Talk:Tether (cryptocurrency)/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links

@Bri: my logic in this edit [1] was that I thought we did not link to news articles as external links, unless they would be of some extra high importance. Seems a WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. This article is already about a controversial subject, why are we picking one particular source over another? Maybe I was off base in this, I don't see anything listed in WP:ELNO except for the paywall restriction. Is WSJ paywall? But regardless, my logic for the revert was simply why we are linking to news sources, why not summarize in the article itself? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe at some point ELs will need to be trimmed but with just one official link and one media link, it is premature to remove anything. I would not object to moving it to a Further reading section though, or as you suggested, using it a source for a summary of its content.

As for NOTNEWS, I don't think that flies; this appears to be an in depth story on the crypto currency from probably one of the world's two top financial publications. No doubt in my mind that it is eohemeral or trivial "news". ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Quote

@David Gerard: are you happy with this quote? [2]. I reverted it, but it has been re-added. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's from the Wall Street Journal. Are you really saying that the WSJ is not a reliable source? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

um, yes, I gave them that quote :-) This is in my life as a subject-matter expert, not as a Wikipedia editor - in the last coupla days in particular, I've been hit for quotes on Tether a lot. Remember that crypto journalist is now my (second) job. I'm not going to put a quote from myself into an article myself, but generally my experience being quoted by the media on crypto has been positive - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I should note that this is also Paul Vigna's beat - he's co-authored two books on crypto and blockchains - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Can anybody find confirmation?

One of the key questions raised by this article (and by life in general) is "How can anybody or any thing perform the same function as the US dollar without having a publicly known bank account?"

One of the cryptopress rags (not a reliable source) posts that

• Tether Ltd. has a deal with the Bahamian Deltec Bank.
• Bitfinex has a deal with Hong Kong Bank of Communications, partly owned by HSBC Holdings. Payment to be made through Prosperity Revenue Merchandising Limited.
  • Citibank being the correspondent for the United States.

Can anybody find confirmation? It would really help the article to know if Tether and friend have a bank account. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: here [3] is one source I saw recently. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

News on this is also being broken by The Block, which is new but is an edited publication ... so far they've been doing good stuff, particularly on this story: [4] [5] [6] [7] - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me like a reliable enough source to add this info to the article - what does everyone else think? Λυδαcιτγ 03:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't like to ever cite the cryptocurrency press. It'll only get us into trouble in the long-run. I'll personally wait until I see it in the mainstream press. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard: do you feel this is an RS for this article? I am ok with using it, we have done a lot of tether bashing here and we should state they have a bank if there is an RS that makes that position. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not a basis for that statement - those four stories are a basis for a statement that they have severe trouble holding onto banks. But if we're uncomfortable with the crypto press (which is quite fair enough), then there's frequently coverage in the mainstream press. (I know that a pile of finance journalists really want to cover Tether and everything about it, but it's hard to write about on no information.) So we don't need to update this as if we're a newspaper - David Gerard (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ineed it seems they dont advertise when they find a new bank, but it is often in the press when they lose one. If we could summarize all the bank accounts they have lost it would be encyclopedic and interesting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Announced on their website; added to article. Λυδαcιτγ —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 2 November 2018

Sourcing

@Frayae and David Gerard: In the past, this page accumulated a bunch of problematic sources. There were sources closely connected to subject, self-published blogs, etc. This edit by Frayae removed 20+ sources, and to me cleared up the problem. There seems to be some disagreement or confusion about whether CoinDesk and CoinNewsNetwork should be treated similarly. These are not personal blogs, they are explicitly run as news organizations, [8] [9] and have been established for at least a few years. In terms of cryptocurrency-specific sources, are probably the best-established news coverage available. They aren't mainstream enough to automatically qualify as WP:RS, but in terms of subject-specific coverage, I think they're kind of invaluable. Forbes72 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

An RfC determined 'There is consensus against designating CoinDesk as a generally reliable source". See RSN Archive 251. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

yeah, basically there are plenty of mainstream RSes that have covered Tether in the past year - the big news has been covered pretty well by Bloomberg, NYT and WSJ - we don't need to resort to crypto sites, where even the good ones tend to the promotional - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the RfC. But it looks like that discussion on CoinDesk never reached consensus. (I've added to ongoing discussion) I'm happy to prefer a mainstream source if possible, but I think despite its issues, it significantly adds to WP:VERIFY here. Why do you think CoinDesk is unreliable here? Forbes72 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't like its use even on the occasions it doesn't suck, because it encourages its use for the things it's not trustworthy on. And we have mainstream sources, so we don't need to resort to crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be best to use mainstream sources if possible. But without CoinDesk/CCN the article has 6 tags that are otherwise difficult to address. I think we can use for supporting information on topics also covered in mainstream, while recognizing that (especially when announcing new projects) they can be too promotional to be reliable. In other words, sourcing only from crypto sites is WP:UNDUE, but they do contribute to a comprehensive view of the subject. Forbes72 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Forbes72, there is a general consensus in place not to use any of these cyrpto 'news' websites and to my knowledge this consensus has been implemented on all the crypto articles. I recall the an RfC was Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article but there have been many other discussions as well. The general ban on these industry sources has been a net positive IMHO. Tether is not being singled out FYI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely see why the consensus was to clear up sourcing on that article. At the time,[10] Bitcoin cash article was linking to twitter as a source, and there was another ref titled "get a free wallet" (which is obviously ridiculous).

But this is a different article. CoinDesk is still listed at "no consensus" at WP:RSP, and the thread you're talking about specifically states "consensus on an article-talk page is normally normally does not extend beyond the individual article".[sic] I think it's worth discussing sourcing on a case-by-case basis here. Forbes72 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say if we can't find a decent source for the claims, they may not be worth noting in the article - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard has it right. There is no deadline, why rush to put in poor quality sourcing? Also, you aren't using the right reasoning about an RfC conducted at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; it is definitely not consensus local to one article. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Bri, at the beginning of this thread, I looked at the discussion of CoinDesk the top of WP:RSN and assumed you were talking about that thread, rather than clicking your link to go to the archived discussion you were actually talking about. I also put WP:RS in the edit summary when it should have been a discussion about WP:QUESTIONABLE. I still lean toward inclusion here, but like you suggest, maybe I should take a step back if I'm making such mistakes. Sorry about this. Forbes72 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

autoconfirm lock request

@MER-C: can you add page protection to this article? Lot of pushing by an IP account. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure the IP user has violated 1RR for crypto DS. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

They've stopped reverting and are now discussing. Let me know if this flares up again. MER-C 19:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Manipulation on Kraken

Alleged manipulations on Kraken have been debunked.

I however think that instead of referring to this debunk, the bloomberg article should be removed altogether, as the alleged "red flags" wouldn't fool anyone with the most basic experience in trading, and many considered this article an embarrassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.232.27.122 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Your personal experience is original research, which is not usable here. The Bloomberg article appears to be, like it or not, a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Blog posts which cite tweets and reddit comments are not generally reliable, in case that was in doubt. If you know of another reliable source on this topic, feel free to propose it here, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it was very much in doubt that an official blog post from one of the biggest crypto exchange, answering to serious accusations from a major media, was irrelevant because it cited twitter. Regardless of its tone, this is Kraken's answer, so I'm adding it as such. Sounds fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44C8:42C7:4BE7:39D1:D07C:DAA0:65C1 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "Cite a reliable source for this". A source for what exactly? When a business is attacked, isn't it only fair to mention what they responded, or at least THAT they responded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.232.27.122 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A reliable source covered activity on Kraken, and Kraken, a private company, posted a blog complaining about it. The importance of this one blog post is not obvious enough that it doesn't need to be supported. Wikipedia sometimes (but not always) includes responses from named individuals to direct accusations, but Kraken is a company, not an individual, and it's not entirely clear that this is an "attack" which warrants a response anyway. Therefore a blog post, which is functionally a very casual press release, is not automatically significant. The use of snark and sarcasm doesn't transform this PR into something new. Companies issue press releases all the time. Usually, nobody cares. If this is different, you should be able to point to a reliable source (which would also be an independent source) that mentions Kraken's response. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "nobody cared" that much for Kraken's response outside of the crypto press, because no one actually cared that much for Bloomberg's article ; it wasn't followed by any investigation. It was mocked by crypto commentators/traders, even the fact that Kraken answered with sarcasm should tell. If any crypto news site is deemed "reliable", let me know. Otherwise, I guess we will have to endure an article which confuses bid-ask spread for price manipulation being cited as a "reliable source". 182.232.27.122 (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg is a reliable and independent source in a way that Kraken is not. The source is not about Bloomberg, it's about market manipulation. Bloomberg "cared" about market manipulation, so they wrote an article about it which mentioned Kraken. That's why this matters. Reliable sources will cover these things from an outsider's perspective, which is one part of why they are reliable. As you apparently already know, Bloomberg is dramatically more reliable than any crypto outlet. I think we both know why that it. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know or care about Bloomberg's usual reliability. The best I can come up with : Bloomberg was asked for comment about Kraken's blog post, and they did comment : "we stand by our report". That makes Kraken's response significant enough to be acknowledged (if not endorsed) by a "reliable source by Wikipedia's standard". If that can somehow get it mentioned, great. If not, well, we are left with reporters scratching their head at bid price being different from ask price. It's not my wiki page after all. 182.232.27.122 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules about WP:RS that state that a company's own statement would be called a Primary Source and an independent newspaper like Bloomberg, for example, would be considered a Secondary Source. In general we do not use Primary Sources. On these cryptocurrency articles there is a consensus not to use primary sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg did defend their report against Kraken's blog post, even if it was just a few dismissive words. So they did acknowledge it. Phrase it as "Bloomberg dismissed a subsequent blog post by Kraken", I don't know, just do something, please, you cannot leave this thing and not even give readers a chance to see a rebuttal. I have no stake in Kraken, I do not hold or like USDT, and I am NOT exaggerating how ungodly the bloomberg report is (if you know someone with day trading experience, show him the last diagram and tell him you found it on a lowly conspiracy theory blog from an ignorant wanabee trader. He will believe you. I'm dead serious). Anyway, I have tried, I'm letting whoever edit this if they want. And to answer to previous insinuations, most of the crypto press did cite this report without criticizing it. 182.232.40.190 (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If bloomberg covered it, we can cover it. Please post the link to bloomberg again. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

When I said "a few dismissive words", this was literal, and of course only the crypto press cared to report about it. Hope it still can help. [11] 2001:44C8:42C7:4BE7:4401:9B83:92D:7837 (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You're firmly establishing this is not a noteworthy happenstance - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A longer response would have required some substance, I guess Bloomberg didn't want to elaborate too much on the fact that its reporters don't know what an order book is. 2001:44C8:42C7:4BE7:1:1:EE96:DA2C (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

It may be more than "controversial" -- it may be a "bit short"

This piece does an analysis on the rather massive flows of Tethers into bitcoin in the recent price run up of bitcoin; especially from the three largest non-US cryptocurrency exchanges. The Bit Short: Inside Crypto’s Doomsday Machine I'm guessing some of this shaky behavior of the company from the point of view of regulators, and the US authorities that have been suing Tether for a couple of years now, will get much more coverage in the mainline media in the coming days. The article says the deadline for Tether producing the documents that have been demanded by the New York state regulators has run out by late Jan 2021, as Tether has lost every court appeal, and the final date approaches. N2e (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Controversial" is the wrong word

In the world of finance, you don't call a company "controversial" when it provides no audit information, no information about its relationships with established banks, and you certainly don't call it "controversial" when it claims to have a relationship with an established bank which the bank declines to confirm. You call it a scam, and no knowledgeable person will risk any money with it.

This comment has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies in general. It is specific to Tether as a financial institution. It also has nothing to do with ongoing criminal investigations; the existence of a criminal investigation is not proof that any criminal act occurred. There are perfectly legal ways for unscrupulous management of financial institutions to siphon off money from investors; that is why, in the financial world, high standards are applied to participants. High standards of disclosure, and of audits, are not enough to protect investors - but their absence makes it rock-solid certain that some kind of scam is in progress. Sayitclearly (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversial is a wikipedia term, we dont use jargon for different industries. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Presumably this has something to do with recent news. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, which do not as far as I can tell, factually describe Tether as a scam. It is pretty easy to find sources which say so-and-so has accused Tether of being a scam, but that's not quite the same thing. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See the earlier discussion on this issue: controversial text. BLDM (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit of the controversy, I'd like to note that the phrasing doesn't really sound like anything I've read on Wikipedia. We don't write "Donald Trump is a controversial U.S. President" or "Facebook is a controversial technology company." We tend to just write what things are, and let the controversies speak for themselves. Harej (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Harej; the article prose ought to merely describe the company, its actions and plans (if sourced), the lawsuits against Tether and the counterclaims and appeals filed by Tether (and, now, all lost in the courts, and courts for appeals). Controversial is a bit of a weasel word. N2e (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

no, I think it's the least to say about it - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

BRD on recent deletion

A fairly plain vanilla sentence on recent news in a court case was reverted by User:David Gerard with the edit comment: "Rv - crypto site, need mainstream RS" (diff) Seems like a pretty standard case of industry trade press, as that source seems just a trade publication covering the industry of blockchain, cryptocurrency, etc. Seems natural that some court case like the one referenced in the article is likely to be covered by trade media.

What is the problem with that source? N2e (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We like to see reliable sources that meet certain criteria like genuine editorial control and a demonstrated history of fact-checking. An area like this one under discretionary sanctions is under especially strict scrutiny. You might want to check WP:RSN, there's a ton of discussion of bogus cryptocurrency sources there. You might also want to review the 2018 Coindesk RfC which opens with The vast majority of crypto/blockchain related sources are unreliable and often highly promotional, with a great deal of paid content, undisclosed native advertising, and unlabeled press releases. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in agreement that Wikipedia needs verifiable information, and reliable secondary sources are the best. Also, I'd have no quibble with you that there there are a number of low-quality outfits that sprung up in that industry, especially in the early years. I just don't spend any time on low quality sources. When I want to understand an industry, I endeavor to find more substance, which is always necessary when trying to grok anything emerging in the economy that so quickly rises to a level many tens of billions of dollars of economic activity each month, as this industry seems to now have done in just over a decade.

So back to my question, what is the issue with this particular source, Decrypt? It is one of the sources on the industry I've run into fairly often, and they seem to be a quite ordinary secondary source that is attempting to do technical journalism on an industry, as also with several other trade media covering this space like Blockworks, The Block, etc. I looked at the two links you provided. Didn't find Decrypt mentioned there at all, nor did I find anything that said a consensus had been reached that no "crypto site" could ever be used to source verify information in articles, nor a process for determining how a list of invalid "crypto sites" might be determined and maintained. N2e (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We have been somewhat broad and overarching in our ban of all cryptozines. I would say it is a consensus of expedience (which I agree with btw), and until now it is has been prudent. But as you mention it might be good to whitelist one or two that we consider to be reliable, if we can come to agreement on that. But I would prefer if all that are not whitelisted remain banned. I just checked out The Block and they have an ok disclosure page [12]. Blockworks I dont see any disclosure page. Decrypt also has a disclosure page here [13]. But I didnt see anything on either of these to state that they dont accept paid advertorials. But I suppose if we wanted to raise these as options at RSN, we could ask these firms (reach out by email) if they wanted to put an editorial policy on their website so we could use it as an RS. Bitcoin Magazine has an editorial policy [14]. Eventually as N2e points out, we will have to address this sourcing issue, although I am not sure if the time is now, or maybe after this coming crypto bubble. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

They're literally all conflict of interest engines who see their job as promotion. None of them are good. But if anyone thinks they can lift crypto sites up from the swamps of "generally unreliable", then WP:RSN is the place to do it - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that is a broad and different topic: "We have been somewhat broad and overarching in our ban of all cryptozines." Probably a worthy topic for concerned editors to discuss somewhere.

But here, I'm just asking a simple question: "what is the issue with this particular source, Decrypt?"

• Can anyone point me to a place where it is on some sort of banned source list? Or, alternatively,
• Can anyone point to some sort of Wikipedia decision somewhere that says "No trade media coverage of the blockchain space is ever allowed?"

It seems the last two editors who commented are referring to some sort of "accepted wisdom" by a small set of insiders that they may know about, but I don't. I'm looking for any decision on "Decrypt", or a formal policy that disallows all trade media from this industry. Otherwise, my simple edit showing that the long-running court case against Tether by the New York state has advanced a small step, and a bunch of documents have finally been submitted by Tether ought to be restored to the article. That is the nub of this particular discussion and BRD. N2e (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Has there been coverage in mainstream RSes? Use that. If there hasn't, wait until there is. Decrypt is a house organ of Consensys and runs substantial quantities of blatantly promotional content, and is unlikely to make the bar of being considered an RS. If you want to have crypto sources accepted as RSes in Wikipedia, a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on one talk page isn't going to achieve that - take it to WP:RSN if you're confident in your case - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with David that LOCALCONSENSUS here is not the correct approach. It would unwind generally a consensus we have to be strict on sources on these crypto articles, which is very helpful in general. I would hope if that is changed, we would have some other crystal clear sourcing guideline as an alternative that we can enforce. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That's all quite vague. I've asked a specific question if the trade media source I used to cite a statement was on some sort of list of unapproved or disallowed media sites? And asked if you could provide the link to any such decision? So far, nothing. So I'll assume the answer is no.

It seems that the two editors who have responded have been referring to something known as received truth to them; but it feels like a game of "inside baseball" to me. Sounds like you two have been talking about some broader views, elements of which you both seem to agree with, in part. Your comments sound like there may exist some sort of policy decision somewhere. If it isn't written down somewhere as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, then its just stuff some inside group knows or believes. Restating what I asked before: Where is it documented in policy so others can see it, and discuss it rationally? Can you point to any Wikipedia decision somewhere that says "No trade media coverage of the blockchain space is allowed?" That may exist; but I haven't seen it. If you believe that to be the case, please provide a pointer to it? N2e (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it is more of an informal consensus. But it has been working for us. These tokens pay exchanges to list them, pay social media teams to promote them, and pay industry publications to write about them. We have an RfC going on again at Talk:Bitcoin_Cash I think for the 5th time, relating to some content that the bitcoin cash promoters don't like, and we are discussing TechCrunch as a source. Imagine if we were off in the weeds talking about some cryptozine, it would be never ending. Maybe we should discuss this on RSN as David suggested, eventually it is indeed necessary to formalize the informal consensus we have now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the bit suggesting that we have a clear RS before putting the claim in is not the least bit vague - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: acceptability of a source & should an edit be made?

This RfC consists of two questions. (1) Is this source (link) an acceptable source for this edit (diff)? and (2) Should this edit, or a similar one, be made?—20:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards not reliable. While crypto news sites are notoriously sketchy, Decrypt does have a lot going for it: named authors (not pseudonyms) on bylines, actual journalists with credentials, also editors with credentials, a masthead, editorial guidelines (even including disclosures like investment in various crypto currency), etc. But what I don't see is Decrypt being widely cited by reliable sources, which suggests it lacks "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:RS. I'd be happy to change my !vote if anyone can point out some cases of reputable media trusting them. Woodroar (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Reputable media sometimes sources claims to the crypto sites, usually but everything at WP:RSP#CoinDesk applies to the rest of the crypto press. Crypto media sees its purpose in life as promoting cryptocurrency. All the outlets are owned by cryptocurrency companies. The writers routinely have undisclosed crypto holdings. They are a PR arm of the industry, not trade press or critical journalism. We stopped trying to use the crypto press for Wikipedia once we had considerable RS coverage of cryptocurrency, and Tether is frequently covered in proper sources; there is zero need to start using unreliable sources again - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I've also flagged this discussion to WP:RSN, where it should have been happening - suggest closing this as an invalid attempt at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and reopening a broader discussion there - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think that a decision in the context of the text it is being used to support would be better. But then I never like overgeneralizations about sources.  :-) North8000 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To say that more directly, I think that this talk page is the best place to decide this. North8000 (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral on 1 (as mentioned by David Gerard, WP:RSN is the place to discuss source reliability) and yes on 2, but with other sources (for now). With news like that, there's almost guaranteed to be more than one source reporting it, so there's no reason to rely solely on one controversial source. (A quick google search turns up a Financial Times article 1). --Tserton (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have no comment on the source or edit, but I do want to disagree with David Gerard about the procedure. If we were talking about the reliability of decrypt.co.uk in general, then yes, the discussion would belong on RSN: but this question is about the reliability of that source in the context of a specific edit to a specific article, and I do feel that's a legitimate use of article talk pages. I don't think we can possibly hold every single discussion about source reliability on RSN. The key task of an encyclopaedist is the critical evaluation of sources, and we do use article talk pages to do that, and we have to be allowed to continue to do so: RSN would be swamped in hours and overwhelmed in days.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  We have been saying cryptozines are generally unreliable on all WP:GS/CRYPTO articles. In that light this should probably be on RSN. I would say decrypt is UNRELIABLE here and on all crypto articles until at least we set some clear parameters for what is a reliable cryptozine. At very least I suppose it should have disclosures about each author (like decrypt has) and an editorial policy stating that they dont accept paid articles (unsure if decrypt as), and last we are also not accepting WP:UGC on crypto articles (meaning contributor posts like in forbes). Last does that mean the author has to be employed by the website as well? In closing I think this issue is larger than this one (and often controversial) article, thus WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is important. Yesterday I blanked an entire section here on Blockstream and on Bitcoin Cash an editor in the past week or so launched the 5th and 6th RfCs on the same altname subject (yes really 6 RfCs on the same subject in the past year or two). This is the extent of WP:FOWLPLAY WP:COI edits we are dealing with on crypto articles, and as the next bubble starts, it will likely increase. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  In the light of what you say there, you may want to participate in the discussion at WT:RFC#Misuse of RFC board?, where we're discussing how to put a cap on the number of RfCs that one person can open. You appear to be correct when you say that there needs to be a meta-discussion about the reliability of decrypt on WT:RSN. But I don't think that means that this RfC should be speedily closed.

  Generally, I take issue with the idea that LOCALCONSENSUS means we're not allowed to evaluate sources on article talk pages. If that were so, then article talk pages would be almost useless. I also take issue with the idea that a source can be deprecated on WT:RSN and made TOTALLY VERBOTEN for use anywhere on the encyclopaedia. It's simply not so, and should never be so. As Wikipedians we would normally trust the BBC and mistrust the Daily Mail, and for very good reason; but the BBC has lied on occasion, and the Daily Mail has told the truth on occasion. So when we evaluate a source in the context of a specific edit to a specific article, we need leeway to do so on article talk pages. Such discussion should always be informed by the consensus on RSN, but per very old and longstanding policy, it's open to us to decide to set aside that consensus in a particular case where it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to do so.

  In saying this I remain totally focused on the high level of how RfCs should work, and I offer no input on the specific question asked in this RfC.—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• No on question 1. Two points here. First, this is a very sloppy article : the only source for their headline is this tweet by the Bitfinex CTO, which does not say when the production of 2.5M documents happened — but this does not stop Decrypto from strongly implying that it happened very recently. Also, the article does not mention a "year and a half of appeals and a variety of legal motions" or that Tether was "forced by the court". Maybe these things are true, but this is not the proper source to rely on.--JBchrch (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• No and No — The source only references the company’s own statement regarding what they have turned over. If, however, Decrypt cited someone else’s testimony of the fact (such as the NY AG saying they have received 2.5m docs) then maybe my answer would be different. I’m making no judgement on Decrypt’s reliability generally; the citing of individual claims with crypto sources should be done carefully on a case-by-case basis. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 05:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• No and Something else not similar — The phrasing of the edit is simply not in the words of the cite, no questioning of decrypt is needed. The article at decrypt does not say "year and a half", makes no mention of "appeals" or "legal motions", does not say "forced" to provide the documents, and does not state the documents as delivered "in January". Googling, I also see those words do not seem supportable. The cointelegraph stated it as "cooperating" with the NYAG investigation since a September 2020 hearing that established the NYAG can investigate, the NYAG as who requested extending timeframe to January 2021, and natlawreview noting it is at the stage of an investigation. I'd suggest an edit that just notes the facts of having turned over documents and leave it at that, avoid any sensationalized wording. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Very low quality article

Today (March 14, 2021) is the first time I have visited this page and having read/scanned through the article I am left unimpressed. It is a mess and very 'unencyclopedic'. I don't know the history of the page and what battles have been fought over its editing but there have obviously been a few. Frankly, I think the article should be cut down to about one tenth of its present size and an effort made to keep it much more factual and much more a neutral presentation. Oska (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hugely agree. This page is certainly not in Wikipedia's style and deserves to be cleaned up.SobieSlider (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Potentially interesting paywalled source

Someone with a subscription to Financial Times may want to take a look at this:

• "Tether says its reserves are  backed by cash to the tune of . . .  2.9%". www.ft.com. May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 14, 2021.

Presumably, this is related to Tether's extremely terse, extremely strange "Reserves Breakdown at March 31, 2021" PDF which was posted May 13, although the link no longer seems to work at Tether.to.

Perhaps the FT can explain what a Reverse Repo Note is. Grayfell (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Tone/Undue - ‘Controversial’ ‘Falsely’ etc.

I removed the word ‘controversy’ from the first sentence as it seemed ridiculous for that to be the first word describing Tether. Plus the ‘controversy’ is described in more detail later in a way that is actually informative.

But the next sentence we immediately have ‘falsely’ and the tone throughout the article reads like a hit piece. Obviously the ‘controversy’ has an important place in this article but the way it reads now is pretty wild. It feels like it was written by someone with a deeply held anti-crypto bias. DaxMoon (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Oska User:SobieSlider I see you think this article is deeply flawed as well. What do you think should be removed and what parts do you think are not factual? DaxMoon (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edit to remove the word controversial. Please discuss that here first. Tether is the very definition of a controversial cryptocurrency and most of their press relates to efforts to audit the company's holdings over the past few years. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It's my view that value-judgement words such as 'controversial' are completely out of place in Wikipedia articles and I am very disappointed to see their increasing use. If there has been a controversy or controversies around the thing being documented then that can be dealt with in a section but to describe something as controversial in the lead sentence is deeply problematic. If a person had been involved in a number of controversies (not unusual for high profile figures) would we then describe them in their wikipedia article as controversial? Some people might even answer 'yes' to this question but I think it only reveals their desire to turn Wikipedia into journalism which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Oska (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

To further elucidate my point, suppose a high profile person had displayed behaviour that had been widely described in the press as 'racist'. Would we then describe that person in the lead part of their wikipedia article as 'racist', on the basis that that is how they are widely described in various sources? No, I don't think we would although it would be appropriate to properly document their behaviour and the criticism it attracted. The same applies with the word 'controversial' - it is a value judgement word and is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Oska (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

To sum up, we don't need to (and shouldn't) describe something as 'controversial'. If there is notable controversy then we document it. Full stop. Oska (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Having gone through this thread, I can really only echo what's been already expressed by yourself and Oska. Reading this article for the first time is what prompted me to initially post on this Talk page, purely because it's so out-of-the-norm from the Wikipedia standard I'm used to. I think the biggest flaw of this page is that it really doesn't read as encyclopedic. The content chosen to be in the lede seems inappropriate for a neutral Wikipedia page, and would be better suited for a page devoted to the controversies of Tether. While I don't doubt that there's substantive controversy relevant to the topic, infusing it into every section of the page makes this Wikipedia article comes across as persuasive rather than informative. I think the quality would be vastly improved if the "controversial" content was contained to a single section, and the overall tone was in the same neutral manner that readers expect from Wikipedia pages. SobieSlider (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from the beginning of the third paragraph in the lead section :

Tether Limited and the tether cryptocurrency are controversial because [four point items are then listed]

This is personal essay type writing not encyclopedic writing. Wikipedia is here to document not to didactically explain (in a positional way). Oska (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Oska. You illustrate the problem quite well. This seems to be a systemic problem with crypto articles on Wikipedia. They all seem to have an anti-crypto bias. Value judgments like “controversial” add nothing of substance for the reader and this sort of editorializing is completely antithetical to an encyclopedia. As a new Wikipedian seeing these sorts of judgments as the standard for articles is alarming and it’s disappointing to see this is what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia.

It appears others who have commented on the talk page agree this article needs to be edited to remove the value-judgment language as well. Is there an owner of the page we need to convince to make these changes to the article? Jtbobwaysf are you the owner? I suppose I’m confused as to how one person gets to determine how the page is written and we need to discuss it on the talk page first. And what am I supposed to do talking about it on the talk page first when the weight of opinion already appears to be in favor of editing the page and, clearly, it needs a good deal of editing to sound encyclopedic. DaxMoon (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This page isn’t perfect of course but this is far closer in tone to how one should write an encyclopedic entry. https://crypto.marketswiki.com/index.php?title=Tether_(USDT) DaxMoon (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no way we should be using other wikis as a model. Wikipedia articles should reflect reliable, independent sources. If such sources say things about crypto that you interpret to be negative, then good articles will naturally reflect that perspective. so, if there is indeed an "anti-crypto bias", that is a consequence of the severe lack of reliable, independent sources which are favorable to crypto.

It is extremely silly to pretend that Tether is not controversial. Reliable, independent sources treat being controversial as a defining trait. Dismissing this as a "value-judgement label" is subjective at best, and also mostly irrelevant. Defining traits belong in the lead of articles. We are not interested in an concealing important info to present an artificial or robotically neutral article, the goal of the project is to create a neutral summary of sources. Those sources are perfectly free to come to conclusions, and "controversial" is one of the milder conclusions that could be made about Tether. Further, I do not see any reason that a sober list of controversies is unencyclopedic. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t mean as a model whatsoever. I simply meant the tone of the writing. The wiki itself isn’t calling anything controversial of false. The wiki isn’t pushing any particular POV. They have sections on different topics, including various controversies, and they report facts. DaxMoon (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And that article isn’t artificially or robotically neutral whatsoever. The majority of the page is dedicated to Tether’s various controversies. That a couple editors are so set on Wikipedia declaring Tether controversial as the first descriptive word in the article boggles the mind. Pack all that into the lede sure. Can you show me other places on Wikipedia where Wikipedia calls the object of the article controversial with the first descriptive word? Let’s look to see how other articles handle these sorts of things. DaxMoon (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you are a very new account which has mostly focused on this specific topic, please think twice before lecturing more experienced editors on how consensus works. As always, the burden is on you to gain consensus for the changes you wish to make, and you clearly do not have consensus, since multiple editors disagree with this change.

If The majority of the article is dedicated to Tether's controversies, then the lead should reflect this as well. All articles of any length should summarize in this way. Your personal dislike of the term "controversial" is insufficient. Many articles use direct language to summarize controversial topics in the first sentence, but all articles are judged by their sources, which are evaluated in context. Wikipedia doesn't use precedent to over-rule consensus. As I mentioned, that means that the burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes, not on us to defend the status quo. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your actions are just going to result in the article getting page protected. We dont need this POV pushing here. Please stop it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's calm it down gentleman. Not all that big a deal. Are you saying I'm POV pushing because I don't think Wikipedia should call Tether 'controversial' but, rather, Wikipedia should pull from sources and the sources should do the speaking? I'm not saying anything about the sources and facts and what not in the article. Again, can you show me somewhere else on Wikipedia where the first word used to describe the subject of an article is 'controversial'? I look forward to your reply. Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

And I didn't mean to lecture anyone on consensus. I assumed the user hadn't taken a look at the talk page since there already are a lot of users raising POV concerns on the talk page. DaxMoon (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." DaxMoon (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." DaxMoon (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is precisely it - WP:ASSERT

• When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher". We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. It is good practice, however, to include an inline citation to a reliable source to allow the reader to verify any fact that is not widely known.
• When a statement is an opinion (e.g., a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it.

A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves.

Contentious labels

Words to watch: cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, neo-Nazi, -gate, pseudo-, controversial ...

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

...

Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.[b]

I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing but the policy is very clear. DaxMoon (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, lecturing us by copy/pasting quotes from policy and guideline pages indicates a battleground attitude. Your assertion that it is "clear" doesn't make your assertions accurate or consistent with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, especially not as they are understood by experienced editors. As I have already said, the burden is on you to gain consensus for changes first. This is especially true since this article is under WP:1RR, and you are challenging a consensus that has stood for several years, and has already been discussed several times on this talk page over those past few years.

Your opinion that "controversial" can be meaningfully compared to "terrorist" or similar is untenable and, frankly, kind of hard to take seriously.

As I said back in 2019, this topic is encyclopedically significant largely because it's controversial. Being controversial is not an "opinion" that needs attribution anymore than calling Michael Jackson a "singer" needs attribution. We do not need to discuss what "singing" means, or whether being a "dancer" is more important, we just say this fact in direct language and move on. Likewise, hunting around for ways to imply that controversial is somehow subjective doesn't magically make it non-applicable.

If anything, Tether has only become more controversial since then. It is, factually, controversial, as seen by years of coverage in WP:RS/WP:IS, specifically, but not exclusively, coverage of the heavy legal scrutiny Tether has received.

As for Let's calm it down gentleman, well, as a general point of life advice, I have never found it productive to tell people to calm down, but setting that aside, consider taking your own advice. Based on your level of activity on this talk page, who is the least "calm", and how is that going to improve the article?

I assumed the user hadn't taken a look at the talk page since there already are a lot of users raising POV concerns on the talk page. Since you, apparently, looked at this talk page closely, you must have realized that both Me and Jtbobwaysf have been contributing to this talk page for years. That you, apparently, agree with one side of a discussion, and not any of the others, doesn't matter for forming consensus. Grayfell (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that consensus is on your side on this. Rather it appears to me that those with your view are a far more dedicated minority of editors. But let's not argue about that yet. We can address that next. Let's try to break down Wiki policy so we can perhaps go about finding consensus in a more informed way.

And I apologize that we got off on the wrong foot. I'm sorry for approaching this from an adversarial perspective and coming across the way I did. No need for that. No lecturing. No battleground attitude. Let's actually address the issues. Let's talk and make Wikipedia better. No problems. Just a good faith open minded back and forth to try to get to the right answer. I think we are both sincere in wanting to make Wikipedia better. And I don't think this discussion is about anyone pushing a POV so much as the tone of the article. Like I have said again and again. I simply think those words need to be attached to the person or group who said them. As I was doing in my edits to the page. Can we put this all behind us and focus on improving Wikipedia? I will.

So let's look at the policies I brought up.

First we have the fact vs. opinion distinction. As you can probably guess I think calling something controversial is an opinion. I don't think Tether is controversial. Many others don't. I'd say using the word controversial to describe tether wouldn't even come across most, if not nearly anyone's mind who is into crypto. Yes it's had all sorts of legal issues. But controversial? I wouldn't have ever thought to call it that.

Nearly everyone whose pays attention to tether is focused on its utility more than anything. Tether is highly functional. Tons of trades.Huge market cap. Many many traders use it with nary a worry. All those legal issues are kind of an after thought as they haven't really effected those who trade in Tether. And regardless of what I think. Whether something is controversial is always going to be a value judgment which is clearly an opinion. Controversial is referred to in that policy as a value laden label. Being a dancer or singer is not value laden. There's no implicit value judgment in being a singer or dance. When you call someone a controversial dancer then there is a value judgment added. Do you agree?

So on to the next step. "When a statement is an opinion it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. So the opinion must be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds that opinion. Wikipedia does not have opinions. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."

Even more specifically. Contentious labels, and controversial is specifically listed as a contentious label, "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So words like controversial should generally be avoided and even if you were to use the word controversial it must have an in-text attribution. In the article is simply started by saying Tether is a controversial cryptocurrency. Clearly no in-text attribution. Also, why do we need to use the word controversial when we can actually discuss what happened and provide something of substance for the reader. And tether isn't called controversial widely whatsoever. I truly wonder if a single source used in that article even refers to Tether as controversial. You keep claiming everyone is calling tether controversial. I'd like to see the sources for that claim.

And finally, "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." Could we have a description of a Wikipedia policy more on point? Why be so focused on the word controversial right at the top anyways? Why not make the parts of the page that give readers information about the lawsuits and shady aspects of tether better and make our sources are spot on for those lawsuits and other shady things tether has done? That would be so much more valuable for the page.

I didn't mean for any of that to sound argumentative. I hope you can see past anything I said that came across as emotive to see the unemotive argument I was trying to make. I look forward to your reply. Truly. I look forward to having a back and forth and trying to determine what's best for this page. DaxMoon (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, nor is it a popularity contest. A "dedicated minority" can block consensus, that's what makes it different from mob rule. This is why consensus typically favors preserving the status quo in cases of dispute. Further, it's not clear to me that this is a "dedicated minority". Therefore, I am again restoring the status quo pending a change in consensus.

Further, this is not really the place to break down policies in general terms. This talk page is for discussing actionable changes to the article. I've seen positions like yours countless times before, and I have tried to explain to many editors why it isn't that simple countless times before. Re-explaining your own interpretation of policies, and guidelines, is not productive for this reason.

Nearly everyone whose pays attention to tether is focused on its utility more than anything. - Who speaks for "nearly everyone" here? Most of the reliable, independent coverage I have reviewed focuses on Tether's fragility, its extreme evasiveness, and its looming legal peril. Its "utility" is discussed mainly in contrasted to these things. Sources which describe it as "highly functional" do so in a very, very specific context. An example of this is here:

Bitfinex's plight matters not only because its customers stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, but also because tether has become a kind of global monetary standard in the cryptocurrency world. Tether (the company) has promised that every unit of tether (the cryptocurrency) will have a value of $1, and the company has been remarkably successful at maintaining this peg over several tumultuous years. That stability has led a number of exchanges to treat tethers as a substitute for the dollar—a substitute that can be bought and sold without attracting unwanted attention from US regulators.[15]

In other words, its "function" is evading regulation, which closely overlaps with money laundering. Obviously, this is controversial. The sources currently cited in the article already support this.

Here is another source from only a couple of days ago: Tether, the cryptocurrency stablecoin that says it’s backed one-for-one by fiat currencies, released a reserves breakdown for the first time that showed a large portion in unspecified commercial paper. The company has faced questions over both its reserves and whether it was used to manipulate cryptocurrency prices. In February, Tether settled a legal dispute with the New York Attorney General’s Office and paid a fine of $18.5 million.[16] "Questions" here, in this context, is a synonym with controversy. The source only exists because Tether is controversial. As I've pointed out in the past, Tether is defined by its controversy.

As for NPOV Wikipedia is not endorsing that Tether is controversial. Describing something in factual terms doesn't mean we are endorsing that fact. Your position that this is an opinion that needs attribution is unsupported by the coverage in reliable sources. Sources describe Tether as controversial, or some synonym, even if they don't use that exact word.

All descriptions, like sources, must be judged in context. So, if you want to propose a replacement for "controversial" that is more specific, and you have sources for that, let's discuss that.

If sources say that something is a defining trait, the article needs to directly and unambiguously explain this. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

All other things aside... how in the world is calling something controversial a factual claim? If enough people call someone racist does that become factual? Do we have Wikipedia pages of people that say Joe Smith is a racist ... ? And what of the Wiki policy that is precisely on the use of 'controversial'?DaxMoon (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you think controversial means? "Controversial" is factual in that Tether is frequently "controverted" or contested, per many sources. So yes, if enough reliable and independent sources describe something or someone in a similar way, articles should reflect that. This is pretty much how Wikipedia has always worked. It's interesting that someone would choose "racist" as their go-to comparison if they were trying to deescalate a situation, but this can also be objectively true. To use an arbitrary example, Arthur de Gobineau believed that the superiority of white people was a scientific fact; thus he was objectively a racist. In Gobineau's case, we have other, more informative terms for his beliefs than "racist" but otherwise there would be nothing wrong with using that term. Likewise, it's not some egregious stretch to call Tether "controversial" as though it were an un-provable slur. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

controversial text

@David Gerard: I tend to agree with BLDM (talk · contribs) and I think this edit [17] probably lends too much weight to 'controversy.' Was this text added by Smallbones (talk · contribs) who added controversial to almost all of the cryptocurrency articles at one point in time? That said it might be common knowledge that it is controversial, but I guess we are not using common knowledge on these crypto articles anymore (as that would for sure be a slippery slope). Maybe we should try to build out a controversy section, and if we dont have enough content for that, then we drop it from the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe that saying that something is controversial in Wikipedia voice and especially as a part of the definition in the lead looks quite bad. It would be much better to explain in the body what exactly is controversial about the subject, perhaps with attribution. Retimuko (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Who said anything about "controversial" being unreferenced? It is refernced throughout the article.

Of course there shouldn't be a separate controversy section, the material should be included throughout the article, wherever appropriate. That said most of the following sections are about significant controversies:

• History (second half)
• Alleged price manipulation
• Security and liquidity
• Questions about dollar reserves

All of these controversies are thoroughly referenced. The reference to the first use of "controversial" has as it's lead paragraph:

As Bitcoin plunges, the U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether last year’s epic rally was fueled in part by manipulation, with traders driving it up with Tether -- a popular but controversial digital token.

— Bloomberg [18]

As far as limiting the lede to just a definition - why do we want to do that? Is there a rule somewhere that says "only definitions in the lede"? Why not put the most important *fact* right in the lede?

So please, let's not rehash well-referenced, thoroughly-established facts by challenging with vague references to "slippery slopes" and "better to explain in the body". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote from Bloomberg expresses editorial opinion: "popular but controversial". Clearly this is a judgement, not a fact. Reputable sources publish facts and opinions. We can generally trust them regarding the facts, but opinions should better be used carefully and with attribution. You wouldn't propose to say in the lead that "Tether is a popular but controversial cryptocurrency", would you? I would not mind summarizing later in the lead that "Tether is a subject to controversies with respect to alleged price manipulation, security and liquidity" and so on. But I strongly oppose using judgemental term "controversial" in the first sentence that usually gives a very concise definition. And I mean it in general, not just in this article. Retimuko (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, please create a controversy section to this article and if it has sufficient sources we can summarize it in the lede. We are not going to put in original lightly sourced content into the lede, that is not how Wikipedia works. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

certainly looks controversial now [19] fun! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Do you have any actual objections to make, or are you just reverting to be disruptive? Seems the consensus is leaning towards removing that wording. BLDM (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody who knows what's happening now with Tether and Bitfinex would remove the word "controversial". The NY Attorney General has sued about $850 million in missing funds. See the above link. I'll also include a ref here, so that I can later include it in the text.

WP:AGF, please. My objection is that it's sufficiently "controversial" that the word absolutely belongs in the first sentence, per WP:LEDE - the first sentence should be a complete very short description, the first paragraph should be, the intro section itself should be. Tether can't really be accurately described without this fact about it being made clear. And, from the extensive references to its amazing list of problems, this should be obvious. Your approach risks WP:FALSEBALANCE - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversy does not define what something is, which is why I object to it being in the first sentence (which serves as a definition). I think we can all agree that the controversy is significant enough to include in the lede, but doing so in the first sentence is excessive. This is akin to putting "controversial" on the first sentence of Donald Trump's article. BLDM (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this might be missing the forest for the trees. I generally dislike the over-use of the term controversial, but sometimes it's useful and appropriate. A definition is fundamentally based on sources, not editors. It's not merely that the controversy is significant enough to be included in the lede... Tether is defined, according to reliable sources, by its controversy. The lede should reflect that, and it should be appropriately emphasized. To put it another way, this topic is encyclopedically significant largely because it's controversial. Tweaking how we explain that is one thing, but nudging it lower in the article just because of a specific opinion on the term 'definition' would be misguided, at best. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"this topic is encyclopedically significant largely because it's controversial" - yep, this is the nub of the issue. It's only made mainstream RSes because it's controversial - most of the other stablecoins haven't, because they're insignificant curiosities from a mainstream point of view - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record I am opposed to removal of the controversial text after the recent announcements. I would prefer the recent news to be in its own section (which I am sure will happen over time) and for it to be summarized in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@DaxMoon: I reverted your removal of the controversial text. This has been discussed a lot on this talk page and there is some support for including it. I am not sure if that support still continues today, so please feel free to discuss here or open an RFC. This controversial word in the lede seems to be controversial in itself, now the controversy is controversial :-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Removal of all content without citations

Many areas of this article did not provide proper citation and those that did cite sources don’t meet the criteria of Wikipedia.

Much of this entry reads like a fabrication of rumors and are not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Meebz (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Meebz. Completely agree. Check how bad it was a month ago! This is still the worst article I’ve seen on Wikipedia by a margin. There were a couple editors who owned the page and reverted all efforts to make it not terrible. I think they’ve finally slunk away though. If ever an article needed a complete rewrite it’s this one. It’s a helluva task but this article badly needs weeding out all the bad cites and POV pushing. There’s a healthy consensus that this page is 🤢 🤮 so be bold!! Hopefully the POV pushers have actually left and we can take this article to rehab. - DaxMoon (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes to removing unsourced content. No to attempting to re-write the article if the goal is to paint over the controversial nature of the article's subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How many people now have made commented about how bad this page and how it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards? How many reverts have been made reverting efforts to make the article sound more fair and neutral. To abide by NPOV. No one is saying the article should be whitewashed of anything controversial. People simply want things discussed appropriately and given proper weight. I don't think the page owners are very familiar with crypto. Either that or they have a strong bias against it. DaxMoon (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Warning

There is another crypto called USDTether in circulation, different from USDT Tether. It appears to have been invented for fraud purposes. At first glance, both currencies are on blockchain ERC. Sending USDTether to a USDT address is successful; however, the receiving address does not receive anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D14artagnan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC about tone

Specifically, should the lede include phrases like "Tether is a controversial cryptocurrency" and "Tether Limited and the tether cryptocurrency are controversial"?

Generally, does this article have protracted issues with tone? If so, must an editor come to the talk page to seek consensus every time the editor identifies an issue with the article's tone? -DaxMoon (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Specifically

• Edit the lede - Rather than describing Tether as controversial this article should aim to give readers information about relevant controversies. If there is a notable controversy, Wikipedia should document it. Furthermore, to begin the article with "Tether is a controversial cryptocurrency" is entirely too journalistic and gives WP:UNDUE weight to the controversy.

Per WP:ASSERT, when a statement is an opinion (e.g., a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Per MOS:LABEL, Value-laden labels – such as controversial are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The lede in this article doesn't even provide an in-text attribution for the claim that Tether is controversial. Rather, it sounds like Wikipedia is making the journalistic decision to label Tether "controversial."

Per MOS:LABEL:

Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.

Suggestions

Here are some edits I've made that were reverted. I changed "Tether Limited and the tether cryptocurrency are controversial" to "Tether Limited and the tether cryptocurrency have attracted controversy". And I removed the word falsely from "Tether Limited formerly falsely claimed that each token was backed by one United States dollar" and later in the lede I added, where appropriate, "The investigation found that iFinex — the operator of Bitfinex and Tether made false statements about the backing of the Tether and about the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars between the two companies to cover up the truth about massive losses by Bitfinex." I would've thought these were two small, uncontroversial steps towards improving this article. The problem is that even these edits were met with inflexible resistance from an editor making it feel impossible to improve upon, what appears to me and some others, an extremely troubled Wikipedia article. -DaxMoon (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally

• Protracted issues require this page to be rewritten. This article comes across as a partisan commentary masquerading as an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:IMPARTIAL:

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

This article thoroughly fails to characterize disputes in a neutral and impartial manner and is altogether disproportionate in its presentation of Tether. This article has been subject to intractable protectionism and ownership, even when subject to persistent and emphatic criticism. The effect of which, over time, is a deeply flawed partiality laden debacle. A rewrite is the cleanest way forward. -DaxMoon (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes Don't know too much about this but it has been described as controversial by reliable sources such as [20] [21]. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No one is disputing there are reliable sources that describe Tether as controversial. But we take those sources and attribute the statement to those sources. Something like "Tether has been described as controversial."(citation) And we put it in the article somewhere appropriate as to not give it WP:UNDUE weight. If someone has been described as a racist in reliable sources we don't take that and start the article with "John Doe is a racist". We might add to the article, where appropriate, something like "Reliable Source contended John Doe is a racist." -DaxMoon (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• No I don't believe that Tether should be considered controversial simply because it is tethered to the USD and its 1:1 USD ratio. While this is an interesting characteristic of Tether, it is not alone in being tethered to another currency. I believe TrueUSD also is tied to currency. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What? What does any of that have to do with whether or not Tether is controversial? Nobody is saying that it's controversial simply because it's "tethered". This !vote suggests that the RFC is poorly formed, since it completely misrepresents the underlying issue.

• Called by bot. Agree with Daxmoon edits. The word controversial and false should appear somewhere in the lead, but the lead should be written with an impartial, rather than accusatory, tone. Darx9url (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose change and also Poorly formed RFC. RFC's should be neutrally presented, and should present specific, actionable changes to the article.

...must an editor come to the talk page to seek consensus every time the editor identifies an issue with the article's tone? is very loaded, open-ended, and presumptuous. Consensus is always required. Presenting this as some sort of exceptional burden is tendentious, misleading, or both.

As for Daxmoon's specific changes, I have tried multiple times to explain the problems with these proposals, and have largely been ignored. Since this RFC cannot be used to respond to every single proposal, this is not an appropriate format for me to repeat myself for every single proposed change. If the RFC were for any specific proposal, then a consensus could be formed, or a response could be offered. Since no such proposal is being made, this RFC is tactical, but not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose change and also Poorly formed RFC per Greyfell. Tether is the very definition of controversial and the vast majority of the sources (and notability) are related to Tether's issues over the years about the lack of transparency relating to its reserves, the misinformation about its reserves, and now the sort-of auditing about its reserves. If this is the term you want to get rid of, you should cancel this RFC, review WP:RFCBRIEF first, and then re-do it. Essentially you could run a very simple RFC to argue that tether is not controversial. I will of course be against that, but just as an FYI, but my opinion is only one. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Jtbobwaysf Yeah this RFC is pretty poorly word, bias ridden, confusing garbage. I apologize. First time I've tried one of these. Can I edit this or do I just start a new one? How do I get more people to comment? Pretty silly to have the couple people that are the reason for the RfC on one side vs the person who started the RfC on the other. Did you see I just changed a capitalization in the lede that had been there for a long time? I'd assume no consensus requirement. It's as if the focus of this article has been entirely in the wrong place. I suppose it is a good way to let readers know this article is sloppy, slipshod, unencyclopedic etc. A capitalization error in the lede yet here we are. -DaxMoon (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think there is a procedure for canceling an RFC, but I am not sure exactly how to do it. I have run a few RFC but I have not properly canceled one in the past, so I would not be the one to advise here. Yes, capitalization is not at all needed for RFC in my opinion. But if you are trying to remove the word "controversial" from the article, especially the lede, I think an RFC is needed because there is no agreement for this change on the talk page (noting somewhat experienced editors that edit wide range of articles are objecting). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the lead should include phrases like "Tether is a controversial cryptocurrency" per the sources linked by SportingFlyer. Here is a representative quote from The Economist last week: "Stablecoins, for instance, require users to trust both the issuer (which must hold hard cash in reserve) and a government, defeating crypto’s original anarchic aims. Some may not be trustworthy. In February the issuer of Tether, the biggest, was fined $18.5m by authorities in New York for lying about its dollar stash." --Cerebellum (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Cerebellum That's a fine quote or source to have in the article. But we take that quote or the gist of that part of the article and add it with a reference. To take that reference to and use it for "Tether is controversial" is editorializing and adding a vague value judgment rather than anything of substance.DaxMoon (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• The article needs rewriting from scratch. It has problems with tone throughout, as well as repetition of information in different words, and more generally just being poorly written. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Note this does not mean the coin isn't controversial. It means our article is written in such a tone and manner that it fails WP:NPOV and hence the information contained within should be untrustworthy to any scrupulous reader. If an article has any legitimate neutrality or tone issues, I would personally be inclined to distrust the entire article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• No I don't think the word should be there as I feel it's symptomatic of an overall quality issue with this article. By all means document relevant controversies in an encyclopedic manner, but the current article's tone and how it's written makes me hesitant to trust its neutrality in the presentation of this topic. SobieSlider (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

@Amansaggu26: I rolled back your edits to the previous version by David Gerard (talk · contribs) as it seems you may have a close relationship with this article and might be better before you discuss major edits here first. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I spent the last year researching Tether, so I have some background in the field. I have no connection to Tether Limited (I use my real name online). Do I need to ask for permission to make major changes? or permission to make small changes? I am not sure about the protocol. In any case, I need to mark exams this week, so I will not be able to make any changes until next week. Any advice appreciated. Aman :-) Amansaggu26 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Generally these type of major wholesale changes to an existing and controversial article a good approach is to use your sandbox to create a new page, or new sections, or just discuss it on the talk page first and make some changes over a few days or weeks. I do see that your talk page has your real name and apparently real social media profiles (no insult intended, but I just looked for a minute). This article from time to time is subject of edits to attempt to remove the controversial nature of the product/service. We did have an RFC on the issue of the use of the term controversial, but I see the RFC never closed. I have gone ahead and self-reverted, maybe my rollback of your edits was a bit hasty and I apologize. There are a few things that I think you could continue to work on. First, the dates sometimes seem to be out of order, for example in Tether_(cryptocurrency)#New_York_Attorney_General's_Case_Against_iFinex May 2021 follows Feb 2021 in the prose. What is the reason for that? I see that occurring again in the next section down again. Next, there is a problem with WP:OVERCITE in the ifinex denials, citations 61-69. Normally we dont do this sort of thing, but if you feel it is important, you could create a WP:CITEBUNDLE. If you would like to see an example of a citebundle, it is used on Bitcoin Cash in reference to the term bcash. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Haha :-) Cheers for the reversion! I cut and pasted a lot of the content relating to the cases from other sections to the new section. You are correct, the dates are out of order. I will edit it shortly (too much editing). The citebundle is cool, I will add these. I decided to work through the talk pages first before making further changes. Amansaggu26 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)