removed. But this is a live issue. As David Gerard says, the Cardano page was deleted. He was one of the deleters. The AfD threat to this page has not been withdrawn. Recently, Dan Larimer, another blockchain pioneer and a former partner of Charles Hoskinson, has been deleted, along with BitShares. Wikipedia has a negative stance on blockchain, cryptography, and decentralisation. A year ago, I looked at Twitter views; it turned out Hoskinson was accepted there as a public figure. He had 115k followers; Jimmy Wales 152k; Vitalik Buterin 885k; Larry Ellison 105k. Today the Twitter figures are: Hoskinson 310k; Wales 167k; Buterin 1.3m; Ellison 110k. The Cardano page – only allowed back up in October – is established as a leading blockchain page and gets more views per day than pages about long-stablished physical brands such as Lexus and Mini. This Hoskinson page gets 1,564 views a day, similar to Lexus (1,597); Jimmy Wales lags behind these at 1,395. IOHKwriter (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For Cardano and Larimar, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Further, Cardano (platform) was deleted, while Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) has since replaced it, so your complaints are out of date.

Nobody here cares about twitter follower counts, because Wikipedia isn't Twitter. Social media popularity contests are largely irrelevant, because these websites are not reliable sources without context. Further, follower numbers are notoriously unreliable. I can think of examples of people with far more followers for far longer who have had their articles deleted.

Wikipedia page views are also not necessarily relevant. We often delete articles with large page views for a variety of reasons, including poor sources, biography of living people issues, or because it was so spammy that it cannot be saved (WP:TNT). High page views can also be a sign of WP:CANVASS or WP:RECENTISM, neither of which are good things.

So if someone nominates this article for deletion, then you will have to provide policy-based reasons to preserve it. That will have to be a response to why it was nominated. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explain how that would work. Preemptively fretting about something that hasn't happened, and might not happen, is not useful to the project. It also seems like you are using this discussion as a flimsy, poorly-veiled excuse to complain about another editor. If so, this is, frankly, unprofessional. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The other contributor, whose comment you deleted, regarded the mention of the deletion of the Cardano by Gerard as a potential threat to this page. I responded to that.

'Nobody here cares about twitter'; I find that very surprising, and worrying, if it is true. Popular Twitter writers are regarded as notable in the real world and their comments are followed by, and help inform, the mainstream media at all ends of the editorial spectrum. It is impossible to read even the FT, WSJ, Times or NY Times without seeing Twitter quoted. Editors in media as different as the NY Times and Teen Vogue have lost their jobs after 'Twitter storms' recently. If Wikipedia is ignoring Twitter, it is Wikipedia's loss.

'Wikipedia page views are also not necessarily relevant.' True, but they should contribute to the debate. Also, these figures show how blockchain ideas and products are becoming established in the real world.

As I said, I responded to a contributor's comment about a threat and referred to a document that informs Wikipedia policy. You seem to have a strange agenda with your opinions and deleting other contributors' comments on a talk page.IOHKwriter (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The only comment I deleted was from you, and I deleted that because it included petty insults and violated wp:notforum. If you are not the person that wrote those comments, then you have violated Wikipedia's rules on sock puppetry. Per Wikipedia policy, accounts are individual accounts. Accounts cannot be shared, and only one person should be operating an account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Role accounts

As for twitter storms, you've completely missed the point and selectively edited my quote to misrepresent my meaning. I said "Nobody here cares about twitter follower counts, because Wikipedia isn't Twitter". When reliable sources talk about twitter storms, Wikipedia reflects those sources. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a gossip column. The quantity of twitter followers, alone, is not automatically significant. It is only significant when discussed by reliable sources, and those sources provide context for why it is significant. Grayfell (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bloomberg

I think Bloomberg News pass WP:RS. can you show me a discussion that admins or editors think otherwise? I have provided another source for that content, so It can stay. Please do not remove it again. you can ask an admin if its reliable or not. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You're edit-warring in a link to the "Are you a robot?" page, not to an actual reference. You don't appear to be bothering to look at the links you're edit-warring in - David Gerard (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

-I have read it many times written by Camila Russo and just below "Read more on the hack of CoinDash’s ICO" it says "Hoskinson joined the ethereum founding team in late 2013 and left in June 2014" and bloomberg is reliable according to WP:RS/P. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The link literally goes to a captcha and doesn't go past it. Have you even looked at the link you're edit-warring in? - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

- I think its a security for the site. solve it then you see the article. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to link the reference, not a mystery game. I clicked in the box and it didn't take me to the article. If you have a reference link, put in the actual link, not a captcha page. This is a case of "competence is required" - David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

- I'm not responsible for Bloomberg site security, its a direct link, Do not Remove that! Not my problem if you dont know about site securities. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It literally doesn't work or go to an article. Please don't restore it without the actual link to an article supporting your claim, because this one literally doesn't. You're not showing sufficient competence in editing - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

- It works perfectly. just click on "I'm not a robot" and see the article. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I did, and it does not. Could you please link the actual aritcle, if any - David Gerard (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

-here is the link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/ethereum-co-founder-says-crypto-coin-market-is-ticking-time-bomb I re-entered the link manualy to solve the possible problem. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article makes a nice addition to this article. Thanks! Josemolero (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I don’t understand why this was deleted. I am aware that cryptocurrency websites are to be used carefully, but I picked what seemed to be the two most prominent websites and I do not see that this event is controversial. The donation simply reinforces that Hoskinson is forming links with universities. The crypto websites are used as references on dozens of other pages. Also, Coindesk has a Wikipedia entry; if there is reason to doubt the website, it should be made clear in its entry. The university and local radio station sources I have added also have Wikipedia entries. A Google search ("charles Hoskinson" + "university of wyoming" + "$500,000") produces 3,450 results, though with a lot of republishing. If anyone does remove this part of the entry, please do not reintroduce the spelling error again.

WP:RSP#CoinDesk, and all other crypto sources are as bad or worse. I mean, at least CoinDesk isn't literally pay-for-play. Also, the Daily Mail has a Wikipedia article, but still isn't an acceptable source, not clear why that would make any difference - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Gerard

Indeed, the Daily Mail has a Wikipedia article, but it makes clear the paper can be an unreliable source: ‘The Daily Mail has been widely criticised for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations.’ If you are saying Coindesk is similarly unreliable, and deleting material related to it because of this opinion, you should give your referenced proof on the Coindesk page, as contributors have done for the Daily Mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyStar456 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Category "People associated with cryptocurrency "

@Grayfell: - could we revert this category? Charles Hoskinson is clearly and overwhelmingly an individual who is "associated with cryptocurrency". He set up 2 projects working on cryptocurrencies... Ethereum and Cardano. B_Maximus (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No, this isn't how categories are intended to work. This article is already included in Category:People associated with cryptocurrency through a WP:DIFFUSE category, and I do not think a new category for Cardano would be appropriate. I know other pages are categorized differently, but this is not a valid justification to muck-up categories here at this article to match. Pinging me to request an edit over this kind minutia is very odd, to put it mildly. Continue to discuss this if absolutely necessary, but don't ping me again over such a trivial request. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed the tag - my excuses and sincere apologies for wasting 5 seconds of your time. It only seemed appropriate seeing as Vitalik Buterin, also founder of Ethereum, is placed in even more categories. I likewise think your reasoning doesn't make sense so we at least seem to agree we are mutually odd. Charles Hoskinson is overwhelmingly associated with cryptocurrency - to say otherwise is nonsensical, he has devoted his life, company and money to this topic that is all. B_Maximus (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Apologies for adding them again - I see now what you mean, I missed it was already listed - I'm an idiot! BTW the Ted talk isn't promotional.. it was prior to cardano and is a generic talk about blockchain. Bob (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Unlike TED Talks, TEDx is indiscriminate by design. Many encyclopedically significant people have given talks, written blogs, etc. We cannot include all of them, so including arbitrarily chosen samples of his work is promoting him, even if it is not promoting his company. WP:NOTADVERTISING also covers public relations. If this one event is significant, a reliable source should be used to explain to readers why it is significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah alright, good to know, thanks for the explanation - still a bit new to what is/isn't allowed! :) Bob (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Image

@IOHKwriter: Would it be possible to upload an image here from: https://iohk.io/en/team/charles-hoskinson ? OTRS permissions problem... B_Maximus (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly, the original source for the current image does not indicate an appropriate license. It appears that User:FlippyFlink Uploaded to flickr and then uploaded from there to Commons. This may have been "flickr-washed". I have flagged it, and its multiple derivative images, for deletion at Commons. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

For convenience, here is the discussion: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Hoskinson profile color no background.png

Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Grayfell this is so petty. Come on seriously? Bob (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I explained the problem at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Hoskinson profile color no background.png. Wikipedia is not a platform for hagiography, and copyvio is a serious issue. Your opinion that this is petty doesn't change that, and demonstrating that you are WP:HERE by editing any other topic at all would go a long way towards showing good faith. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charles Hoskinson profile color no background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathematician

In the pedantic sense, Hoskinson is a mathematician. However, in a modern context, a "mathematician" is almost always used to describe someone with a graduate-level education in mathematics or a closely aligned field, typically someone who's been published. I don't see any indication that Hoskinson has these credentials.

These are the two sources which are used to describe Hoskinson as a mathematician:

• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-mathematicians-defense-of

As part of our Bitcoin interview series, here’s Charles Hoskinson, a Colorado-based technology entrepreneur and mathematician who attended the University of Colorado, Boulder, to study analytic number theory in graduate school before moving into cryptography and social network theory. He describes his current focus as “evangelism and education for Bitcoin and fully homomorphic encryption schemes.”

It goes on to quote Hoskinson himself as saying I’m a cryptographer and a mathematician. For various reasons, someone's description of themselves is not particularly useful for this. In practice, interviews are typically seen as weaker sources anyway, since they often have primary issues.

• https://moneyweek.com/investments/alternative-finance/bitcoin/602930/cardano-cryptocurrency-meteoric-rise

Touted as the “next big thing” after Ethereum, the Cardano blockchain can be used to build smart contracts, protocols and decentralised applications. It was co-founded by mathematician Charles Hoskinson and by former Ethereum co-worker Jeremy Wood, to build a more scalable and secure blockchain network, two things Hoskinson believes Ethereum will find difficult to fully achieve.

This is the only relevant mention I see.

The section on Hoskinson's education is vague. It implies, but doesn't directly say, that Hoskinson dropped-out, which matches other sources I have seen. Speaker profiles are very weak sources though, since they are almost always both extremely brief, and provided by the person themselves (or their PR team). For providing the name of a school this is sufficient, but for pretty much anything beyond very basic, non-controversial details, this source is too weak.

Does Hoskinson meet WP:CATDEF as a mathematician? By that I don't mean is he a person who does mathematics in the basic sense, but rather, is this treated as a defining profession similar to his status as an entrepreneur? If this isn't his profession, and apparently never has been, then it shouldn't be in the first sentence. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disputed content

Hi KeccakMaster, can you please use this space to justify the reliability of your cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply:It is well known that he was part of starting bitshares. I do not know why you are removing my well researched sources. https://www.coindesk.com/people/charles-hoskinson "Hoskinson entered the crypto space in 2013 through Invictus Innovations, a company he founded with developer Dan Larimer to launch the BitShares network. Bitshares is a crypto platform organized as a decentralized autonomous corporation — a term Hoskinson claims as his own. In a DAC (similar to a DAO), the company is managed by its shareholders and the protocol rather than a hierarchical tree of managers."

https://how.bitshares.works/en/master/technology/history_bitshares.html "Invictus introduced the BitShares Vision to the world via presentations by Hoskinson and Larimer at the Atlanta Bitcoin Conference in October 2013. It is here that the plans for Keyhotee were first introduced – an integrated multi-wallet, communication, and DAC interface application intended to defend privacy and help spread knowledge of BitShares technologies outside the crypto-currency community.

Hoskinson and Larimer parted company at this point. They each agreed to keep their reasons confidential and there is no bad blood from our point of view. The only official statement on the subject was made by CEO Bo Shen to end a minor forum firestorm here:

BitSharestalk

It is our opinion that Charles Hoskinson is the best dealmaker we have ever seen, and we miss his vision and talent for recruiting allies. No doubt he will help make his new Ethereum team very successful.

Despite this loss, all of this activity was beginning to create a buzz that would soon explode on the scene with a sequence of revolutionary innovations at roughly monthly intervals that continue to this very day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeccakMaster (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@KeccakMaster: Hello. It is not enough for something to be well-known to be included on Wikipedia. Not all information belongs in an article, and the way we determine which bits of info to include and which to exclude is with reliable sources. Further, Wikipedia has a strong preference for independent sources. Coindesk is not a reliable source, while BitShares' own PR is neither reliable, nor independent. The significance of this activity must be demonstrated by a reliable source. Lacking such a source, it is not presumed to be important enough to mention, even if it is widely known.

Additionally, your edit added a link to another Wiki. Per WP:EL, this is not appropriate. Wikis are not generally reliable sources (including Wikipedia itself), nor should links to other websites be linked in the body of an article. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Grayfell. I agree, and would add that my specific problem with the BitShares source is that it's a non-independent, primary source. Our related policy WP:BLPPRIMARY urges "extreme caution" in using primary sources for biographies of living people. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@KeccakMaster: Again, do not use unreliable sources. A Linkdin profile for someone else is not reliable, nor does it show significance. A press release is not reliable, and it is especially not independent. Nothing about U.Today appears to meet WP:RS, since I do not see any indication that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. U.Today appears to be a crypto-focused hype blog, and also, that specific source doesn't mention any specific details about BitShares. As I said, not all information belongs. The article still needs reliable, independent sources.

Further, as I already explained, do not add links to sources directly to the body of the article, per WP:EL. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Added source from epicenter.tv and mentioned company's history page is disputable from source. https://epicenter.tv/episodes/234/ He talks about it himself in a podcast, I am sure that is sufficient enough if U.today and crypto news sites are not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeccakMaster (talk • contribs) 02:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A podcast is neither reliable, nor independent. A podcast is not usable for the same reason a press release is not usable. Please review WP:RS and WP:IS. Find a reliable, independent source which explains why this is encyclopedically significant, and use those sources to briefly summarize in the article. Do not add original research. Do not assume this is encyclopedically significant unless you can find quality sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@KeccakMaster: See the above comment. Please gain consensus, based on reliable sources, before restoring this specific content. Grayfell (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not hard to find evidence if you take 10 minutes to Google. If you'd rather have a Forbes article on this, it is simply removing history. The podcast has him stated he co-founded Bitshares himself, I don't know how much more quality sources can be found from your standards. No one has been removing or undoing the edits besides you, so gaining consensus is just... you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeccakMaster (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The burden is on you to gain consensus for changes to the article. At least one other editor has disputed your additions. Since you wish to add this, you must gain consensus, and the way to do that is with reliable, independent sources. The pages explaining this standard are at WP:RS and WP:IS. It is not enough to find flimsy or primary sources.

As for "10 minutes" I spent more than that looking for sources. What I found was that he was involved with the Bitshares company for a few months. I did not find any reliable sources which treated this as encyclopedically significant, nor did any provide enough context for this to be more than trivia. Almost none of the theoretically usable sources actually mentioned what Bitshares is or why it would matter.

As I said above: Find a reliable, independent source which explains why this is encyclopedically significant, and use those sources to briefly summarize in the article.

This isn't worth mentioning otherwise, and it certainly isn't lead-worthy. It is not enough that this is barely verifiable. It also has to be relevant and significant.

BitShares has already been deleted several times (such as via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Larimer). This company is not noteworthy by Wikipedia's standards, therefore it will not be clear to readers why it is being mentioned here. Those very few reliable sources I found which mention Hoskinson and BitShares together do not treat his role at that company as particularly important to Hoskinson. It might be important to BitShares, but that would still require sources, context, and an article. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

KeccakMaster, I share Grayfell's view on this issue. We rely on reliable source coverage to know what is verifiable and worthy of inclusion in the article. I would also love for you to address if you have a conflict of interest in this matter. I don't believe you've responded to the question posed to you earlier this month. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Charles has personally stated he does not want to be called a co-founder of Ethereum, as he was only there for a few months. Does this same logic not apply to Bitshares, as he personally said he does not want to be called a co-founder of Ethereum anymore as well? Because Ethereum has more success and visibility with published sources, it does not make Bitshares insignificant. To answer the last question, no I do not have a conflict of interest. The sources are similar to the ones used for Ethereum in the page(podcast), therefore this removal is simply censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeccakMaster (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing on this page is disruptive. You are repeatedly adding the same content while rotating through unreliable sources to support it. We should be documenting what reliable sources say, not determining on our own what the article should say and then seeking out sources for support. There are good faith concerns raised on this page, which you respond to and then immediately make your edits, without building any consensus despite the dispute. I encourage you to stop editing the article and get other editors to agree to any proposed changes.

For the podcast source, just linking to a 1.5 hour long podcast is not going to cut it. It's possible we could attribute non-contentious basic facts about Hoskinson since it's an interview. Could you please provide timestamps for the relevant info? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to prevent misunderstanding, the sources for Hoskinson being an Ethereum co-founder are the New York times business section, a Bloomberg article, and then a podcast. These seem like reliable sources to me, and they both provide this detail as important context to explain why Hoskinson is important enough to discuss at all. I see no reason not to just remove the podcast completely. It is not currently useful as a citation for the article.

Primary sources like podcasts can be used for basic, non-controversial details, such as the names of schools or the country of birth. This is not that kind of info, so the significance must be demonstrated by a reliable, independent source. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@KeccakMaster: You need to participate in this discussion if you wish to restore this content. It is not enough to comment and then keep reverting, you need to build consensus. If you do not understand the problem with these sources, ask questions or propose compromises. Ignoring us will not resolve the issue. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please delete the controversies section

The new section 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.IOHKwriter (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charles Hoskinson profile color no background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfinished Ph.D claims questionable

These appear to be claims by Hoskinson, but Laura Shin researched them for her recent book on Ethereum and the university he claims to have been doing a Ph.D at didn't even have a Ph.D programme. [2] The sources were (1) a crypto site (unusable on a BLP) and (2) a conference bio that would have been self-sourced. So I've removed the claim for now. Haven't obtained Shin's book to cite as yet - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Got Shin's book, added cite and quote - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

'Hoskinson has claimed on numerous occasions to have entered a PhD program that he dropped out of' – there is no reference to such claims. I've looked at FT, WSJ, Moneyweek and NYT as reliable sources and can find no such claims. His website https://iohk.io/en/team/charles-hoskinson says 'He attended Metropolitan State University of Denver and University of Colorado Boulder to study analytic number theory before moving into cryptography through industry exposure.' It is a similar wording on his LinkedIn. The talk page says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". So I have reworded this. Perhaps someone else can find examples 23:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyStar456 (talk • contribs)

No evidence to back up claim

@David Gerard: Please provide references to back up statement that "Hoskinson has claimed that he had entered a PhD program but had dropped out". As it states at the top of this page: " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyStar456 (talk • contribs)

You're demanding a cite for something that's already cited in the article text, with a quote, to a reliable source that absolutely went past the legal department before publication. Apart from the quote in the text, there's a pile more text on this subject. The book author also tweeted audio of her interviewing Hoskinson and him saying so directly: [3] And shots of her emails to the schools to verify what Hoskinson had and had not done: [4] And tried to clarify this with Hoskinson: [5] And here's Hoskinson tweeting his claim to have started a Ph.D and dropped out: [6][7]

So (a) Hoskinson made the claim (b) it was shown false (c) this is documented in an RS which (d) is already cited in the article - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note this description in RS Bloomberg "looks like the PhD student that he was before crypto mania took over his life", which would have been him telling the journalist that - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

@david gerardWhy have you put back in the text 'The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency confirmed he had never worked directly for the agency.'? There is no mention of defense anywhere in this bio. What'sit got to do with anything? 88.87.167.43 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Working with DARPA is another of Hoskinson's claims, it's mentioned in the book the quote is from. Probably should have a clearer cite added - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you should be letting all his claims in – you'll be linjking to his Twitter next. Keep it encyclopedic. 88.87.167.43 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Just seen the new text. Does this really belong in Wikipedia? Looks more like a gossip column 88.87.167.43 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem gossipy to me, it factually states a claim he's made repeatedly and DARPA's response to that. Frankly there should be a more extensive section covering his other fantastic claims and how this contributed to his being removed from the Ethereum project. The current description of "Buterin removed Hoskinson in 2014 after a dispute over whether the project should be commercial (Hoskinson's view) or a nonprofit (Buterin's view)" is only partly accurate and I worry misleads readers. Out of the Ether goes into detail about how the other project members considered him a "pathological liar" and "a liability" and why this was a significant factor in his removal. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

You wanted to remove the sourcing about the claim, then when it was clear that he had actually made the claim you wanted the statement itself removed too. But, as JaggedHamster notes, it's both sourced and relevant. I would not (as yet) call Hoskinson a fabulist in Wikipedia voice, but well-cited fabulism seems to be why he's out of Ethereum - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I seem to have dropped into a deep pool when I ended up on this page. I deleted material that looked irrelevant. It looked like a cut and paste error. There was no mention of DARPA on the page. You just reverted that with no explanation.

You've now added stuff that looks like gossip to me; I can't see language like 'He also hinted to Mihai...' being used in Encyclopedia Britannica. Who is Mihai? and Mathias? If these are Ethereum people, didn't they fall out with Hoskinson back in 2014? Aren't they likely to hate each other? The book's subtitle '...Greed, Lies...' might give a clue as to that.

The top of this page says: 'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article.' That was why I took out the DARPA stuff. Why put it in in the first place?

'I would not (as yet) call Hoskinson a fabulist in Wikipedia voice' – looks like you have an agenda to me. 86.40.120.94 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

You're coming across as a PR editor looking for excuses - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who put in random text. And then arrogantly reverted my change with no explanation. Have you no manners?

Only when queried did you add: 'Probably should have a clearer cite added.' That's putting it mildly. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not somewhere for you to leave notes.

What have I written that looks like PR?

You come across as either an Ethereum apologist, the PR for the Shin book (who else would add the owner of the publisher?) or as having a vendetta against Hoskinson. Which is it? 90.244.162.10 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

yeah, that's great thanks - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation. I'll add you to my referees 90.244.162.10 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@David I have similar concerns as to the prior user(s). The DARPA statement doesn't appear in any other reporting whatsoever. I have reviewed this and taken my time to try to find sources, which would be necessary before including a statement that can be viewed as slander if untrue. I also agree with prior users that this verges on "gossip", not appropriate for wiki WP:NOTSCANDAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. The only reference i have heard Charles talk about DARPA is in a 2017 interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BnBmBZPvS8 (watch from minute 18 for context, 18:29 specifically). I have a good memory. However, he states "it was almost like a darpa project" in reference to starting to build the team / Cardano cryptocurrency. Firstly, Laura Shin seems to clearly have some negative thoughts about large chunks of the crypto industry (bias, not objective) - this is blatantly apparent by her continuous negative comments and tweets: https://twitter.com/laurashin/with_replies highlighting the worst of things while also seeming to have an ETH bias (for NFTs which are largely on ETH currently). The only other source mentioning "DARPA" is an opinion piece medium post (not appropriate) by Isaiah McCall in 2021: https://medium.com/yardcouch-com/why-charles-hoskinson-was-shamefully-kicked-out-of-ethereum-8b29faa5cd14 . An unsubstantiated claim. Furthermore Isaiah seems to be all in on Ethereum:

• https://original.newsbreak.com/@isaiah-mccall-563031/2324206375156-ethereum-to-10-000-why-it-s-happening
• https://medium.com/yardcouch-com/why-i-sold-my-ethereum-new-strategy-8eab8fe224b5
• Also listed as an "investor" in 2020 for Ethereum on his linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/isaiah-mccall-993936159?original_referer=
• Even now: https://twitter.com/AfroReporter/status/1505234283455254532

... I could go on.... So it seems with chinese whispers an unsubstantiated claim by an ETH maxi has somehow made it into a book. And you're using this as a source? Isaiah is the only individual I see claiming this statement and he is clearly not biased... I believe the claim should be removed unless it can be backed up by more sources. Currently seems inappropriate.

• As per this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_with_a_single_source it seems that the single source used by david is neither reliable nor notable. The inclusion of such a statement verges on Libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel. Considering she performed interviews with ex ETH employees this is not exactly an unbiased group of individuals. We are to believe a single individual from a single source (book) for a semi-slanderous statement near the top of this wiki page? Bob (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Shin is cited twice, so this is not a WP:ONESOURCE situation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The book Shin wrote is cited twice or in this article? The two citations are pretty much the same - David just made more explicit reference to a specific passage. My point was that this information is coming from a single unverified source, that being a book written by a CoinDesk member. CoinDesk has also been shown to have clear bias against Cardano, herself included as she promotes ETH NFTs by the looks of things. CoinDesk's holdings, for which she works (COI), does not include Cardano (her CoinDesk page: https://www.coindesk.com/author/laura-shin/). As such, she is very clearly a biased author. https://cexplorer.io/article/why-does-coindesk-write-negatively-about-cardano The source, even if true, from single individual who she presumably interviewed may ALSO have clear bias against Charles after leaving the ETH project. Many, if not all of the ETH team, went their own ways and not on good terms. So bias all the way down it seems. Or does wiki allow rumour as fact? To use a random statement such as this, which is unverifiable, at the top of someone's page seems rather inappropriate. In the last 6 years this hasn't been mentioned in any other news publication or reputable source apart from the medium blog article I mentioned above (and who's author I have shown above to be heavily vested in ETH investment, also biased - and apparently also on good terms with Shin). As per wiki's own banner for such pages:

Notice about sources

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

There should be at the very least be more unbiased sources reporting such a claim. I believe for now it should be removed unless there is more concrete sourcing from secondary and tertiary sources. Based on two criteria, that being the 1) varicity and dubious nature of the biased source & 2) content (that being of a gossip/tabloid nature) of the statement it should be removed for now. Bob (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONESOURCE is about if a topic is notable enough to merit a standalone article. It isn't to do with using one source to support information within an article and so isn't relevant here.

With regards to whether the book is a reliable source, WP:OR says that "In general, the most reliable sources are...Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". Shin's book is published by Hachette, one of the largest and most respected publishing houses in the world.

Your WP:OR into whether Hoskinson has claimed to work for DARPA isn't relevant here, if a reliable secondary source says he made that claim and no other reliable sources state otherwise then that's what we go with.

You go into detail about your personal reasons for regarding Shin's sources being biased but this is not grounds for us considering her book as biased. Do you have any reliable sources disagreeing with Shin or labelling her book as biased?

You mention wanting multiple sources for the claim, but that isn't a policy requirement. Per WP:VER, a single reliable source is sufficient. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@JaggedHamster Again, this is a single source and yes it may be a decent publishing house but the claim comes from 2-3 highly biased sources, nowhere else is this claim listed. Herself (a CoinDesk editor - massive COI as CoinDesk has a huge bias against Cardano due to their own investments in ETH and other projects), the exETH employee (highly biased from which the claim originated I presume) and Isaiah who as shown above is absolutely nuts about Ethereum, a competitor of Cardano claiming 10,000$ eth price. So I state again - the book claim is NOT reliable due to this WP:BIASED regardless of publishing house. And perhaps the publishing house was not particular on specific details of a 500 pg book with 200+ supposed interviews - but facts such as this matter, particularly when listed in this manner. And "He also claimed repeatedly" is inaccurate - the BOOK claims - he never is recorded at any point or shown to have ever stated... That is the reason for including "Laura Shin's most recent book" or something to that effect to preface such a statement. At the end of the day is HER BOOK that claims that Hoskinson "claimed to work at DARPA"... nowhere else is this found. Bob (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Image caption & CoinDesk mention edits

@Grayfell

curprev 07:45, 27 January 2023‎ Grayfell talk contribs‎ 15,531 bytes −135‎ MOS:SURNAME, MOS:CREDENTIAL. Info about testifying is not explained or sourced in article itself, nor is that an accurate caption for this photo. undothank

curprev 05:16, 27 January 2023‎ Grayfell talk contribs‎ 15,666 bytes −510‎ →‎Career: Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill, and this was absolutely not a minor edit. Since this has been contested, please get consensus on the talk page, and remember once again that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion and advocacy and be mindful of WP:COI undothank

• The edit from David included two deletions of text, I agreed with one deletion (I believe about Voltaire update) and edited the second coindesk sentence to omit the quote from Hoskinson and phrase it in a more objective manner. In essence I left about 60-70% of David's changes in tact. And how does this game only work one way? Full deletions are allowed with no consensus talk or conversation? How is a 200 million dollar deal something that is not notable, genuinely? This is an article from Bloomberg and is not something trivial. If Apple were to consider a takeover bid of Microsoft I think that would be notable.

• If this section is not allowed then the wild speculation about the DARPA Charles claims should certainly also be removed, you can see my reasoning above. As you state: This isn't a rumour mill.

• How in any way is the section about CoinDesk purchase promotion? This is a secondary source written in a factual and objective manner. As stated on the Cardano page: I have no COI, just a keen interest in these topics.

• On a sidenote... how is the image caption not accurate? This was taken at this event: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114931 Again just deleting things for the sake of deleting?

Bob (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is about WP:DUE, WP:PROMO, and WP:CRYSTAL. The comparison to Apple buying Microsoft is frankly silly. For one, neither of those corporations are going bankrupt. For another, will would certainly have much, much stronger sources for something like that, and we would therefor be able to go into appropriate detail in the appropriate article(s). The comparison to the DARPA content suggests your goal in including this content was was to 'balance out' the article. This seems like false balance to me. This content, and its source, should be evaluated on its own merits.

As for the caption, The photo does not depict "Cardano Founder Hoskinson [testifying] before House Agriculture Committee on Digital Asset Regulation". It shows him posing for a casual photo with another person. A caption should tell readers what is being depicted in the photo.

Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, also, FYI, another editor has flagged that photo on Commons due to the lack of permission. It was uploaded from Brummer's Twitter to Commons, but nothing suggests that Brummer released it via a compatible license, nor that whoever actually took the photo released it. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Not out of balance at all... I was browsing the commons page and saw that there was an image available (the one used) on a related topic already included in this article. It seems completely relevant to the content already included... I mean honestly why do you continuously paint any "positive" content as promotional? This is just getting a bit ridiculous frankly. It happened. It is simply a photo for goodness sake. My comparison to Apple and microsoft is also indeed ridiculous but it was to highlight the absurdity of not including something such as this, and what are you talking about - neither Coindesk, IOHK or Charles is going bankrupt as far as I am aware, this is news to me. It is most definitely something notable about this individual that actually happened and was reported about... what more is there to say? Well based on the same merits the DARPA section also seems equally ridiculous and poorly sourced particularly for such a damaging claim. "Hoskinson never claimed anything" - the BOOK claims that Hoskinson has claimed this... and as shown above she works for COINDESK - a clearly biased news source that has repeatedly shown to "smear campaign" Cardano (see above converation) - Coindesk has investments in Bitcoin, Ethereum and one or two others but not Cardano. In essence she is a mouthpiece for a biased organization which is "shilling"/promoting their own investments whilst smearing other projects, doesn't exactly scream reliability to me yet you seem to have no problem with such a source and unsubstantiated claim being used near the top of someone's biography. Instead you decide to delete a caption that provides context to an image, now it is just an arbitrary photo of who knows where. Apologies for this rant but it doesn't feel balanced when the focus is placed on an image caption than libelous and slanderous accusations from a single source, particularly for such a claim. Bob (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the second paragraph of your own source: The site is owned by Digital Currency Group, a conglomerate whose lending subsidiary Genesis Global Capital is expected to file for bankruptcy soon.[8] If anything substantial comes from this, we can evaluate based on sources.

Outlets matter here. Journalists and authors often work for multiple outlets, some of which will be more reliable than others. Sometimes they self-publish or even write anonymously, also, but this doesn't inherently invalidate their other work. Shin's book is published by Hachette Book Group, which gives the source more legitimacy than CoinDesk. That publisher has a much, much better track record for fact checking, retractions, etc.

But trying to make this issue into a proxy battle for the one being discussed above is a mistake, or even WP:POINTed. Personalizing this or insinuating that I have some ulterior motive is also inappropriate. I paint promotional content as promotional because I don't see any point in pretending it isn't. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware DCG was filing for bankruptcy nonetheless my above reasoning still stands. I think based on her prior history and also tit for tat tweets with Charles (so it seems) she herself has ulterior motives, CoinDesk very clearly does. This is apparent from their content of the last years. I highly doubt Hachette re-did ever of the 200+ interviews in this book to "fact claim" their "he said she said" stories about a contentious period in ETH's history. Now we have a single claim from who knows who in black and white as fact at the top of a wiki page. Again: I find this distasteful on the basis of gossip and genuine lack of factual evidence for such a statement every being made by him, and again: no other news source has stated this.

Being very dramatic here "a proxy battle" - come on it's an image caption, how is this honestly promotional?? Now it's just a random photo with no context, fantastic! And my statements on DARPA section are completely separate until now. Was simply a little perplexed by the "priorities" of edits here. I have not reverted anything so calling this some sort of "battle" about nothing is blowing this out of proportion.

I likewise have the same sentiment - can you see how continuous deletion of content and citing admin pages and conflict of interest wiki pages in several of our conversations repeatedly can also appear obstructive / insinuating that I myself have an ulterior motive. Or perhaps simply trying to undermine the edits I am making in some way by questioning whether or not I have a COI. When for the first time I use the same phrasing you appear defensive and suggesting this is personal in some manner. Not in the slightest, again I am a little frustrated by the priorities here. Thanks. Bob (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There is already a section for discussing Shin's book. I did not bring this up, you did. Since you keep bringing this up, I'll mention that Wikipedia's policies on publishing, fact checking, reliability, etc. have been formed by over two decades of consensus. You're free to dispute that Hachette is a reliable publisher, but it seems like you are claiming that a publisher is not doing their due diligence, based on one of their writer's personal bias. Fair enough. I've made similar arguments in the past, but I understand why it was an uphill battle. I've also added sources by writers I found to be personally untrustworthy or even morally repugnant. So while it certainly wouldn't be the first time publishing an author has itself discredited a publisher, it's still an extraordinary claim that's at odds with how Wikipedia typically handles these things. Whether or not I or any other editor personally sees Shin's tweets as biased has very little baring on whether or not she is a competent journalist or her book with a major publisher has been properly fact-checked. Not no baring, but very little baring. Also, this section isn't the place to make that case either way.

Strictly speaking, I never said the caption was promotional, that was a separate edit. My edit summary for the caption was this: MOS:SURNAME, MOS:CREDENTIAL. Info about testifying is not explained or sourced in article itself, nor is that an accurate caption for this photo. Being very generous, a photo is a primary source. If your goal was not to promote him, than I accept that you did not add the photo as an excuse to mention that he testified before congress. As we've discussed to death in tedious detail over the last couple of years, if you want to mention details like that, you should use reliable, independent sources. If a source mentions this and indicates why it has encyclopedic significance, the photo (assuming copyright can be sorted) would be a good addition. Without that context, then yes, it's just a random photo with no context. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

IOHK additions - are these really about Hoskinson

We have a detailed "career" section which has a lot of things IOHK has sponsored. Should we just treat IOHK as Hoskinson? This stuff might go better in Cardano (blockchain platform) - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It does feel odd adding them here, but IOHK page is diverted to Hoskinson, so there's no option because the Stanford research makes no mention of Cardano and appears to be blockchain-agnostic.

There needs to be a separate IOG page. The company is developing a second blockchain, https://midnight.iohk.io/; has just launched a "web3 wallet" (whatever that is) https://www.lace.io/; and has published PoW research that takes it away from Cardano strategy, https://iohk.io/en/research/library/papers/practical-settlement-bounds-for-proof-of-work-blockchains/. A recent smart contract paper mentions Ethereum more often than Cardano. The volume of research – 50 papers since the start of 2022 – and the number of research centres involved suggests it intends to take a different tack once Cardano is handed over. GreyStar456 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability is demonstrated via reliable WP:IS, so none of those links suggest notability. Also, your individual interpretation of their research, such as it is, is WP:OR and is not really usable here. The volume of research is completely irrelevant without context from reliable sources, especially considering how bad the walled-garden problem is in crypto specifically. Do reliable WP:IS talk about these projects? Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletions

@Grayfell: - Hi Grayfell, I just wanted to comment on your statement "Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and your claims to not have a conflict of interest are no longer credible."

In what way does reverting text that has been there for many months/years even constitute me suddenly mean that I have a conflict of interest. I don't use Wiki frequently and only check a couple pages out of interest. Since I follow cryptocurrency and am interested in the topic it is not unusual to make edits when news occurs... that is the whole point of wikipedia?

With regards to the reversions - the chunks of text you deleted were entirely relevant as they pertain to the company C.H. built... Are we supposed to talk about C.H. without ever mentioning anything the company does?

I mentioned Steve Jobs / Elon musk pages - if you deleted every mention of Tesla and Apple half the page would be gone...And in what way do your actions of cuttings back massive chunks of text not constitute a conflict of interest / bias? I am interested how a senior wiki member immediately reverts to finger pointing when someone disagrees with their edit. Bob (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Significantly more than half of your edits have been to Hoskinson or Cardano related pages, or to add mention of IOHK-affiliated people to other crypto articles, such as Polkadot. All of these are flattering to Hoskinson personally or in other ways inflate the perceived legitimacy of Cardano as a blockchain scheme based public relations or similarly flimsy sources.

I am not interested in talking about Elon Musk or Steve Jobs on this talk page, but by making this comparison, your intention to promote Hoskinson and inflate his importance is again transparently clear and entirely inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I thought you might say that (in reference to Elon/Steve) but these are individuals everyone knows, apologies for using them to demonstrate a point. Most definitely a ridiculous comparison and is indeed over the top, I am in agreement. Perhaps I should have used David Attenborough and Niel Armstrong - removing Blue planet & NASA. Yes as I stated - I am interested in cryptocurrency. BTC / ETH pages have plenty of edits and have quite a lot of individuals working on them. The reason I focus on these two (in addition to Dot/smaller pages) is that there are very few people working on them... Just a handful.

Could you also clarify as to how the mathematical description of what was sponsored is promotional? Now the donation has no meaning. He donated, for what reason exactly? Bob (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We've already been over this. None of the donations have any "meaning" unless reliable, independent sources provide a meaning. Routine churnalism which either repeats or restates a press release without any additional context is not sufficient for this. Again, we've already been over this. Wikipedia isn't a press release service. Mentioning the donations at all is already borderline gratuitous. Grayfell (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

deletions this month

@Greyfell In your response to Blockchainus, you appear to have inadvertently deleted text dating back to April based on reliable sources such as Venturebeat and CityAM. I have restored this. Also, the significance of the space agency document is demonstrated by it being referred to in references from several WP:IS independent sources, including Vice, the Independent, NY Times and USA Today. (In any case, linking to non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles.) As the SciAm article discusses, this is a controversial area, so linking to the actual letter provides verification. Finally, you commented 'This article is about Hoskinson, not IOHK.' As has been discussed on this Talk page, the Hoskinson page includes IOHK because there is no separate page. Wikipedia searches for IOHK are directed to the Hoskinson page. Your earlier edit, deleting the external link to Hoskinson’s profile at IOHK, while leaving the external link to the IOHK home page suggests you may in two minds about this yourself. If you are trying to argue that there should be an IOHK page, please refer to the earlier discussion. Thanks, GreyStar456 (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the earlier discussion. Indeed. The section directly above this one is about these exact same deletions.

No, this wasn't "inadvertent". As I've already said many times, this article isn't a platform for promotion. That applies to both Hoskinon and to IOHK's activities. Whether or not IOHK has its own article, that doesn't actually change the purpose of this article, which is to summarize information about Charles Hoskinson specifically.

The Space Force letter is a primary source which doesn't mention Hoskinson at all. As I said when I removed it before, the significance of this document would require context from an WP:IS, but to clarify, that context would have to directly link the letter itself to Hoskinson in some way, otherwise its inclusion here is WP:SYNTH at best. The point isn't that sources have merely mentioned the letter's existence, the point is that we would have to summarize the connection to Hoskinson, per those sources, and that summary would have to be WP:DUE. Not everything which can be sourced in some way belongs in any particular article.

As I mentioned in the edit summary, this heavily relates to Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Perhaps Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would be a good place to get additional input.

External links are merely for readers' convenience and should be kept to a minimum, per WP:ELMIN.

Grayfell (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That the trip may be a 'zany quest' is discussed in the SciAm article, but the fact that the interstellar element was confirmed should be reported in an encyclopedia as a matter of balance. As noted above, the document is reported by several WP:IS GreyStar456 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're responding here and not to my comment below this one. The place to explain this, with necessary context would be CNEOS 2014-01-08. As I just said, below, there are two problems here, and you would have to address both of them for this content to belong in this article. Again, not everything which can be sourced in some way belongs in any particular article. Grayfell (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• @GreyStar456: Per the NYT:

They wrote a paper about the discovery in 2019. It was initially rejected by The Astrophysical Journal, but the same journal then accepted it for publication last November, several months after the U.S. Space Command announced in a memo circulated on Twitter that measurements of the fireball’s velocity were accurate enough to infer interstellar origin.

That appeal to authority isn’t enough, said Peter Brown, a meteor physicist at Western University in Ontario. It’s unknown how precise the U.S. Defense Department data is, which affects how likely it is that the object came from beyond.

“We know from experience, running ground-based radar and optical networks, that you often find several percent of all the events you detect appear to be interstellar,” Dr. Brown said. To date, he continued, nearly all of those events could be chalked up to measurement error.[9]

So there are already two issues here. First is that of the two cited sources for this a paragraph, only one mentions this memo, and it spends significantly more space challenging the D.O.D.'s assertion than it does supporting it. Per WP:FRINGE this context cannot omitted.

The second issue is that at not point is this memo linked by sources to Hoskinson, making the mention of this letter puffery and WP:SYNTH. If there is a specific connection between this memo and Hoskinson, use reliable sources to explain it without giving undue credence to fringe theories. Grayfell (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The Independent article brings in the USSF letter and then Hoskinson 3 sentences later. Vice has Hoskinson's involvement and brings in the letter as supporting Loeb's theories: 'Years later, Loeb and his student, Amir Siraj, concluded that the meteor’s high velocity at impact suggested that it was interstellar in origin, a hypothesis that was ultimately supported by the United States Space Command (USSC) using classified sensor data.'GreyStar456 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As I just said, reliable sources cast doubt on this interpretation. If reliable sources explain the relevance to Hoskinson, use those to explain the connection. Do not merely drop this in as an isolated factoid. As I said, this is a WP:FRINGE issue. Grayfell (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Then add that doubt. Thids is not an isolated factoid but part of the sequence of events of Hoskinson getting involvedGreyStar456 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Brown's quote is not a rebuttal of interstellar origin. he simply says he does not know how accurate the USSC data is. The final sentence is vague also. Loeb may be a maverick, but the letter gave enough support to Loeb's theory for Hoskinson to open his wallet GreyStar456 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a fly on the wall here: Generally would tend to agree with GreyStar456 on this. How does adding context surmise as being puffery? As per the definition of puffery: "exaggerated or false praise" - the statement is neither. It adds credence to the event, ultimately leading to a full investigation and large donation. I do also see that CNEOS 2014-01-08 mentions the same text so I am surprised about this being a contentious edit. Since when is the USSF/C considered a supporter of fringe theories? Won't revert or edit anything just providing my 2 cents. Bob (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering the above discussion, the fact that you are already mentioned in this section, and the aspersions about me you have posted on GreyStar456's talk page, saying you are "Just a fly on the wall" is disingenuous.

Saying "nearly all of those events could be chalked up to measurement error." is casting doubt on Loeb's claims. Both the rest of the cited article supports that, as well as many other sources about this incident.

Being part of a "sequence of events" is facile. This isn't the place to explain the entire history of this controversy. A proportionate summary is to mention that Hoskinson funded this research, indicate its fringe status, and link the the relevant article if readers want more context. That's why this text isn't necessarily a problem at the CNEOS 2014-01-08 article, because that article is about CNEOS 2014-01-08, not Charles Hoskinson.

Multiple already-cited sources answer your question about "Since when is the USSF/C considered a supporter of fringe theories?" Our goal is not to "add credence" to the event, because, as has already been mentioned, this isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I haven't reverted or made any edits relating to this, in that manner I am simply providing my opinion, as is the purpose of talk page and providing a place for consensus. I genuinely am surprised how fiercely you debate trivial edits that are, genuinely, of no consequence either way considering this is a minor wiki page. All the additional wording provides is context, that is all (it is neither promotion nor advocacy - this is your opinion). Those aspersions are merely observations and my experience on wiki so far and frankly being disheartened and surprised by the hostility. They were also made almost a year ago now, so my apologies if you took offence. I will not revert, have a nice day. :) Bob (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Avigad and formalism

I don’t agree with the interpretation that this is a purely philanthropic enterprise. The work of the centre will develop formal programming techniques, which are important to IOHK’s blockchain research. Avigad has had a Wikipedia page for a decade and is a notable logician. Saying that identifying the director of a $20m university department is “name-dropping” is an aggressive interpretation. I have expanded the text to try to address your concerns. Please remember that Wikipedia editors should treat each other with respect and civility.GreyStar456 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't agree that this is a purely philanthropic enterprise? You added it to the 'philanthropy' section, and you restored it to that section.

This article isn't about "IOHK's blockchain research". This article is about Charles Hoskinson, and that subsection is specifically about his philanthropic activity. The source you have been repeatedly adding to this article barely mentions Hoskinson, and say nothing of substance about him or his "philanthropy".

Here is the all the source says about Hoskinson:

This type of formalization provides a foundation for mathematics today, said Dr. Avigad, who is the director of the Hoskinson Center for Formal Mathematics (funded by the crypto entrepreneur Charles Hoskinson), “in just the same way that Euclid ...[10]

Padding out this section with tangentially related trivia is promotional and inappropriate. If this matter to Charles Hoskinson, use a reliable source to explain why it matters to Charles Hoskinson.

Wikipedia editors should not abuse Wikipedia by using it for promotion or advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be promoting here? The text needs clarification: why is a mathematics centre in a philosophy department? The introduction of Avgad as a logician (logic would link to both subjects in most people's minds) and the NYTimes article gives some clarification in a minimal amount of text.

The text is in the philanthropy section because the money has been given to a university. However, the centre will probably benefit Hoskinson's commercial activities - it's not as if he's given it to a botanist to study the rainforests.

You have taken a crude reductionist view of the NYTimes article and its relevance to Hoskinson.

The article, to a non-mathematician like me, is a readable summary of what formal mathematics is about. While it does not answer the question 'Why did he give $20m for this', it does give context. As a reader, I found it valuable, and I believe other readers will too, that's why I added it. Furthermore, the fact the NYT goes to the director for the interview suggests the centre has already established a reputation.

Mathematics appears to be core to Hoskinson's life – his failed study of the topic, his use of formal maths and Haskell (a rare and difficult language by all accounts) for blockchain, the use of academic research and proofs, and now he's putting his wealth behind it. The NYT article gives an insight in the way that listening to Gaelic or seeing the effect of bothies and alcohol on remote island communities does for George Mackay Brown. GreyStar456 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This article would be the wrong place to explain why formal mathematics and logic are related to philosophy. Further, that source does nothing to explain this overlap as it relates to Hoskinson. I have adjusted the wording of this sentence to provide a wikilink to Mathematical logic#Formal logical systems.

We're not here to paint a picture for readers. What is or is not core to Hoskinson's life is for sources to spell out for us, not for us to tease out based on our own understanding of passing mentions. Regardlss of how insightful the source is, your personal interpretations of a source is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)