Need for International Regulation

In the later part of this decade, the GFS has encountered an unprecedented events that has eroded credit, severely reduces liquidity and changed the landscape of the global financial market place. The current U.S subprime mortgage crisis has raised serious question about the management and oversight of the GFS.The world has experienced a series of financial crises in recent years, each unfolding in one country with knock-on effects elsewhere around the globe (contagion). The Asian Financial Crisis of the late 1990s and the recent United States Subprime Mortgage Crisis demonstrates failure to regulate and manage systemic risk in the global financial system(GFS). Globalisation means banks are not just national but international, competition is no longer local but global and as a result natioanal regulation and oversight is inadequate. Oliver Fomunung

Aims and article structure

I am still winding down some real life stuff and personal matters, including the passing of my mother just last week, but I intend to do some major rewriting of this article to bring it up to standards and, hopefully, to GA status. My usual modus operandi is to find a derelict article and work up a full replacement (usually off-site) and then implement the edits. However, since some people are responding to the articles for improvement notice and jumping in with edits, I thought it best to outline my thoughts for feedback purposes.

What I want to do in this article is to avoid a fixation on the international monetary system. The international monetary system (for which we have a separate article) is but one component or dimension of the global financial system. Most academic financial literature and textbooks that I have place heavy emphasis on the monetary system and exchange rates when mentioning the global financial system in passing. However, the system has a number of dimensions and one must step beyond the topic of monetary systems to understand and explain them.

So, I have spent the past several evenings examining most of the sources I have access to and have come up with a rough outline of what I think the article structure should be. I'm not implying that these would need to be the exact section headings, but rather the pivotal events and subtopics of the global financial system.

This is not yet as refined as I wish it to be. I have been a little busy today. There are perhaps some other noteworthy things to insert that have so far eluded my thoughts. However, it encompasses what I think are the most important things to know when learning about financial systems in a global context, and contains them in a structure and order that is attenuated and cohesive. Feedback welcome. John Shandy` • talk 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John Shandy`. Looks like you have it well in-hand. Meclee (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added two new sections to the article: Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 and Formal abandonment of the Gold Standard. I welcome any copyedits. I will continue to update my list as I make my way through the article. As for the definition section, we may not need it by the time I finish rewriting the rest of the article and write a full lead. For now, I will leave it in place. John Shandy` • talk 06:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite unsure about how best to write the Participants section (presently the "System components" section in the live article). There's not much in the way of sources that speak of the global financial system in such a dimension. I'm expecting that the section will largely be primary sources (despite that they may be secondary sources in other sections). I'm also not sure on the best way to approach it. Ideally, I would choose prose. But, a series of multi-column bulleted lists would be just as logical and simple (and in some cases, may look better than thinned, terse paragraphs of prose. I'm open to ideas. John Shandy` • talk 01:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to reply. I'm thinking that a list-class article could be compiled and linked here. Does that sound appropriate? Also, just ran across this that may be of interest: Global Financial Stability Report, Transition Challenges to Stability, October 2013. Regards, Meclee (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll look at the report. I'm not sure a full list article is necessary. I will make an attempt at something in-between. I've been pretty busy at work lately. I'll hopefully make some more contributions this weekend. John Shandy` • talk 02:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've still got this article at the top of my Wikipedia priorities. I've just grown increasingly busy at work lately and am working 7 days a week until about mid- or late November. John Shandy` • talk 11:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making good progress I think. I've just brought in a new and comprehensive lead. I took a first and second pass at a lead, but they were just way too long, so it was quite a challenge to trim this one down to its current size, and it still needs coverage of the final section of the article once I finish with the future and reform efforts content. I'm at home recovering from surgery, so it seemed a good opportunity to do some wiki work. Please feel free to offer suggestions or point out concerns. John Shandy` • talk 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My real life workload has been particularly high as of late, but I'm still keeping my eye on this article and doing some work for it off-wiki. John Shandy` • talk 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective

I don't see that this is written to fit a particular perspective. The problem is that the current global financial system originated in the actions of a set of wealthy countries in the Western hemisphere, such that recounting the history seems to be only from that POV. Please note that this article is still in the works; there is a section for criticisms of the system that has yet to be fleshed-out. I would encourage anyone interested in criticism and additional perspectives to begin fleshing-out that section. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I've been super busy at work the past 2 months, but after today will be taking a good chunk of time off, so I'm hoping to try and pick up where I left off and build some momentum again. I'm not going to stop working at this article until it's Featured Article status (however long that takes is a separate question). John Shandy` • talk 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after reviewing the hx, I see now that there's a small edit war ongoing. Bobrayner has a point on primary sources and the "voice" of the criticisms that have been added; Wuerzele has a point that those criticisms have been made. Might I suggest that Wuerzele add criticisms here on the talk page such that they can be added to the article in the voice of the authors of the criticisms rather than seeming to be statements of fact? Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Podesta Group content on grounds of notability

I removed the following content:

International lobbying firms play a role in international financial systems, as they increasingly develop cross-border lobbying arms to influence international negotiations. For example, Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm, founded "Global Solutions" to influence multilateral free trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and other issues "at the intersection of trade, economics, politics and diplomacy"."Global Solutions | Podesta Group". Podesta.com. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

I cannot find any coverage of this group or its "Global Solutions" entity in the academic literature on international finance and economics, and I've found only sparse news coverage, mostly on news sites I've never heard of before. The only citation offered in the article was the group's website. Even if someone can find appropriate sourcing for this content, I don't think it belongs in this article. It's better suited for those particular trade partnership articles or perhaps an article specifically dealing with international trade or trade negotiations. John Shandy` • talk 17:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Global financial system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I'll be reviewing this excellent article! This will be awesome :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do my review in a style with a main review covering the GA criteria, a prose review, and then a source review. See this review for an example.

Main Review

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. From a first look, the article is AOK. No blatant copyvios/grammar mistakes. More in-depth analysis will be covered in the prose review.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. All issues fixed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Issues fixed.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Issues fixed.
2c. it contains no original research. Nothing is uncited in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Aspects of the global financial system are covered.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article does not veer off topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Seems good and NPOV.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Seems like there has been no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. I'm a bit confused. Most of the pictures such as this image state that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years..." Does this mean that you need to add US copyright tags?
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Captions look suitable
7. Overall assessment. All issues done and dusted. Thanks for being an awesome reviewer, and I apologize for being on a un-planned wikibreak. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images needing Public Domain in United States tag.

 Done I have amended the applicable image files on Wikimedia Commons to include the Public Domain in the United States tag. John Shandy` • talk 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use checkY or  Done If the change was only partially done use checkY, and ☒N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Again, like I said in the table, (in point 1B) how about you try summarizing the lead to make it shorter? Also, according to this page you usually don't need to reference the lead.
checkY If you look through the most recent 100 edits you'll see that a substantial effort has already been made to not only further summarize the lead, but to reduce the length of the article overall. From Aug. 17-20, I reduced the lead's readable prose by 1,957 characters. From Aug. 23-Sep. 6, I reduced the article's readable prose by about 5,073 characters (or 6.4%). Though the lead definitely has opportunities for improved conciseness, I do think the lead length is reasonable even though it may not be optimal. To be honest, I deem it a challenging matter of walking the line between the Manual of Style's length and summary standards. Since you're reading the article with a fresh set of eyes, I would certainly appreciate any particular suggestions you have for things that seem too detailed in the lead. That will help me better shorten it. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some copyediting to the lead section and I've reduced another ~501 characters from its readable prose. Reaching for a comparison, I grabbed today's featured article Biscayne National Park and measured the readable prose length of its lead by pasting it into a text editor (3887 characters, or 4.7% of total article), versus this article's current lead (3629 characters, or 3.6%). And GFS is longer than the Biscayne article by about ~18,600 characters. Regarding the citations in the lead, I removed one which I felt was unnecessary and I repositioned another to not disrupt the sentence. I believe those few remaining are appropriate and necessary however, as they strengthen support for the summarization of the system's key changes (and aims of those changes) over time. John Shandy` • talk 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The world experienced substantial changes prior to 1914 which created an environment favorable..."

Add a comma after 1914.
 Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Approximately 25 million (or 70%) of these travelers migrated to the United States while most of the rest..."

Add a comma after while.
 Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bank of England had to sustain an artificially high discount lending rate until 1908."

If it's needed, add a comma after rate.
 Not done I don't think this would be proper, because "until 1908" is essential information for the sentence's meaning and it is at the end of the sentence. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"from the Panic of 1907, underpinning legislators' hesitance in trusting individual investors such as John Pierpont..."

Add a comma after investors?
 Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1930, the Allied powers established the..."

Change "Allied powers" to "Allied Powers."
 Not done I'm not sure one way is correct over the other. Encyclopedia Britannica does capitalize Powers, but Dictionary.com's lexicon does not capitalize powers. Wikipedia uses Axis powers for the opposition, and this was indeed what influenced my original decision not to capitalize the second word when I wrote it. I'm impartial to one or the other, but its present form is at least consistent. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Delegates intended the agreement to suffice while member states would negotiate..."

Add a comma after suffice if necessary.
 Not done Commas should really only be used before while when it is used to mean something similar to whereas. This sentence is rather conveying that delegates intended the agreement to suffice during the interim in which their nations would negotiate the establishment of a formal trade organization. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


No issues.

"Because the balance of payments sums to zero, a current account surplus indicates a deficit in the asset accounts and vis versa."

Vice versa, not vis versa? What's your opinion?
 Done John Shandy` • talk 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No issues.

"of disparate regulatory environments and beggar thy neighbour policies"

Is this article British/American? If it's American, use the following code. beggar thy neighbour|beggar thy neighbor (with brackets)
 Done John Shandy` • talk 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

 Done The URLs for references 9 and 57 have been updated to reflect location changes made by the Bank of England and the World Economic Forum. As well, I have updated the URL for reference 58 (also a World Economic Forum source). John Shandy` • talk 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I responded in that thread with my thoughts on this article's use of the ((rp)) template. John Shandy` • talk 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Should we peer review the Podesta Group's article or the Wikipedia Global financial system article? The later has been peer reviewed, just not formally. If you think it needs a peer review, perhaps you could start one. 74.192.61.128 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lbertolotti (talk · contribs), I certainly think so. It's long been my intent to request a peer review for this article as the next stage of improving it further, but I've been pretty hammered by my lopsided work/life balance lately. More input/suggestions would help steer it in the right direction toward an eventual FA review. To the IP's comment, the below podesta article is just showing up on the talk page because of a past thread in which a citation was posted. I'll clean up the old thread to make it not list it at the bottom of the whole talk page. John Shandy` • talk 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories