Talk:Black market/Archive 3

Poor Generalisation
You write: 'Because of the clandestine nature of the black economy it is not possible to determine its size and scope.' A precise figure is impossible but there are some good estimates, particularly of the drug trade resulting from testing sewers and other methods. Normus tered (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"Libertarian" point of view
, each of the statements that you wish to add should include a reference. You can read about how to cite sources at WP:CITE, and make sure that you are referencing a reliable, secondary source. These are included in the links that were put on your talk page, although I realize there are quite a lot of links in that template and trying to go through them is a very long process. If you have more questions, please put them here or on my talk page.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Who is considered a reliable source? Should not the information stand on its own regardless of the source? Wikimedia says that it should come about through consensus but if I put something up, you and someone else just immediately takes it down citing biased reasons, nothing about the content. If you're not a subject matter expert on the topic, why do you feel it is ok to take down information you don't agree with? I'm new to Wikimedia editing, but so far it does not sound like consensus making. Perhaps the process of editing needs improved? Each edit should be a version that should go through a large number of reviews by people who can comment on it, not just some random 'editor' who is allowed to undue it citing bogus reasons. The current process is censorship by a few. I would like to continue inputs as I would like to see Wikimedia improve open information. --Objectblu3 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , See Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core policies and the one that requires sourcing for all challenged content. See Reliable sources for details on what makes for a reliable source. See also No original research, the related policy governing information you personally know to be true. Since most Wikipedia editors support these policies, the way that you get editor support to achieve consensus is to abide by the policies. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's also confusion here about the process. Your edits have not in any way been permanently shut down. The usual process is outlined at WP:BRD. An edit has been made, but other editors disagreed with the change and reverted it. Now we discuss the changes and try to come to a consensus, which may conclude in restoring the content or some version of it (with sources of course), or it may not.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking up those links describing Reliable Sources, I see that it is basically upholding the standard quo. Maybe that is what Wikipedia really just is. A new platform needs to be made where everything is included, no censorship, and then people can than up and down vote portions of it with their reputation on the subject matter weighing on the vote. This is far more complex than Wikimedia so I understand why it is not there yet, if it is even desired to ever get to that point. But it definitely does not make we desire to regurgitate main-stream think. Great experience. I know I'm not interested in contributing to that. Thanks!--Objectblu3 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent redirect from duplicate topic
I converted a recently created article at Illicit trade to redirect to this article. I believe that the topic of Illicit trade essentially duplicates that of this article, and that it is little more than a WP:NEOLOGISM. For what its worth, the creator of Illicit trade has declared some COI relevant to this topic (though he disputes the relevance), as he cited himself on Illicit trade and works for a company involved in anti-counterfeiting. More opinions would be welcomed: Are these the same topic? - MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TOC24 (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)TOC24. Disagree that this is a duplication, or that it's helpful to amalgamate the two pages. Illicit trade is increasingly an extensively used term in wide circulation in policy and private sector circles - e.g. UN World Customs Organization, which publishes an annual Illicit Trade Report; the OECD, which has a taskforce on countering illicit trade, etc. It has a tighter definition than black market, and the scope on this page is vague. Also not a Neologism, as illicit trade predated black market. Would advise reverting the illicit trade article, and strengthening still further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOC24 (talk • contribs)


 * Wow, a new editor's first ever edit! Can I ask how you found this discussion? - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

TOC24 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)I was looking for "Illicit Trade" as it's a subject I do research on, and was surprised at the redirect. Actually, the issue for us is normally that Illicit trade is used synonymously with organized crime, which is also incorrect. In the policy area where I work, the term black market is basically never used.

Black market deals with products or service whose trade is illegal or unregulated, while illicit trade also includes trade in goods that are legal, but where there was a commercial crime involved in the production or distribution. Also, black markets do not include trade such as furniture sold legally that may be made of wood which was logged illegally, a tomato that may have been harvested using forced labour, a mobile phone  which may contain components that are made with conflict minerals, etc.


 * You should sign at the end of your messages, not before. You're drawing an artificial distinction that this article does not draw - for example this article does list Black_market, which is your furniture example. - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really, as it speaks about the market for the timber, not for the finished product that contains an illicitly sourced good. In my view the BM speaks on point of sale, but not on the supply chain as a whole. I also think, as I said before, that illicit trade is a far more current, policy relevant term in higher usage so has a greater relevance as an entry.TOC24 (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC) (signed at the end... see! I learn! :))


 * A notice regarding this discussion was posted at Wikiproject organised crime: special:diff/981299494. Even though this is not canvassing (but the wording makes it borderline canvassing), I thought it would be appropriate to mention it here. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what canvassing means in this context, but I'm certainly not standing to profit in any way. Just a tasing subject matter expert that finds this a curious decision, and one that is contrary to what we'd expect to see in our daily engagements on the topic. Honestly, a better answer - again in my view - would be to rename the whole thing from black market to illicit trade, as the latter is a wider concept than the former. But really up to the consensus. Cheers! TOC24 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:CANVASS - in a Wikipedia context it refers to attempting to bring more editors into a content discussion with biased or cherry picked messages to force a particular outcome. We also have an article on Informal economy, maybe we should have a subsection on illict trade there? - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate the explanation... Honestly, suprising myself in how into this I'm getting, but I am an OC researcher, so it's kind of a passionate topic, and this is an interesting foundational exercise.

Anyway, I'd advise against moving this to the informal economy debate, because that will upset a whole lot of development folk who fight hard to avoid the criminalisation of informal work. On something like artisanal mining, for example, they prefer to think of it as unregulated, rather than criminal, which is what is implied by the "illicit" part of illicit trade. Also in many countries where there is limited financial inclusion, people are de facto informal in their day to day activities which could just be street vending, for example, and we definitely wouldn't include them in the framework of illicit trade. TOC24 (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry, re-reading your message, maybe yes a sub-section would be appropriate, but it would require drawing the distinction between informal and illicit.... TOC24 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * usernamekiran I'm rather new to Wikipedia so I'm sorry if my message did not have the proper wording. However my intent was certainly not to influence the outcome of the discussion in any direction but to collect more opinions in order to have a more thorough discussion. I'm happy to modify or amend the message in whichever way you would recommend so that it does not appear like canvassing. Please let me know, thanks. Factfox (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments: Are illicit trade and black market distinct or duplicate topics?
A discussion on whether illicit trade and black market are duplicate or distinct topics was started a few weeks ago after an editor replaced the article on illicit trade with a redirect to black market. The latest version of the illicit trade article before it was set to a redirect can be found at:. I asked for help at two relevant wikiprojects (WP:crime and WP:Organized_Crime). After a few weeks without new input, the discussion appears stalled.

Earlier discussions related to this merge can be found at User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_11 and Talk:Black_market

Note that I am the initiator of the illicit trade article and I have a close connexion with the topic. Factfox (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there should have been a merge discussion. At a minimum, deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect made it more difficult for editors to assess the issue. It's also obviously not very respectful of the author of the deleted article. The original article was not speedy deleted and could be said to have been tacitly accepted by the community. A merge discussion was therefore appropriate. I do see that there are activities in the the illicit trade article that are not covered adequately in the black market article. Trafficking of cultural property for example can often involve sales in legitimate arts auctions. Illegal fishing is another example of illicit trade, where an illegally obtained good may be sold in a legitimate market. The article on black markets doesn't even mention cultural artifacts or fish. Furthermore, the remedies for global illicit trade are different than remedies for black markets. Given the nuance here, I think both topics needs to be clear and explicit in distinguishing between illegally obtained goods and illegal markets. Whether the distinction is addresses in a single article or two linked articles is open to discussion. Simply deleting one of the articles is not a reasonable remedy. A merge discussion would have been a reasonable way for editors to reach a consensus about how best to handle the two related topics. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to reverse the edit that changed the topic to a redirect and then open a merge discussion to invite discussion about how to reasonably handle the related topics. If appropriate, the result of the merge discussion might end up with a single article and a redirect, but that should discussed first. Also, the fact that the author of the illicit trade article has a close connection with the topic is not relevant to whether a merge discussion was appropriate. Coastside (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments,  Coastside. The request for comment was initiated for a month and I see it is now expired. I will follow your opinion to reverse the redirect and initiate a merge discussion. It was also suggested to me at the Teahouse to have a proper merge discussion with the redirect reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1078#Article_on_illicit_trade_changed_to_a_redirection). Factfox (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Xanax where C an I order them Harley1120 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)